The Housing Trajectories of Refugees in Winnipeg: The First Three Years

Metropolis British ColumbiaPolicy Research Symposium

November 7th 2008

Presentation by

Tom Carter, with C. Polevychok,A. Friesen and J. Osborne

– Study Methodology

– Features of the study population

– Socio-economic and housing trajectories

– Policy suggestions

Presentation Outline

Study Methodology

– Winnipeg a component of a three city study

– Longitudinal (three years)

– Recently arrived refugees

– Personal interviews

– Document changes over time

Location of Sample Households in Winnipeg

Year One 75 interviews Year Two 55 interviews Retention Rate 73%

Year Three 39 interviewsRetention Rate 52%

Year Three Analysis compares the same households throughout

The Study Sample (Winnipeg)

Key Features of the Study Population

Year One

Year Two

Year Three

From Africa/Middle East 69% 70% 67%

Employed 49% 62% 72%

Average Shelter Costs/month $594 $639 $652

Difficulty Meeting Expenses 60% 49% 41%

Unable to Save Money 69% 54% 49%

Year One Year TwoYear Three

% Change Year One to Year Three

Under $20,000 29.4 28.6 14.7 -14.7

$20,000 - $29,999 52.9 34.3 23.5 -29.4

$30,000 - $39,999 17.6 14.3 26.5 +8.9

$40,000 - $49,999 2.9 14.3 17.6 +14.7

$50,000 + 0.0 8.6 17.6 +17.6

Total 34 35 34 —

Mean $23,636 $28,276 $35,411 +49.8

Median $23,208 $26,400 $30,570 +31.7

Improvements in Income

Declining Incidence of Poverty

Source of IncomeYear One

%Year Two

%Year Three

%

Percent of Households

- all income from Government Transfers

35 26 9

- no income from Government Transfers

24 31 35

- receiving Social Assistance 49 35 16

Average percent from Government Transfers

53 40 23

Employment Income as % of all income

37 56 68

Source: Sample Survey

Housing AffordabilitySpending 30% or More on Housing

Housing Design / Quality / Health Issues

Year One

%

Year Two

%

Year Three

%

Like size of place 38.5 74.4 82.1

Had only one bathroom 79.5 76.9 71.8

In good condition 73.7 56.4 66.7

Repair problems 26.3 43.6 33.3

Not safe for children 23.1 15.4 13.2

Contributes to health problems 28.9 10.5 10.3

Is Social Housing Better?

Household size

Year One (n=38)

Year Two

(n=34)

Year Three

(n=33)

Private Social Private Social Private Social

Proportion of sample 76.3 23.7 58.8 41.2 60.6 39.4

Meets NOS 48.3 55.6 65.0 78.6 65.0 69.2

Happy with home 62.1 87.5 85.0 78.6 90.0 69.2

Housing is safe 74.1 77.8 90.0 64.3 90.0 61.5

Neighbourhood is safe 69.0 55.6 80.0 77.8 90.0 62.5

Mean rent $585 $388 $617 $384 $642 $356

Homeownership Intentions

Year One

Year Two

Year Three

Like neighbourhood 76.3% 76.9% 71.8%

Do not feel safe 33.3% 14.7% 18.0%

Living in inner city 76.9% 61.5% 61.5%

Want to move to different neighbourhood

76.3% 57.9% 60.5%

Would prefer to live in non-inner city

77.3% 88.9% 87.0%

Neighbourhood Characteristics

• Property Management /Rights and Responsibilities

– the role of caretakers and landlords

– 54% found caretakers/landlords helpful in Year One,

increasing to 81% in Year Two

– lack of knowledge of rights and responsibilities

– language definitely affects this issue

Other Housing Characteristics

• Access to Loans and Credit

– lack of employment history

– lack of Canadian job history

– lack of credit history

– need for a co-signer

– some lenders are TOO generous

Other Housing Characteristics

Where Do I Find the Necessary Information?

– no single source of good!! reliable!! and current!! Information

– no “one stop shop”– Where do households get their information (Year Two)?

• 40% from family and friends• 17% from government agencies• 13% from real estate/rental agencies• 8% from walking/driving around

– sponsors much more prominent in Year One– BUT, is the information reliable/comprehensive?

Other Housing Characteristics

Mobility of Sample Households 2006 - 2007

Housing and the Resettlement Process

• Incomes have improved• Affordability has improved• Still some reliance on government transfers• Modest improvement in employment• Market conditions deteriorating• Issues of safety and security• Concerns with quality of housing• Poor knowledge of the market

Policy Recommendations

Community Resources• more resources and staff with different skill sets

for community organization

Education and Awareness• an organization with a mandate and resources

to provide comprehensive housing and neighbourhood information is required

• development and dissemination of educational material on tenant rights and responsibilities

• development of educational material for landlords and caretakers.

Policy Recommendations

Housing Supply• changes in unit size and design to meet needs

of new arrivals• review of eligibility criteria for public housing• development of more transitional housing• limits of occupancy time in transitional housing• the greatest priority is to increase the supply of

affordable housing

Policy Recommendations

Building Inclusive and Welcoming Communities• policies to encourage the development of safe,

inclusive and welcoming communities

Development of Comprehensive and Integrated Policy

• language proficiency facilitates access to better housing

• level of monetary support for new arrivals should be increased

Housing is only part of a complex set of factors that contribute to

successful integration

Conclusion

The trajectory is positive but problems remain

Will positive trajectory continue?

If successful integration from a housing perspective is achieving the circumstances of the host population, then refugee households still have to experience significant housing change and improvement