Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Near-elderly single-person households in core housing need : linking housing support to the severity… Hofmann, Gregory Thomas 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 H63.pdf [ 2.77MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0107105.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0107105-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0107105-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0107105-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0107105-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0107105-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0107105-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0107105-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0107105.ris

Full Text

NEAR-ELDERLY SINGLE-PERSON HOUSEHOLDS IN CORE HOUSING NEED LINKING HOUSING SUPPORT TO THE SEVERITY OF HOUSING NEED BY GREGORY THOMAS HOFMANN B . A . U n i v e r s i t y of C a l g a r y , 1980 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g ) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF*BRITISH COLUMBIA J a n u a r y 1987 1987 Gregory Thomas Hofmann In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Gregory Thomas^Hofmann Community and Department of Regional Planning The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date April 22, 1987 DE-6(3/81) ABSTRACT Canada Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n (CMHC), the f e d e r a l agency r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a d d r e s s i n g the h o u s i n g needs of low and moderate-income C a n a d i a n s , c o n s i d e r s those who a r e unable t o s e c u r e p h y s i c a l l y adequate and uncrowded accommodation without spending more than 30% of t h e i r g r o s s income t o be i n core housing need. T h i s t h e s i s a n a l y z e s s i n g l e - p e r s o n r e n t e r households determined t o be i n core housing need. Whereas the e l d e r l y (65 y e a r s and o l d e r ) among core h o u s i n g need s i n g l e s are r e l a t i v e l y w e l l supported through CMHC's s o c i a l housing programs, n o n - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s g e n e r a l l y do not r e c e i v e s u p p o r t . Using an a n a l y t i c a l framework t h a t f o c u s s e s on the s e v e r i t y of housing need, and by comparing the s o c i o - e c o n o m i c p r o f i l e s of s e l e c t e d age groups w i t h i n t h i s core h o u s i n g need c a t e g o r y , the study has demonstrated the e x i s t e n c e of severe housing need, as d e f i n e d by CMHC, among n o n - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s and has e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the n e a r - e l d e r l y (aged 5 0 - 6 4 ) a r e i n the g r e a t e s t need among a l l core need s i n g l e s and a r e , t h e r e f o r e , i n g r e a t e r need compared t o the e l d e r l y . I n view of a d a t a base upon which the a l l o c a t i o n of a s s i s t a n c e t o a t l e a s t those i n the g r e a t e s t need among n o n - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s can be j u s t i f i e d , i t i s argued t h a t CMHC as w e l l as other government a g e n c i e s and housing support groups must acknowledge such e v i d e n c e , c o n s i d e r a r e - e v a l u a t i o n i i of p r i o r i t i e s and t a k e a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n to the e x t e n t p o s s i b l e i n l i g h t of c u r r e n t f i s c a l r e s t r a i n t . S e v e r a l s u g g e s t i o n s a r e put forward t o t h i s end. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Page 1 . 1 Problem Statement/Purpose 2 1 . 2 Scope 9 1 . 3 O b j e c t i v e s 1 1 1 . 4 R e l e v a n c e / C o n t r i b u t i o n 1 2 1 . 5 T h e s i s O r g a n i z a t i o n 1 2 CHAPTER 2 ANALYSIS OF HOUSING NEED 2 . 1 Measuring Housing Need 14 2 . 1 . 1 T r a d i t i o n a l Approaches 14 2 . 1 . 2 The Core Housing Need Concept. 18 2 . 2 The HIFE Survey 23 2 . 3 Method of A n a l y s i s 29 2 . 4 Socio -economic P r o f i l e of the N e a r - E l d e r l y 3 1 2 . 5 N e a r - E l d e r l y Versus Other Core Need S i n g l e s i n S e l e c t e d Age Groups 41 2 . 6 E l d e r l y Versus N e a r - E l d e r l y Core Need S i n g l e s 60 CHAPTER 3 ANALYSIS OF HOUSING SUPPORT 3 . 1 N o n - P r o f i t and C o - o p e r a t i v e Housing - P r e - 1 9 7 8 NHA Amendments 65 3 . 2 S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 N o n - P r o f i t and C o - o p e r a t i v e Housing Programs 66 iv 3 . 3 C l i e n t Groups Served 71 3 . 3 . 1 I m p l i e d Support 7 1 3 . 3 . 2 A c t u a l Support 75 CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 4 . 1 Summary of Need and Support Data 77 4 . 2 Support i s I n c o n s i s t e n t with Need: D i s c u s s i o n 80 CHAPTER 5 IMPLICATIONS 5 . 1 L i n k i n g Support to the S e v e r i t y of Need 90 5 . 1 . 1 CMHC and Other Government Agencies 91 5 . 1 . 2 S o c i a l Housing Support/Sponsor Groups 93 FOOTNOTES 95 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 0 1 iv TABLES Page I D i s t r i b u t i o n of 5 6 . 1 U n i t s Compared w i t h Core Housing Need D i s t r i b u t i o n and I n c i d e n c e s f o r S e l e c t e d Household Groups ^ I I Gender, M a r i t a l S t a t u s and E d u c a t i o n L e v e l P r o f i l e of N e a r - E l d e r l y S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need 3 3 I I I Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s P r o f i l e of N e a r - E l d e r l y S i n g l e -P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need 35 I V R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Income and Rent L e v e l s for N o n - E l d e r l y S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need 3 7 V H y p o t h e t i c a l R e n t / I n c o m e R a t i o s f o r T h r e e R e n t / i n c o m e C a t e g o r i e s , N e a r - E l d e r l y S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need 3 9 V I Gender, M a r i t a l S t a t u s and E d u c a t i o n L e v e l P r o f i l e of Young S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need 42 V I I Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s P r o f i l e of Young S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need 4 3 V I I I Gender, M a r i t a l S t a t u s and E d u c a t i o n L e v e l P r o f i l e of M i d d l e - A g e d S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need 4 6 I X Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s P r o f i l e of M i d d l e - A g e d S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need 48 X Gender, M a r i t a l S t a t u s and E d u c a t i o n L e v e l P r o f i l e of E l d e r l y S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need 5 1 X I Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s P r o f i l e of E l d e r l y S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need 5 3 X I I R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Income and Rent L e v e l s f o r E l d e r l y S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need 5 5 vi FIGURES Page 1 S o c i a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s P r o f i l e Comparison, S e l e c t e d Age Groups W i t h i n t h e S i n g l e s Core Housing Need C a t e g o r y 58 2 Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s P r o f i l e Comparison, S e l e c t e d Age Groups W i t h i n t h e S i n g l e s Core Housing Need C a t e g o r y . . 59 3 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c S i m i l a r i t i e s : E l d e r l y and N e a r - E l d e r l y S i n g l e - P e r s o n H o u s e h o l d s i n Core Housing Need 6 1 4 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c D i f f e r e n c e s : E l d e r l y and N e a r - E l d e r l y S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need 6 1 vi i D e d i c a t e d t o Joseph John Hofmann 1918 - 1981 I would l i k e t o thank my f a m i l i e s , f r i e n d s and a d v i s o r s f o r t h e i r encouragement, p a t i e n c e and g u i d a n c e . A s p e c i a l thanks t o S u e s e t t e Stack for the long hours spent p r e p a r i n g the f i n a l copy. vii i CHAPTER ONE I n t r o d u c t i o n For most of the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y , i t has been a d e c l a r e d g o a l of the Government of Canada t h a t a l l Canadians s h o u l d have a decent housing and l i v i n g environment. The "improvement of housing and l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s " i s , for example, one of the s t a t e d aims of the N a t i o n a l Housing Act ( N H A ) . [ 1 ] T h i s goal statement denotes the importance a s s i g n e d to housing both as a b a s i c r i g h t and i n t h a t housing forms an i n t e g r a l p a r t of Canadian s o c i a l p o l i c y . Housing t h a t i s adequate, s u i t a b l e and a f f o r d a b l e - t o e s t a b l i s h what i s meant by "decent housing" - i s seen t h e r e f o r e t o be an i n v i o l a b l e end as w e l l as a means of a c h i e v i n g the broader s o c i a l g o a l of e n s u r i n g a minimum s t a n d a r d of l i v i n g below which no Canadian i s t o f a l l . S i n c e i t s i n c e p t i o n , Canada Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n (CMHC), the agency r e s p o n s i b l e for a d m i n i s t e r i n g the NHA, has been concerned with p r o v i d i n g adequate, s u i t a b l e and a f f o r d a b l e housing to low-income r e n t e r s (with whom t h i s t h e s i s i s c o n c e r n e d ) . I n s o d o i n g , CMHC performs t h r e e f u n c t i o n s . F i r s t , i n view of f e d e r a l s o c i a l p o l i c y i n the broader c o n t e x t , CMHC conducts r e s e a r c h to determine the n a t u r e and extent of the h o u s i n g problems f a c i n g t h e s e h o u s e h o l d s . Secondly , h a v i n g determined the p r o b l e m ( s ) , recommendations a r e made t o the government as t o the most e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t means of 1 a d d r e s s i n g the problems/needs i d e n t i f i e d . T h i r d l y , CMHC a d m i n i s t e r s whatever means are chosen by the government (assuming i t so chooses) to address the p r o b l e m ( s ) . I n s h o r t , CMHC i d e n t i f i e s and a n a l y z e s h o u s i n g need, i s d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n f o r m u l a t i n g programs and i s u l t i m a t e l y r e s p o n s i b l e for program implementat ion. I t i s the f i r s t of these t h r e e f u n c t i o n s with which t h i s t h e s i s i s p r i m a r i l y concerned a l t h o u g h the a n a l y s i s to be p r e s e n t e d has i m p l i c a t i o n s for both program p o l i c y and d e s i g n . Program implementation i s of concern h e r e o n l y to the extent t h a t the a n a l y s i s has i m p l i c a t i o n s for those i n v o l v e d i n the p r o v i s i o n of s o c i a l housing a s i d e from CMHC. 1 . 1 Problem D e f i n i t i o n / P u r p o s e As d e f i n e d p r e v i o u s l y , decent housing means housing t h a t i s adequate, s u i t a b l e and a f f o r d a b l e . Taken s e p a r a t e l y , adequacy r e l a t e s to the p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n of the d w e l l i n g , s u i t a b i l i t y r e f e r s to the number of persons occupying the d w e l l i n g whi le a f f o r d a b i l i t y p e r t a i n s to the amount of household income r e q u i r e d to a c c e s s the d w e l l i n g . A housing problem i s s a i d to e x i s t when the d w e l l i n g f a l l s below minimum a c c e p t a b l e s t a n d a r d s r e g a r d i n g one or more of these t h r e e v a r i a b l e s . I n the case of d w e l l i n g c o n d i t i o n , an adequacy problem e x i s t s when a d w e l l i n g f a l l s short of e s t a b l i s h e d b u i l d i n g s t a n d a r d s - e . g . problems r e g a r d i n g s a f e t y or s a n i t a t i o n . When the number of persons i n the household exceeds 2 a c e r t a i n number (the t h r e s h o l d number v a r i e s ) , the household i s crowded or i s e x p e r i e n c i n g a s u i t a b i l i t y problem. A household i s s a i d t o e x p e r i e n c e an a f f o r d a b i l i t y problem when an e x c e s s i v e amount of income i s p a i d t o s e c u r e and keep the d w e l l i n g . The e x t e n t of each problem has v a r i e d over the y e a r s . While i s i s t r u e t h a t some households a r e s t i l l e x p e r i e n c i n g problems with r e s p e c t t o a l l t h r e e i n d i c a t o r s , problems r e g a r d i n g adequacy and s u i t a b i l i t y have l e s s e n e d over time with a f f o r d a b i l i t y emerging as the most common problem f a c i n g low-income r e n t e r s i n r e c e n t y e a r s . [ 2 ] H i s t o r i c a l l y , t h e s e t h r e e measures have been used, e i t h e r s i n g l y or i n combinat ion, as the p r i n c i p a l i n d i c a t o r s of h o u s i n g need. I n t h e i r t ime, each i n d i c a t o r served a u s e f u l purpose i n f o c u s s i n g a t t e n t i o n on s i g n i f i c a n t housing problems a l t h o u g h each approach h a s i t s s h o r t c o m i n g s . [ 3 ] To overcome the shortcomings of t h e s e t r a d i t i o n a l measures, CMHC has developed a more i n t e g r a t e d measure of t o t a l housing need i n c o r p o r a t i n g a l l . t h r e e elements of p h y s i c a l adequacy, s u i t a b i l i t y and h o u s i n g a f f o r d a b i l i t y i n t o one comprehensive measure: the core h o u s i n g c o n c e p t . (A more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of the t r a d i t i o n a l measures of housing need, as w e l l as the core need concept , i s p r o v i d e d i n the next c h a p t e r . ) Based on i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d from the Household Income F a c i l i t i e s and Equipment (HIFE) Survey, CMHC c o n s i d e r s those r e n t e r households unable t o secure p h y s i c a l l y adequate, uncrowded accommodation without paying more than 30% of t h e i r g r o s s income 3 to be i n core n e e d . [ 4 ] Core h o u s i n g need d a t a and a n a l y s i s s e r v e s two important f u n c t i o n s . As mentioned i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n , i t i s u s e f u l a s an i n d i c a t o r of the h o u s i n g problems t o which s o c i a l h o u s i n g p o l i c y and programs s h o u l d be d i r e c t e d . E q u a l l y important i s i t s use a s an e v a l u a t i o n t o o l . I n a r e c e n t ( 1983) i n t e r n a l e v a l u a t i o n of NHA S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 h o u s i n g programs, f o r example, core h o u s i n g need d a t a was used i n a s s e s s i n g the extent to which S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 programs, i n p r a c t i c e , have served the o b j e c t i v e s e s t a b l i s h e d f o r t h e m . [ 5 ] The d a t a a v a i l a b l e from the HIFE Survey, and the manner i n which i t i s assembled, makes i t p o s s i b l e to d i f f e r e n t i a t e core housing need households on the b a s i s of v a r i o u s household c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - e . g . a g e / s e x of the household head, household t y p e , i n c o m e / r e n t l e v e l s , e t c . As a r e s u l t , beyond s i m p l y knowing the i n c i d e n c e of core need among a l l r e n t e r h o u s e h o l d s , i t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e t o determine the i n c i d e n c e s and d i s t r i b u t i o n of core housing need among/across s e l e c t e d groups w i t h i n core housing need. The a b i l i t y t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e among core need households expands the u t i l i t y of the c o n c e p t . Housing need i n r e l a t i o n to a l l r e n t e r s can be taken f u r t h e r t o the l e v e l of a n a l y z i n g one core need group i n r e l a t i o n t o other core need groups. The NHA S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 Housing_ Programs E v a l u a t i o n made e x t e n s i v e use of these two f e a t u r e s of core housing need d a t a ( i n c i d e n c e and d i s t r i b u t i o n ) . [ 6 ] I t noted t h a t some core need 4 groups were served w e l l by 5 6 . 1 programs t o the e x t e n t t h a t the p r o p o r t i o n of 5 6 . 1 u n i t s o c c u p i e d by them approximated e i t h e r t h e i r i n c i d e n c e of core housing need or the p r o p o r t i o n of a l l core need households they r e p r e s e n t ( i e : d i s t r i b u t i o n ) . More i m p o r t a n t l y , as f a r as t h i s s t u d y i s concerned, i t a l s o noted the absence of c e r t a i n core need groups i n 5 6 . 1 u n i t s i n s p i t e of a h i g h i n c i d e n c e of need or d e s p i t e the f a c t they r e p r e s e n t a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of a l l core need h o u s e h o l d s . T h i s l a t t e r f i n d i n g a p p l i e d p a r t i c u l a r l y t o v e r y low-income core need households ( i e : those i n the f i r s t income q u i n t i l e ) . [ 7 ] To i l l u s t r a t e t h e s e o b s e r v a t i o n s , T a b l e I shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of 5 6 . 1 u n i t s by p r o j e c t type along w i t h the core housing need i n c i d e n c e and d i s t r i b u t i o n f i g u r e s for the households occupying t h e s e p r o j e c t s . As T a b l e I shows, 50 .4% of 5 6 . 1 u n i t s are o c c u p i e d by f a m i l i e s y e t t h i s household type r e p r e s e n t s 3 6 . 6 % of core h o u s i n g need households and h a s a f a i r l y low i n c i d e n c e of core need ( o n l y 1 1 . 6 % of a l l r e n t i n g f a m i l i e s ( i e : 1 8 7 , 8 0 8 / 1 , 6 1 9 , 0 3 4 ) a r e i n cor.e housing need). The e l d e r l y comprise 2 7 . 7 % of a l l core need h o u s e h o l d s , w i t h a h i g h i n c i d e n c e of core housing need ( 2 8 . 6 % of a l l e l d e r l y r e n t e r s ( i e : 1 4 2 , 1 3 9 / 4 9 3 , 5 38)) y e t they occupy 3 9 . 3 % of 5 6 . 1 u n i t s . The n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s group o c c u p i e s 1 0 . 3 % of 5 6 . 1 u n i t s y e t they r e p r e s e n t the same p r o p o r t i o n of core need households as f a m i l i e s , they have a h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e of need ( 1 9 . 8 % of a l l n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s r e n t e r s ( i e : 1 8 3 , 1 9 0 / 9 2 5 , 2 02)) r e l a t i v e to f a m i l i e s and r e p r e s e n t a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of core 5 TABLE I D i s t r i b u t i o n of 5 6 . 1 U n i t s Compared With Core Housing Need D i s t r i b u t i o n and I n c i d e n c e s for S e l e c t e d Household Groups D i s t r i b u t i o n of Household/ D i s t r i b u t i o n I n c i d e n c e 5 6 . 1 U n i t s by P r o j e c t Type of Core Need of Core Need P r o j e c t Type % # % # F a m i l i e s 3 6 . 6 1 8 7 , 8 0 8 1 1 . 6 % 5 0 . 0 3 3 , 6 9 3 E l d e r l y ( F a m i l i e s and S i n g l e s ) 2 7 . 7 1 4 2 , 1 3 9 28.6% 40.0 2 6 , 1 9 9 N o n - E l d e r l y S i n g l e s / S p e c i a l Purpose 3 5 . 7 1 8 3 , 1 9 0 1 9 . 8 % 1 0 - 0 6 , 8 6 5 100 5 1 3 , 1 3 7 100 6 6 , 7 5 7 Note: F i g u r e s l i s t e d f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n and i n c i d e n c e of core h o u s i n g need a r e 1982 f i g u r e s . F i g u r e s shown f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of 5 6 . 1 u n i t s by p r o j e c t type r e p r e s e n t f i g u r e s as a t December 1 9 8 1 . Source: S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 Housing E v a l u a t i o n ( 1 9 8 3 ) and 1982 HIFE Survey Micro Data F i l e s . need households compared t o the e l d e r l y . The c a t e g o r y of ' S p e c i a l Purpose' i n T a b l e I i n c l u d e s households i n n u r s i n g homes, h o s t e l accommodation, group homes, e t c . , some of whom a r e s e n i o r c i t i z e n s . N o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s , t h e r e f o r e , a r e l i k e l y found i n much l e s s than 10% of 5 6 . 1 u n i t s - see S e c t i o n 3 . 3 . 2 of t h i s s t u d y . I n s h o r t , as the d a t a i n T a b l e I i n d i c a t e s , the d i s t r i b u t i o n of 5 6 . 1 u n i t s i s not c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the make-up of core h o u s i n g need e i t h e r i n d i s t r i b u t i o n a l terms or on the b a s i s of i n c i d e n c e . The i n c i d e n c e measure r e v e a l s i n percentage terms how many households w i t h i n a g i v e n r e n t e r group i n the p o p u l a t i o n a r e e x p e r i e n c i n g core h o u s i n g need. The d i s t r i b u t i o n measure i n d i c a t e s the number of core need households i n a p a r t i c u l a r group as a p r o p o r t i o n of a l l core need h o u s e h o l d s . While both i n c i d e n c e and d i s t r i b u t i o n are measures of r e l a t i v e need, what appears to be m i s s i n g i n the a n a l y s i s , as ev idenced by the r e s u l t s of the 5 6 . 1 E v a l u a t i o n , i s an a d d i t i o n a l r e l a t i v e measure, t h a t b e i n g the s e v e r i t y of need among core need h o u s e h o l d s . F o c u s s i n g a t t e n t i o n on the s e v e r i t y of need would seem t o be e s p e c i a l l y important i n view of the f a c t t h a t r e l a t i v e l y u n l i m i t e d need i n the f a c e of l i m i t e d and d i m i n i s h i n g p u b l i c r e s o u r c e s has p r e c i p i t a t e d a s h i f t i n emphasis i n both s o c i a l housing p o l i c y and s o c i a l p o l i c y i n g e n e r a l towards d i r e c t i n g a s s i s t a n c e t o those who need i t m o s t . [ 8 ] While t h i s " w o r s t - f i r s t " approach does not c o n s t i t u t e r a d i c a l change, f i s c a l r e s t r a i n t has p l a c e d s e r v i n g those most i n need a t the c e n t r e of s o c i a l h o u s i n g p o l i c y : the p r i n c i p a l o b j e c t i v e a g a i n s t which a l l o c a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s a r e t o gauged. In T a b l e I , i t was shown t h a t a l t h o u g h they r e p r e s e n t over one t h i r d of a l l households i n core housing need, with a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h i n c i d e n c e of core need, n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e - p e r s o n households a r e found i n l e s s than 10% of 5 6 . 1 housing u n i t s . As noted, t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n s i m p l y draws a t t e n t i o n to the i n c o n s i s t e n c y between u n i t d i s t r i b u t i o n and the core h o u s i n g need d i s t r i b u t i o n and i n c i d e n c e f i g u r e s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h i s group. Moreover, the same i s t r u e f o r f a m i l i e s and the e l d e r l y . I n a d d i t i o n t o d e t e r m i n i n g the d i s t r i b u t i o n and i n c i d e n c e of core housing need, however, i t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e core need households on the b a s i s of the g r a v i t y of t h e i r need. I n other words, core h o u s i n g need data can be manipulated to i d e n t i f y and a n a l y z e the n a t u r e and e x t e n t of h o u s i n g need among those households most i n need: those undersupported v i a 5 6 . 1 h o u s i n g programs, a c c o r d i n g t o the E v a l u a t i o n . As a group, n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s i n core need a r e g e n e r a l l y not served by CMHC's s o c i a l housing programs a t a l l a c c o r d i n g t o a v a i l a b l e d a t a . I n a d d i t i o n , they are o n l y p e r i p h e r a l l y i d e n t i f i e d i n the program g u i d e l i n e s as a group for whom p r i v a t e / p u b l i c n o n - p r o f i t and c o - o p e r a t i v e housing i s i n t e n d e d . [ 9 ] N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the above, t h e r e were 1 8 3 , 1 9 0 n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s i n core need out of a t o t a l of 5 1 3 , 1 3 7 i n 1 9 8 2 . [ 1 0 ] Going beyond the measures of d i s t r i b u t i o n and i n c i d e n c e , t h i s s t u d y , u t i l i z i n g an a n a l y t i c a l framework t h a t a t t e n d s t o the s e v e r i t y of housing need, seeks t o demonstrate the e x i s t e n c e of severe housing need among n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s i n core need and t o e s t a b l i s h a d a t a base upon which the a l l o c a t i o n of a s s i s t a n c e t o at l e a s t the " w o r s t - o f f " among these households can be j u s t i f i e d . Furthermore, the a n a l y s i s w i l l focus s p e c i f i c a l l y on the n e a r - e l d e r l y (age 50-64) w i t h i n the n o n - e l d e r l y c a t e g o r y as they 8 are b e l i e v e d t o be i n t h e g r e a t e s t need among a l l c o r e need s i n g l e s and a r e , t h e r e f o r e , i n g r e a t e r need than a core need group to whom they a r e most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y s i m i l a r and one t h a t i s w e l l r e p r e s e n t e d i n 5 6 . 1 h o u s i n g : e l d e r l y s i n g l e s . [ 1 1 ] 1 . 2 Scope As noted, the s t u d y i s p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h i d e n t i f y i n g and a n a l y z i n g h o u s i n g need. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the a n a l y s i s f o c u s s e s on the s e v e r i t y of need among a l l s i n g l e - p e r s o n households determined t o be i n core housing need by CMHC, drawing a t t e n t i o n t o a comparison of n e a r - e l d e r l y and e l d e r l y w i t h i n t h i s group. The a n a l y s i s c e n t r e s on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r group f o r r e a s o n s a l r e a d y mentioned. D i s c u s s e d below are s e v e r a l m e t h o d o l o g i c a l advantages i n u s i n g t h i s a n a l y t i c a l approach. F i r s t of a l l , the p o t e n t i a l f o r extraneous f a c t o r s confounding the a n a l y s i s i s reduced by the f a c t t h a t the s u b j e c t s of the a n a l y s i s a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y i d e n t i c a l i n a t l e a s t one r e s p e c t : they a l l l i v e a l o n e . The same c o u l d not be s a i d i f any other group or a l l groups w i t h i n core housing need were u t i l i z e d . For i n s t a n c e , a l t h o u g h a l l f a m i l y households i n core h o u s i n g need are s i m i l a r i n t h a t they c o n s i s t of more than one p e r s o n , they are not i d e n t i c a l c o n s i d e r i n g v a r i a t i o n i n household s i z e , f a m i l y type, e t c . S i m i l a r l y , w h i l e a l l core need households w i t h i n the f i r s t income q u i n t i l e a r e s i m i l a r , they are not i d e n t i c a l due to the v a r i a t i o n of income w i t h i n t h i s income range. The second advantage r e l a t e s to the f i r s t . By r e s t r i c t i n g 9 the a n a l y s i s t o s i n g l e - p e r s o n h o u s e h o l d s , i t i s p o s s i b l e to compare the s e v e r i t y of housing need among those i n the same household type who r e c e i v e support ( i e : the e l d e r l y ) and among those who do not ( i e : the n o n - e l d e r l y ) . Such a c l e a r s p l i t i n terms of s u p p o r t / l a c k of support does not e x i s t f o r any other group of core h o u s i n g need h o u s e h o l d s . No other d i s c e r n i n g v a r i a b l e produces t h i s c l e a r s p l i t : not f a m i l y type ( e . g s i n g l e - p a r e n t / h u s b a n d - w i f e ) , income q u i n t i l e , a g e / s e x of household head, and so f o r t h . I t i s e s s e n t i a l a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t the key parameters of t h e s t u d y a r e made c l e a r . As the s t u d y i s p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h p r e s e n t i n g e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g housing need, i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o note t h a t i t assumes CMHC's d e f i n i t i o n of housing need and does n o t , t h e r e f o r e , q u e s t i o n the v a l i d i t y of the core h o u s i n g need concept . By the same token, with r e s p e c t t o CMHC's s o c i a l housing programs, i t i s important t o s t r e s s t h a t the purpose of the study i s not t o c r i t i c a l l y e v a l u a t e the means under S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 of the NHA used to address the housing problems of low-income r e n t e r s . The t h e s i s w i l l n o t , f o r example, e x t e n s i v e l y debate the advantages and d i s a d v a n t a g e s of s u p p l y i n g housing u n i t s as opposed t o i n c r e a s i n g e f f e c t i v e demand. J u s t as the study does not q u e s t i o n the v a l i d i t y of CMHC's d e f i n i t i o n of housing need, i t s purpose i s not t o q u e s t i o n the n o n - p r o f i t / c o - o p housing approach to a d d r e s s i n g the housing needs of low-income r e n t e r s . 10 N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the f o r e g o i n g , the s t u d y w i l l examine CMHC's s o c i a l housing programs to the extent t h a t the a n a l y s i s to be p r e s e n t e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o h o u s i n g need h a s i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r both program p o l i c y and d e s i g n . One f i n a l note r e g a r d i n g s u p p o r t . CMHC i s not the o n l y p a r t y i n v o l v e d i n p r o v i d i n g s o c i a l housing a s s i s t a n c e to low-income r e n t e r s . Numerous sponsor ing a g e n c i e s - both p r i v a t e and p u b l i c - p l a y a key r o l e . The l a c k of support for n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s (the n e a r - e l d e r l y i n p a r t i c u l a r ) may stem i n p a r t from the p e r c e p t i o n s / p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s of the s p o n s o r i n g a g e n c i e s i n v o l v e d as to the n a t u r e and extent of the h o u s i n g problems f a c i n g t h e s e h o u s e h o l d s . For t h i s reason, the s t u d y w i l l address i t s e l f t o some degree t o those i n v o l v e d i n p r o v i d i n g s o c i a l h o u s i n g a s s i s t a n c e a p a r t from CMHC. 1 . 3 O b j e c t i v e s The o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s study a r e as f o l l o w s : 1 ) To demonstrate, the e x i s t e n c e of severe housing need among n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e - p e r s o n r e n t e r households i n core h o u s i n g need. 2) To p r o v i d e a data base upon which the a l l o c a t i o n of a s s i s t a n c e t o a t l e a s t those i n the g r e a t e s t need among t h e s e households can be j u s t i f i e d . 3) To e s t a b l i s h t h a t n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s a r e i n the g r e a t e s t need among a l l core need s i n g l e s and a r e , t h e r e f o r e , i n g r e a t e r need than e l d e r l y s i n g l e s , who a r e 11 w e l l supported through CMHC's s o c i a l h o u s i n g programs. 1 . 4 R e l e v a n c e / C o n t r i b u t i o n The s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s s t u d y e s s e n t i a l l y d e s c r i b e i t s r e l e v a n c e or c o n t r i b u t i o n s . S imply s t a t e d , the study w i l l p r o v i d e a d a t a base t h a t does not p r e s e n t l y e x i s t (such a d a t a base i s not known by the w r i t e r t o e x i s t i n any c a s e . ) Beyond t h i s , however, the study p r e s e n t s an a n a l y t i c a l framework w i t h r e s p e c t t o h o u s i n g need t h a t c o u l d be used t o l i n k housing support more c l o s e l y t o the s e v e r i t y of need. A t t e n d i n g to the g r a v i t y of h o u s i n g need among core housing need households may s e r v e to b e t t e r a r t i c u l a t e s o c i a l housing programs with broader f e d e r a l s o c i a l p o l i c y . 1 . 5 T h e s i s O r g a n i z a t i o n Having s e t the stage i n Chapter One, the remainder of the study i s o r g a n i z e d i n the f o l l o w i n g manner. Housing need a n a l y s i s i s the s u b j e c t of Chapter Two. A more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of the t r a d i t i o n a l measures of housing need as w e l l as the core h o u s i n g need concept i s p r o v i d e d b e f o r e the a n a l y s i s of s i n g l e - p e r s o n households i n core housing need i s p r e s e n t e d . The s o c i o - e c o n o m i c p r o f i l e of n e a r - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s i s presented f i r s t fo l lowed by a comparison of t h i s group w i t h other s i n g l e s groups d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on the b a s i s of age - young (under 3 0 ) , m i d d l e - a g e d ( 3 0 - 4 9 ) , n e a r - e l d e r l y ( 5 0 - 6 4 ) and e l d e r l y ( 6 5 + ) . The chapter concludes with a d e t a i l e d comparison of the 12 n e a r - e l d e r l y and e l d e r l y w i t h i n the s i n g l e s group. Chapter Three d e s c r i b e s the h o u s i n g programs a d m i n i s t e r e d under S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 of the NHA: the programs t h a t have accounted for the v a s t m a j o r i t y of s o c i a l housing a s s i s t a n c e p r o v i d e d by CMHC s i n c e 1 9 7 8 . I t o u t l i n e s t h e i r development, o b j e c t i v e s , and d e s i g n along with how the programs are d e l i v e r e d and who i s i n v o l v e d i n terms of p r o v i s i o n . The c l i e n t groups to be served by these programs i s d i s c u s s e d together with the d a t a t h a t shows which core housing need groups are a c t u a l l y s e r v e d . Chapter Four reviews and summarizes the data presented i n the two p r e c e d i n g c h a p t e r s and draws c o n c l u s i o n s based on the o b s e r v a t i o n s made. The i m p l i c a t i o n s of the c o n c l u s i o n s drawn i n Chapter Four are d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter F i v e i n r e f e r e n c e to CMHC and other government a g e n c i e s and s o c i a l housing s u p p o r t / s p o n s o r groups i n v o l v e d i n p r o v i d i n g s o c i a l housing a s s i s t a n c e to low-income r e n t e r s . 13 CHAPTER TWO I n t r o d u c t i o n T h i s chapter i s concerned with housing need. I t begins with a review of the t r a d i t i o n a l measures of housing need and moves to a d i s c u s s i o n of the core housing need concept . The s t r e n g t h s and l i m i t a t i o n s of a l l these measures of housing need are g iven along with a d e s c r i p t i o n of the HIFE Survey from which core housing need e s t i m a t e s are d e r i v e d and because of which the s o c i o - e c o n o m i c p r o f i l e s of the households to be a n a l y z e d are made p o s s i b l e . F o l l o w i n g t h i s i s a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the method used to a n a l y z e the HIFE data of the core need groups i n q u e s t i o n h e r e . The p r i m a r y purpose of t h i s chapter i s to p r e s e n t and compare the s o c i o - e c o n o m i c p r o f i l e s of s e l e c t e d age groups w i t h i n the s i n g l e - p e r s o n core housing need c a t e g o r y . The n e a r - e l d e r l y (aged 5 0 - 6 4 ) are p r o f i l e d f i r s t and then compared to the other s e l e c t e d age groups ( i e : under 30 y e a r s , aged 30-49 and 65+ y e a r s ) w i t h i n the s i n g l e s c a t e g o r y . The chapter concludes by f o c u s s i n g on a comparison of the n e a r - e l d e r l y and e l d e r l y s i n g l e s groups. 2 . 1 Measuring Housing Need[12] 2 . 1 . 1 T r a d i t i o n a l Approaches H i s t o r i c a l l y , there have been three measures used to determine housing need: p h y s i c a l adequacy; s u i t a b i l i t y ; and, 14 a f f o r d a b i l i t y . The f i r s t two measures r e l a t e to p h y s i c a l needs w h i l e the l a t t e r i s concerned with s h e l t e r c o s t s v i s a v i s income. I n the p a s t , the most w i d e l y used measures of housing need have been the p h y s i c a l ones - i e : the extent of households l i v i n g i n housing f a l l i n g below minimum p h y s i c a l s t a n d a r d s . For the most p a r t , p h y s i c a l s t a n d a r d s arose out of a concern for u n s a f e or u n s a n i t a r y d w e l l i n g c o n d i t i o n s i n c l u d i n g the l a c k of adequate (or any) plumbing, h e a t i n g and other b a s i c f a c i l i t i e s , improper p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t f i r e and whether the amount of space i n the d w e l l i n g i s s u f f i c i e n t for the household occupying i t . P h y s i c a l s t a n d a r d s are not a b s o l u t e and have v a r i e d over t i m e . The changing n a t u r e of minimum s t a n d a r d s i s w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d i n C a n a d a ' s everchanging b u i l d i n g codes. S i n c e the m i d - t h i r t i e s , government p o l i c y has p r e s c r i b e d d e t a i l e d s t a n d a r d s to cover a l l new h o u s i n g c o n s t r u c t e d by CMHC or f i n a n c e d with mortgages i n s u r e d through CMHC under the Mortgage I n s u r a n c e Fund. These s t a n d a r d s have been f r e q u e n t l y r e v i s e d to keep pace with improved b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s and c o n s t r u c t i o n t e c h n i q u e s . I n a d d i t i o n , what c o n s t i t u t e s minimum standard housing has r i s e n over time along s i d e i n c r e a s e s i n per c a p i t a income and consumer e x p e c t a t i o n s . [ 1 3 ] There has been a s i g n i f i c a n t r e d u c t i o n i n the p r o p o r t i o n of p h y s i c a l l y inadequate and/or crowded housing for two main r e a s o n s . [ 1 4 ] F i r s t of a l l , because p r o v i n c i a l governments have adopted t h e i r own b u i l d i n g codes, modelled a f t e r the N a t i o n a l B u i l d i n g Code, the v a s t m a j o r i t y of d w e l l i n g s c o n s t r u c t e d i n the p a s t four decades (which make up the m a j o r i t y of the e x i s t i n g h o u s i n g s t o c k [ 1 5 ] ) have been s u b j e c t to minimum p h y s i c a l s t a n d a r d s . Secondly , s t r i c t adherence to minimum s t a n d a r d s has been a c o n d i t i o n of mortgage loan a v a i l a b i l i t y or i n s u r a b i l i t y whether through CMHC or C a n a d a ' s f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . Although the i n c i d e n c e of p h y s i c a l l y d e f i c i e n t and/or crowded h o u s i n g has become r e l a t i v e l y low compared to p r e v i o u s y e a r s , t h i s i s not to s a y t h a t p h y s i c a l problems do not s t i l l e x i s t and t h a t t h e r e are no p h y s i c a l l y i n a d e q u a t e / u n s u i t a b l e d w e l l i n g s i n need of r e h a b i l i t a t i o n or t h a t should be r e p l a c e d . The h o u s i n g deemed to be p h y s i c a l l y i n a d e q u a t e / u n s u i t a b l e today does n o t , however, compare to the d e c r e p i t housing to which the terms inadequate or u n s u i t a b l e a p p l i e d s e v e r a l decades a g o . [ 1 6 ] Adequacy and s u i t a b i l i t y problems are not the o n l y housing problems Canadian households f a c e . While p h y s i c a l problems have d i m i n i s h e d over t i m e , a f f o r d a b i l i t y has emerged as the most common and s e r i o u s probleim i n more recent y e a r s . [ 1 7 ] I t may be, i n f a c t , t h a t a f f o r d a b i l i t y problems for r e n t e r s , who are the s u b j e c t of t h i s paper , have a r i s e n i n p a r t because of minimum p h y s i c a l s t a n d a r d s i n c r e a s i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s l e a d i n g to h i g h e r economic r e n t s and, f i n a l l y , h i g h e r market r e n t s . I n any c a s e , the f i n a n c i a l c a p a c i t y of an i n c r e a s i n g number of r e n t e r households to pay for s h e l t e r has not* kept pace with i n c r e a s i n g s h e l t e r c o s t s . [ 1 8 ] The s h e l t e r - t o - i n c o m e r a t i o has become a c r i t i c a l i s s u e with 16 a f f o r d a b i l i t y problems a r i s i n g when households have to a l l o c a t e an e x c e s s i v e p r o p o r t i o n of t h e i r income for s h e l t e r . What c o n s t i t u t e s an e x c e s s i v e p r o p o r t i o n of income for s h e l t e r i s , of c o u r s e , a judgmental matter and has v a r i e d over t ime. I n North America, a range of 20-30% has been regarded as a f a i r r a t e of e x p e n d i t u r e for s h e l t e r . [ 1 9 ] These r a t i o s , which were o r i g i n a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d by mortgage l e n d e r s / i n s u r e r s ( i n c l u d i n g CMHC) to ensure t h a t homeowners were a b l e to m a i n t a i n t h e i r mortgage payments without foregoing other e s s e n t i a l non-housing i t e m s , have a l s o been a p p l i e d to r e n t e r households i n r e f e r e n c e to h o u s i n g a f f o r d a b i l i t y . During the post -war p e r i o d , the e x p e n d i t u r e r a t e c o n s i d e r e d a c c e p t a b l e for r e n t e r s v i s a v i s housing p o l i c y has v a r i e d as i t has for homeowners. Whatever the r a t e , however, a r e n t e r household with a s h e l t e r - t o - i n c o m e r a t i o t h a t exceeds a f i g u r e p r e s c r i b e d as f a i r i s c o n s i d e r e d to be e x p e r i e n c i n g an a f f o r d a b i l i t y problem. The s h e l t e r - t o - i n c o m e r a t i o p r o v i d e s a r e a s o n a b l y c l e a r measure of the f i n a n c i a l burden of housing on a r e n t e r household. I t i s s imple to comprehend and i n t r o d u c e s the i n c r e a s i n g l y e s s e n t i a l element of f i n a n c i a l burden i n t o the o v e r a l l assessment of housing need. I n s p i t e of t h i s , however, the a f f o r d a b i l i t y measure has d i s t i n c t l i m i t a t i o n s . The s h e l t e r - t o - i n c o m e r a t i o approach alone can, on the one hand, underest imate the magnitude of ' o v e r a l l housing need s i n c e i t does not r e v e a l whether the accommodation i s p h y s i c a l l y adequate or s u i t a b l e , r e g a r d l e s s of whether i t i s a f f o r d a b l e . Households can keep housing c o s t s w i t h i n reasonable l i m i t s by l i v i n g i n p h y s i c a l l y inadequate housing as an a l t e r n a t i v e to paying h i g h e r rent for adequate h o u s i n g . S i m i l a r l y , households may choose or have no c h o i c e but to l i v e i n crowded c o n d i t i o n s to a v o i d paying e x c e s s i v e s h e l t e r c o s t s . On the other hand, o v e r a l l housing need can be o v e r e s t i m a t e d by u s i n g t h i s approach a l o n e . Renter households who v o l u n t a r i l y d e c i d e to pay a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of t h e i r income to o b t a i n s h e l t e r beyond minimum s t a n d a r d s would be i n c l u d e d among those spending more than 2 5 - 3 0 % of t h e i r income on r e n t . C l e a r l y , those who underconsume housing to a v o i d e x c e s s i v e r e n t s are of concern to governments, not those who w i l l i n g l y overconsume. F i n a l l y , there are problems a s s o c i a t e d with u s i n g a f i x e d r a t i o with r e s p e c t to income and s h e l t e r . Given t h a t t h i s i s a problem encountered i n the core housing need approach, t h i s l i m i t a t i o n i s d i s c u s s e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . 2 . 1 . 2 The Core Housing Need Concept I t i s argued t h a t none of the aforementioned measures of housing need by themselves c o n s t i t u t e a comprehensive measure of o v e r a l l housing n e e d . [ 2 0 ] To overcome the l i m i t a t i o n s inherent i n the measures of p h y s i c a l need and e x c e s s i v e f i n a n c i a l burden, and to a s s e s s housing need i n a more comprehensive manner, CMHC has developed the core housing need" approach which i n t e g r a t e s a f f o r d a b i l i t y , p h y s i c a l adequacy and s u i t a b i l i t y i n d i c a t o r s . The i n t e n t of t h i s approach i s to focus s i m u l t a n e o u s l y on the 18 f i n a n c i a l c a p a c i t y of the household and the p h y s i c a l / e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s of t h e i r d w e l l i n g . Two c a t e g o r i e s of households are i d e n t i f i e d u s i n g the core h o u s i n g need approach. The f i r s t c a t e g o r y c o n s i s t s of those occupying crowded and/or p h y s i c a l l y inadequate housing who cannot s e c u r e s u i t a b l e / a d e q u a t e housing i n t h e i r l o c a l i t y without spending more than 30% of t h e i r gross income to o b t a i n i t . The second c a t e g o r y r e p r e s e n t s those who i n h a b i t p h y s i c a l l y adequate and uncrowded housing but spend more than 30% of t h e i r income to do so and, s i m i l a r l y , are unable to secure decent housing i n t h e i r l o c a l i t y without spending more than 30% of t h e i r gross income. These two c a t e g o r i e s i n c l u d e a l l households t h a t have a housing problem - be i t inadequacy and/or crowding and/or h i g h c o s t - and are not a b l e to secure (cannot f i n d or a f f o r d ) a p p r o p r i a t e or decent housing i n t h e i r l o c a l i t y . I t i s important to note t h a t low income households who occupy p h y s i c a l l y adequate, uncrowded and a f f o r d a b l e housing are excluded from core housing need as are households with incomes h i g h enough to a f f o r d decent housing r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r c u r r e n t housing s i t u a t i o n . Both c a t e g o r i e s of households d e s c r i b e d above are i n c l u d e d i n the core housing need f i g u r e s assumed by the present s t u d y . S i n c e both c a t e g o r i e s are combined i n the data a v a i l a b l e to the w r i t e r , i t i s not p o s s i b l e to p r e c i s e l y c a l c u l a t e which c a t e g o r y i s more p r e v a l e n t . I t i s worth r e i t e r a t i n g , however, t h a t p h y s i c a l housing problems ( s u i t a b i l i t y and adequacy problems) 19 have d i m i n i s h e d over time with a f f o r d a b i l i t y emerging as the most s e r i o u s h o u s i n g problem f a c i n g r e n t e r households i n r e c e n t y e a r s . [ 2 1 ] To t h i s end, i t i s known t h a t 9 1 . 8 % (452,000) of a l l core housing need r e n t e r households i n 1980 were w i t h i n the lowest income q u i n t i l e - a l l household t y p e s . [ 2 2 ] Furthermore, 100% of core h o u s i n g need r e n t e r households (484,000) i n 1980 were w i t h i n the two lowest income q u i n t i l e s . [ 2 3 ] On the b a s i s of these f a c t o r s , i t would appear, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the second c a t e g o r y of core housing need households r e f e r r e d to above i s f a r more p r e v a l e n t . The procedure for e s t i m a t i n g core housing need r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n . I t i s e s s e n t i a l l y a two s t e p p r o c e s s . D e f i n i n g p h y s i c a l adequacy, s u i t a b i l i t y and a f f o r d a b i l i t y along with i d e n t i f y i n g those households e x p e r i e n c i n g a problem with r e s p e c t to one or more of these occurs i n step one. I n step two, a f t e r determining the average r e n t s of standard u n i t s i n a g iven l o c a l i t y ( i e : norm r e n t s ) , households t h a t could a f f o r d the e s t a b l i s h e d norm r e n t s are e l i m i n a t e d from the t o t a l number of households i d e n t i f i e d i n step one l e a v i n g o n l y those households determined to be i n genuine need. Those who are v o l u n t a r i l y over or underconsuming t h e i r housing s e r v i c e s are not i n c l u d e d among those households c o n s i d e r e d as t r u l y needy. I n t h i s way, the core need concept overcomes, to a l a r g e degree, the l i m i t a t i o n s of the s h e l t e r - t o - i n c o m e r a t i o approach i n regard to o v e r e s t i m a t i n g / u n d e r e s t i m a t i n g the magnitude of o v e r a l l housing 20 need. Norm rent i s an important i n g r e d i e n t i n the core housing need concept and r e p r e s e n t s the average rent of a standard u n i t i n a g i v e n l o c a l i t y . Norm r e n t s are d e r i v e d from d w e l l i n g c o n d i t i o n ( r e : a d e q u a c y ) , d w e l l i n g s i z e ( r e : s u i t a b i l i t y ) and s h e l t e r c o s t ( r e : a f f o r d a b i l i t y ) data from the HIFE Survey. Standard u n i t s are d e f i n e d as p h y s i c a l l y adequate u n i t s t h a t meet minimum s i z e requirements for v a r y i n g household s i z e s - crowding i s s a i d to e x i s t when there i s more than one person per room. A d w e l l i n g i s c o n s i d e r e d to be inadequate when, a c c o r d i n g to an e x t r a p o l a t i o n of p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s data from the HIFE Survey, the d w e l l i n g i s i n need of major r e p a i r . A d w e l l i n g with at l e a s t one major s t r u c t u r a l problem ( e . g . crumbling foundation) or two or more minor problems ( e . g . worn s h i n g l e s , f a u l t y window frames, l a c k of e x t e r i o r p a i n t , e t c . ) i s s a i d to be i n need of r e p a i r . The e x i s t e n c e / l a c k of plumbing, h e a t i n g and other b a s i c f a c i l i t i e s i s an i n d i c a t i o n of a d w e l l i n g ' s i n t e r n a l a d e q u a c y / i n a d e q u a c y . The norm r e n t component i n the core housing need approach improves the r e l i a b i l i t y and expands the u t i l i t y of the measure i n t h a t the l o c a l and r e g i o n a l market v a r i a t i o n i n regard to s h e l t e r c o s t s and p h y s i c a l f a c t o r s i s accounted for i n o v e r a l l housing need e s t i m a t e s . [ 2 4 ] Norm rent f i g u r e s , which v a r y by l o c a l i t y , are not provided here given that o n l y core housing need d a t a which has been aggregated i n terms of l o c a l i t y ( i e : core need f i g u r e s are for a l l of Canada) was a v a i l a b l e to the w r i t e r . 21 Although t h e r e are s i g n i f i c a n t advantages a s s o c i a t e d with the core need approach, as compared to i t s antecedent measures, t h e r e are l i m i t a t i o n s . Before d i s c u s s i n g these l i m i t a t i o n s , however, i t i s important at t h i s p o i n t to r e i t e r a t e t h a t t h i s s t u d y assumes CMHC1s d e f i n i t i o n of housing need and does not q u e s t i o n the method i t uses to determine housing need. I t should be made c l e a r t h a t the v a l i d i t y of the core housing need concept i s not at i s s u e h e r e . The l i m i t a t i o n s of the concept are d i s c u s s e d s i m p l y to r e c o g n i z e t h a t w h i l e i t i s the most comprehensive approach developed thus f a r , i t i s not a p e r f e c t l y r e l i a b l e or c o m p l e t e l y a c c u r a t e measure of housing need. L i k e the s h e l t e r - t o - i n c o m e r a t i o approach, the core need concept r e l i e s on a f i x e d r e n t - t o - i n c o m e r a t i o . A f i x e d r a t i o does not take i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t d i f f e r e n t housholds have d i f f e r e n t consumption requirements p a r t i c u l a r l y with r e s p e c t to non-housing i t e m s . [ 2 5 ] Household consumption p a t t e r n s v a r y a c c o r d i n g to age, household composit ion, income, l o c a t i o n and other f a c t o r s . For households with lower non-housing c o s t s , a 3 5 - 4 0 % e x p e n d i t u r e r a t e for s h e l t e r may not pose an undue f i n a n c i a l burden. For other h o u s e h o l d s , as l i t t l e as 15% of income a l l o c a t e d to housing may be e x c e s s i v e . These l i m i t a t i o n s to < the core need approach a p p l y r e g a r d l e s s of the s h e l t e r - t o - i n c o m e r a t i o u s e d . [ 2 6 ] As noted i n the S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 E v a l u a t i o n , core housing need e s t i m a t e s are based on a sample of households r a t h e r than a complete c e n s u s . The s i z e of the sample, of c o u r s e , depends on the l e v e l to which the sample data i s d i s a g g r e g a t e d . Sample s i z e o n l y becomes a problem, i n terms of r e l i a b i l i t y , when sample data i s d i s a g g r e g a t e d to the p o i n t where one i s attempting to g e n e r a l i z e an observed r e l a t i o n s h i p or trend on the b a s i s of a v e r y s m a l l number of s u r v e y r e s p o n d e n t s . The problem of i n s u f f i c i e n t sample s i z e i s p r e s e n t i n the a n a l y s i s to be p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s paper and i s d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r on i n t h i s c h a p t e r . I n the main, however, the unweighted sample of core h o u s i n g need households i n t h i s study i s s u f f i c i e n t i n most cases so as to not j e o p a r d i z e the r e l i a b i l i t y of the a n a l y s i s p r e s e n t e d . 2 . 2 The HIFE S u r v e y [ 2 7 ] As noted i n Chapter One, i t i s not o n l y p o s s i b l e to e s t i m a t e the magnitude of o v e r a l l housing need v i a the core need approach, i t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e to examine the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of households i d e n t i f i e d to be i n core housing need. T h i s i s due to the data base from which core housing need e s t i m a t e s are d e r i v e d : The HIFE Survey. The HIFE Survey i s one of s e v e r a l annual sample surveys of household income, f a c i l i t i e s and equipment conducted by S t a t i s t i c s Canada. The F a m i l y Expenditure Survey i s another s u r v e y of t h i s t y p e . I t i s normal ly conducted i n c o n j u c t i o n with the Labour Force S u r v e y . Micro data' tapes or f i l e s of the HIFE Survey are made a v a i l a b l e g e n e r a l l y every two y e a r s . Approximately 35,000 households were i n c l u d e d i n the HIFE Survey sample i n 1982 which i s argued to s u f f i c i e n t l y r e p r e s e n t v i r t u a l l y a l l occupied p r i v a t e households i n Canada. I t i s important to s t r e s s for the purpose of t h i s paper that the Survey sample i n c l u d e s , and t h e r e f o r e r e p r e s e n t s , households i n o c c u p i e d p r i v a t e d w e l l i n g s . A d w e l l i n g i s d e f i n e d as a s t r u c t u r a l l y s e p a r a t e s e t of l i v i n g premises with p r i v a t e e n t r a n c e from o u t s i d e the b u i l d i n g or from a common h a l l w a y or i n t e r n a l s t a i r c a s e . A household c o n s i s t s of a person or persons occupying one d w e l l i n g u n i t . Thus, the number of households i n the Survey sample r e s u l t s i s equal to the number of occupied d w e l l i n g s . I n s t i t u t i o n s , h o t e l s , l a r g e lodging houses and camps are not encompassed under p r i v a t e occupied d w e l l i n g s . Before d e s c r i b i n g the s o c i o - e c o n o m i c v a r i a b l e s u t i l i z e d i n the forthcoming p r o f i l e s , i t i s n e c e s s a r y to make a g e n e r a l comment concerning the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the sample data when i t i s weighted or i n f l a t e d to represent the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n of h o u s e h o l d s . A l l est imated numbers and aggregates o b t a i n e d from the Survey are to be t r e a t e d as approximate. The r e l i a b i l i t y of the S u r v e y ' s e s t i m a t e s depends on the q u a l i t y of the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n e s t i m a t e s used to determine the w e i g h t s . F r e q u e n t l y , o n l y p r e l i m i n a r y f i g u r e s for t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n are a v a i l a b l e at the time the Survey i s p r o c e s s e d . Although b e t t e r p o p u l a t i o n e s t i m a t e s become a v a i l a b l e at a l a t e r d a t e , the sample data set i s not u s u a l l y re -weighted due to the time lag i n v o l v e d . The parameters and l i m i t a t i o n s of the HIFE Survey data are i m p l i c i t i n the core housing need e s t i m a t e s CMHC d e r i v e s from i t . 24 Although the v a l i d i t y or r e l i a b i l i t y of the HIFE Survey i s not at i s s u e i n t h i s paper, i t i s u s e f u l to bear i n mind i t s parameters and l i m i t a t i o n s when reviewing the forthcoming core need a n a l y s i s . The s o c i o - e c o n o m i c v a r i a b l e s used i n the forthcoming p r o f i l e s t h a t r e q u i r e e l a b o r a t i o n are d e s c r i b e d below. V a r i a b l e s such as age and gender a r e , of c o u r s e , s e l f - e x p l a n a t o r y . Household Composit ion The Survey p r o v i d e s the number and type of economic f a m i l y u n i t s i n the h o u s e h o l d . S i n c e t h i s paper i s concerned with s i n g l e - p e r s o n h o u s e h o l d s , the economic f a m i l y u n i t here i s comprised of one person. I t should be s t r e s s e d t h a t s i n g l e - p e r s o n household means a d w e l l i n g , as d e f i n e d e a r l i e r , occupied by one person o n l y . M a r i t a l S t a t u s Three c a t e g o r i e s under m a r i t a l s t a t u s are p r o v i d e d ; s i n g l e (never m a r r i e d ) ; marr ied or l i v i n g common-law; and, o t h e r . The f i r s t and t h i r d c a t e g o r i e s are of concern i n the p r e s e n t a n a l y s i s . The ' o t h e r ' c a t e g o r y i n c l u d e s those s i n g l e persons who are s e p a r a t e d , d i v o r c e d or widowed. There a r e , however, some s i n g l e s shown as being married but l i v i n g alone and not l e g a l l y s e p a r a t e d , d i v o r c e d or widowed. I n these c a s e s , a n o n - l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n has taken p l a c e or the spouse i s s i m p l y a b s e n t . I t should be noted t h a t the i n c i d e n c e of the l a t t e r arrangement i s v e r y low. E d u c a t i o n L e v e l T h i s v a r i a b l e g i v e s the h i g h e s t l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n achieved by the respondent. For the present a n a l y s i s , e d u c a t i o n l e v e l s have been grouped i n the f o l l o w i n g manner: - achieved grade 10 or l e s s ( i n c l u d e s no s c h o o l i n g at a l l ) ; - achieved between grades 1 1 and 13 ( i n c l u d e s d i p l o m a / c e r t i f i c a t e 25 g r a n t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s ) ; and, - a c h i e v e d a u n i v e r s i t y degree ( i n c l u d e s undergraduate to d o c t o r a t e ) . Major Source of Income T h i s v a r i a b l e g i v e s the l a r g e s t sources of income for the h o u s e h o l d . The a b s o l u t e v a l u e s i n the e i g h t income source c a t e g o r i e s l i s t e d below are compared to a s c e r t a i n which i s the l a r g e s t . 1 ) No income 2) Wages and s a l a r i e s 3) M i l i t a r y pay and al lowances 4) Net income from self -employment 5) Government t r a n s f e r payments 6) Net income from investment 7) Ret irement p e n s i o n s , superannuation and a n n u i t i e s 8) Other money income These e i g h t c a t e g o r i e s are aggregated i n t o f i v e broader c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s : no income; income from e a r n i n g s ( c a t e g o r i e s 2 - 4 above) ; government t r a n s f e r payments; income from i n v e s t m e n t ; and, m i s c e l l a n e o u s income ( c a t e g o r i e s 7 and 8 above). S e v e r a l of t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s r e q u i r e f u r t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n . Income from e a r n i n g s means gross cash wages and s a l a r i e s r e c e i v e d d u r i n g the p r e v i o u s year ( i n t h i s c a s e , 1 9 8 1 ) from a l l j o b s - i n c l u d i n g the m i l i t a r y and m i l i t a r y r e s e r v e - before d e d u c t i o n s for p e n s i o n funds, h o s p i t a l / h e a l t h care i n s u r a n c e , income t a x , Canada S a v i n g s Bonds, employee s a v i n g s p l a n s , e t c . Income i n the form of g r a t u i t i e s and commissions i s a l s o i n c l u d e d . Self -employment income i s as d e f i n e d i n the standard income tax r e t u r n a l t h o u g h income i n - k i n d i s not i n c l u d e d . Investment income i n c l u d e s i n t e r e s t r e c e i v e d on bonds, d e p o s i t s and s a v i n g s c e r t i f i c a t e s from Canadian or f o r e i g n s o u r c e s , d i v i d e n d s r e c e i v e d from i n s u r a n c e p o l i c e s , net income from r e a l e s t a t e and farms, i n t e r e s t r e c e i v e d on loans and mortgages, r e g u l a r income from an e s t a t e or t r u s t fund and other investment income. Income i n the form of government t r a n s f e r payments i n c l u d e s the f o l l o w i n g : - F a m i l y Allowance and Youth Allowance (Quebec and P . E . I . ) payments; - Old Age S e c u r i t y pensions ( i n c l u d i n g 26 S p o u s e ' s Allowance) and Guaranteed Income Supplement; - Canada/Quebec Pension Plan b e n e f i t s ; - Unemployment I n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s ; - income under the r u b r i c of S o c i a l A s s i s t a n c e ; - v e t e r a n s ' p e n s i o n s , pensions to widows and dependents of v e t e r a n s , war v e t e r a n s ' a l l o w a n c e s ; - c i v i l i a n war a l l o w a n c e s ; - Workmens' Compensation b e n e f i t s ; - Canada Manpower t r a i n i n g al lowances and payments r e c e i v e d under Canada Manpower M o b i l i t y programs; - C h i l d Tax C r e d i t ; - p r o v i n c i a l tax c r e d i t s ( e . g A l b e r t a ' s Renter Tax C r e d i t ) and g r a n t s ( e . g . O n t a r i o ' s p r o p e r t y and s a l e s tax g r a n t s for s e n i o r c i t i z e n ) ; and, - t r a n s f e r payments from m u n i c i p a l governments. Canada/Quebec Pension Plan b e n e f i t s i n c l u d e r e t i r e m e n t p e n s i o n s , s u r v i v o r s ' b e n e f i t s such as widows' p e n s i o n s , d i s a b l e d widowers' p e n s i o n s , orphans' b e n e f i t s and b e n e f i t s for dependents of d i s a b l e d p e n s i o n e r s . Lump sum death b e n e f i t s r e c e i v e d under Canada/Quebec Pension P l a n s are not i n c l u d e d . Payments, for example, to needy mothers with dependent c h i l d r e n , to the b l i n d and other d i s a b l e d persons are i n c l u d e d as S o c i a l A s s i s t a n c e . M i s c e l l a n e o u s income i n c l u d e s r e t i r e m e n t p e n s i o n s , s u p e r a n n u a t i o n and a n n u i t i e s r e c e i v e d as a member of one or more p r i v a t e p e n s i o n p l a n s - e . g . a r e g i s t e r e d r e t i r e m e n t s a v i n g s p l a n . Other money income i s a l s o under t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n which i n c l u d e s income r e c e i v e d from n o n - r e f u n d a b l e s c h o l a r s h i p s and b u r s a r i e s , a l imony, r o y a l t i e s , s t r i k e pay, and payments from an income maintenance i n s u r a n c e p l a n or a guaranteed annual wage p l a n . Other money income does not , however, i n c l u d e income i n such forms as c a p i t a l g a i n s , i n h e r i t a n c e , withdrawals from RRSPs or RHOSPs, income tax refunds or income i n - k i n d . • Employment S t a t u s T h i s v a r i a b l e shows whether the i n d i v i d u a l ( s ) i n the household i s / a r e employed, unemployed' or not i n the labour f o r c e . The d e f i n i t i o n s a p p l i c a b l e to these c a t e g o r i e s are the same as those of the Labour Force Survey. The employed c o n s i s t s of persons engaged i n g a i n f u l employment, the unemployed are those p r e s e n t l y without work but who are a c t i v e l y looking for work or 27 a r e a v a i l a b l e to work, whi le those c l a s s i f i e d as not being i n the labour f o r c e i n c l u d e s a l l i n d i v i d u a l s over the age of 14 who are n e i t h e r employed nor unemployed. Members of the Armed Forces are not c o n s i d e r e d to be i n the labour f o r c e nor are unpaid f a m i l y workers . The f a c t t h a t unpaid f a m i l y workers are not c o n s i d e r e d t o be i n the labour f o r c e does not p r e s e n t a problem i n t h i s paper as s i n g l e - p e r s o n households are of concern h e r e . A homemaker, for example, would be o n l y person occupying the d w e l l i n g . Type of Employment A person who works more than 30 hours per week i s c o n s i d e r e d to be working f u l l t ime. Below 30 hours per week i s p a r t t ime. T h i s v a r i a b l e a l s o shows whether the respondent worked at a l l i n the p r e v i o u s y e a r . Employment Durat ion T h i s v a r i a b l e r e v e a l s the number of weeks i n which a person d i d any k i n d of p a i d work ( i e ; f u l l t ime, p a r t t ime, s e l f - e m p l o y m e n t , e t c . ) and i n c l u d e s the number of weeks i n which a person was absent from work with pay ( e . g . h o l i d a y s , t r a i n i n g , m a t e r n i t y l e a v e , e t c . ) . T o t a l Household Y e a r l y Income T h i s v a r i a b l e r e p r e s e n t s the a l l i n d i v i d u a l s i n the household sources dur ing the p r e v i o u s y e a r . sum of a l l income r e c e i v e d by from the aforementioned income Rent The Survey p r o v i d e s the a c t u a l amount of rent p a i d ( i n d o l l a r s ) for a r e s p o n d e n t ' s d w e l l i n g . The rent data c o l l e c t e d a p p l i e s to A p r i l of the survey year ( A p r i l 1982 i n t h i s case) . I f l e f t u n a d j u s t e d , there i s a d i s c r e p a n c y , t h e r e f o r e , between the rent and income data c o l l e c t e d through the HIFE Survey g i v e n t h a t income data r e f e r s to the p r e v i o u s calender year ( 1 9 8 1 , in t h i s c a s e ) . Moreover, household membership or s i z e a l s o r e f e r s to A p r i l 1 9 8 2 . T h i s d i s c r e p a n c y would mean, for example, that any income for household members present i n 1 9 8 1 who were not p r e s e n t i n A p r i l 1982 would not be i n c l u d e d i n the h o u s e h o l d ' s 28 t o t a l income for 1 9 8 1 . S i m i l a r l y , unnattached i n d i v i d u a l s ( i n c l u d i n g those l i v i n g a lone) r e n t i n g i n A p r i l 1982 may have been l i v i n g with another household member i n 1 9 8 1 with l i t t l e or no income. T h i s d i s c r e p a n c y , however, i s accounted for i n c a l c u l a t i n g / e s t i m a t i n g core housing need with t o t a l household income being a d j u s t e d ( i n f l a t e d / d e f l a t e d a c c o r d i n g to the Consumer P r i c e Index and other i n d i c e s ) to h e l p ensure t h a t income and rent data i s as comparable as p o s s i b l e . 2 . 3 Method of A n a l y s i s The s o c i o - e c o n o m i c p r o f i l e s of s i n g l e - p e r s o n core need households have been assembled by way of e x t e n s i v e c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n of the HIFE data p e r t a i n i n g to the v a r i a b l e s d i s c u s s e d i n the p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n . The p r i m a r y d i s c e r n i n g v a r i a b l e i n the p r o c e s s was age. Four age groups were e s t a b l i s h e d and then the age v a r i a b l e was c r o s s - t a b u l a t e d with s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s such as e d u c a t i o n l e v e l and m a r i t a l s t a t u s as w e l l as economic f a c t o r s such as t o t a l household income and s h e l t e r c o s t s . The age groupings were d e r i v e d somewhat a r b i t r a r i l y i n t h a t an age breakdown which y i e l d e d s u f f i c i e n t sample s i z e s when age was c r o s s - t a b u l a t e d with other soc io -economic v a r i a b l e s was r e q u i r e d . A sample s i z e of approximately 40 i s c o n s i d e r e d to be n e c e s s a r y for the sake of r e l i a b i l i t y . [ 2 8 ] The present a n a l y s i s adhered to t h i s ' r u l e of thumb'. To t h i s end, the acronym ICC o c c a s i o n a l l y appears i n the t a b l e s and f i g u r e s of the next three s e c t i o n s of t h i s c h a p t e r . ICC stands for ' i n s u f f i c i e n t c e l l count' and i n d i c a t e s that the sample s i z e i n a p a r t i c u l a r c e l l of a c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n was i n s u f f i c i e n t for the purpose of confidence 29 or r e l i a b i l i t y . A l t h o u g h the p e r c e n t a g e f i g u r e s are shown, the f i g u r e s r e p r e s e n t u n r e l i a b l e e s t i m a t e s and s h o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d a c c o r d i n g l y . They are p r e s e n t e d for i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes o n l y . The age breakdown was not chosen on the b a s i s of s t a t i s t i c a l c o n f i d e n c e e n t i r e l y . As much as was p o s s i b l e , c o r e need s i n g l e s were d i v i d e d i n t o age ranges which d i s t i n g u i s h e d them as young, m i d d l e - a g e d , a l m o s t - e l d e r l y and e l d e r l y - w i t h age 65 being the age a t which a p e r s o n i s c o n s i d e r e d e l d e r l y w i t h r e s p e c t to CMHC's s o c i a l h o u s i n g programs. Sample s i z e proved to be a c o n s t r a i n t r e s u l t i n g i n an i n a b i l i t y to c r o s s - t a b u l a t e s e v e r a l HIFE Survey v a r i a b l e s w i t h age due t o the l e v e l of d i s a g g r e g a t i o n i n v o l v e d - i e : the sample s i z e i n each of the c e l l s was s i m p l y too s m a l l . For t h i s r e a s o n , o t h e r v a r i a b l e s were u t i l i z e d such as t o t a l h o u s e h o l d income and r e n t . A l s o , where i t was not p o s s i b l e to d e r i v e a r e l i a b l e e s t i m a t e f o r one of the age groups c o m p r i s i n g the n o n - e l d e r l y , d a t a f o r the e n t i r e c a t e g o r y of n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s was used and e x t r a p o l a t i o n s were made. With r e s p e c t to u s i n g Census of Canada d a t a to i n c r e a s e sample s i z e ( t h e r e b y i n c r e a s i n g c e l l counts i n the c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s ) , i t must be s t r e s s e d t h a t CMHC d e r i v e s i t s core h o u s i n g need e s t i m a t e s from HIFE S u r v e y d a t a , not Census of Canada d a t a . The use of Census d a t a to a n a l y z e core h o u s i n g need per s e , t h e r e f o r e , was not p o s s i b l e as the p r e s e n t s t u d y assumed CMHC's core h o u s i n g need e s t i m a t e s which a r e d e r i v e d from a d i f f e r e n t d a t a s e t . I n s h o r t , as much cross - t a b u l a t i o n of H I F E v a r i a b l e s as was 30 c o n s i d e r e d p o s s i b l e ( i n view of sample s i z e c o n s t r a i n t s ) and r e l e v a n t was conducted i n order to assemble a meaningful and r e a s o n a b l y comprehensive p r o f i l e of core need s i n g l e s . I d e a l l y , a s o c i o - d e m o g r a p h i c comparison of core need and non-core need s i n g l e r e n t e r s , u s i n g Census of Canada d a t a , should accompany the i n t r a - c a t e g o r y core need s i n g l e s comparison c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s s t u d y . Such a comparison would s u r e l y broaden the context of the a n a l y s i s to be p r e s e n t e d . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , a comparison of core need and n o n - c o r e need s i n g l e r e n t e r s was not p o s s i b l e here as the l e v e l to which the census data had to be d i s a g g r e g a t e d to make i t comparable to the l e v e l of d i s a g g r e g a t i o n of the core need d a t a a n a l y z e d i n the p r e s e n t study i s not p u b l i s h e d by S t a t i s t i c s Canada and was t h e r e f o r e not a v a i l a b l e to the w r i t e r . A s e r i e s of s p e c i a l t a b u l a t i o n s of household c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s data c o l l e c t e d as p a r t of the 1 9 8 1 Census of Canada would have p r o v i d e d the l e v e l of d i s a g g r e g a t i o n n e c e s s a r y to undertake the above mentioned comparison. T h i s s e r i e s of s p e c i a l t a b u l a t i o n s , however, was beyond the r e s o u r c e s of the w r i t e r . Further i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h i s t o p i c could b e n e f i t g r e a t l y from the use of the s p e c i a l t a b u l a t i o n s t h a t are a v a i l a b l e on request from S t a t i s t i c s Canada. 2 . 4 S o c i o - e c o n o m i c P r o f i l e of the N e a r - E l d e r l y S i n g l e s between the ages of 50 and 64 are r e f e r r e d to here as the n e a r - e l d e r l y . As t h i s age group among core need s i n g l e s i s of p r i m a r y concern i n t h i s paper, t h e i r p r o f i l e i s presented and d i s c u s s e d s e p a r a t e l y p r i o r to being compared with the p r o f i l e s of the other three s e l e c t e d age groups. The s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n t h e i r p r o f i l e are d i s c u s s e d f i r s t fol lowed by t h e i r economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . To b e g i n , t h e r e were an est imated 6 1 , 1 9 0 core need s i n g l e s between the ages of 50 and 64 i n 1 9 8 2 . [ 2 9 ] The n e a r - e l d e r l y r e p r e s e n t 3 3 . 4 % of a l l n o n - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s and 2 0 . 3 % of a l l core need s i n g l e s . [ 3 0 ] L i k e a l l n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s , the n e a r - e l d e r l y l i v e a lone i n s e l f - c o n t a i n e d r e n t a l u n i t s . Given t h a t 8 7 . 2 % of a l l n o n - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s l i v e i n apartments , i t i s s a f e to assume t h a t the n e a r - e l d e r l y do so as w e l l for the most p a r t . [ 3 1 ] I n a d d i t i o n , o n l y a smal l p r o p o r t i o n ( 8 . 6 % ) of n o n - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s r e s i d e i n d w e l l i n g s that are i n need of major r e p a i r . [ 3 2 ] I t i s h i g h l y l i k e l y , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the n e a r - e l d e r l y l i v e i n p h y s i c a l l y adequate r e n t a l accommodation. With over 75% of a l l n o n - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s l i v i n g i n urban c e n t r e s exceeding 100,000 p o p u l a t i o n , i t i s a g a i n v e r y l i k e l y t h a t the n e a r - e l d e r l y w i t h i n t h i s core need group l i v e i n C a n a d a ' s l a r g e c i t i e s - census m e t r o p o l i t a n areas to be more p r e c i s e . [ 3 3 ] I t is evident that near-elderly core need singles, like the rest of the non-elderly, are predominantly apartment dwellers, in physically adequate accommodation (according to the core housing need definition discussed in Section" 2.1.2) and living in large urban centres. Furthermore, by definition, the near-elderly do not live in unsuitable (crowded) accommodation as there is only one person occupying the household. I n other words, there cannot be more than one person per room. Three other s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , which could be c r o s s - t a b u l a t e d with age ( i e : sample counts were s u f f i c i e n t i n most c a s e s ) , are i l l u s t r a t e d i n T a b l e I I . TABLE I I Gender, M a r i t a l S t a t u s and E d u c a t i o n L e v e l P r o f i l e of N e a r - E l d e r l y S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need V a r i a b l e Gender: M a r i t a l S t a t u s : E d u c a t i o n L e v e l : Male 32% Never Marr ied 29% Grade 10 or Less 69% S e p a r a t e d / D i v o r c e d / Widowed 68% Between Grades 1 1 and 13 28% Female 68% (100%) Married* 3 % - I C C * * (100%) U n i v e r s i t y Degree 3 % - I C C * * (100%) Note: These v a r i a b l e s are d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 2 . 2 of t h i s paper . * i n d i c a t e s n o n - l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n or the spouse i s s i m p l y a b s e n t . ** ICC - i n s u f f i c e n t c e l l count. 100% = 6 1 , 1 9 0 S o u r c e : 1982 HIFE Micro Data F i l e s . 33 As T a b l e I I shows, over two t h i r d s of the n e a r - e l d e r l y are women, over two t h i r d s are s e p a r a t e d , d i v o r c e d or widowed and over two t h i r d s have a c h i e v e d grade 10 or l e s s i n terms of formal e d u c a t i o n . Although sample s i z e c o n s t r a i n t s d i d not a l l o w these t h r e e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to be f u r t h e r c o r r e l a t e d , i t seems r e a s o n a b l e to propose, based on the above data at l e a s t , that i f t h e r e are t y p i c a l n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s , they would l i k e l y be female, p o o r l y educated i n terms of grade l e v e l a c h i e v e d and, with l e s s c e r t a i n t y , widowed. Without knowing the n e a r - e l d e r l y 1 s economic p r o f i l e , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to a s c e r t a i n the s i g i f i c a n c e of these predominant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n t h e i r s o c i a l p r o f i l e . Unweighted sample counts a l lowed the age v a r i a b l e to be c r o s s - t a b u l a t e d with s i x economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . These a r e : major source of income; employment s t a t u s ; employment t y p e ; employment d u r a t i o n ; y e a r l y income as at A p r i l ' 8 2 ; and, y e a r l y rent as at A p r i l ' 8 2 . The r e s u l t s of these c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n s are summarized i n T a b l e I I I . T a b l e I I I r e v e a l s a marked c o n s i s t e n c y with r e s p e c t to economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . For c l o s e to two t h i r d s of n e a r - e l d e r l y core s i n g l e s , government t r a n s f e r payments c o n s t i t u t e the major source of income. Three separate v a r i a b l e s c o n f i r m t h a t 68% of n e a r - e l d e r l y core s i n g l e s are not i n the labour f o r c e . Furthermore, 70% of t h i s group have a t o t a l y e a r l y income l e s s than $6,000 ( l e s s than $500/month) i n d i c a t i v e of the income l e v e l s a s o c i a t e d with f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e v i a S o c i a l A s s i s t a n c e , v e t e r a n s ' a l l o w a n c e s , widows' b e n e f i t s and the l i k e . 34 TABLE III Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s P r o f i l e of N e a r - E l d e r l y S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need Variable Major Source of Income: Employment Status: Type of Employment: Duration of Employment: Wages/ Salaries 28% Gov't Transfer Payments 60% Pr ivate Investments and Pensions 10%-ICC* Misc Income 2%-ICC* (100%) Employed 28% Full Time 24% 0 Weeks 68% Not in Unemployed Labour Force 4%-ICC* 68% (100%) Did Not Work Part Time in the Last Year 6%-ICC* 1-27 Weeks 6%-ICC* 68% (100%) 27-52 Weeks 26% (100%) $0-$4,500 $4,500-$6,000 $6,000-$8,500 $8,500+ ;$0-$375/mo) ($375-$500/mo) ($500-$708/mo) ($708+/mo) Yearly In-come as at April '82: Yearly Rent as at April '82: 41% 29% 20%-ICC* 10%- icc* (ioo%; $0-$2,100 $2,100-$3,300 ($0-$175/mo) ($175-$275/mo; 43% 33% $3,300+ ($275+/mo) 24% (100%) Note: These variables are described in Section 2.2 of this paper. * ICC - insufficient cell count. 100% = 61,190 Source: 1982 HIFE Micro Data Files. 35 The n e a r - e l d e r l y , of c o u r s e , do not q u a l i f y for Old Age S e c u r i t y themselves u n t i l they r e a c h age 65. The data i s a l s o i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h r e s p e c t to those who were employed: 28% were employed; f o r 28% of the n e a r - e l d e r l y , wages and s a l a r i e s r e p r e s e n t e d t h e i r major source of income; and, 24% worked f u l l t i m e . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , i t i s not p o s s i b l e to d e r i v e p r e c i s e r e n t - t o - i n c o m e r a t i o s for t h i s group or any of the other core need s i n g l e s groups on the b a s i s of these data as both income and r e n t data had to be aggregated i n t o ranges for reasons of sample s i z e and other measurement c o n s t r a i n t s . I t i s known, however, t h a t i n order to be i n core housing need, these households must be paying more than 30% of t h e i r gross income for adequate and s u i t a b l e accommodation or are unable to secure same without spending more than 30% of gross income. T a b l e I I I shows a f a i r l y c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n for the n e a r - e l d e r l y r e g a r d i n g rent and income. To i l l u s t r a t e , 41% of the n e a r - e l d e r l y are i n the lowest income category while 43% are w i t h i n the lowest rent c a t e g o r y . A s i m i l a r p r o p o r t i o n of them are i n the second income and rent c a t e g o r i e s (29% and 33%, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , and so on through the remaining income and rent c a t e g o r i e s . I n a d d i t i o n , 70% of the n e a r - e l d e r l y are i n the two lowest income c a t e g o r i e s and 76% of them are i n the two lowest rent c a t e g o r i e s . I t cannot be s a i d c o n c l u s i v e l y , however, that t h i s apparent c o n s i s t e n c y i n d i c a t e s a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p . An i n d i v i d u a l i n 36 the h i g h e s t income c a t e g o r y may w e l l be i n c l u d e d i n the lowest rent c a t e g o r y , and v i c e v e r s a . F a i r l y strong evidence i n support of a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between income and r e n t does emerge, however, when rent and income data for a l l n o n - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s i s c r o s s - t a b u l a t e d . The r e s u l t s of t h i s c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n are p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e I V . TABLE IV R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Income and Rent L e v e l s for N o n - E l d e r l y S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need Y E A R L Y R E N T * $ 0 - $ 2 , 1 0 0 $ 2 , 1 0 0 - $ 3 , 3 0 0 $ 3 , 3 0 0 + ( $ 0 - $ 1 7 5 / m o ) ( $ 1 7 5 - $ 2 7 5 / m o ) ($275+/mo) Y* $ 0 - $ 4 , 5 0 0 E ( $ 0 - $ 3 7 5 / m o ) 66% 31% 4 % - I C C * * (100%) A R L $ 4 , 5 0 0 - $ 6 , 0 0 0 Y ( $ 3 7 5 - $ 5 0 0 / m o ) 35% 41% 2 4 % - I C C * * (100%) I N $ 6 , 0 0 0 - $ 8 , 5 0 0 C ($500-$708/mo) 7 % - I C C * * 60% 33% (100%) 0 M E $ 8 , 5 0 0 + ($708+/mo) 2 % - I C C * * 24% 74% (100%) Note: These v a r i a b l e s are d e s c r i b e d in S e c t i o n 2 . 2 of t h i s paper . * as at A p r i l 1 9 8 2 . ** ICC - i n s u f f i c i e n t c e l l count. 100% = 1 8 3 , 1 9 0 S o u r c e : 1982 HIFE Micro Data F i l e s . 37 T a b l e I V shows t h a t the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n (66%) of those i n the lowest income c a t e g o r y are i n the lowest rent c a t e g o r y . The l a r g e s t ( 4 1 % and 60%, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) p r o p o r t i o n of those i n the next two h i g h e s t income c a t e g o r i e s are i n the next h i g h e s t rent c a t e g o r y . F i n a l l y , the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n (74%) of those i n the h i g h e s t income c a t e g o r y are i n the h i g h e s t rent c a t e g o r y . Assuming, t h e n , t h a t there i s a f a i r l y strong p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between income and rent l e v e l s , i t i s p o s s i b l e to c a l c u l a t e a r e n t - t o - i n c o m e r a t i o , a l b e i t tenuous, for the income/rent c a t e g o r i e s shown i n T a b l e I I I by t a k i n g the midpoint of the r e n t range and d i v i d i n g i t by the midpoint of the income range. T h i s procedure and the r e s u l t i n g r e n t - t o - i n c o m e r a t i o s are p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e V. Although h y p o t h e t i c a l , the r e n t - t o - i n c o m e r a t i o s shown i n T a b l e V i n d i c a t e t h a t i n a d d i t i o n to the m a j o r i t y ( 8 5 - 9 0 % ) of these households h a v i n g income below 1982 low income c u t - o f f s [ 3 4 ] , they may be paying e x c e s s i v e amounts of a l r e a d y l i m i t e d incomes for s h e l t e r as w e l l . S e t t i n g a s i d e these h y p o t h e t i c a l r a t i o s , even an expenditure r a t e of 30% for s h e l t e r , which p l a c e s these households i n core housing need, i s l i k e l y to be an undue f i n a n c i a l burden for many of them. I n other words, the amount of income i n a b s o l u t e terms becomes c r i t i c a l i n the case of the n e a r - e l d e r l y . As noted e a r l i e r , 70% of n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s r e p o r t a y e a r l y income of l e s s than $ 6 , 0 0 0 . S ince income ranges from $ 0 - $ 6 , 0 0 0 , the mean and median income v a l u e s a r e , of c o u r s e , 38 TABLE VIII H y p o t h e t i c a l R e n t / i n c o m e R a t i o s for Three R e n t / i n c o m e C a t e g o r i e s , N e a r - E l d e r l y S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need Rent and Income Ranges Y e a r l y Income - m i d p o i n t of range Y e a r l y Rent - m i d p o i n t of range $ 0 - $ 4 , 5 0 0 $ 2 , 2 5 0 $0-$ 2,100 $ 1 , 0 5 0 $ 4 , 5 0 0 - $ 6 , 0 0 0 $ 5 , 2 5 0 $ 2 , 1 0 0 - $ 3 , 3 0 0 $ 2 , 7 0 0 $6,000+* $ 7 , 5 0 0 * * $ 3 , 3 0 0 + $ 3 , 6 0 0 * * * M i d p o i n t f o r R e n t / M i d p o i n t f o r Income 0 . 4 6 0 . 5 1 0 . 4 8 *The two h i g h e s t income ranges shown i n T a b l e I I have been combined. A s u f f i c i e n t c e l l count now e x i s t s and 30% of the n e a r - e l d e r l y a r e i n t h i s c e l l . * * r e p r e s e n t s an e s t i m a t e d median amount as two income ranges have been combined and t h e r e i s no upper l i m i t . ***an e s t i m a t e d median amount g i v e n the l a c k of an upper l i m i t . much lower than $ 6 , 0 0 0 . Assuming the b e s t - c a s e s c e n a r i o ( i e : an income of $ 6 , 0 0 0 and a 30% e x p e n d i t u r e r a t e for s h e l t e r ) , $ 4 , 2 0 0 i s a v a i l a b l e to t h i s household for a l l remaining n o n - h o u s i n g e x p e n d i t u r e s for the year ( $ 3 5 0 / m o n t h ) . On the rent s i d e , 30% of a $ 6 , 0 0 0 income means t h a t $ 1 , 8 0 0 y e a r l y i s a l l o c a t e d for r e n t . On an monthly b a s i s , r e n t payments would be $ 1 5 0 . The r e n t a l s t o c k at $ 1 5 0 monthly i s not l i k e l y to be h i g h q u a l i t y b e a r i n g i n 39 mind t h a t the v a s t m a j o r i t y of these households are l o c a t e d i n l a r g e urban c e n t r e s and t h a t , by d e f i n i t i o n , they occupy p r i v a t e d w e l l i n g s - i e : not rooming houses or lodge f a c i l i t i e s . I t i s important to note as w e l l that t h i s end of the r e n t a l stock i s b e i n g s e r i o u s l y t h r e a t e n e d by r e s i d e n t i a l c o n v e r s i o n , g e n t r i f i c a t i o n and p r e s s u r e s from other land u s e s . [ 3 5 ] Moreover, the low end of the r e n t a l stock i s d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y represented i n l o s s e s due to d e m o l i t i o n . [ 3 6 ] The above r e p r e s e n t s the b e s t - c a s e s c e n a r i o for 70% of n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s . In r e a l i t y , the s c e n a r i o i s l i k e l y somewhat below t h i s ' i d e a l ' for many of these h o u s e h o l d s . When the economic and s o c i a l p r o f i l e s for the n e a r - e l d e r l y are combined, i t appears t h a t r e a l i t y for many of these households i s u n l i k e l y to change. R e c a l l i n g the ' t y p i c a l ' n e a r - e l d e r l y s i n g l e i n core housing need i s p o o r l y educated, and that over two t h i r d s of these i n d i v i d u a l s are not i n the labour force and whose major source of income i s l a r g e l y f i x e d ( i e : government t r a n s f e r payments), i t appears u n l i k e l y that many of these households w i l l see any improvement e i t h e r i n t h e i r income or rent s i t u a t i o n . The q u e s t i o n i s : are the n e a r - e l d e r l y l i k e other age groups w i t h i n the s i n g l e - p e r s o n core need category? Does t h e i r s o c i o - e c o n o m i c p r o f i l e show them to be worse-off as compared to these other age groups? The socio-economic p r o f i l e s of the three other age groups e s t a b l i s h e d for t h i s a n a l y s i s are presented and compared with the n e a r - e l d e r l y i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n i n an attempt to answer these q u e s t i o n s . 40 2 . 5 N e a r - E l d e r l y Versus Other Core Need S i n g l e s i n S e l e c t e d Age Groups S i n g l e - p e r s o n households i n core housing need have been d i v i d e d i n t o four groups: under age 30; aged 3 0 - 4 9 ; aged 5 0 - 6 4 ; and, 65 y e a r s and o l d e r . These age c a t e g o r i e s , as p r e v i o u s l y mentioned, d i s t i n g u i s h core need s i n g l e s as young, m i d d l e - a g e d , n e a r - e l d e r l y and e l d e r l y . Before b r i n g i n g a l l four groups t o g e t h e r , the s o c i o - e c o n o m i c p r o f i l e s of the young, middle -aged and e l d e r l y are p r e s e n t e d and d i s c u s s e d s e p a r a t e l y . To answer the q u e s t i o n concerning which group i s the w o r s t - o f f , a l l age groups are compared at the end. Beginning with those under the age of 30, there were an e s t i m a t e d 7 3 , 7 7 0 young core need s i n g l e s i n 1982 r e p r e s e n t i n g 4 0 . 2 % of a l l n o n - e l d e r l y core s i n g l e s and 24.5% of a l l core need s i n g l e s . [ 3 7 ] Based on the data for a l l n o n - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s , the young, as i s the case with the n e a r - e l d e r l y , are e s s e n t i a l l y apartment d w e l l e r s l i v i n g i n Canada's l a r g e c i t i e s and occupying p h y s i c a l l y adequate and uncrowded accommodation a c c o r d i n g to the d e f i n i t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d i n the core need c o n c e p t . T h e i r s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p r o f i l e with r e s p e c t to gender, m a r i t a l s t a t u s and l e v e l of educat ion i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table V I . According to the d a t a , the young are almost e q u a l l y d i v i d e d i n terms of gender, have never been married with over two t h i r d s h a v i n g a c h i e v e d between grades 1 1 and 13 with r e s p e c t to formal e d u c a t i o n . In f a c t , one f i f t h of young core need s i n g l e s have 41 TABLE VI Gender, M a r i t a l S t a t u s and E d u c a t i o n L e v e l P r o f i l e of Young S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need Variable Male Female Gender: 44i 56% (100%) Never Marr ied S e p a r a t e d / D i v o r c e d / Widowed Married* M a r i t a l S t a t u s : 88% 5 % - I C C * * 7 % - I C C * * (100%) Grade 10 Between Grades U n i v e r s i t y or Less 1 1 and 1 3 Degree E d u c a t i o n L e v e l : 15% 66% 19% (100%) Note: These v a r i a b l e s are d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 2 . 2 of t h i s paper . * i n d i c a t e s n o n - l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n or the spouse i s s imply a b s e n t . ** ICC - i n s u f f i c i e n t c e l l count. - 100% = 73 , 770 Source: 1982 HIFE Micro Data F i l e s . a c h i e v e d a u n i v e r s i t y degree. The economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p r o f i l e of young core need s i n g l e s , which c o n s i s t s of those v a r i a b l e s that could be c r o s s - t a b u l a t e d with age and y i e l d r e l i a b l e e s t i m a t e s , i s o u t l i n e d i n Table V I I . I t i s c l e a r from the data that most young 42 TABLE VII Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s P r o f i l e of Young S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need Variable Major Source of Income: Employment Status: Wages/ Salaries Gov't Transfer Payments Pr ivate Investments and Pensions 81% 15% 1%-ICC* Misc Income 3%-ICC* (100%) Employed 67% Full Time Unemployed 14%-ICC* Part Time Not in Labour Force 19% (100%) Did Not Work in the Last Year Type of Employment: Duration of Employment: 73% 0 Weeks 8%-ICC* 19% 1-27 Weeks 29% 8%-ICC* (100%) 27-52 Weeks 63% ( 1 0 0 % ) $0-$4,500 $4,500-$6,000 $6,000-$8, 500 $8,500+ ;$0-$375/mo) ($375-$500/mo) ($500-$708/mo) ($708+/mo) Yearly In-come as at April '82: Yearly Rent as at April '82: 21% $0-$2,100 ($0-$175/mo) 16% 18% 31% $2,100-$3,300 ($175-$275/mo) 30% (100%) 46% $3,300+ ($275+/mo] 38% (ioo%; Note: These variables are described in Section 2.2 of this paper, * ICC - insufficient cell count. 100% = 73,770 Source: 1982 HIFE Micro Data Files. 43 core need s i n g l e s r e c e i v e t h e i r income from employment. The m a j o r i t y of them are employed, working f u l l time and working most o f , i f not the e n t i r e y e a r . With r e s p e c t to income and r e n t , three f i f t h s ( 6 1 % ) f a l l w i t h i n the two h i g h e s t income c a t e g o r i e s ( i e : more than $6,000 y e a r l y income) whi le a s i m i l a r p r o p o r t i o n (62%) are w i t h i n the lowest two r e n t c a t e g o r i e s . These data appear to suggest that the young w i t h i n the s i n g l e s core need c a t e g o r y are l i k e l y to have more f a v o u r a b l e r e n t - t o - i n c o m e r a t i o s as compared to the n e a r - e l d e r l y . Although a somewhat s m a l l e r p r o p o r t i o n of the young are i n the lowest two rent c a t e g o r i e s as compared to the n e a r - e l d e r l y (62% v e r s u s 7 6 % ) , a s u b s t a n t i a l l y g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of the young are i n the two h i g h e s t income c a t e g o r i e s compared to the n e a r - e l d e r l y (61% v e r s u s 3 0 % ) . I n S e c t i o n 2 . 4 of t h i s paper, i t was argued that a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p appears to e x i s t between income and rent for a l l n o n - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s on the b a s i s of a c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n i n v o l v i n g these two v a r i a b l e s . In other words, the aggregated d a t a shows t h a t rent seems to i n c r e a s e with income. While i t i s not p o s s i b l e to make a c o n c l u s i v e statement us ing the data c o n t a i n e d i n T a b l e V I I , i t i s suggested that the young appear to be somewhat of an e x c e p t i o n . I t i s not apparent t h a t i n c r e a s e s i n rent are as c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d with i n c r e a s e s i n income for the young. I f , as the data i m p l i e s , the young have a more favourable r e n t - t o - i n c o m e r e l a t i o n s h i p , i t would mean that the young, 44 compared to the n e a r - e l d e r l y , have more income a v a i l a b l e to them for non-housing e x p e n d i t u r e s . T h e i r economic p r o f i l e shows them as being employed and f a r l e s s dependent on f i x e d income sources i n the form of government t r a n s f e r payments. Moreover, i t i s e v i d e n t from t h e i r s o c i a l p r o f i l e t h a t they are s u b s t a n t i a l l y more educated than the n e a r - e l d e r l y with 19% of them having a c h i e v e d a u n i v e r s i t y degree. On the b a s i s of these f a c t o r s i n t h e i r p r o f i l e , i t seems r e a s o n a b l e to propose t h a t the m a j o r i t y of young core need s i n g l e s w i l l be a b l e to at l e a s t m a i n t a i n t h e i r more f a v o u r a b l e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i f not improve upon them. Moving to those between the ages of 30 and 49, there were an e s t i m a t e d 4 8 , 2 3 0 middle -aged core need s i n g l e s i n 1982 compris ing 2 6 . 3 % of a l l n o n - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s and 1 6 . 0 % of a l l core need s i n g l e s . [ 3 8 ] L i k e the young and n e a r - e l d e r l y , the b u l k of m i d d l e - a g e d core need s i n g l e s l i v e i n p h y s i c a l l y adequate and s u i t a b l e apartments i n urban c e n t r e s with a p o p u l a t i o n exceeding 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . I n regard to gender, m a r i t a l s t a t u s and e d u c a t i o n l e v e l , m i d d l e - a g e d cote need s i n g l e s are c h a r a c t e r i z e d as i l l u s t r a t e d i n T a b l e V I I I . As T a b l e V I I I shows, there are more males than females among middle -aged core need s i n g l e s , u n l i k e any other age group i n the s i n g l e - p e r s o n c a t e g o r y . T h i s may be p a r t i a l l y e x p l a i n e d by the f a c t t h a t the m a j o r i t y of the middle-aged have never marr ied. I t may be t h a t t h i s group c o n s i s t s of -a s u b s t a n t i a l p r o p o r t i o n of men who have never married for v a r i o u s r e a s o n s . I t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e t h a t females between the ages of 30 and 49 who were 45 TABLE VIII Gender, M a r i t a l S t a t u s and E d u c a t i o n L e v e l P r o f i l e of Middle-Aged S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need V a r i a b l e Male Female Gender: 60% 40% (100%) S e p a r a t e d / Never D i v o r c e d / Marr ied Widowed Married* M a r i t a l S t a t u s : 68% 29% 3 % - I C C * * (100%) Grade 10 Between Grades U n i v e r s i t y or Less 1 1 and 13 Degree E d u c a t i o n L e v e l : 46% 44% 1 0 % - I C C * * (100%) Note: These v a r i a b l e s are d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 2 . 2 of t h i s paper . * i n d i c a t e s n o n - l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n or the spouse i s s imple a b s e n t . ** ICC - i n s u f f i c i e n t c e l l count. 100% = 48,230 S o u r c e : 1982 HIFE Micro Data F i l e s . marr ied and are now e i t h e r separated or d i v o r c e d , are s t i l l l i v i n g with t h e i r c h i l d r e n and would not be i n c l u d e d i n the s i n g l e - p e r s o n c a t e g o r y . Moreover, n e a r - e l d e r l y separated, d i v o r c e d or widowed women are l e s s l i k e l y to have t h e i r c h i l d r e n 46 l i v i n g with them at t h a t stage i n t h e i r l i v e s . Table V I I I a l s o shows t h a t the m i d d l e - a g e d have achieved a somewhat h i g h e r l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n than the n e a r - e l d e r l y but l e s s than the young. S t i l l , c l o s e to h a l f of middle -aged core need s i n g l e s have o n l y a c h i e v e d a maximum of grade 10 i n terms of formal e d u c a t i o n . The economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p r o f i l e of middle-aged core need s i n g l e s i s shown i n T a b l e I X . I t should be noted that the s m a l l sample s i z e for t h i s group u n f o r t u n a t e l y r e s u l t e d i n i n s u f f i c i e n t c e l l counts with r e s p e c t to a number of v a r i a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , e s p e c i a l l y regarding income l e v e l s . Although the p e r c e n t a g e f i g u r e s are presented for each v a r i a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p , i n many c a s e s the f i g u r e s are u n r e l i a b l e and should be i n t e r p r e t e d with c a u t i o n . As shown i n T a b l e IX , i t appears that middle-aged core need s i n g l e s f a l l somewhere i n between the young and n e a r - e l d e r l y . The m i d d l e - a g e d group i s s p l i t almost e q u a l l y between w a g e s / s a l a r i e s and government t r a n s f e r payments in terms of major source of income p l a c i n g them i n between the young and the n e a r - e l d e r l y . A g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of them are employed, working f u l l t ime for most of the year as compared to the n e a r - e l d e r l y but a lower p r o p o r t i o n show these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s compared to the young. As f a r as income and rent l e v e l s are concerned, the same ' i n between' c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n i s ev ident . . Combining income ranges to overcome the problem of i n s u f f i c i e n t c e l l counts , 56% of middle -aged core need s i n g l e s have y e a r l y incomes below $6,000 47 TABLE XII Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s P r o f i l e of Middle-Aged S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need Variable Wages/ Salaries Gov't Transfer Payments Major Source of Income: Employment Status: Type of Employment: Duration of Employment: 52% 47% Pr ivate Investments and Pensions 1%-ICC* Misc Income 0% ( 1 0 0 % ) Employed 46% Full Time 55% 0 Weeks 33% Not in Unemployed Labour Force 21%-ICC* 33% (100%) Did Not Work Part Time in the Last Year 12%-ICC* 1-2 7 Weeks 17%-ICC* 33% (100%) 27-52 Weeks 50% ( 1 0 0 % ) $0-$4,500 $4,5 00-$6,000 $6,000-$8, 500 $8,500+ ($0-$375/mo) ($375-$500/mo) ($500-$708/mo) ($708+/mo) Yearly In-come as at April "82: Yearly Rent as at April '82: 38% 18%-ICC* 27%-ICC* 17%-ICC* (100%) $0-$2,100 $2,100-$3,300 ($0-$175/mo) ($175-$275/mo] 36% 37% $3,300+ ($275+/mo] 27% (100%) Note: These variables are described in Section 2.2 of this paper. * ICC - insufficient cell count. 100% = 48,230 Source: 1982 HIFE Micro Data Files. 48 with 44% h a v i n g a y e a r l y income exceeding t h i s f i g u r e . T h i r t y n i n e per cent of the young have y e a r l y incomes below $6,000 with 61% above t h i s f i g u r e . For the n e a r - e l d e r l y , 70% f a l l below $ 6 , 0 0 0 y e a r l y income, 30% are above. Regarding r e n t , the m i d d l e - a g e d a g a i n f a l l somewhere i n between the young and n e a r - e l d e r l y . I n l i g h t of the above, i t appears l i k e l y that middle-aged core need s i n g l e s have somewhat more f a v o u r a b l e r e n t - t o - i n c o m e r a t i o s as compared to the near e l d e r l y and are somewhat w o r s e - o f f i n t h i s r e g a r d v i s a v i s the young. As to the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between income and rent l e v e l s , there i s l i k e l y to be a more p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p e v i d e n t for the middle -aged v e r s u s the young and a l e s s p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p v i s a v i s the n e a r - e l d e r l y . When t h e i r economic and s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are combined, i t i s argued t h a t middle-aged core need s i n g l e s are more l i k e l y to be b e t t e r - o f f than the n e a r - e l d e r l y i n terms of at l e a s t m a i n t a i n i n g t h e i r present c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i f not being more a b l e to improve them, and w o r s e - o f f i n t h i s regard v i s a v i s t h e i r younger c o u n t e r p a r t s . I n view of the data presented thus f a r , the three age groups compris ing n o n - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s are d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e i n terms of t h e i r socio -economic p r o f i l e s and, on t h i s b a s i s , i t i s argued t h a t n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s are w o r s e - o f f r e g a r d i n g a l l of the socio -economic - c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s examined as compared to the m i d d l e - a g e d and, with more c e r t a i n t y , the young. The e l d e r l y are p r o f i l e d next . 49 I n 1 9 8 2 , t h e r e were an est imated 1 1 7 , 5 9 0 e l d e r l y s i n g l e - p e r s o n households i n core housing need: as a group, the e l d e r l y make up 3 9 . 1 % of a l l core need s i n g l e s . [ 3 9 ] The e l d e r l y are almost e q u a l l y s p l i t between two age groups. F i f t y two per cent are between the ages of 65 and 74 and 48% are 75 y e a r s of age or o l d e r . [40] L i k e n o n - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s , the v a s t m a j o r i t y of the e l d e r l y l i v e i n p h y s i c a l l y adequate and s u i t a b l e apartments , a c c o r d i n g to core housing need d e f i n t i o n s . T h e i r r e s i d e n c y p a t t e r n i n terms of l o c a t i o n i s s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t , however. The 1982 HIFE Micro Data F i l e s show t h a t a somewhat s m a l l e r p r o p o r t i o n of e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s are found i n urban c e n t r e s over 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 p o p u l a t i o n a l though c l o s e to t h r e e q u a r t e r s of them do l i v e i n C a n a d a ' s l a r g e c i t i e s . Twelve per cent of the e l d e r l y r e s i d e i n urban c e n t r e s with a p o p u l a t i o n between 30,000 and 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 with 15% l o c a t e d i n urban c e n t r e s under 30, 000 p o p u l a t i o n . I t i s s a f e to say, however, that the b u l k of e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s are s i m i l a r to n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s i n terms of the q u a l i t y and type of t h e i r accommodation as w e l l as t h e i r p l a c e of r e s i d e n c y . The remaining elements i n t h e i r s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p r o f i l e are i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table X. On the b a s i s of the d a t a , e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s can be g e n e r a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d , with a f a i r degree of c e r t a i n t y , as p o o r l y educated widows. T h e i r s o c i a l p r o f i l e i n terms of education' l e v e l i s v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l to t h a t of the n e a r - e l d e r l y . For both the e l d e r l y and n e a r - e l d e r l y , approximately two t h i r d s have achieved grade 10 or 50 TABLE VI Gender, M a r i t a l S t a t u s and Educat ion L e v e l P r o f i l e of E l d e r l y S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need Variable Male Female Gender: 19% 81% (100%) Never Marr ied S e p a r a t e d / D i v o r c e d / Widowed Married* M a r i t a l S t a t u s : 16% 82' 2 % - I C C * * (100%) Grade 10 or Less Between Grades 1 1 and 13 U n i v e r s i t y Degree E d u c a t i o n L e v e l : 65% 33% 2 % - I C C * * (100%) Note: These v a r i a b l e s are d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 2 . 2 of t h i s p a p e r . * i n d i c a t e s n o n - l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n or the spouse i s s imply absent ** ICC - i n s u f f i c i e n t c e l l count. 100% = 1 1 7 , 5 9 0 Source: 1982 HIFE Micro Data F i l e s . l e s s . Demographic data concerning the e l d e r l y p o p u l a t i o n as a whole i s c o n s i s t e n t with the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s observed h e r e . [ 4 1 ] I t i s important to note, however, that the n e a r - e l d e r l y , in a d d i t i o n to being as p o o r l y educated as the e l d e r l y , are a l s o 5 1 p r e d o m i n a n t l y female w i t h a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c i d e n c e of widowhood b e i n g l i k e l y - c e r t a i n l y as compared to the m i d d l e - a g e d and young core need s i n g l e s . I n s h o r t , the n e a r - e l d e r l y are most l i k e the e l d e r l y , w i t h r e s p e c t to t h e i r s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p r o f i l e , and are v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l i n most r e s p e c t s . The economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p r o f i l e of e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n T a b l e X I . I n regard to major sources of income and the employment v a r i a b l e s , the d a t a i n T a b l e X I c o n f i r m s the o b v i o u s for t h i s group. V i r t u a l l y a l l e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s do not work and depend almost e x c l u s i v e l y on f i x e d income e i t h e r i n the form of government t r a n s f e r payments ( p u b l i c p e n s i o n s and income support) or through p r i v a t e investments and p e n s i o n s . I t i s r e a s o n a b l y s a f e to assume t h a t Old Age S e c u r i t y and Guaranteed Income Supplement payments r e p r e s e n t t h e i r p r i n c i p a l , i f not t h e i r o n l y source of income. For some, however, Old Age S e c u r i t y payments (which are guaranteed to anyone 65 y e a r s of age or o l d e r p r o v i d e d they meet r e s i d e n c y r e q u i r e m e n t s ) mean a secondary source of income as 14% of e l d e r l y c o r e need s i n g l e s r e c e i v e most of t h e i r income from p r i v a t e i n v e s t m e n t s and p e n s i o n s . I n terms of income and r e n t , the e l d e r l y are v e r y s i m i l a r to young core need s i n g l e s i n t h a t 60% are w i t h i n the two h i g h e s t income c a t e g o r i e s with 68% being i n the two lowest rent r a n g e s . S i x t y one per cent of the young have y e a r l y incomes exceeding $6,000 w i t h 62% of them w i t h i n the two lowest r e n t r a n g e s . C o n v e r s e l y , 70% of near - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s have a y e a r l y 52 TABLE VII Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s P r o f i l e of E l d e r l y S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need Variable Wages/ Salar ies Gov't Transfer Payments Pr ivate Investments and Pensions Major Source of Income: Employment Status: Type of Employment: Duration of Employment: 1%-ICC* 84% Employed 2%-ICC* Full Time 0% 0 Weeks 98% 14% Unemployed 0% Pa r t T i me 2%-ICC* 1-27 Weeks 1%-ICC* Misc Income 1%-ICC* (100%) Not in Labour Force 98% (100%) Did Not Work in the Last Year 98% (100%) 2 7-52 Weeks 1%-ICC* (100%) $0-$4,5 00 $4,500-$6,000 $6, 000-$8, 500 $8,500+ ($0-$375/mo) ($375-$500/mo) ($500-$708/mo) ($708+/mo] Yearly In-come as at April '82: Yearly Rent as at April '82: 11% 29% .45% 15% (100%) $0-$2,100 $2,100-?3, 300 ($0-$175/mo) ($175-$275/mo) 29% 39% $3,300+ ($275+/mo) 32% (100%) Note: These variables are described in Section 2.2 of this paper. * ICC - insufficient cell count. 100% = 117,590 Source: 1982 HIFE Micro Data Files. 53 income l e s s than $ 6 , 0 0 0 ( i e : are i n the two lowest income c a t e g o r i e s ) w i t h 57% i n the two h i g h e s t rent r a n g e s . G i v e n the r e n t - t o - i n c o m e r e l a t i o n s h i p for the e l d e r l y d i s c u s s e d above, t h e r e should be data to suggest t h a t a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s l e s s l i k e l y to e x i s t i n t h e i r case as compared to the n e a r - e l d e r l y i n p a r t i c u l a r and the n o n - e l d e r l y i n g e n e r a l , w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of the young as p r e s e n t e d e a r l i e r . Table X I I shows the r e s u l t s of the c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n i n v o l v i n g r e n t and income i n r e g a r d to e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s . A l t h o u g h the d a t a i n T a b l e X I I does i n d i c a t e t h a t a s l i g h t l y l e s s p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between income and rent e x i s t s for the e l d e r l y as compared to the n o n - e l d e r l y (see T a b l e I V ) , i t does appear t h a t r e n t tends to i n c r e a s e i n c o n j u n c t i o n with i n c r e a s e s i n income. The f a c t r e m a i n s , however, t h a t the m a j o r i t y of e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s , l i k e the young, have y e a r l y incomes exceeding $ 6 , 0 0 0 w i t h 68% of them w i t h i n the two lowest r e n t c a t e g o r i e s , i m p l y i n g a t l e a s t as f a v o u r a b l e a r e n t - t o - i n c o m e r e l a t i o n s h i p as the young appear to e n j o y . B e a r i n g i n mind t h a t these d a t a o n l y permit informed s p e c u l a t i o n r e g a r d i n g rent - to- income r e l a t i o n s h i p s , two f a c t o r s seem to be at work h e r e . F i r s t of a l l , a more f a v o u r a b l e r e n t - t o - i n c o m e r e l a t i o n s h i p may e x i s t for the e l d e r l y and young, as compared to the near - e l d e r l y p a r t i c u l a r l y (the middle -aged to a l e s s o r e x t e n t ) , because a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of the young and e l d e r l y have h i g h e r y e a r l y incomes - d e s p i t e the tendancy for them to pay more for r e n t . I n other words, i n s p i t e of evidence 54 TABLE XII R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Income and Rent L e v e l s for E l d e r l y S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need Y E A R L Y R E N T * Y* $ 0 - $ 4 , 5 0 0 E ( $ 0 - $ 3 7 5 / m o ) A R L $ 4 , 5 0 0 - $ 6 , 0 0 0 Y ( $ 3 7 5 - $ 5 0 0 / m o ) I N $ 6 , 0 0 0 - $ 8 , 5 0 0 C ($500-$708/mo) 0 M E $ 8 , 5 0 0 + ($708+/mo) $0-$2,100 ( $ 0 - $ 1 7 5 / m o ) 72% 35% 1 7 % - I C C * * 6 % - I C C * * $ 2 , 1 0 0 - $ 3 , 3 0 0 ($ 1 7 5 - $ 275/mo) 2 3 % - I C C * * 46% 47% 22% $ 3 , 3 0 0 + ($275+,/mo) 5 % - I C C * * (100%) 1 9 % - I C C * * (100%) 36% (100%) 72% (100%) Note: These v a r i a b l e s are d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 2 . 2 of t h i s p a p e r . * as at A p r i l 1 9 8 2 . ** ICC - i n s u f f i c i e n t c e l l count. 100% = 1 1 7 , 5 9 0 Source: 1982 HIFE Micro Data F i l e s . t o suggest t h a t with more income the e l d e r l y and young pay more for r e n t , t h e i r incomes may be l a r g e enough i n the two h i g h e s t income ranges so t h a t d e s p i t e paying more for r e n t , h igher s h e l t e r c o s t s absorb l e s s of t h e i r income. The second f a c t o r concerns those at the other end of the s c a l e . Notwithstanding the f a c t that a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p 55 seems to e x i s t r e g a r d i n g income and rent for the n e a r - e l d e r l y , t h e i r low income, i n a b s o l u t e terms, combined with a s c a r c i t y of p h y s i c a l l y adequate accommodation p r i c e d below $175/month, c o u l d account for t h e i r p o s t u l a t e d l e s s f a v o u r a b l e r e n t - t o - i n c o m e r e l a t i o n s h i p . I n other words, t h e i r expenditure r a t e for s h e l t e r might be c o m p a r a t i v e l y h i g h , even though t h e i r s h e l t e r c o s t s are r e l a t i v e l y low, due to a s c a r c i t y of p h y s i c a l l y adequate accommodation at a p r i c e t h a t would absorb 30% of t h e i r income or l e s s . The e l d e r l y and n e a r - e l d e r l y are compared f u r t h e r i n the l a s t s e c t i o n of t h i s c h a p t e r . To conclude the d i s c u s s i o n concerning the e l d e r l y ' s s o c i o - e c o n o m i c p r o f i l e , i t i s obvious t h a t the e l d e r l y , u n l i k e the young, are unable or u n l i k e l y to improve t h e i r c u r r e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Although t h e i r incomes are e s s e n t i a l l y f i x e d , i t i s r e a s o n a b l e to s u g g e s t , however, that they w i l l l i k e l y be a b l e to at l e a s t m a i n t a i n t h e i r c o m p a r a t i v e l y favourable p o s i t i o n as t h e i r major income sources a r e , at the minimum, apt to keep pace with r i s e s i n the c o s t of l i v i n g . To conclude t h i s s e c t i o n of the c h a p t e r , the preceding data and a n a l y s i s i s now brought together i n an attempt to conf irm, with as much c e r t a i n t y as the data p e r m i t s , which of these age groups on the b a s i s of t h e i r socio-economic p r o f i l e i s the w o r s t - o f f among a l l s i n g l e - p e r s o n households i n core housing need. Much of the preceding d i s c u s s i o n i n t h i s chapter has i n v o l v e d comparing the n e a r - e l d e r l y with the other s i n g l e s age 56 g r o u p s . E a r l i e r , i t was proposed that the n e a r - e l d e r l y are the w o r s t - o f f among n o n - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s ( a g a i n , on the b a s i s of t h e i r s o c i o - e c o n o m i c p r o f i l e ) . With r e s p e c t to most a s p e c t s of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p r o f i l e s , the n e a r - e l d e r l y and e l d e r l y appear to be the most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y s i m i l a r age groups w i t h i n the core need s i n g l e s c a t e g o r y . I n terms of the c r u c i a l elements of rent and income, however, the e l d e r l y and n e a r - e l d e r l y are markedly d i s s i m i l a r . I t i s the young and the e l d e r l y i n f a c t t h a t appear to have the most i n common i n regard to these e s s e n t i a l e lements. With the young argued to be the b e s t - o f f among n o n - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s on the b a s i s of t h e i r soc io -economic p r o f i l e , and i n view of the s i m i l a r i t y between the young and e l d e r l y r e g a r d i n g the key s o c i o - e c o n o m i c components of income and r e n t , i t f o l l o w s t h a t the n e a r - e l d e r l y , being the w o r s t - o f f among n o n - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s , are t h e r e f o r e the w o r s t - o f f among a l l core need s i n g l e s , i n c l u d i n g the e l d e r l y . Support for t h i s l i n e of r e a s o n i n g , i n g r a p h i c form, i s p r o v i d e d i n F i g u r e s 1 and 2. F i g u r e 1 compares the young, m i d d l e - a g e d , n e a r - e l d e r l y and e l d e r l y on the b a s i s of t h e i r s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s whi le F i g u r e 2 compares them on the b a s i s of t h e i r economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I t should be noted that the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s considered i n F i g u r e s 1 and 2 are those which, when c r o s s - t a b u l a t e d with the four age groups s e l e c t e d , g e n e r a l l y y i e l d e d s u f f i c i e n t c e l l counts thereby p r o v i d i n g r e l i a b l e est imates i n most c a s e s . A l s o , 57 FIGURE 1 S o c i a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s P r o f i l e Comparison, S e l e c t e d Age Groups W i t h i n the S i n g l e s Core Housing Need Category % YOUNG (100% = 73,770) 6 6 % lENHFir? iHiiS , s «'«[• wrnr. MIDDLE - AGED doo% = 48,230) 60 -50 60% 68% MtYt* aiMUUTfl "(Jvonctl?' 44% (ICC) 10% eouc*Tiw< ievCl NEAR-ELDERLY (I00% = 6i,i90) 29% NIVI, MMUUmy WlftOEl MWM EOXXnO) LEVEL 000%) 61 % . 19 % 16% ELDERLY ( IOO % = 117,590) 33% dec) ii KARim. WTjfiM (lOO*) CM lilt XtDII " » '» J touttrxM UV«L(IO©*1 58 FIGURE 1 Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s P r o f i l e Comparison, S e l e c t e d Age Groups W i t h i n the S i n g l e s Core Housing Need Category 100. 9 0 . 60 7 0 . 60 5 0 4 0 -3 0 . 20. 10. 0. 61% 81% YOUNG (ioo% = 73,770) 4 6 % 1 9 % 18%. 3 8 % 100. 9 0 60 7 0 -6 0 -5 0 -4 0 -3 0 20 10. 0 *ASES/ GOV'T INVESTMENT SALARIES TRANSFER INCOME 1 PAYMENT IE (100%) EMPLOYMENT 3TATU3 0cO%) YEARLY RENT A MIDDLE-AGED (ioo% = 48,230) 52% 47% (icc) 1%. 33% (ICC) 18% (icc) 2 7 % % 100 -9 0 -80-7 0 -6 0 . 5 0 . 4 0 . 3 0 -2 0 . 10. 0 WAGES/ W T INVESTMENT SALARIES TRANSFER NOTME PAYMENT E OF INCOME 0OO%) EMPLOYMENT S 1 INCOME AS AT APRIL/82 (100%) NEAR-ELDERLY (ioo% = 6i,i90) 28% 60%, '28%) EM PLOY £0 °/r> (4%) UNEMPLOYED ficc) 12% , 4)% 29% (icc) 20% (icc) 10% 43%. 33% % MAJOR S 1 0 0 . 9 0 . 8 0 . 7 0 . 6 0 -5 0 . 4 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 1 0 - (ICC) 1 % WASES/ EMPLOYMENT STATUS (100%) YEARLY 1HC0WE A , 9 6 % 8,500+ r April/82 {ioo%5 YEARLY KENT 4S AT APfllL/82 (|00%) 8 4 % 15% (icc) 23Sl ELDERLY (ioo% = 117,590) 4 5 % . 2 9 % 3 9 % 1 5 % MAJOR SOURCE OF INCOME Trook) GMPL<rr«NT STATUS '.(X/Ai YEARLY INCOME AS AT APRIL/8Z YEARLY RENT AS AT APRIL/82 (100%) 59 i t s h o u l d be mentioned t h a t two economic v a r i a b l e s have been e x c l u d e d from the p r o f i l e comparison i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 2. Whi le employment s t a t u s and major source of income have been r e t a i n e d , employment type and d u r a t i o n have been o m i t t e d . Employment type and d u r a t i o n data for a l l four groups has s e r v e d to s i m p l y c o n f i r m employment s t a t u s d a t a . 2 . 6 E l d e r l y V e r s u s N e a r - E l d e r l y Core Need S i n g l e s I n Chapter One of t h i s p a p e r , i t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s , b e i n g i n the g r e a t e s t need among a l l core need s i n g l e s , are t h e r e f o r e i n g r e a t e r need than the e l d e r l y : a core need group to whom they are most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y s i m i l a r and one t h a t i s w e l l r e p r e s e n t e d i n 5 6 . 1 h o u s i n g u n i t s . Housing support i s the s u b j e c t of the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r and w i l l not be f u r t h e r d i s c u s s e d h e r e . Before p r o c e e d i n g to the d i s c u s s i o n c o n c e r n i n g s u p p o r t , and r i s k i n g r e p i t i t i o n , i t i s worthwhile r e a f f i r m i n g the s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s between the near - e l d e r l y and e l d e r l y i n terms of need. For the sake of expediency, the n e a r - e l d e r l y and e l d e r l y w i l l be compared u s i n g a g r a p h i c approach s i m i l a r to t h a t u t i l i z e d a t the c o n c l u s i o n of the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n . F i g u r e 3 shows the extent to which the n e a r - e l d e r l y and e l d e r l y are s i m i l a r w h i l e F i g u r e 4 i l l u s t r a t e s - the degree to which they are d i f f e r e n t . F i g u r e 3 shows the s i m i l a r i t y between e l d e r l y and 60 FIGURE 3 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c S i m i l a r i t i e s : E l d e r l y and N e a r - E l d e r l y S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need % 100 -90 . 80 70 . 6 0 -50 40 30 -2 0 -10 0 (ioo%: MALE FEMALE SENDER (E00%) 29% 84% I 16% ^ - NEAR-ELDERLY Q -ELDERLY MARITAL STATUS (600%) 69% I 33% 28°/! te. 28% 1 8 4 % (IM) 15% ORAOE 10 BETWEEN UNIVERSITY OR LESS 9RADES DEGREE , II a IS EDUCATION LEVEL (800%) WA9ES/ 90V'T INVESTMENT 3ALARIES TRANSFER INCOME 1 PAYMENTS | MAJOR SOURCE OF INCOME (200%) 28% — ^ £ 9 8 % 66%, N EMPLOYED/ NOT IN UNEMPLOYED LA80UR , FORCE | EMPLOYMENT STATUS (£00%) NOTE' 1 0 0 % » 61,190 NEAR-ELDERLY 1 0 0 % = 117,590 ELDERLY FIGURE 4 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c D i f f e r e n c e s : E l d e r l y and N e a r - E l d e r l y S i n g l e - P e r s o n Households i n Core Housing Need 100 90 8 0 • 70 60-50. 40-30 20-10. 0 41 % 29% ( ICC) 20% 45% 29% (icc) 10% ,l% ( I C C ) - DENOTES INSUFFICIENT CELL COUNT 43% 15% 0 - 4 900 4 , 9 0 0 - 6 .000 - 8 , 3 0 0 » 0 - 4 , 3 0 0 4 ,500 - 6,000 - 8 ,500 1 ' » 6 ,000 8,500 6 ,000 6 , 5 0 0 M A N - ELDERLY (100%) NOTE' 1 0 0 % ' 61 ,190 NEAR-ELDERLY 1 0 0 % =117,590 ELDERLY ELDERLY (100%) 39% 33% 29% 2 4 % 32% 0 - 2 , 1 0 0 2,100 - 3 ,300* 0 -2 ,100 2,100- 3,300 ! 3,300 , ! 3 ,300 NEAR-ELDERLY (100%) ELDERLY ( 1 0 0 % ) 61 n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s with r e s p e c t to a l l f i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d e p i c t e d . The p r o p o r t i o n s or percentage f i g u r e s may d i f f e r somewhat but the p a t t e r n of t h e i r p r o f i l e i s remarkably s i m i l a r . Whi le the degree of t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y i s important, what i t i s more important for the sake of the present a n a l y s i s i s the degree to which the e l d e r l y and n e a r - e l d e r l y d i f f e r and how they d i f f e r . F i g u r e 4 i l l u s t r a t e s the extent to which e l d e r l y and n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s are d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e on the b a s i s of income and r e n t . Two t h i n g s are important h e r e : f i r s t , the predominance of v e r y low incomes for the n e a r - e l d e r l y along with the p o s s i b i l i t y of l e s s f a v o u r a b l e r e n t - t o - i n c o m e r e l a t i o n s h i p s as a r e s u l t ; and, second, the opposite case with r e s p e c t to the e l d e r l y . D e a l i n g w i t h the second f a c t o r f i r s t , the frequency curve r e p r e s e n t i n g income d i f f e r e n c e s between the e l d e r l y and n e a r - e l d e r l y i n F i g u r e 4 i s s t r o n g l y U-shaped. The frequency curve r e p r e s e n t i n g the rent d i f f e r e n c e s between these two groups i n F i g u r e 4 i s a l s o U-shaped. The amplitude of the income c u r v e , however, i s much g r e a t e r than the amplitude of the rent curve i n d i c a t i n g t h a t rent l e v e l s are not as c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d with income l e v e l s for the e l d e r l y as they appear to be for the n e a r - e l d e r l y . The manner i n which the e l d e r l y ' s income and rent p r o f i l e s are incongruous i s important. As argued p r e v i o u s l y i n the c h a p t e r , i t seems that the e l d e r l y are more l i k e l y to have 62 incomes l a r g e enough so t h a t d e s p i t e paying more for r e n t , h i g h e r s h e l t e r c o s t s consume l e s s of t h e i r income i n p r o p o r t i o n a l terms. T h i s i s argued to i n d i c a t e that the e l d e r l y , as a group, l i k e l y e n j o y a more f a v o u r a b l e r e n t - t o - i n c o m e r e l a t i o n s h i p as compared to the n e a r - e l d e r l y . The n e a r - e l d e r l y are l i k e l y to be i n the converse s i t u a t i o n . With c l o s e to three q u a r t e r s of the n e a r - e l d e r l y having y e a r l y incomes of l e s s than $ 6 , 0 0 0 , t h e i r incomes are so smal l t h a t d e s p i t e paying l e s s for rent (bear ing mind t h a t a very smal l p r o p o r t i o n of a l l core need s i n g l e s occupy p h y s i c a l l y inadequate d w e l l i n g s and r e c a l l i n g that p h y s i c a l l y adequate r e n t a l stock at the lowest end of the market i s becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y s c a r c e [ 4 2 ] ) , i t i s e n t i r e l y p o s s i b l e that even t h e i r r e l a t i v e l y low s h e l t e r c o s t s absorb a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e share of t h e i r income. Thus, t h e r e i s the p o s s i b i l i t y that the n e a r - e l d e r l y have l e s s f a v o u r a b l e r e n t - t o - i n c o m e r e l a t i o n s h i p s d e s p i t e the predominance of v e r y low income. One f i n a l p o i n t i s worth r e - e m p h a s i z i n g . Table V i n the p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n of t h i s chapter presented the midpoints of t h r e e y e a r l y income ranges - the two h i g h e s t income ranges ( i e : $ 6 , 0 0 0 - $ 8 , 5 0 0 and $8,500+) were c o l l a p s e d i n t o one ( i e : $6,000 and h i g h e r ) . The midpoints a r e : $ 2 , 2 5 0 for the $ 0 - $ 4 , 5 0 0 range; $ 5 , 2 5 0 for the $ 4 , 5 0 0 - $ 6 , 0 0 0 range; and, $7 ,500 for the h i g h e s t range. I t should be noted that the $ 7 , 5 0 0 f i g u r e represents an est imated median income for the h i g h e s t income range as t h i s range has no upper l i m i t . Assuming a 30% expenditure rate for 63 s h e l t e r , and u s i n g the midpoint/median incomes l i s t e d above, those i n the lowest income range are l e f t with $ 1 , 5 7 5 / y e a r ( $ 1 3 1 . 2 5 / m o n t h ) for non-housing e x p e n d i t u r e s , those i n the middle income range are l e f t with $ 3 , 6 7 5 / y e a r ($306.25/month) for non-housing e x p e n d i t u r e s , and those i n the h i g h e s t income range are l e f t with $ 5 , 2 5 0 / y e a r ($437.50/month) for non-housing e x p e n d i t u r e s . Combining the income p r o f i l e s of the n e a r - e l d e r l y and e l d e r l y with the above would produce the f o l l o w i n g s c e n a r i o s . Seventy per cent of the n e a r - e l d e r l y would have l e s s than $306/month for a l l non-housing e x p e n d i t u r e s , 41% would have l e s s than $ 1 3 1 / m o n t h . E i g h t y nine per cent of the e l d e r l y , on the other hand, would have more than $306/month for non-housing e x p e n d i t u r e s with 60% having more than $425/month. Although the r e s u l t s obta ined from the above e x e r c i s e are tenuous, they do h i g h l i g h t , f i r s t of a l l , the s i g n i f i c a n c e of a h i g h i n c i d e n c e of v e r y low income among the n e a r - e l d e r l y and, secondly, the more f a v o u r a b l e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of the e l d e r l y . I n c o n c l u s i o n , i t can be argued, as f a r as the data and method of a n a l y s i s p e r m i t s , that n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s are i n g r e a t e r need than t h e i r e l d e r l y c o u n t e r p a r t s . T h i s i s not to say that the e l d e r l y are not i n need; r a t h e r , the n e a r - e l d e r l y are s imply w o r s e - o f f by comparison. 64 C H A P T E R T H R E E Introduction T h i s c h a p t e r i s concerned with the s o c i a l h o u s i n g programs a d m i n i s t e r e d by CMHC p r i n c i p a l l y under S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 of the NHA. B e f o r e d i s c u s s i n g the c l i e n t groups intended to be served by t h e s e programs, as w e l l as which core housing need groups are a c t u a l l y s e r v e d , the programs themselves are b r i e f l y d e s c r i b e d i n terms of t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l development, o b j e c t i v e s , d e s i g n and who i s i n v o l v e d . 3 . 1 N o n - P r o f i t and C o - o p e r a t i v e Housing - P r e - 1 9 7 8 NHA Amendments CMHC has been i n v o l v e d with n o n - p r o f i t and/or c o - o p e r a t i v e h o u s i n g s i n c e 1 9 4 4 . P r o v i s i o n was made i n the 1944 NHA under S e c t i o n s 1 5 and 1 5 . 1 to p r o v i d e d i r e c t f e d e r a l loans to a s s i s t l o c a l h o u s i n g a u t h o r i t i e s , n o n - p r o f i t a s s o c i a t i o n s and l i m i t e d d i v i d e n d h o u s i n g companies wishing to rent modest housing to low and moderate income h o u s e h o l d s . [ 4 3 ] Prompted by the f e d e r a l government's d e s i r e to i n c r e a s e the output of t h i s k i n d of h o u s i n g , amendments were made to the NHA i n 1964 which p r o v i d e d for f e d e r a l l o a n s to p r i v a t e and p u b l i c n o n - p r o f i t c o r p o r a t i o n s to cover 90% of the c o s t of c o n s t r u c t i n g / a c q u i r i n g housing for low to moderate income f a m i l i e s . Even g r e a t e r s t i m u l u s for non - p r o f i t as w e l l as c o - o p e r a t i v e h o u s i n g ( S e c t i o n 3 4 . 1 8 ) was p r o v i d e d for i n the amendments made to the NHA i n 1 9 7 3 . The 1973 amendments were intended to broaden 65 the range of housing a l t e r n a t i v e s a v a i l a b l e to low and moderate income h o u s e h o l d s . Loans, at p r e f e r r e d i n t e r e s t r a t e s (below CMHC's e s t a b l i s h e d l e n d i n g r a t e at the time for p u b l i c housing under S e c t i o n s 40, 42 and 4 3 ) , o f f e r e d to n o n - p r o f i t and c o - o p e r a t i v e housing a s s o c i a t i o n s were i n c r e a s e d to 100% with a 10% c a p i t a l f o r g i v e n e s s p r o v i s i o n and s t a r t - u p g r a n t s of up to $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 for sponsor groups i n exchange for an agreement to charge reduced or r e s t r i c t e d r e n t s for v e r y low-income occupants . At the same t ime, rent supplements under S e c t i o n 4 4 . 1 ( b ) were made a v a i l a b l e to n o n - p r o f i t and co-op housing p r o j e c t s to s u b s i d i z e o p e r a t i n g d e f i c i t s for p r i v a t e l y owned u n i t s rented to lower income t e n a n t s . [ 4 4 ] I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t o n l y s e n i o r c i t i z e n s and d i s a b l e d persons were e l i g i b l e for rent s u p p l e m e n t s . [ 4 5 ] By 1 9 7 9 , n o n - p r o f i t and co-op housing a c t i v i t y under S e c t i o n s 1 5 . 1 and 3 4 . 1 8 had v i r t u a l l y ceased. 3 . 2 S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 N o n - P r o f i t and C o - o p e r a t i v e Housing Programs A s i g n i f i c a n t s h i f t i n emphasis i n housing p o l i c y took p l a c e i n May 1978 accompanied by f u r t h e r amendments to the NHA. The f e d e r a l government c o n s o l i d a t e d a l l of i t s low and moderate income housing programs i n t o a s i n g l e , s i m p l i f i e d program under S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 of the NHA. S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 programs were introduced as CMHC's p r i n c i p a l s o c i a l housing i n s t r u m e n t s , for the most p a r t s u p p l a n t i n g the n o n - p r o f i t and c o - o p e r a t i v e programs o f f e r e d under S e c t i o n 1 5 . 1 and 3 4 . 1 8 and the p u b l i c housing programs provided through S e c t i o n s 40, 42 and 43. 66 The amendments made to the NHA i n 1978 r e p r e s e n t e d an attempt to stem the problems t h a t had b e s e t p r e v i o u s s o c i a l h o u s i n g i n i t i a t i v e s i n c l u d i n g the p r e - 1 9 7 8 n o n - p r o f i t and c o - o p h o u s i n g programs. A number of f a c t o r s l e d to t h e s e amendments, the most important of which are summarized below: - i n the l a t e 1 9 7 0 s , i t was f e l t t h a t f e d e r a l s u b s i d i e s p r o v i d e d under S e c t i o n s 1 5 . 1 and 3 4 . 1 8 were i n s u f f i c i e n t to a d d r e s s the needs of v e r y low-income h o u s e h o l d s without a d d i t i o n a l ( v o l u n t a r y ) s u b s i d i e s from the p r o v i n c e s . - the p u b l i c h o u s i n g programs, which were intended s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the lowest income groups t h e r e b y i n v o l v i n g deep s u b s i d i e s , p l a c e d heavy demands p a r t i c u l a r l y on f e d e r a l c a p i t a l r e s o u r c e s at a time of h i g h i n f l a t i o n and when the f e d e r a l government was l o o k i n g to reduce i t s d e f i c i t . - i n t e r g o v e r n m e n t a l funding and implementat ion agreements c o n c e r n i n g p u b l i c hous ing became i n c r e a s i n g l y complex d u r i n g the l a t e 1960s through to the mid 1 9 7 0 s w i t h j u r i s d i c t i o n a l entanglements a r i s i n g over program p o l i c y , budgets and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . - by s e r v i n g h o u s e h o l d s i n the g r e a t e s t need, p u b l i c h o u s i n g p r o j e c t s were seen as h a v i n g the e f f e c t of s e g r e g a t i n g poor people by c o n c e n t r a t i n g them i n h o u s i n g " g h e t t o s " . - t h e r e was a growing p r o v i n c i a l and l o c a l i n t e r e s t i n the n o n - p r o f i t and co - o p e r a t i v e housing a l t e r n a t i v e s to t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i a l housing m e a s u r e s . [ 4 6 ] I n g e n e r a l terms, the 1978 amendments "were designed to p r o v i d e a s i n g l e f i n a n c i a l s u b s i d y t e c h n i q u e , capable of meeting the needs of both moderate and v e r y low-income p e o p l e , a v a i l a b l e to p u b l i c and p r i v a t e p r o j e c t sponsors i n c l u d i n g m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , p r o v i n c e s , p r i v a t e non - p r o f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n s and c o n t i n u i n g 67 c o - o p e r a t i v e s . " [ 4 7 ] More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the 1978 changes: - r e p l a c e d p u b l i c c a p i t a l with p r i v a t e funds; - e l i m i n a t e d the mandatory requirement for p r o v i n c i a l f i n a n c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n (as was the case with p u b l i c h o u s i n g ) ; - a l lowed for income mixing; - c l e a r l y s p e c i f i e d the r o l e of f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments i n regard to program d e l i v e r y ; and, - put a cap or t o t a l p r o j e c t s u b s i d i e s . [ 4 8 ] The f a c t o r s which c o n t r i b u t e d to the c r e a t i o n of the 5 6 . 1 programs, o u t l i n e d above, are addressed or at l e a s t r e f l e c t e d in the s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s for the 5 6 . 1 programs presented below: a) To p r o v i d e modest, a f f o r d a b l e housing a p p r o p r i a t e to the needs of low and moderate income f a m i l i e s and i n d i v i d u a l s . b) To produce housing at minimum cost by implementing a p p r o p r i a t e c o s t c o n t r o l s . c) To encourage approved lenders to provide c a p i t a l for low and moderate income housing n e e d s . [ 4 9 ] There are t h r e e program types a d m i n i s t e r e d under S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 of the NHA: p r i v a t e n o n - p r o f i t ; p u b l i c n o n - p r o f i t ( m u n i c i p a l and p r o v i n c i a l ) ; and, c o - o p . In a l l three programs, funding covers the c o n s t r u c t i o n of new or the a c q u i s i t i o n of e x i s t i n g housing p r o j e c t s . D e a l i n g f i r s t with the n o n - p r o f i t housing programs, p r i m a r i l y f e d e r a l s u b s i d i e s - depending on the p r o v i n c i a l 68 government i n v o l v e d - are made a v a i l a b l e to housing p r o j e c t s sponsored by p r i v a t e n o n - p r o f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n s ( e . g . K i w a n i s , B ' h n a i B r i t h A s s o c i a t i o n ) or p u b l i c ( p r o v i n c i a l and m u n i c i p a l ) n o n - p r o f i t h o u s i n g c o r p o r a t i o n s ( e . g . C a l g a r y Housing A u t h o r i t y ) equal to an i n t e r e s t "write-down" from market borrowing r a t e s to 2% for a p e r i o d of up to 35 y e a r s . S u b s i d i e s are based on agreed c a p i t a l c o s t s and are a l s o a p p l i e d to o p e r a t i n g l o s s e s . F i n a n c i n g i s o b t a i n e d from approved l e n d e r s u s u a l l y with NHA mortgage i n s u r a n c e . Occupants pay rent a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r income (not to exceed a 2 5 - 3 0 % expenditure r a t e ) or the lower end of market rent i n t h e i r l o c a l i t y , whichever i s a f f o r d a b l e . I n the case of c o - o p e r a t i v e h o u s i n g , a g a i n p r i m a r i l y f e d e r a l s u b s i d i e s a r e made a v a i l a b l e to housing p r o j e c t s sponsored by c o n t i n u i n g housing c o - o p e r a t i v e s i n much the same manner as for the n o n - p r o f i t p r o j e c t s . The term "cont inuing" i n d i c a t e s t h a t the m a j o r i t y of the occupants must be members of the c o - o p e r a t i v e . Occupants e i t h e r pay p r o j e c t r e n t , set at the lower end of market rent i n the f i r s t year of o p e r a t i o n (remains c o n s t a n t for 3 y e a r s t h e r e a f t e r ) , or rent according to income (not to exceed a 2 5 - 3 0 % expenditure r a t e ) , whichever i s a f f o r d a b l e . The s u b s i d i e s cover the gap between economic rent ( r e n t a l charges n e c e s s a r y to cover t o t a l operat ing c o s t s ) and p r o j e c t rent ( s e t at the lower end of market rent) as w e l l as l o s s e s r e s u l t i n g from some occupants paying l e s s than p r o j e c t r e n t . Four programs operate i n support of the 5 6 . 1 housing 69 programs. These a r e : the S t a r t - U p Program - NHA S e c t i o n 3 7 . 1 ; the Community Resource O r g a n i z a t i o n Program (CROP) - NHA S e c t i o n 3 6 ( g ) ; the N o n - P r o f i t R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Program (RRAP) -NHA S e c t i o n 3 4 . 1 ; and, S e c t i o n 4 4 . 1 ( b ) Subsidy S t a c k i n g . Each of these programs i s b r i e f l y d i s c u s s e d below. S t a r t - U p and CROP funding i s provided to n o n - p r o f i t c o r p o r a t i o n s and c o n t i n u i n g co-op a s s o c i a t i o n s to enable them to develop housing p r o p o s a l s . The money i s g e n e r a l l y used to secure t e c h n i c a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e s . Helping these groups to s p e c i f y the c l i e n t groups they want served or to be part of t h e i r p r o j e c t i s an important use for which these monies are used. When t e c h n i c a l or p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e i s provided by CMHC d i r e c t l y ( i e : under the S t a r t - U p Program), the funding provided i s i n the form of an i n t e r e s t - f r e e l o a n . When the a s s i s t a n c e of a community group i s sought whose aim i s to a s s i s t i n the development of such housing p r o p o s a l s ( e . g . Columbia Co-op Housing A u t h o r i t y , V a n c o u v e r ) , the funding s u b s i d i z e s t h i s commun i t y g r o u p ' s f e e - f o r - s e r v i c e e a r n i n g s u n t i l the group becomes s e l f - s u s t a i n i n g on i t s own revenues. I n almost a l l c a s e s , S t a r t - U p or CROP funding i s used i n the development of a 5 6 . 1 p r o j e c t . P r o j e c t s i n v o l v i n g e x i s t i n g housing and which are e l i g i b l e for 5 6 . 1 s u b s i d i e s may a l s o r e c e i v e second mortgage loans from p r i v a t e approved ( i n s u r e d ) lenders for r e p a i r , r e h a b i l i t a t i o n or improvement a c t i v i t i e s . The loan may be f o r g i v e a b l e ( i e : CMHC may suspend loan payments) for a p e r i o d of up to 5 y e a r s . 70 As mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , p r o v i n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s are not mandatory under the 5 6 . 1 programs. I n r e c o g n i t i o n of the f a c t t h a t a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of low and moderate income h o u s e h o l d s c o u l d be s e r v e d i f the p r o v i n c e s p r o v i d e d a s s i s t a n c e to match the 5 6 . 1 funds committed to the p r o j e c t s by the f e d e r a l government, attempts have been made s i n c e 1978 to get the p r o v i n c e s to s t a c k p r o v i n c i a l funds onto the 5 6 . 1 a s s i s t a n c e . An arrangement has been s t r u c k whereby the f e d e r a l government and the p r o v i n c e i n q u e s t i o n , through NHA S e c t i o n 4 4 . 1 ( b ) , would c o s t - s h a r e ( 5 0 / 5 0 ) the p r o v i n c i a l l y c o n t r i b u t e d s u b s i d y a s s i s t a n c e p r o v i d e d t h a t the p r o v i n c e match the 5 6 . 1 a s s i s t a n c e o r i g i n a l l y a l l o c a t e d for a g i v e n p r o j e c t by the f e d e r a l government. As of 1983, a c c o r d i n g to the CMHC 5 6 . 1 Program E v a l u a t i o n , the s u b s i d y s t a c k i n g p r o v i s i o n has been used i n o n l y one p r o v i n c e and a p p l i e d to o n l y four p r o j e c t s . 3 . 3 C l i e n t Groups Served Having p r o v i d e d a c u r s o r y d e s c r i p t i o n of the 5 6 . 1 programs, i t i s important for the p r e s e n t study to examine who i s intended to be s e r v e d by them and which groups have r e c e i v e d s u p p o r t . These two elements are now d e a l t with i n t u r n . 3 . 3 . 1 I m p l i e d Support I t i s c l e a r from the p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o n t h a t CMHC1s n o n - p r o f i t and c o - o p e r a t i v e housing programs, both before and a f t e r the c r i t i c a l 1978 NHA amendments, have been intended for 7 1 low and moderate income "households. Looking further, however, certain specified household groups have been the focus of attention in regard to these programs. Over the post-war period, families, the elderly and persons with special needs have been identified in program documentation as the groups for whom non-profit and co-operative housing is intended. The program descriptions/brochures describing the 56.1 non-profit and co-op housing programs illustrate precisely this emphasis placed on these three groups. The following statements are found in the 56.1 Non-Profit Housing brochure (1981): "The program supports the efforts of community-sponsored groups whose members take the responsibility for planning and operating modest housing on their own behalf for other families and individuals of low and moderate income....Non-profit housing can take a variety of forms. It can consist of single or multiple family housing, hostel accommodation, care facilities or group homes....Tenants in non-profit housing include families, senior citizens and/or persons with special needs such as the disabled."(p. 1) Similar statements are found in the 56.1 Co-operative Housing brochure (1981): "The program supports the efforts of continuing co-operative groups to provide and operate modest housing for their members who have low or moderate i n c o m e s ....Co-operative housing can consist of single or multiple family housing, hostel accommodation or group homes Housing co-operatives can be organized around the needs of families, senior citizens and/or persons with special needs such as the disabled."(p. 1) While there is implied support for non-elderly individuals the statements quoted above, emphasis is nevertheless placed 72 on those groups t r a d i t i o n a l l y supported through s o c i a l housing programs: f a m i l i e s ; s e n i o r c i t i z e n s ; and, the d i s a b l e d . Although program documentation does not s p e c i f i c a l l y exc lude needy n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s as a group for whom support i s i n t e n d e d , i t can be argued t h a t groups who are not s p e c i f i e d a r e , i n e f f e c t , overlooked by way of ommission. The method chosen ( i e : program des ign) to p r o v i d e support to low and moderate income households - u s i n g n o n - p r o f i t and c o - o p housing - i s an important f a c t o r with r e s p e c t to who i s and i s not supported. S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 a s s i s t a n c e i s made a v a i l a b l e to h o u s i n g p r o j e c t s sponsored by v a r i o u s community groups and a g e n c i e s whose members are r e s p o n s i b l e for p l a n n i n g and o p e r a t i n g the housing p r o j e c t s developed. The sponsoring groups, t h e r e f o r e , p l a y an important r o l e i n determining which needy households are or are not supported. I t may be that a sponsoring group/agency might wish to o r g a n i z e a c o - o p e r a t i v e , for example, around the needs of n o n - e l d e r l y or n e a r - e l d e r l y s i n g l e person h o u s e h o l d s , but i t appears that they would not do so on the b a s i s of the 5 6 . 1 program documentation a v a i l a b l e to them. The c a t e g o r y of "persons with s p e c i a l needs" deserves some a t t e n t i o n h e r e . According to the program documentation c i t e d e a r l i e r , i t i s under t h i s category t h a t support for n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s would be p r o v i d e d . CMHC h a s , i n f a c t , made e f f o r t s to r e c o g n i z e the s i t u a t i o n of non-e ld -er ly s i n g l e - p e r s o n households i n core housing need. I n a 1984 D i s c u s s i o n Paper e n t i t l e d ' S h e l t e r Requirements of S p e c i a l Needs G r o u p s ' , low-income 73 non - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s were i n c l u d e d among the c a t e g o r y of s p e c i a l needs groups a l s o c o n s i s t i n g of the p s y c h i a t r i c a l l y d i s a b l e d , s u b s t a n c e a b u s e r s , e x - o f f e n d e r s , b a t t e r e d women and unemployed youth.[50] W h i l e t h i s D i s c u s s i o n Paper may have drawn a t t e n t i o n to n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s , i t i s argued t h a t i t was m i s l e a d i n g and t o a c e r t a i n e x t e n t s e l f - d e f e a t i n g to p l a c e them i n the same c a t e g o r y as the other groups l i s t e d above. Each of t h e s e other groups do indeed have s p e c i a l hous ing needs beyond those a s s o c i a t e d with i n e f f e c t i v e demand and/or a s h o r t a g e of a f f o r d a b l e , s u i t a b l e and adequate r e n t a l accommodation. There was no e v i d e n c e p r o v i d e d at the t ime nor i s t h e r e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e to the author to j u s t i f y c a t e g o r i z i n g low-income n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s as " s p e c i a l needs" h o u s e h o l d s , a t l e a s t not i n the same c o n t e x t as b a t t e r e d women, drug o f f e n d e r s , the p s y c h i a t r i c a l l y d i s a b l e d , and so f o r t h . N o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s are i n core housing need for the same reasons e l d e r l y s i n g l e s a r e ( i e : an i n a b i l i t y to s e c u r e adequate and s u i t a b l e accommodation without spending more than 30% of t h e i r g r o s s income), not because of h a v i n g s p e c i a l housing needs. T h i s i s not to s a y t h a t any core need household cannot have a s p e c i a l h o u s i n g need. The p o i n t b e i n g , i n f a c t , t h a t any core need h o u s e h o l d may have s p e c i a l housing requirements r e g a r d l e s s of h o u s e h o l d composition, age of the household head, and so on. As a s p e c i a l needs groups, support for n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s must be j u s t i f i e d on the b a s i s of them have s p e c i a l housing needs w h i l e , as the d a t a presented i n Chapter Two of t h i s paper shows, 74 t h e r e appears to be j u s t i f i c a t i o n for p r o v i d i n g support for at l e a s t the n e a r - e l d e r l y i n t h i s household group based on the f a c t t h a t t h e i r s o c i o - e c o n o m i c p r o f i l e shows them to be the w o r s t - o f f among a l l core housing need s i n g l e s . F u t h e r , as a s p e c i a l needs group, n o n - e l d e r l y needy s i n g l e s would be i n d i r e c t c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h t r u l y l e g i t i m a t e s p e c i a l needs households for a s s i s t a n c e a l l o c a t i o n s . Thus, i t i s argued t h a t t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s u n f a i r for both n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s as w e l l as the o t h e r , l e g i t i m a t e s p e c i a l housing needs groups. 3 . 3 . 2 A c t u a l Support T h i s s e c t i o n of the chapter i s short for two r e a s o n s . The f i r s t reason i s t h a t there i s l i t t l e data a v a i l a b l e to the author which shows the a l l o c a t i o n a l breakdown of 5 6 . 1 a s s i s t a n c e by household t y p e . The second reason has to do with the f a c t t h a t v e r y l i t t l e 5 6 . 1 a s s i s t a n c e , based on the data that i s a v a i l a b l e , has been a l l o c a t e d for n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e - p e r s o n households . From CMHC's 5 6 . 1 Program E v a l u a t i o n ( s p e c i f i c a l l y , Table 2 . 2 , page 30) i t i s known that by the end of 1 9 8 1 , 50.4% of 5 6 . 1 u n i t s had been p r o v i d e d i n f a m i l y p r o j e c t s , 3 9 . 3 % had been p r o v i d e d i n s e n i o r c i t i z e n p r o j e c t s with 1 0 . 3 % provided i n s p e c i a l purpose p r o j e c t s . [ 5 1 ] A CMHC r e p o r t i n v e s t i g a t i n g CMHC's funding of s p e c i a l purpose housing p r o j e c t s u n f o r t u n a t e l y does not p r o v i d e a breakdown of the 56-. 1 a s s i s t a n c e accorded these p r o j e c t s by household t y p e . [ 5 2 ] T h i s i s unfortunate because, by i n l a r g e , i f a s s i s t a n c e i s provided at a l l to n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s 75 i t would be under t h i s c a t e g o r y . The present author i s s imply l e f t to assume t h a t some n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e persons have made t h e i r way i n t o these p r o j e c t s . I t i s important to note two f a c t o r s concerning the data which shows 5 6 . 1 u n i t s by p r o j e c t t y p e . According to the data p r o v i d e d i n the s p e c i a l purpose p r o j e c t s study r e f e r r e d to above, a c e r t a i n p r o p o r t i o n (an exact f i g u r e i s i m p o s s i b l e to c a l c u l a t e ) of s p e c i a l purpose p r o j e c t s are occupied by s e n i o r s . T h i s means t h a t s e n i o r c i t i z e n s occupy a s l i g h t l y h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n of 5 6 . 1 u n i t s than 3 9 . 3 % . By the same token, i t i s p o s s i b l e that a s i m i l a r l y s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n of n e a r - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s can be found i n s e n i o r c i t i z e n s 5 6 . 1 p r o j e c t s . The p r o p o r t i o n s being r e f e r r e d to h e r e , however, are l i k e l y v e r y s m a l l ( a g a i n , i t i s i m p o s s i b l e to d e r i v e exact f i g u r e s due to d i f f e r e n c e s i n data p r e s e n t a t i o n ) and do not change the f a c t t h a t the e l d e r l y are served w e l l v i s a v i s S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 programs as compared to the n e a r - e l d e r l y who, along with t h e i r younger c o u n t e r p a r t s , are i n r e c e i p t of v e r y l i t t l e 5 6 . 1 a s s i s t a n c e . [ 5 3 ] 76 C H A P T E R F O U R I n t r o d u c t i o n I n t h i s c h a p t e r , the data and a n a l y s i s regarding housing need and support i s brought together and summarized. C o n c l u s i o n s are then drawn based on the observed e v i d e n c e . 4 . 1 Summary of Need and Support Data The a n a l y s i s of housing need presented i n Chapter Two c o n s i s t e d of comparing s e l e c t e d age groups w i t h i n the single-person core housing need c a t e g o r y on the b a s i s of s e v e r a l economic and s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s . A soc io-economic p r o f i l e was assembled for each of four groups which cons idered t h e i r major source of income, employment s t a t u s , y e a r l y income, y e a r l y r e n t , gender, m a r i t a l s t a t u s and l e v e l of e d u c a t i o n . Y e a r l y rent and income v a r i a b l e s were used i n an attempt to a s s e s s the extent of h o u s i n g need, i n the s t r i c t e s t sense, experienced by one group as compared to the other t h r e e . The other socio-economic dimensions were added to the a n a l y s i s so as to p r o v i d e a more complete p i c t u r e of each group and e s t a b l i s h a broader a n a l y t i c a l base i n determining which of the four groups was i n the g r e a t e s t need. On the b a s i s of a comparison of t h e i r soc io-economic p r o f i l e s , us ing CMHC's core housing need d a t a , the n e a r - e l d e r l y were determined to be i n the g r e a t e s t need among a l l s i n g l e - p e r s o n households i n core housing need. T h i s group i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d as having the lowest incomes, on average, of a l l 77 core need s i n g l e s . T h e i r incomes, i n a b s o l u t e terms, are such t h a t v e r y l i t t l e income i s l e f t i n these households for non-housing e x p e n d i t u r e s even under the b e s t r e n t - t o - i n c o m e r a t i o p o s s i b l e for a household i n core housing need ( i e : 3 0 % ) . Moreover, d e s p i t e t h e i r low incomes, both i n r e l a t i v e and a b s o l u t e terms, i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the n e a r - e l d e r l y enjoy l e s s f a v o u r a b l e r e n t - t o - i n c o m e r a t i o s as compared to the young and, to a l e s s e r e x t e n t , the e l d e r l y - w h i l e both the young and the e l d e r l y have the h i g h e s t incomes among core need s i n g l e s . I f t h i s p o s t u l a t i o n i s i n c o r r e c t , and the e l d e r l y and the young e n j o y l e s s f a v o u r a b l e r e n t - t o - i n c o m e r a t i o s , i t can be suggested t h a t t h e i r incomes are l a r g e enough so t h a t d e s p i t e h i g h e r s h e l t e r c o s t s absorbing more of t h e i r income, the income a v a i l a b l e for non-housing e x p e n d i t u r e s i s g r e a t e r i n a b s o l u t e terms. The s i m i l a r i t y between the young and the e l d e r l y ends with the a n a l y s i s of rent and income d a t a . While t h e i r income l e v e l s are s i m i l a r , the v a s t m a j o r i t y of the e l d e r l y r e c e i v e t h e i r income i n the form of government t r a n s f e r payments ( a l t h o u g h investment income r e p r e s e n t s the major source of income for 14% of the e l d e r l y ) whereas the young r e c e i v e t h e i r income from employment. Given t h a t the young are r e l a t i v e l y w e l l educated and i n the labour f o r c e , there i s g r e a t e r p o t e n t i a l for improving t h e i r s i t u a t i o n . While the e l d e r l y might not have the same p o t e n t i a l as the young w i t h r e s p e c t to improving t h e i r s i t u a t i o n , they are more l i k e l y to be a b l e to m a i n t a i n t h e i r e x i s t i n g 78 c i r c u m s t a n c e s g i v e n t h a t t h e i r incomes are u n l i k e l y to d e c r e a s e , i f not i n c r e a s e with i n f l a t i o n . As noted, the n e a r - e l d e r l y and e l d e r l y are markedly d i s s i m i l a r r e g a r d i n g the e s s e n t i a l v a r i a b l e s of income and r e n t . These two groups, however, are remarkably s i m i l a r with r e s p e c t to the other s o c i o - e c o n o m i c v a r i a b l e s c o n s i d e r e d i n the a n a l y s i s . For the m a j o r i t y of n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s , as i s the c a s e for the e l d e r l y , l a r g e l y f i x e d government t r a n s f e r payments c o n s t i t u t e t h e i r major source of income. L i k e the e l d e r l y , the m a j o r i t y of the n e a r - e l d e r l y are not i n the labour force and they are p o o r l y educated i n terms of formal e d u c a t i o n . S i x t y per cent of the n e a r - e l d e r l y are women with a f a i r l y h i g h i n c i d e n c e of widowhood being l i k e l y . The e l d e r l y and n e a r - e l d e r l y are observed to be the most c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y s i m i l a r age groups w i t h i n the core need s i n g l e s c a t e g o r y apart from the economic v a r i a b l e s of income and r e n t . The c r u c i a l d i f f e r e n c e between these two groups i s age. The n e a r - e l d e r l y are s i m i l a r to the e l d e r l y i n t h a t they w i l l l i k e l y be a b l e to m a i n t a i n t h e i r c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n . U n l i k e other n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s - the young p a r t i c u l a r l y , and the middle -aged l e s s so - the p r o s p e c t s for improvement are s l i g h t for the n e a r - e l d e r l y as they are for the e l d e r l y . While they may be a b l e to m a i n t a i n t h e i r c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n , the m a j o r i t y of n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s a r e having to m a i n t a i n severe c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The age at which a n e a r - e l d e r l y person becomes e l i g i b l e for the b e n e f i t s awarded a s e n i o r c i t i z e n h o l d s much 79 promise. I f s o c i a l housing a s s i s t a n c e from CMHC i s construed as a " b e n e f i t " , the e l d e r l y are observed to have r e c e i v e d a s u b s t a n t i a l p r o p o r t i o n (40%) of the b e n e f i t s CMHC has provided through i t s S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 housing programs. L e s s than 10% of 5 6 . 1 u n i t s as of 1 9 8 1 were occupied by n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e - p e r s o n s . Over the p o s t - w a r p e r i o d i n f a c t , i t has been observed i n CMHC's program documentation t h a t f a m i l i e s , the e l d e r l y and persons with s p e c i a l needs such as the d i s a b l e d are the groups for whom n o n - p r o f i t and c o - o p e r a t i v e housing i s i n t e n d e d . While there i s i m p l i e d support for n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e - p e r s o n households i n the program documentation r e s p e c t i n g the 5 6 . 1 programs, v e r y l i t t l e 5 6 . 1 a s s i s t a n c e has been a l l o c a t e d to t h i s group based on the a v a i l a b l e d a t a . 4 . 2 Support i s I n c o n s i s t e n t With Need; D i s c u s s i o n Although they account for over 35% of a l l core housing need h o u s e h o l d s , and d e s p i t e the evidence which shows a p a r t i c u l a r subgroup (the n e a r - e l d e r l y ) w i t h i n t h i s core need c a t e g o r y being i n g r e a t e r need as compared to a c a t e g o r y of households who are w e l l supported (the e l d e r l y ) , n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e - p e r s o n s are found i n l e s s than 10% of 5 6 . 1 u n i t s . As d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter One, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of 5 6 . 1 u n i t s i s not c o n s i s t e n t with the make-up of core housing need e i t h e r i n d i s t r i b u t i o n a l terms or on the b a s i s of i n c i d e n c e . Given the a n a l y s i s presented i n t h i s study, which focussed on the s e v e r i t y of housing need as another 80 measure of r e l a t i v e need, i t can be f u r t h e r argued t h a t support i s i n c o n s i s t e n t with demonstrated need. One of the three o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s study i s to p r o v i d e a d a t a base upon which the a l l o c a t i o n of a s s i s t a n c e to at l e a s t those i n the g r e a t e s t need among n o n - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s can be j u s t i f i e d . A n a l y s i s has been presented which shows n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s to be the w o r s t - o f f among a l l core need s i n g l e s and t h e r e f o r e i n g r e a t e r need than e l d e r l y s i n g l e s who are w e l l supported v i s a v i s 5 6 . 1 housing u n i t s . Although a d a t a base has been p r o v i d e d which, i t i s argued, can be used to a t l e a s t j u s t i f y a r e - e x a m i n a t i o n of a l l o c a t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s , i t i s i n attempting to j u s t i f y a s s i s t a n c e for a group who appear, from the d a t a , to be i n great need t h a t the q u e s t i o n a r i s e s as to why they are not supported. S e v e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s are o f f e r e d below. As p r e v i o u s l y mentioned, one of CMHC's f u n c t i o n s i s to i d e n t i f y and a n a l y z e housing need. The core housing need data a n a l y z e d i n t h i s study as w e l l as the core housing need concept i t s e l f has been d e r i v e d by CMHC. I n Chapter One i t was noted t h a t the 5 6 . 1 Program E v a l u a t i o n made e x t e n s i v e use of core housing need data i n terms of d i s t r i b u t i o n and i n c i d e n c e . I t was f u t h e r suggested t h a t a n a l y s i s f o c u s s i n g on the s e v e r i t y of need appears to be m i s s i n g from t h e i r assessment of housing need. I t seems p l a u s i b l e to suggest that CMHC has s imply overlooked what i t s own data i s r e v e a l i n g or they have f a i l e d to examine t h e i r data i n the same manner i n which i t has been analyzed here. 81 A r e l a t e d f a c t o r might be a tendancy to c o n t i n u e support ing the groups for whom a s s i s t a n c e has been t r a d i t i o n a l l y provided -i e : f a m i l i e s , the e l d e r l y and the d i s a b l e d . I t i s p o s s i b l e that CMHC h a s c o n t i n u e d to support the groups i t always has because i t has always supported those groups. R e c e n t l y , CMHC has c o n s i d e r e d the housing needs of n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s but i t has done so by i n c l u d i n g them w i t h i n a s p e c i a l needs c a t e g o r y . I t was argued p r e v i o u s l y t h a t p l a c i n g n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s i n a s p e c i a l needs c a t e g o r y means t h a t they are i n c o m p e t i t i o n with l e g i t i m a t e s p e c i a l needs households for s c a r c e s o c i a l housing funds. Moreover, t h i s approach a g a i n s i g n a l s an unawareness of the d a t a . N e a r - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s , for example, are i n core housing need for the same reasons e l d e r l y s i n g l e s a r e . The data does not appear to j u s t i f y c o n s i d e r i n g n o n - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s as s p e c i a l needs households along s i d e b a t t e r e d women and drug a b u s e r s . T h i r d l y , program p o l i c y and d e s i g n are undoubtedly two important f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d . The 1978 amendments to the NHA which ushered i n the 5 6 . 1 programs s i g n a l l e d , among other t h i n g s , a s h i f t away from c o n c e n t r a t i n g households i n the same income s t r a t a i n one p r o j e c t to a mixing of income l e v e l s . Both the n o n - p r o f i t and c o - o p e r a t i v e approaches r e q u i r e a c e r t a i n percentage of h i g h e r income households i n order to m a i n t a i n economic v i a b i l i t y . The i n t e n t of the 5 6 . 1 programs i s , i n p a r t , to f o s t e r a s e l f - s u s t a i n i n g e n t i t y . A predominance of v e r y low-income households such as the n e a r - e l d e r l y would t h r e a t e n the v i a b i l i t y of the e n t i r e p r o j e c t . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , deeper f i n a n c i a l 82 s u b s i d i e s would be r e q u i r e d i n order to accommodate a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of v e r y low-income households beyond what the p r o j e c t c o u l d s u s t a i n under e x i s t i n g funding arrangements. T h i s l a s t p o i n t r a i s e s the obvious with r e s p e c t to the p r o v i s i o n of s o c i a l housing a s s i s t a n c e i n g e n e r a l l e t a lone to a s p e c i f i c group. Governments i n Canada are p r e s e n t l y o p e r a t i n g under onerous f i s c a l r e s t r a i n t . P u b l i c funds are s c a r c e and t h e r e i s l i t t l e l a t i t u d e for i n c r e a s i n g p u b l i c expenditure r e g a r d i n g most s o c i a l programs, not o n l y i n the area of s o c i a l h o u s i n g . Ways and means of p u t t i n g s c a r c e p u b l i c r e s o u r c e s to the most e f f i c i e n t and e f f e c t i v e use are i n constant rev iew. There i s much debate over whether the b e s t s o l u t i o n to a d d r e s s i n g the housing problems f a c i n g low-income r e n t e r s i s to support income, thereby i n c r e a s i n g e f f e c t i v e demand, or to p r o v i d e housing u n i t s and i n c r e a s e s u p p l y . The s o l u t i o n favoured, of c o u r s e , i s s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by what i s seen to be the cause of the problem. I t can be s a i d t h a t there are two broad types of core housing need: those households e x p e r i e n c i n g u n i d i m e n s i o n a l need i n the form of i n s u f f i c i e n t income; and, those e x p e r i e n c i n g m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l need i n the form of a f f o r d a b i l i t y problems on top of s u i t a b i l i t y and/or adequacy problems. Housing need may a l s o be a combination of these two broad t y p e s . I n g e n e r a l , however, i f the problem i s determined to be one of i n s u f f i c i e n t income a l o n e , the approach argued to be the most s u i t a b l e i n terms of a d d r e s s i n g the i d e n t i f i e d "housing" problem i s to support i n c o m e . [ 5 4 ] I f a f f o r d a b i l i t y i s not the o n l y problem, mote f a v o u r a b l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n might be g i v e n to s u p p l y i n g h o u s i n g u n i t s . C l e a r l y , n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s are faced with i n s u f f i c i e n t income. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e y l i v e i n p h y s i c a l l y adequate and, by d e f i n i t i o n , uncrowded accommodation. I t would a p p e a r , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the n e a r - e l d e r l y are i n u n i d i m e n s i o n a l core h o u s i n g need. G i v e n the n a t u r e of t h e i r h o u s i n g need, CMHC may f e e l t h a t not s u p p o r t i n g t h i s group i s c o r r e c t as t h e i r "housing" problem i s r e l a t e d a lmost e n t i r e l y to i n s u f f i c i e n t income. As the 5 6 . 1 Program E v a l u a t i o n i n d i c a t e s , however, i n s u f f i c i e n t income i s a problem encountered by v i r t u a l l y e v e r y core h o u s i n g need h o u s e h o l d w i t h p h y s i c a l h o u s i n g problems h a v i n g d i m i n i s h e d over t i m e . G i v e n these f a c t o r s , i t seems t h a t , i n a s t r i c t l y t e c h n i c a l s e n s e , u n i d i m e n s i o n a l h o u s i n g need d e s c r i b e s the n a t u r e of the h o u s i n g problems f a c i n g the m a j o r i t y and a s t e a d i l y growing p r o p o r t i o n of needy r e n t e r s . A l t h o u g h t h i s t h e s i s w i l l not e x t e n s i v e l y debate the advantages /disadvantages of s u p p l y i n g h o u s i n g u n i t s v e r s u s b o l s t e r i n g demand, s u f f i c e i t to s a y t h a t the a n a l y s i s p r e s e n t e d o f f e r s support to both arguments. Whi le the n e a r - e l d e r l y are indeed f a c e d w i t h i n s u f f i c i e n t income, t h e i r e x p e n d i t u r e r a t e for s h e l t e r might be c o m p a r a t i v e l y h i g h even though t h e i r s h e l t e r c o s t s a r e r e l a t i v e l y low, as compared to the e l d e r l y , due to a s e r i o u s l y t h r e a t e n e d s t o c k of p h y s i c a l l y adequate accommodation a t a p r i c e t h a t would absorb no more than 30% of t h e i r g r o s s 84 income. As to whether i n c r e a s i n g household income, by way of i n - k i n d t r a n s f e r s , n e c e s s a r i l y r e s u l t s i n a d d i t i o n s to the r e n t a l housing s t o c k i s a matter open to debate. To t h i s end, i t might be r e l a t i v e l y i n e x p e n s i v e to a c t u a l l y s u p p l y u n i t s to n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s as t h e i r housing requirements are f a i r l y s imple as compared to other groups i n terms of r e q u i r e d space, number of rooms, f a c i l i t i e s , e t c . D e c i s i o n s concerning which groups w i l l or "deserve" to be c o n s i d e r e d v i s a v i s s c a r c e s o c i a l housing a s s i s t a n c e are based not o n l y on s t r i n g e n t e m p i r i c a l evidence but on p o l i t i c a l / s o c i a l v a l u e s as w e l l , both w i t h i n CMHC i t s e l f and as expressed i n broader s o c i a l p o l i c y . The view t h a t n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s ( i n c l u d i n g the n e a r - e l d e r l y ) are perhaps overconsuming t h e i r housing s e r v i c e s could be a f a c t o r i n the l a c k of support o f f e r e d to t h i s group. Even though the core housing need concept e f f e c t i v e l y e l i m i n a t e s those households who are v o l u n t a r i l y overconsuming t h e i r housing s e r v i c e s , t h i s safeguard o n l y excludes those who are w i l l i n g l y spending more than 2 5 - 3 0 % of t h e i r income on s h e l t e r beyond minimum p h y s i c a l s t a n d a r d s . I n other words, excluded are those who could but do not secure l e s s expensive r e n t a l housing t h a t does not f a l l below e s t a b l i s h e d standards for adequacy and s u i t a b i l i t y (as d e f i n e d i n Chapter Two). The problem of o v e r e s t i m a t i n g housing need i s not , however, e n t i r e l y a m e l i o r a t e d i n the core need concept by the e l i m i n a t i o n of the k i n d of overconsumption r e f e r r e d to above. T h i s type of 85 overconsumption can be measured in somewhat objective terms -measured objectively to the extent that established physical standards are used to assess the overconsumption. It can be argued that a near-elderly core need single person occupying a three or four bedroom apartment is "overconsuming" their housing services as compared to a core need family household occupying the same apartment where household size equals five or six. However, as opposed to those who overconsume housing beyond minimum physical standards (with overconsumption being somewhat "easier" to ascertain in objective terms), it is difficult if not impossible to assess, in objective terms, whether a given household is consuming housing services beyond what they "need" or "require" or "should have". It is argued, in fact, that a judgment such as this is a purely subjective one based entirely on prevailing social and political values. The problem of overconsumption in this totally subjective sense should be considered in any analysis aimed at determining which groups among several is in the greatest housing need. Unfortunately, a manipulation of HIFE Survey data which would have permitted the writer to examine the degree of this type of overconsumption with respect to near-elderly core need singles was not available: specifically, housing characteristics data which shows the number of rooms and, as a subset, the number of bedrooms occupied by near-elderly core need singles. It is suggested that further research on this topic should include a more extensive analysis of housing characteristics data 86 p e r t a i n i n g to t h i s group and thereby address t h i s r e c o g n i z e d e m p i r i c a l shortcoming. From the p r e s e n t a n a l y s i s , however, i t i s known t h a t the v a s t m a j o r i t y of n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s l i v e i n l a r g e urban c e n t r e s with 76% paying l e s s than $275/month for rent and 43% paying l e s s than $175/month - b e a r i n g i n mind t h a t these rent f i g u r e s r e p r e s e n t the upper l i m i t of the rent range; the mean and median v a l u e s for these ranges are much lower. Given the rent p a i d by most n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s , together with the r e n t a l markets i n which the v a s t m a j o r i t y are l o c a t e d ( i e : l a r g e urban c e n t r e s ) , i t seems reasonable to suggest that they are not occupying housing t h a t i s " e x c e s s i v e " or beyond what they " r e q u i r e " or "should have" i n terms of space, rooms, bedrooms, f a c i l i t i e s , and so f o r t h . I t i s important to note t h a t the same arguments regarding overconsumption as a reason behind the l a c k of support for n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s can be r a i s e d with r e s p e c t to the e l d e r l y as w e l l . The data shows that e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s l i v e i n p h y s i c a l l y adequate and, by d e f i n i t i o n , uncrowded accommodation. Although the data n e c e s s a r y to conf irm the f o l l o w i n g i s not a v a i l a b l e to the w r i t e r , i t may be that e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s , as w e l l , consume housing s e r v i c e s beyond what they " r e q u i r e " , "need" or "should h a v e " . Again, g i v e n the r e n t s they are p a y i n g , and the r e n t a l markets i n which they are l o c a t e d ( i e : predominantly l a r g e urban c e n t r e s ) , i t appears to be e q u a l l y u n l i k e l y t h a t the e l d e r l y are overconsuming t h e i r housing 87 s e r v i c e s i n the p u r e l y s u b j e c t i v e sense. Overconsumption or not , however, the f a c t remains t h a t the e l d e r l y are g e n e r a l l y w e l l supported i n terms of 5 6 . 1 a s s i s t a n c e and the n e a r - e l d e r l y are n o t . The l a s t e x p l a n a t i o n o f f e r e d a g a i n r e l a t e s to program p o l i c y and d e s i g n but a l s o to broader s o c i a l v a l u e s . As noted p r e v i o u s l y , CMHC i s not the s o l e p a r t i c i p a n t i n v o l v e d i n p r o v i d i n g s o c i a l housing a s s i s t a n c e to low-income r e n t e r s . S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 a s s i s t a n c e i s made a v a i l a b l e to housing p r o j e c t s sponsored by v a r i o u s community groups and a g e n c i e s whose members a r e r e s p o n s i b l e for p l a n n i n g and o p e r a t i n g the housing p r o j e c t s developed. These sponsoring a g e n c i e s p l a y an important r o l e i n determining which needy households are or are not supported. The l a c k of support for n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s i n g e n e r a l , and the n e a r - e l d e r l y i n p a r t i c u l a r , may be i n d i c a t i n g a l a c k of awareness on the p a r t of sponsoring a g e n c i e s as to the nature and extent of the housing problems these households are e n c o u n t e r i n g . I t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e t h a t sponsoring agencies tend to support , as CMHC might, the groups t h a t have been t r a d i t i o n a l l y supported. T h i s i s not to say t h a t CMHC or the sponsoring agencies i n v o l v e d c o n s c i o u s l y n e g l e c t the household groups t r a d i t i o n a l l y not served by s o c i a l housing programs. Rather , i t may be that f a m i l i e s , the e l d e r l y and the d i s a b l e d are supported due to a s o c i a l v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s t h a t s e t s these groups apart and above o t h e r s . To not p r o v i d e s o c i a l support to these groups, or withdraw i t a l t o g e t h e r , i s c o n t r a r y to s t r o n g l y f e l t and deeply engrained 88 s o c i a l v a l u e s . I n defense of p r e v a i l i n g s o c i a l v a l u e s , a d j u s t m e n t s to same are perhaps l a g g i n g behind the socio-demographic changes t h a t have occured i n recent d e c a d e s . The s e a r c h for e x p l a n a t i o n s n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g , i t remains t h a t t h e r e i s a marked l a c k of s o c i a l housing support for a group of c o r e need h o u s e h o l d s who are i n great need. I t must be s t r e s s e d t h a t i n d e m o n s t r a t i n g the e x i s t e n c e of severe need among n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s , the i n t e n t i s not to d i m i n i s h the h o u s i n g problems faced by e l d e r l y s i n g l e s . The n e a r - e l d e r l y have been observed to be w o r s e - o f f by comparison y e t they r e c e i v e v e r y l i t t l e 5 6 . 1 a s s i s t a n c e , c e r t a i n l y as compared to t h e i r e l d e r l y c o u n t e r p a r t s . I t i s argued t h a t the a n a l y s i s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s j u s t i f i e s a t l e a s t a r e - e x a m i n a t i o n of a l l o c a t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s and, a t b e s t , t a k i n g a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n to the e x t e n t p o s s i b l e i n view of c u r r e n t f i s c a l r e s t r a i n t . S e v e r a l s u g g e s t i o n s to t h i s end are p r o v i d e d i n the forthcoming and f i n a l c h a p t e r . 89 C H A P T E R F I V E I n t r o d u c t i o n I n t h i s c h a p t e r , the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the c o n c l u s i o n s drawn i n Chapter Four are d i s c u s s e d i n r e f e r e n c e to CMHC and other government a g e n c i e s and s o c i a l h o u s i n g s u p p o r t / s p o n s o r groups i n v o l v e d i n the p r o v i s i o n of s o c i a l h o u s i n g a s s i s t a n c e . 5 . 1 L i n k i n g Housing Support to the S e v e r i t y of Need A n a l y s i s has been p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s s t u d y s u p p o r t i n g the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t s o c i a l h o u s i n g a s s i s t a n c e i s i n c o n s i s t e n t with i d e n t i f i e d h o u s i n g need, as d e f i n e d by CMHC, p a r t i c u l a r l y with r e s p e c t to the n e a r - e l d e r l y w i t h i n the core housing need s i n g l e s c a t e g o r y . Whereas the p r e v i o u s chapter was concerned w i t h e x p l a i n i n g the i n c o n s i s t e n c y between support and need, s u g g e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g how to l i n k housing support more c l o s e l y w i t h i d e n t i f i e d need are p r o v i d e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r . S e c t i o n 5 . 1 . 1 d e a l s with what CMHC and other government a g e n c i e s can or should do to s t r e n g t h e n the l i n k between support and need w h i l e S e c t i o n 5 . 1 . 2 d e a l s with the r o l e s t h a t non -governmental s u p p o r t / s p o n s o r groups can p l a y . At the o u t s e t , i t i s r e a l i z e d t h a t to suggest l i n k i n g a l l support to the s e v e r i t y of h o u s i n g need would e i t h e r make the 5 6 . 1 programs unworkable under p r e s e n t funding arrangements or p l a c e an u n r e a l i s t i c f i n a n c i a l burden on governments to ensure p r o j e c t v i a b i l i t y . I t i s worth r e i t e r a t i n g t h a t t h i s t h e s i s does 90 not q u e s t i o n the v a l i d i t y of the n o n - p r o f i t and c o - o p e r a t i v e approach to a d d r e s s i n g the needs of low and moderate income r e n t e r s . 5 . 1 . 1 CMHC and Other Government Agencies J u s t as the s o l u t i o n s proposed to address the housing problems of low-income r e n t e r s are s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by the p e r c e i v e d c a u s e s , the assessment of housing need i s a f f e c t e d by the way i n which the data i s viewed and a n a l y z e d . The core h o u s i n g need concept r e p r e s e n t s the b e s t measure of t o t a l housing need developed thus f a r . I t i s proposed t h a t CMHC c o u l d make much more e f f e c t i v e use of the data CMHC i t s e l f g e n e r a t e s . I n t h i s s t u d y , HIFE Survey data was manipulated i n a r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l i s t i c manner yet meaningful r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d . The a n a l y s i s presented h e r e , however, l a c k s an expanded temporal c o n t e x t which would have been p o s s i b l e to i n c o r p o r a t e had l o n g i t u d i n a l HIFE d a t a been a v a i l a b l e to the w r i t e r . With a mainframe computer at i t s d i s p o s a l , CMHC could engage i n s u b s t a n t i a l l y more s o p h i s t i c a t e d t i m e - s e r i e s a n a l y s i s . A more comprehensive s o c i o - e c o n o m i c p r o f i l e comparison us ing l o n g i t u d i n a l data would p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l a n a l y t i c a l depth thereby i n c r e a s i n g the s t r e n g t h of the o b s e r v a t i o n s made. I n making more e f f e c t i v e use of i t s own measure of housing need, CMHC would have a broader a n a l y t i c a l base with which to r e - e v a l u a t e i t s cont inued support of t r a d i t i o n a l l y supported household groups. I n " d e s e n s i t i z i n g " i t s e l f , and by not 91 s u p p o r t i n g f a m i l i e s , the e l d e r l y and d i s a b l e d to the v i r t u a l e x c l u s i o n of n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s , CMHC c o u l d p l a y an important r o l e i n changing the a t t i t u d e s of other g r o u p s / a g e n c i e s i n v o l v e d i n s o c i a l h o u s i n g . Moreover, CMHC c o u l d p l a y an i n f o r m a t i o n d i s s e m i n a t i o n r o l e i n s e n s i t i z i n g other groups and a g e n c i e s to the housing problems f a c i n g n o n - e l d e r l y s i n g l e s i n g e n e r a l and the n e a r - e l d e r l y i n p a r t i c u l a r . By s e n s i t i z i n g sponsoring groups, for example, the u n i t s w i t h i n a g iven p r o j e c t t h a t are a v a i l a b l e to v e r y low-income households might more o f t e n go to a n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e . CMHC c o u l d a l s o take s p e c i f i c s t e p s to ensure t h a t a v a i l a b l e l o w - r e n t u n i t s are t a r g e t t e d more e f f e c t i v e l y to n e a r - e l d e r l y core s i n g l e s . There i s l i t t l e t h a t CMHC can do about the f i s c a l r e s t r a i n t with which a l l governments i n Canada are f a c e d . I n Chapter Three, i t was mentioned t h a t a s u b s i d y s t a c k i n g agreement i s i n p l a c e between the p r o v i n c e s and the f e d e r a l government whereby p r o v i n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s are matched by the f e d e r a l government under c e r t a i n terms and c o n d i t i o n s . Although to date t h i s support arrangement has been used s p a r i n g l y , p r o v i n c e s s h a r i n g the f i n a n c i a l burden would mean a d d i t i o n a l 5 6 . 1 u n i t s or an i n c r e a s e d o p p o r t u n i t y to accommodate a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of very low-income households i n 5 6 . 1 p r o j e c t s provided e f f e c t i v e t a r g e t t i n g was i n p l a c e . I t i s even l e s s l i k e l y that CMHC w i l l be able to p r o f o u n d l y a l t e r s o c i a l v a l u e s a l though i t s continued support of t r a d i t i o n a l l y a s s i s t e d groups r e i n f o r c e s the s o c i a l v a l u e s 92 u n d e r l y i n g t h e i r a l l o c a t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s . I n r e - e v a l u a t i n g i t s own a l l o c a t i o n a l c h o i c e s , and i n i t s r o l e as an i n f o r m a t i o n d i s t r i b u t o r , CMHC may e x e r t some i n f l u e n c e on the v a l u e s of at l e a s t the g r o u p s / a g e n c i e s i n v o l v e d i n s o c i a l h o u s i n g . Two other a l t e r n a t i v e s are mentioned here but are not c o n s i d e r e d f u r t h e r as such d i s c u s s i o n i s f e l t to be beyond the scope of t h i s s t u d y . A r e t u r n to l o w - c o s t p u b l i c housing i s one o p t i o n . The second o p t i o n i s to view the housing problems of n e a r - e l d e r l y core need s i n g l e s as being p u r e l y income -related and i n s t i t u t e some form of housing a l l o w a n c e . 5 . 1 . 2 S o c i a l Housing Support/Sponsor Groups I t has been argued t h a t CMHC does not appear to be making the most e f f e c t i v e use of i t s own housing need d a t a . I t i s f u r t h e r ' argued t h a t CMHC has an important r o l e to p l a y i n d i s s e m i n a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n and changing a t t i t u d e s . The flow of i n f o r m a t i o n need not be u n i d i r e c t i o n a l . C o n s i d e r i n g that sponsor groups and l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s are i n v o l v e d i n the p r o v i s i o n of s o c i a l housing at the community and neighbourhood l e v e l , t h e i r i n s i g h t i n t o l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s and problems i s a v a l u a b l e resource which should be tapped. They have a r o l e to p l a y , t h e r e f o r e , in s e n s i t i z i n g governments to the housing problems faced by households i n t h e i r l o c a l i t y . T h e i r i n s i g h t would be i n v a l u a b l e i n the t a r g e t t i n g of s c a r c e low-rent u n i t s . Sponsor/support groups should a v a i l themselves of whatever housing need i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e to them before determining 93 the h o u s e h o l d type around which t h e i r n o n - p r o f i t or co - o p e r a t i v e p r o j e c t i s to be formed. I n a d d i t i o n , s p o n s o r / s u p p o r t groups s h o u l d be open to change w i t h r e s p e c t to t h e i r own a l l o c a t i o n a l p r i o r i t i e s . L i n k i n g h o u s i n g support more c l o s e l y to h o u s e h o l d s i n s e v e r e h o u s i n g need r e q u i r e s the e f f o r t of both the p u b l i c and p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s i n v o l v e d . 94 CHAPTER THREE FOOTNOTES 1 . Canada. N a t i o n a l Housing A c t , 1982 C o n s o l i d a t i o n . Ottawa, M i n i s t e r of Supply and S e r v i c e s . 2 . Doepner, G. et a l . ( 1 9 8 1 ) Housing A f f o r d a b i l i t y Problems and Housing Need i n Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s : A Comparat ive S t u d y . Ottawa and Washington D . C . : a j o i n t s t u d y for CMHC and HUD. 3 . I b i d . 4. I b i d . 5 . CMHC. S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 N o n - P r o f i t and C o - o p e r a t i v e Housing Program E v a l u a t i o n . Ottawa, 1 9 8 3 . 6. I b i d . See pages 3 4 - 4 4 , 1 9 6 - 2 0 6 , 2 2 0 - 2 3 1 , 3 1 2 - 3 1 5 , 3 1 8 - 3 2 3 . 7 . I b i d . See pages 53 , 1 6 3 - 1 6 5 , 1 9 6 - 2 3 2 , 3 1 9 - 3 2 1 . 8. T h i s s h i f t i n emphasis can be seen i n the L i b e r a l Government's Throne Speech of 1 9 8 0 . The same s o c i a l p o l i c y t h r u s t i s found i n subsequent throne speeches of both L i b e r a l and C o n s e r v a t i v e Governments. 9. C o n t a i n e d i n program d e s c r i p t i o n s f o r S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 h o u s i n g programs i n b r o c h u r e s p u b l i s h e d by CMHC, 1 9 8 1 . 1 0 . 1 9 8 2 HIFE Survey Micro Data F i l e s . 1 1 . These s u p p o s i t i o n s are grounded on p e r s o n a l knowledge of the core h o u s i n g need d a t a w i t h r e s p e c t to s e n i o r c i t i z e n s (age 65+) and on the b a s i s of r e c e n t e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g low-income s i n g l e s c o n t a i n e d i n the f o l l o w i n g reports / p u b l i c a t i o n s : from Canadian Housing (2 a r t i c l e s ) : "The S p e c i a l Housing Needs of S i n g l e P e o p l e " , pps. 6 7 - 7 1 , V o l . 2, No. 3, F a l l 1 9 8 5 ; " T a r g e t t i n g for S i n g l e s and S p e c i a l Needs", p p s . 2 4 - 2 5 , V o l . 2, No. 2, Summer 1 9 8 5 . M e t r o p o l i t a n Toronto Task F o r c e on Housing for Low-Income S i n g l e P e o p l e . F i n a l R e p o r t , Nov. 1 9 8 3 . M e t r o p o l i t a n Toronto Community S e r v i c e s and P l a n n i n g Departments: No P l a c e to Go, A Study of Homelessness i n Metro T o r o n t o : C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , Trends and P o t e n t i a l S o l u t i o n s . J a n . , 1 9 8 3 . Robbins, L . G . ( 1 9 8 4 ) ^ "Socio-economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , of the E l d e r l y P o p u l a t i o n " . Food Market Commentary, A g r i c u l t u r e Canada, V o l . 6, No. 1 . 95 CHAPTER THREE FOOTNOTES 1 2 . The i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s for t h i s s e c t i o n of the c h a p t e r a r e : 1 ) Doepner, G. et a l . ( 1 9 8 1 ) Housing A f f o r d a b i l i t y Problems and Housing Need i n Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s : A C o m p a r a t i v e S t u d y . Ottawa and Washington D . C . : a j o i n t s t u d y p r e p a r e d f o r CMHC and HUD; and 2) S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 N o n - P r o f i t and C o - o p e r a t i v e Housing Program E v a l u a t i o n . Ottawa, 1 9 8 3 . D i r e c t q u o t a t i o n s from t h e s e and other s o u r c e s are d u l y r e f e r e n c e d w i t h f o o t n o t e s . 1 3 . Doepner, G. et a l . ( 1 9 8 1 ) Housing A f f o r d a b i l i t y Problems and Housing Need i n Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s : A Comparat ive S t u d y . Ottawa and Washington D . C . : a j o i n t s t u d y prepared f o r CMHC and HUD. 1 4 . I b i d . 1 5 . 1982 H I F E Micro Data F i l e s 1 6 . Doepner, G. et al . ( 1 9 8 1 ) Housing Af fordability Problems and Housing Need in Canada and the United States: A Comparative Study. Ottawa and Washington D.C.: a joint study prepared for CMHC and HUD. 1 7 . CMHC. Section 5 6 . 1 Non-Profit and Co-operative Housing Program Evaluation. Ottawa, 1 9 8 3 . 1 8 . I b i d . 1 9 . Doepner, G. et al . ( 1 9 8 1 ) Housing Af fordability Problems and Housing Need in Canada and the United States: A Comparative Study. Ottawa and Washington D.C.: a joint study prepared for CMHC and HUD. 20. I b i d . 2 1 . CMHC. Section 5 6 . 1 Non-Profit and Co-operative Housing Program Evaluation. Ottawa, 1 9 8 3 2 2 . I b i d . 2 3 . I b i d . 24 Doepner, G. e t a l . ( 1 9 8 1 ) Housing Af f o r d a b i l i t y Problems and Housing Need i n Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s : A Comparative S t u d y . Ottawa and Washington D . C . : a j o i n t s t u d y prepared f o r CMHC and HUD. 96 25. CMHC. S e c t i o n 5 6 . 1 N o n - P r o f i t and C o - o p e r a t i v e Housing Program E v a l u a t i o n . Ottawa, 1 9 8 3 . 26. I b i d . 2 7 . The i n f o r m a t i o n sources for t h i s s e c t i o n of the chapter a r e : 1 ) Canada. S t a t i s t i c s Canada. 1982 Household Income, F a c i l i t i e s and Equipment Micro Data F i l e s Handbook. 1 9 8 3 ; and, 2) Canada. S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Household F a c i l i t i e s and Equipment. Catalogue # 6 4 - 2 0 2 , Annual , May 1 9 8 3 . Note: V a r i a b l e d e s c r i p t i o n s taken d i r e c t l y from e i t h e r of these s o u r c e s are not i n d i v i d u a l l y r e f e r e n c e d us ing f o o t n o t e s . S i n c e i t i s acknowledged here t h a t a l l i n f o r m a t i o n has been gleaned from these two s o u r c e s , and has been presented e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y , documenting d i r e c t q u o t a t i o n s i s not c o n s i d e r e d n e c e s s a r y . 28. John E n g e l a n d . Research D i v i s i o n , N a t i o n a l O f f i c e , CMHC. ( p e r s o n a l communication) 29. CMHC Core Housing Need E s t i m a t e s based on 1982 HIFE Micro Data F i l e s . 30. I b i d . 3 1 . 1982 HIFE Micro Data F i l e s 32 . I b i d . 33 . I b i d . 34. Based on a r e v i s e d 1978 low income c u t - o f f e s t a b l i s h e d i n the F a m i l y E x p e n d i t u r e Survey contained i n the 1982 HIFE Micro Data F i l e s . 3 5 . See: M e t r o p o l i t a n Toronto Task Force on Housing for Low Income S i n g l e People. F i n a l Report, Nov. , 1 9 8 3 ; M e t r o p o l i t a n Toronto Community S e r v i c e s and Planning Departments: No P l a c e to Go, A Study of Homelessness i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Toronto. J a n . , 1 9 8 3 ; K l e i n and S e a r s , et al., ( 1983) Study of R e s i d e n t i a l I n t e n s i f i c a t i o n and Rental Housing C o n s e r v a t i o n . Toronto: a 'report prepared for the O n t a r i o M i n i s t r y of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s and Housing; " I n s t a b i l i t y and Tenant Displacement W i t h i n the Inner C i t y R e n t a l Market". Community Development Branch, C i t y of Ottawa, March, 1 9 7 9 ; and, Damas & Smith L t d . (1980) R e s i d e n t i a l Conversions i n Canada. Ottawa: a report prepared for CMHC. 97 36. A n i c a D i v i c . Research D i v i s i o n , N a t i o n a l O f f i c e , CMHC. ( p e r s o n a l communication) 3 7 . 1982 HIFE Micro Data F i l e s . 38. I b i d . 39. I b i d . 40. I b i d . 4 1 . See: 1 ) Gutman, G. C a n a d a ' s Changing Age S t r u c t u r e : I m p l i c a t i o n s for the F u t u r e . Burnaby B . C . : SFU P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1 9 8 1 ; 2) Stone, L . and F l e t c h e r , S. Aspects of P o p u l a t i o n Aging i n Canada. Ottawa: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1 9 8 1 ; and, 3 7 Stone, L . and F l e t c h e r , S. A P r o f i l e of Canada's Older P o p u l a t i o n : M o n t r e a l : The I n s t i t u t e of Research on P u b l i c P o l i c y , 1 9 8 0 . 42. See (35 and 36) above. 98 CHAPTER THREE FOOTNOTES 4 3 . "A limited dividend company is a company incorporated to construct, hold and manage a low-rental housing project, the dividends payable by which are limited by the terms of its charter or instrument of incorporation to five per cent per annum or less." Canada. National Housing Act. 1 9 8 2 Consolidation, page 4 . 44. S t r i e c h , P. and C l a r k e , L . ( 1 9 7 9 ) M u l t i - F a m i l y F e d e r a l R e n t a l Housing A s s i s t a n c e Programs i n Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s : A C o m p a r a t i v e S t u d y . Ottawa and Washington D . C . : a j o i n t s t u d y p r e p a r e d f o r CMHC and HUD. 4 5 . C i t y of V a n c o u v e r . Who L i v e s i n Non-Market H o u s i n g ? An E v a l u a t i o n of the C i t y of Vancouver Housing Program. A r e p o r t p r e p a r e d by the C i t y of Vancouver P l a n n i n g Department, 1 9 8 3 . 4 6 . See CMHC Section 5 6 . 1 Non-Profit and Co-operative Housing Program Evaluation, 1 9 8 3 , for more detailed discussion concerning these factors. 4 7 . CMHC1s ( 1 9 8 3 ) " P o t e n t i a l for a N a t i o n a l S h e l t e r Al lowance Program i n Canada". Report p r e p a r e d by CMHC's P l a n n i n g D i v i s i o n , Ottawa, p p s . 2 - 3 . 48. I b i d . 4 9 . Taken from CMHC's Section 5 6 . 1 Non-Profit and Co-operative Housing Program Evaluation, 1 9 8 3 , p. 5 . 50. The p r e s e n t a u t h e r a s s i s t e d i n p r e p a r i n g t h i s document w h i l e employed at CMHC 's N a t i o n a l O f f i c e . The d i s c u s s i o n p r e s e n t e d c o n c e r n i n g t h i s document i s based on p e r s o n a l knowledge of i t s c o n t e n t s . 5 1 . Section 5 6 . 1 assistance that has been used to fund nursing homes, group homes, transitional houses, etc. See: Streich, P. ( 1 9 8 3 ) CMHC Funding for Nursing Homes: Policy and Program Issues. Ottawa: a report prepared for the Program Evaluation Division of CMHC. 52 . I b i d . 5 3 . This observation is also confirmed in the 5 6 . 1 Program Evaluation, 1 9 8 3 . 99 CHAPTER THREE FOOTNOTES S e e : CMHC. ( 1 9 8 3 ) " P o t e n t i a l for a N a t i o n a l S h e l t e r A l l o w a n c e Program i n Canada". A r e p o r t p r e p a r e d by CMHC1s P l a n n i n g D i v i s i o n , Ottawa; C l a y t o n , F . et a l . ( 1 9 8 4 ) A L o n g e r - T e r m R e n t a l Housing S t r a t e g y f o r Canada. T o r o n t o : a r e p o r t p r e p a r e d for the Housing and Urban Development A s s o c i a t i o n of Canada; Downs, A. ( 1 9 8 3 ) "The Coming Crunch i n R e n t a l H o u s i n g " . A n n a l s of the American Academy of P o l i t i c a l and S o c i a l S c i e n c e " 4 6 5 : p p s . 7 6 - 8 5 ; and, J o n e s , L . ( 1 9 8 3 ) The S t a t e of t h e R e n t a l Housing Market: I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r CMHC and F e d e r a l Government Housing P o l i c y i n the 1980 s . Ottawa: a r e p o r t p r e p a r e d f o r CMHC. 100 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, C. ( 1 9 8 6 ) "Homelessness i n the P o s t - I n d u s t r i a l C i t y " . Urban A f f a i r s Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . 2 1 , No. 4. A r m i t a g e , A. ( 1 9 7 5 ) S o c i a l W e l f a r e i n Canada. T o r o n t o : M c C l e l l a n d and S t e w a r t . A t c h l e y , R. ( 1 9 8 0 ) The S o c i a l F o r c e s i n L a t e r L i f e , 3 r d . Ed. Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Wadsworth P u b l i s h i n g Co. A u c o i n , P. ( 1 9 8 1 ) The R o l e of the F e d e r a l Government i n C a n a d i a n S o c i a l P o l i c y . Ottawa: a r e p o r t p r e p a r e d for CMHC. A u d a i n , M. et a l . ( 1 9 7 3 ) Beyond S h e l t e r : A Study of the N a t i o n a l Housing A c t . F i n a n c e d Housing for the E l d e r l y . Ottawa: C a n a d i a n C o u n c i l on S o c i a l Development. B e l l , M. ( 1 9 8 6 ) "Housing A n a l y s i s : Time for a T h e o r e t i c a l R e f o c u s ? " . Housing S t u d i e s , V o l . 1 , No. 3 . B a r n a r d , P. e t a l . ( 1 9 8 1 ) S e n s i t i v e I n f i l l Housing Summary R e p o r t . Ottawa: a r e p o r t prepared for CMHC. B r i n k , S . ( 1 9 8 4 ) "Housing E l d e r l y People i n Canada: Working Towards a Continuum of Housing C h o i c e s A p p r o p r i a t e to T h e i r Needs". Paper p r e s e n t e d at the annual c o n f e r e n c e of the C a n a d i a n A s s o c i a t i o n of G e r o n t o l g y , V a n c o u v e r . Canada. Background Paper . "The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between S o c i a l P o l i c y and Housing P o l i c y : A F e d e r a l P e r s p e c t i v e " . Ottawa, 1 9 7 9 . N a t i o n a l Housing A c t , 1 9 8 2 C o n s o l i d a t i o n . Ottawa: M i n i s t e r of S u p p l y and S e r v i c e s . S t a t i s t i c s Canada. 1982 Household Income, F a c i l i t i e s and Equipment Micro Data F i l e s Handbook. Household F a c i l i t i e s and Equipment. C a t a l o g u e # 6 4 - 2 U 2 , Annual , May 1 9 8 3 . C l a y t o n , F . e t a l . ( 1 9 8 4 ) A Longer-Term R e n t a l Housing S t r a t e g y f o r Canada. T o r o n t o : a r e p o r t prepared for the Housing and Urban Development A s s o c i a t i o n of Canada. ( 1 9 8 0 ) The P o t e n t i a l Impact of a Housing A l l o w a n c e Program on R e n t a l Housing M a r k e t s . Ottawa: a r e p o r t p r e p a r e d f o r CMHC. 101 C o - o p e r a t i v e Housing F e d e r a t i o n of Toronto. (1980) Housing for S e n i o r C i t i z e n s : I s the N o n - P r o f i t C o - o p e r a t i v e Housing Program F e a s i b l e ? CMHC. ( 1 9 8 1 ) "Background Document on S o c i a l Housing". Paper p r e s e n t e d at an a l l - s e c t o r housing conference, Ottawa. ( 1 9 8 1 ) "The C o - o p e r a t i v e Housing Program". Program d e s c r i p t i o n / g u i d e l i n e s prepared for p u b l i c consumption, Ottawa. ( 1 9 8 3 ) " P o t e n t i a l for a N a t i o n a l S h e l t e r Allowance Program i n Canada". Report prepared by CMHC's P lanning D i v i s i o n , Ottawa. ( 1 9 8 1 ) "The P r i v a t e N o n - P r o f i t Housing Program". Program d e s c r i p t i o n / g u i d e l i n e s prepared for p u b l i c consumption, Ottawa. ( 1 9 8 1 ) "The P u b l i c N o n - P r o f i t Housing Program". Program d e s c r i p t i o n / g u i d e l i n e s made a v a i l a b l e to p r o v i n c i a l and l o c a l housing a g e n c i e s , Ottawa. ( 1 9 8 3 ) Section 5 6 . 1 Non-Profit and Co-operative Housing Program E v a l u a t i o n . Report prepared by CMHC's Program E v a l u a t i o n D i v i s i o n , Ottawa. Damas, P. et a l . ( 1980) R e s i d e n t i a l Convers ions i n Canada. Ottawa: a r e p o r t prepared for CMHC. D i v i c , A. ( 1984) P e r s o n a l communication with aforementioned r e g a r d i n g r e n t a l housing stock t r e n d s , Research D i v i s i o n , CMHC, Ottawa. Doepner, G. et a l . ( 1 9 8 1 ) Housing A f f o r d a b i l i t y Problems and Housing Need i n Canada and the United S t a t e s : A Comparative Study. Ottawa and Washington, D . C . : a j o i n t study prepared f o r CMHC and HUD. Downs, A. ( 1 9 8 3 ) "The Coming Crunch i n R e n t a l Housing". Annals of the American Academy of P o l i t i c a l and S o c i a l S c i e n c e s . 465: pps 7 6 - 8 5 . Doyle, C. ( 1 9 8 5 ) " T a r g e t t i n g for S i n g l e s and S p e c i a l Needs". Canadian Housing, V o l . 2, No. 2. Englund, J . ( 1984) P e r s o n a l communication with aforementioned regarding interpretation of cross-tabulation of HIFE Survey data, Research Division, CMHC, Ottawa. 102 F r a z e r , D. ( 1 9 8 2 ) D e f i n i n g the Parameters of a Housing P o l i c y for the E l d e r l y . Ottawa. Report prepared by CMHC1s P o l i c y E v a l u a t i o n D i v i s i o n . Gutman, G. ( 1 9 8 1 ) C a n a d a ' s Changing Age S t r u c t u r e ; I m p l i c a t i o n s for the F u t u r e . Burnaby, B . C . : SFU P u b l i c a t i o n s . Homewood, C. ( 1982) An I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the I n n e r - C i t y Housing Market i n Vancouver. Masters T h e s i s . C o p y r i g h t s r e s t with CMHC, Ottawa. H u l c h a n s k i , D . , P a t t e r s o n , J . & P o u l t o n , M. (1984) "Two Commentaries on CMHC's E v a l u a t i o n of i t s 5 6 . 1 Housing Programs". P l a n Canada, V o l . 24, No. 1 . Jones, L . ( 1983) The S t a t e of the Rental Housing Market: I m p l i c a t i o n s for CMHC and F e d e r a l Government Housing P o l i c y i n the 1 9 8 0 ' s . Ottawa: a report prepared for CMHC. K l e i n and S e a r s , et a l . ( 1983) Study of R e s i d e n t i a l I n t e n s i f i c a t i o n and Rental Housing C o n s e r v a t i o n . Toronto: a r e p o r t prepared for the O n t a r i o M i n i s t r y of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s and Housing. K r a u s , D. ( 1986) " O n t a r i o ' s New Housing Programs". Canadian Housing, V o l . 3, No. 3 . Lacombe/ B. ( 1 9 8 3 ) " E v a l u a t i o n of S o c i a l Housing Programs". A paper p r e s e n t e d at the N a t i o n a l Managers Conference (CMHC), Winnipeg. M c C l a i n , J . ( 1 9 8 2 ) "Housing and Income Problems: The Unique S i t u a t i o n for Older Women". Paper presented at the 1 1 t h Annual S c i e n t i f i c and E d u c a t i o n a l Meeting, Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of Gerontology, Winnipeg. McGregor, J . ( 1 9 8 2 ) The Unacknowledged Housing Form. Ottawa: a r e p o r t prepared for CMHC. M e t r o p o l i t a n Toronto. M e t r o p o l i t a n Toronto Task Force on Housing for Low-Income S i n g l e People. F i n a l Report, 1 9 8 3 . ( 1983) No P l a c e to Go. A Study of Homelessness in Metropolitan Toronto: Characteristics, Trends and Potential Solutions. Toronto: a report prepared by the Metro. Community Services Department and the Metro. Planning Department. Miron, J . and S c h i f f , M. ( 1 9 8 1 ) A P r o f i l e of the Emerging Empty Nester Household: F i n a l Report. Ottawa: a report prepared for CMHC. 103 O n t a r i o . O n t a r i o S o c i a l Development C o u n c i l ' s Report on A d u l t R e s i d e n t i a l F a c i l i t i e s . Toronto, no d a t e . Ottawa. C i t y of Ottawa, Community Development Branch. " I n s t a b i l i t y and Tenant Displacement W i t h i n the Inner C i t y R e n t a l Market" . F i n a l Report , 1 9 8 3 . P r a t t , G. (1986) "Housing Tenure and S o c i a l Cleavages i n Urban Canada". Annals of the A s s o c i a t i o n of Amercian Geographers, V o l . 76, No. 3 . R e v i l l e , D. et a l . ( 1 9 8 5 ) "The S p e c i a l Needs of S i n g l e People" . Canadian Housing, V o l . 2, No. 3 . R o b b i n s , L . ( 1984) "Socio-economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the E l d e r l y P o p u l a t i o n " . Food Market Commentary, A g r i c u l t u r e Canada, V o l . 6, No. 1 . R o s s i , P. et a l . ( 1 9 8 2 ) Housing Consumption E f f e c t s of Guaranteed Annual Income E x p e r i m e n t s . Ottawa: a report prepared for CMHC. S c h i f f , M. et a l . ( 1 9 8 2 ) Housing C o - o p e r a t i v e s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n T o r o n t o : A Study of Members. Report prepared for the Co-op Housing Foundation of Canada. Solomon, A. ( 1 9 7 4 ) Housing the Urban Poor: A C r i t i c a l E v a l u a t i o n of F e d e r a l Housing P o l i c y . Cambridge M a s s . : The MIT P r e s s . Stone, L . & F l e t c h e r , S. ( 1 9 8 1 ) Aspects of P o p u l a t i o n Aging i n Canada. Ottawa: S t a t i s t i c s Canada. (1980) A P r o f i l e of Canada's Older P o p u l a t i o n . M o n t r e a l : The I n s t i t u t e of Research on P u b l i c P o l i c y . S t r i e c h , P. & C l a r k e , L . ( 1979) M u l t i - F a m i l y F e d e r a l Rental Housing A s s i s t a n c e Programs i n Canada and the United S t a t e s : A Comparative Study. Ottawa and Washington, D . C . : a r e p o r t prepared for CMHC and HUD. S t r i e c h , P. ( 1 9 8 3 ) CMHC Funding for Nursing Homes: P o l i c y and Program I s s u e s . Ottawa. Report prepared by the Program E v a l u a t i o n D i v i s i o n of CMHC. Vancouver. C i t y of Vancouver, P lanning Department ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Who Lives in Non-Market Housing? An Evaluation of the City of Vancouver Housing Program. A report prepared for the City of Vancouver Council, authored by Ann McAfee. 104 W i l s o n , H. ( 1986) "Housing the R u r a l Poor: Why We Need the Farmers Home A d m i n i s t r a t i o n " . J o u r n a l of Housing, J u l y / A u g u s t . 105 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0107105/manifest

Comment

Related Items