FFWD Weekly
Copyright © 1999. All Rights Reserved

Cover Story by Tim Wild Over the last 30 years, there's been an increase in housing options for senior citizens, the developmentally delayed and the mentally ill. In large part, the increase is the result of program models, including "de-institutionalization" and "aging-in-place," which are based on the premise that there are therapeutic benefits to ongoing residence in the community. With ancillary supports and services, groups of vulnerable people are being afforded the opportunity to remain longer in the community rather than face long-term, full-time residence in an institutional setting. Naturally, it is also less expensive to promote community as opposed to institutional living – and that explains the nominal government support of the initiative. Still, the trend is proceeding in a positive direction. For community living to be effective, there has to be supports and services. One of the initiatives that has developed within this framework is the "personal care home." These private, for-profit enterprises offer food, shelter and varying levels of support for up to three individuals in a residence. For the most part, the homes are operated in a professional manner and meet some of the psychosocial needs of the residents. And given Alberta's emphasis on the market with reference to housing, and the lack of adequate legislation to protect against landlord discrimination, the homes provide a viable option for segments of the province's vulnerable population. Unfortunately, however, the homes are not currently covered by comprehensive legislation, and this has resulted in some residents being placed in intolerable circumstances. In 1997, Joe Ceci, Alderman for Ward 9, met with residents and employees of a personal care home that had operated in east Calgary. The meeting was scheduled in response to concerns and allegations about practices at the home, which were alleged to have included physical neglect as well as emotional, financial and sexual abuse. Residents were ill-fed, and I was informed that some of the residents slept with their clothes on to lessen the chances of sexual abuse. While the above case is certainly an extreme, the lack of legislation has had an impact on residents in other personal care homes. "I knew I needed a place to live, but I was in no condition to look," says Graham, who was in respite care for a psychiatric breakdown and needed long-term supported housing. "So my ILS (Independent Living Support) worker found me a place in [a personal care home]. I moved in, and it was only later that I was informed of the cost. It was something like $695 per month, which I don't believe was worth it. But a lot of the people who live in the houses aren't able to judge the cost against the value of the services they receive, if any.... "The key was that I wasn't given information, just that they had a placement for me. I wasn't prepared for that kind of charge, and I was in no mental state to ask those types of questions," he adds. The homes charge between $600 and $750 per month. At first glance this might not seem like much, but when one considers that an individual on the Alberta Government's AISH (Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped) program receives $823 a month, it is a significant amount to that individual. It is hardly surprising that one former resident comments that operating a home can be "an extremely lucrative venture." The City of Calgary has been monitoring the issue since 1995, and a bylaw was drafted that would have provided more structure to the operation of the homes. However, for a number of reasons, the city waited to proceed pending the results of the provincial government's report The Safety of Adults Living in Residential Care Options, released in May 1998. One of the recommendations suggested in the report was to implement a voluntary registry of owner/operators – a weak stop-gap – while the broad-based standards are being developed. This certainly falls short of the mark, but seems to reflect the provincial government's unwillingness to become involved in any meaningful way in the provision of housing and in the extension of rights for marginalized groups. Ceci, who has been watching the issue since first being elected to council in 1995, admits there is a problem, compounded by the fact that "people have no choice but to live there." He adds that people are going in because of the market. "These homes provide shelter at the price they can afford. They get food and a bit of personal support on top of that. There's no other suitable option in the community for them. That's why it's important that they have standards," he says. "I think that the provincial government has taken a step... but I'm not satisfied that voluntary registration is adequate to protect these vulnerable people." The city recognizes this and, to its credit, is pushing for mandatory registration, together with more education to enable consumers to make informed choices. Graham argues that mandatory registration of personal care homes is vital to ensure residents aren’t taken advantage of. "(We are) dealing with a segment of the population that is the most vulnerable, and many of the individuals involved don't know what they are getting themselves into.... There also has to be caps on rent, standards of service, and qualifications for providers and staff. Without controls this is the largest uncapped gold mine for people to make a bloody fortune." He opines that "there are too many people who are not in the business of caring for people, and are interested in making what potentially can be a great deal of money." Despite Graham's view, many of these homes seem to be operated and staffed by competent individuals. Greg, an individual with a bi-polar disorder, is quite happy about his home. He recognizes that it is expensive, he has some concerns with the rules and he doesn't get along with his roommates. However, he says, "It's better than being on the street. I'm pretty upbeat about it." And Tom, another resident, states that the homes "really helped me." Community living is an important step forward in the housing of marginalized groups. If executed correctly it has therapeutic benefits for the consumer and can result in considerable savings for the taxpayer. But for it to be truly effective, there has to be not only available housing but also a minimal set of mandatory rules, regulations and standards. At present, with the unregulated market, combined with weak human rights laws, ineffective landlord/tenant legislation and limited financial supports, whether an individual gets a safe home or not is basically a crap shoot.

| Back To This Issue Table of Contents | Back To Main Index |