Click on the Link Below for a Five (5) Page Document From the COH – Housed on https://www.homelesshub.ca/
https://www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/COHhomelessdefinition.pdf
Housing First is an established concept in Finland since more than 15 years thanks to the Y-Foundation as a pioneer. The Y-Foundation was also one of the founding members of the Housing First Europe Hub.
In 2016 the Finish Y-Foundation together with FEANTSA established the Housing First Europe Hub. The Y-Foundation has been a key player in establishing Housing First as the main response to homelessness in Finland. Since 2007 national policies shifted towards reducing long-term homelessness through Housing First programmes.
As a result, in Finland, the utilisation of emergency and temporary accommodations, such as shelters, hostels, and temporary supported housing, has significantly declined. The number of homeless individuals residing in hostels or boarding houses decreased by 76% from 2008 to 2017. This reduction is attributed to the widespread adoption of prevention strategies, the replacement of outdated models of communal supported housing with Housing First and housing-led approaches, which largely replaced emergency shelters.
ARA, the Housing Finance and Development Centre, has also been involved in the implementation of Housing First in Finland since the start through subsidising new and renovated homes as well as giving housing advice to municipalities.
As a result, Finland is one of the only European countries that registers decreasing homelessness numbers. The country’s goal is to end homelessness in Finland all together.
Finland has managed to reduce homelessness in recent years, but homelessness as a phenomenon is still alive and well. The homelessness situation often escalates in the context of social and economic crises.
Originally Published on https://housingfirsteurope.eu/country/finland/
Poor people in Canada pay for funerals through provincial social assistance programs (like BC’s Ministry of Social Development or Ontario Works), the federal Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Death Benefit.
Many today are choosing simpler, lower-cost options like direct cremation, with funeral homes often guiding families through these limited financial resources. Government aid covers basic services, but often falls short of average funeral costs, requiring families to supplement or choose minimal arrangements.
Work with Funeral Homes: Funeral directors are familiar with these programs and guide families to choose services within the available budget.
Ministry Pays the Funeral Home: If approved, the ministry pays the funeral home directly for approved services, which may cover cremation or burial and other basic costs.
Peace to All and Best Wishes to All in the New Year of Life and it’s passing encounters.
theurbansurvivor.org
Jane Kirby | Originally Published on The United Kingdom’s “Independent” Newspaper 2025
Saturday 06 December 2025 00:01 GMT
A groundbreaking trial for a prostate cancer treatment with fewer side effects has launched in the UK.
Backed by the Government-funded National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the trial will examine whether Aquablation – a therapy using robotics, AI and real-time imaging – works as well or better than traditional surgery, known as radical prostatectomy.
Radical prostatectomy involves removing the entire prostate gland in a bid to cure men of prostate cancer. The treatment is suitable for men whose cancer has not spread outside of the prostate gland or has spread to the area just outside the gland.
However, the operation carries a risk of serious side-effects, such as infection, erectile dysfunction and urinary problems.
Researchers hope Aquablation will minimise these issues.
The therapy is currently used in some centres to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
Aquablation involves a robotic-assisted, high-pressure waterjet. Surgeons can also map the entire prostate in real time with ultrasound.
Using the technique, medics find cancerous tissue to remove while avoiding surrounding nerves and muscles associated with erectile function and the bladder.
The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust in London is the first hospital in Europe to recruit a patient to the trial, which is being run in seven countries.
Overall, 280 patients will be recruited globally, all with early-stage, localised prostate cancer who have already decided to have surgery.
Philip Charlesworth, consultant urological surgeon at the Royal Marsden, said: “For men with prostate cancer confined to the prostate, curative options are excellent, however, we are becoming increasingly focused on the side-effects of the cancer treatment and how we can embrace new technology to maintain a man’s quality-of-life following their surgery.
“This trial is measuring Aquablation therapy, which uses a robotic approach to surgically remove the cancer, and to preserve a man’s ability to remain continent and maintain sexual activity.
“The potential for this trial is very exciting. It has an opportunity, depending on the results of the study, to add an alternative surgical treatment option for patients with localised prostate cancer across the globe.
“The ultimate aim, and my passion, is to improve prostate cancer treatments so that they cause less harm and are less invasive for the patient.
“I feel that this is an incredibly exciting prospect for the future of prostate cancer care.”
Other potential treatments for localised prostate cancer include active surveillance or monitoring of the cancer and radiation.
The new trial is sponsored by the US company, Procept BioRobotics.
To date, there are more than 25 centres globally recruiting patients for the trial.
The four UK centres are the Royal Marsden, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust and Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
The trial comes after Health Secretary Wes Streeting said earlier this week he was “surprised” by the decision from scientific advisers to limit prostate cancer screening.
In a draft recommendation, the UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC), which advises the Government, said prostate cancer screening should not be made routinely available for the vast majority of men in the UK.
It said it would not recommend population screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test because it “is likely to cause more harm than good”.
Experts are expecting data within two years from a large trial launched by Prostate Cancer UK into whether combining PSA with other tests, such as rapid MRI scans, could lead to a recommendation for population-wide screening.
For now, the committee will put forward only a recommendation to screen men with BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic mutations – which puts them at far higher risk of prostate cancer – every two years, between the ages of 45 and 61.
Prostate cancer usually starts to grow on the outer part of the prostate. If this happens, it can cause changes to the way you pee, such as:
Other symptoms can include:
Speaking on Wednesday on BBC Breakfast, Mr Streeting said he was surprised by the decision.
He said: “I’m looking very carefully at why the national screening committee reached that decision.
“I’ve always said these things have got to be based on science and evidence, not on politics.
“But the recommendation did surprise me.
“This is contested. I’ve got people in the prostate cancer community and not just really prominent patients and celebrities and politicians who’ve used their experience and their voice in this debate, but among scientists and researchers.
“This is a draft recommendation. They consult on this for three months, and then we have to make a final decision.
“What I’m going to do is get some of those leading, best scientific voices and competing opinions around the table to thrash this out, to really interrogate the data and make sure that when I come on your programme having made a decision, it’s the right decision for the right reasons, the best evidence and the public can then understand why we’ve made the decision and the scientific community can understand why we’ve made the decision.
“But I am interrogating this data and recommendation because it did surprise me.”
Many experts argue that the PSA test is not very reliable because men with a high PSA level may not have cancer, and some men with cancer have a normal PSA result.
A positive test result may lead to unnecessary treatment for slow-growing or harmless tumours, leaving men at risk of side effects such as incontinence and erectile dysfunction.
But others argue that current evidence supports wider testing.
The Homeless Prevention Program provides portable rent supplements and support services to individuals in identified at-risk groups facing homelessness.
The Homeless Prevention Program is an initiative aimed at providing individuals in identified at-risk groups facing homelessness with portable rent supplements and support services to help them access rental housing in the private (non-subsidized) housing market.
The rent supplements and support services help recipients access rental housing in the private (non-subsidized) housing market and community-based services.
The Homeless Prevention Program operates, in many instances, as an enhancement to the existing Homeless Outreach Program / Indigenous Homeless Outreach Programs and targets individuals at transition points that put them at greater risk of homelessness.
Cost: None. Services are free.
To be eligible, you (or someone you know) are at immediate risk of homelessness. This includes:
If you are eligible and approved, the rent supplement can assist with:
You cannot use the rent supplement for:
Please contact an outreach worker for full details. An outreach worker will be able to determine what you are eligible for.
Contact a Homeless Prevention Program Service Provider or go to the nearest Emergency Shelter and ask to speak to staff.
Outreach staff will ask a few questions about your situation and income to determine your eligibility.
Note: Rental supplements are intended to be temporary.
Originally published on the British Columbia Housing Program website.
Dental care remains a critical yet often overlooked component of overall health, with millions in Canada and the United States unable to afford basic services. For low-income individuals, the high cost of dental care exacerbates health inequities, perpetuates cycles of poverty, and strains public health systems. This article examines the systemic barriers to affordable oral health care in both countries, highlighting policy gaps, socioeconomic disparities, and the human toll of unmet dental needs.
The Canadian Context: Progress and Persistent Gaps
In Canada, approximately one-third of residents lack dental insurance, and one in four avoid dental visits due to cost, often leading to preventable complications like infections, cardiovascular issues, and diabetes-related problems. Recognizing this crisis, the federal government launched the Canadian Dental Care Plan (CDCP) in 2023, targeting uninsured households earning under 90,000 its phased rollout has left gaps. For example, adults aged 18–64 must wait until 2025 to apply, prolonging financial strain for many.
Despite these efforts, challenges persist. The CDCP’s “payer of last resort” model does not fully address accessibility barriers, such as rural “dental deserts” or provider shortages in marginalized communities. Additionally, Canada’s reliance on employer-sponsored insurance—covering 76% of insured individuals—leaves low-income workers, gig economy employees, and Indigenous populations disproportionately uninsured.
The U.S. Crisis: A Landscape of Inequity
In the U.S., over 76.5 million Americans lack dental insurance, with disparities starkly divided along racial and economic lines 5. Black and Hispanic adults are 68% and 52% more likely, respectively, to have unmet dental needs compared to white Americans, while rural residents face severe provider shortages—Alaska, Montana, and North Dakota have the highest rates of “dental deserts”. Medicaid, the primary safety net, often limits adult coverage to emergency extractions, leaving preventive care inaccessible. Even insured individuals face high deductibles and annual caps, forcing many to delay treatment until crises arise.
The consequences are dire. Poor oral health contributes to lost productivity (4.15 million workdays missed annually) and unnecessary emergency room visits, costing the U.S. healthcare system $1.8 billion in 2017 alone. Vulnerable groups, including veterans and low-income families, endure higher rates of periodontal disease and tooth loss, further entrenching health inequities.
Structural Barriers and Systemic Failures
Both nations grapple with systemic issues that compound affordability challenges:
Toward Equitable Solutions
Addressing this crisis requires bold policy reforms. Canada’s CDCP, though imperfect, represents a step toward universal coverage, but advocates argue for a federally funded agency to standardize care and close gaps. In the U.S., expanding Medicaid dental benefits and incentivizing providers to work in underserved areas could mitigate disparities. Both nations must prioritize integrating oral health into primary care and addressing social determinants like poverty and education.
Conclusion
The unaffordability of dental care in North America is not merely a health issue but a moral failing. While Canada’s CDCP offers hope, its success hinges on addressing accessibility and inclusivity. In the U.S., systemic overhaul is urgently needed to ensure oral health is treated as a fundamental right. Until then, millions will continue to suffer needlessly, their pain a testament to the enduring divide between privilege and poverty.
Written by: Vikki Hopes
Feb 25, 2025 10:22 AM
Listen to this article by accessing the above player.
A 30-bed emergency shelter for older adults is being planned at Central Heights Church in Abbotsford.
The plan came before city council on Tuesday afternoon (Feb. 25), when a temporary-use permit and housing agreement were approved.
A staff report to council states that 30 individual “sleeping units” will be provided in an existing building on the church property at 1661 McCallum Rd.
That area at the north end of the building has been operating by Sparrow Community Services Society as a severe weather shelter for older adults.
A letter to the city from BC Housing in September 2024 states that in order to accommodate the emergency shelter, the building will be renovated to include sufficient washroom and shower facilities, accessible entry and operator spaces.
The space is expected to be completed this winter.
The Central Heights Church Shelter will continue to be run by Sparrow – which serves older adults (50+) who are at risk of homelessness – under an agreement with BC Housing.
Support services will be provided 24/7 under the Homelessness Encampment Action Response Temporary Housing (HEARTH) and Homelessness Encampment Action Response Team (HEART) programs.
The staff report to council says a temporary-use permit was required to accommodate the proposed use as it abuts an existing residential use.
The permit will be valid for three years, with the opportunity to request one three-year extension.
The housing agreement includes that the operators must form a good neighbour committee with monthly meetings for the first four months and then on an as-needed basis.
The operators must also provide support services – directly or through referrals – such as life-skills training, counselling and substance-use services.
They must also at least have two staff on site 24/7, and ensure that guests “do not disturb the peace, quiet and enjoyment of the neighbourhood.”
The project has drawn support from Fraser Health and the Abbotsford Police Department, which states that the current services offered at the site have required fewer police resources than comparable facilities.
The city says there are currently 40 encampments and more than 400 unhoused individuals across Abbotsford.
Originally published online at The Abbotsford News
Criticisms of Slumlords as a Blight:
Systemic Context:
Conclusion:
Slumlords are primarily a blight, exacerbating poverty and inequality through exploitation and neglect. While they may fill a temporary gap in housing supply, their practices harm individuals and communities. Addressing the issue requires systemic solutions:
Ultimately, the existence of slumlords underscores the need for structural reforms rather than tolerating exploitative stopgaps.
slumlords provide affordable housing. In many cities, there’s a shortage of affordable housing, so even if the housing is substandard, it might be the only option for low-income individuals or families. Without these slumlords, maybe there would be even fewer options, leading to homelessness. But then, the counterargument is that the conditions in these properties are terrible, possibly violating health and safety codes. So even if it’s affordable, is it acceptable for people to live in such conditions?
You’ve highlighted a critical tension in the debate about slumlords and affordable housing: the trade-off between availability and quality. Let’s break this down further:
The Argument That Slumlords Provide Affordable Housing:
The Counterargument: Unacceptable Living Conditions:
The Broader Systemic Issue:
The existence of slumlords is a symptom of deeper systemic failures:
Is It Acceptable?
While slumlords may provide a temporary solution to housing shortages, the conditions they offer are fundamentally unacceptable. Affordable housing should not come at the cost of health, safety, or dignity. The solution lies in addressing the root causes of the problem:
In conclusion, while slumlords may fill a gap in the short term, their existence is a symptom of systemic failures that need to be addressed. Affordable housing should not mean substandard housing, and society must strive to provide safe, dignified living conditions for all.
Getting a loan without a job can be challenging, but it’s not impossible. Lenders typically look for a stable source of income to ensure you can repay the loan. However, if you don’t have a job, you may still qualify for a loan if you can demonstrate other sources of income or assets. Here are some options to consider:
If you don’t have a traditional job, you may still have income from other sources. Lenders may accept:
Be prepared to provide documentation, such as bank statements or tax returns, to prove these income sources.
If you have valuable assets, you can apply for a secured loan, which uses collateral to reduce the lender’s risk. Examples include:
Be cautious with secured loans, as you could lose the asset if you fail to repay.
A co-signer with a stable income and good credit can help you qualify for a loan. The co-signer agrees to repay the loan if you can’t, which reduces the lender’s risk. This can be a family member or close friend who trusts you to make payments.
Some credit unions offer Payday Alternative Loans (PALs), which are small, short-term loans designed for borrowers with limited income. These loans typically have lower interest rates than traditional payday loans.
Peer-to-peer lending platforms connect borrowers with individual investors. These platforms may have more flexible requirements than traditional banks. Examples include LendingClub and Prosper.
If traditional lenders aren’t an option, consider asking family or friends for a loan. Be sure to formalize the agreement with a written contract to avoid misunderstandings.
A strong credit score can increase your chances of getting approved for a loan, even without a job. Pay down existing debt, make payments on time, and check your credit report for errors.
Some lenders offer no-income-verification loans, but these often come with high interest rates and fees. Be cautious, as they can lead to a cycle of debt.
If you already have a credit card, you can use it for cash advances or purchases. Alternatively, you may qualify for a new credit card or line of credit based on your credit history.
Some nonprofits and community organizations offer low-interest or no-interest loans to individuals in need. These programs are often designed to help people cover emergency expenses.
If you’re struggling financially, consider reaching out to a financial counselor or nonprofit organization for guidance.
Introduction
In cities worldwide, the visibility of homelessness often prompts punitive measures, including arrests for offenses like sleeping in public or loitering. However, jailing homeless individuals is a counterproductive approach that exacerbates systemic issues rather than resolving them. This article explores why criminalizing homelessness is ineffective, inhumane, and costly, while advocating for evidence-based alternatives.
1. The Ethical Failure of Punishing Poverty
Homelessness is rarely a choice. Systemic factors such as unaffordable housing, wage stagnation, mental illness, and lack of healthcare drive individuals into homelessness. Criminalizing these circumstances is inherently unjust, punishing people for conditions beyond their control. As the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Housing noted, laws targeting homelessness often violate human rights by discriminating against the poor. Jailing vulnerable populations ignores the root causes of homelessness, perpetuating cycles of marginalization.
2. Financial Costs: Jails vs. Solutions
Incarceration is expensive. The average annual cost to incarcerate one person in the U.S. exceeds 35,000,whereas providing permanent supportive housing—a proven solution—costs roughly 20,000–$25,000 per person annually. Cities like Houston and Salt Lake City have reduced chronic homelessness by up to 90% through Housing First initiatives, which prioritize housing without preconditions. Taxpayer dollars spent on jails could instead fund housing, mental health services, and job training, generating long-term societal savings.
3. Overburdening the Legal System
Arresting homeless individuals for minor offenses clogs courts and jails, diverting resources from serious crimes. In Los Angeles, for example, homeless individuals are disproportionately cited for low-level violations, straining law enforcement and judicial systems. A 2019 study found that 11% of LA County Jail inmates were homeless, highlighting how incarceration becomes a revolving door for those without stable housing.
4. Public Health and Safety Concerns
Jails are ill-equipped to address the complex needs of homeless populations, particularly those with mental health or substance use disorders. Incarceration often worsens these conditions, leading to higher relapse rates and vulnerability upon release. Conversely, access to healthcare, counseling, and harm reduction programs has proven more effective in improving outcomes. A 2020 study in Health Affairs found that supportive housing reduced emergency room visits by 40% among chronically homeless individuals.
5. The Cycle of Criminalization
A criminal record creates barriers to employment, housing, and benefits, trapping individuals in homelessness. For example, a 2018 report by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty revealed that 70% of U.S. cities ban camping in public, pushing homeless populations into further isolation and legal jeopardy. This punitive approach undermines trust in institutions, discouraging people from seeking help.
6. Alternatives That Work
Successful models emphasize dignity and support:
Conclusion
Jailing homeless people is a costly, short-sighted strategy that deepens societal inequities. Compassionate policies addressing root causes—affordable housing, healthcare access, and economic support—offer a sustainable path forward. As a society, we must choose investment over punishment, recognizing that homelessness is not a crime but a systemic failure demanding urgent, humane solutions.
References: