It's Time for Plan B on Sprung Structures

Let's end this misguided plan to put asylum seekers in Sprung tents. We already have a better solution that is cheaper, proven and more dignified.

From bad to worse

The City has badly dropped the ball on “Sprung Structures” — the proposal that asylum seekers in Ottawa be housed in giant canvas tents.

Not surprisingly, the community backlash has been swift and vocal. No one wants a new shelter in their backyard.

And the negative news continues. The latest is concern from the construction industry that any Sprung construction contact will be effectively handed over to a single contractor, BLT Construction Services out of Toronto. The City has given BLT the inside track, truncating what should have been a fair and transparent procurement process, despite there being local firms that have put up Sprung Structures previously, such as Taplen Construction which has done three installations for National Defence.

Given how badly this project is going, it’s time to hit the reset button.

A response to asylum seekers

It’s important to understand that Sprung Structures were always about managing the influx of asylum seekers specifically, and not homelessness more generally.

(I’m not sure the community believes that once a shelter has been established, that the City would not, at some point, use it for the broader homeless population. Although kudos to Councillor Devine for his efforts to ensure that local residents get first say in how these structures would be repurposed.)

Asylum seekers make up a growing share of our homeless population. Managing the border is a federal responsibility, however, the feds were slow to deal with the issue. The federal government did eventually make money available to provinces and municipalities to help manage the situation.

The City of Ottawa has a $105 million proposal in with the feds, intended to pay for the Sprung Structures and other housing for asylum seekers.

While details of the proposal are hard to find, I understand it covers 2 Sprung Structures (~$30 million), 20 new communal homes ($20 million), a former convent on St Joseph building (~$12 million), two years of operating costs ($42 million) and start up costs ($6 million).

The City has received $40 million of that money according to CBC, to fund some initial construction but not to cover ongoing operations. There is no guarantee that the City will see the rest of the promised federal funding, from this government or the next one.

Time for a rethink

By advocating for Sprung tents, the City has created a minor political crisis for itself. Maybe a big one come next election.

It has been a case study in how NOT to manage public engagement on a difficult file.

The debate has devolved into either you are for Sprung Structures, or you’re a xenophobe. That unfair, and it has made this whole situation toxic.

Given how unpopular these tents are, and the uncertainty around whether federal money will ever come through to fully fund them, it’s time to starting thinking of a Plan B.

Plan A was flawed from the start

There are currently about 250-300 asylum seekers living in community centres in Alta Vista. It’s right to get those people into proper housing, and to return those facilities to the local community.

To free up those community centres and to manage future asylum seekers, the City’s solution is to build 1 or 2 Sprung Structures. That’s the first step in their Plan A.

These structures will be used as Reception Centres for asylum seekers. They are climate controlled tents with cubicle sleeping areas. They have kitchens and washrooms onsite.

The Reception Centres also have room to provide supports, such as legal¹, employment, language and settlement services to help newcomers become productive in Canada. These wrap around supports are critical for helping newcomers understand how Canadian systems work and get integrated into society.

A Sprung structure holds 150 beds and the City’s proposal is that newcomers can stay up to 3 months.

After 90 days, a newcomer would be moved into transitional housing, such as the newly acquired convent on St Joseph Boulevard, or into communal homes. It is unclear how long newcomers could stay in this transitional housing, although I believe that it is likely around 9 months. If the track record of newcomers staying in community centres is any indication, it will be for an extended period of time.

Then, I suspect newcomers would shift to communal homes for another 3-6 months, before being expected to move into regular housing.

We won’t know for sure until the operation is underway, but newcomers could be in this system for 3+9+6=18 months.

We already have a Plan B

Luckily, there is already a Plan B. It is cheaper, proven to work and more dignified to newcomers in Ottawa.

It’s essentially an upgrade to what the support agencies have already been doing for years.

Managing the influx of asylum seekers

Back in September, I jumped into the debate on Sprung structures and described the existing approach for managing refugee claimants.

A Fix Your City article described the issue of asylum seekers, and the different possible responses. (This is well worth the read to understand the broader issues at play.)

Fix Housing 13: Asylum Seekers are the Growing Face of Homelessness in Canada

The article described the “scattered sites” approach that has been in use for decades, that uses communal homes across the city to help newcomers get established and quickly become productive members of society.

A reception centre would be a welcome addition to these scattered sites. It would provide asylum seekers and those supporting them with a focal point for managing new arrivals and making sure they get the services required for success. But a reception centre could be any suitable facility. It could be a new tent structure, or it could be an existing building.

As noted in the article, the scattered sites approach to managing asylum seekers is highly cost efficient. It has also been proven to work over many years. And it is a far more dignified way to accommodate newcomers than by housing them in tents.

Ottawa specific

A second article, in the 613, looked specifically at the Ottawa context. (This is also well worth the read to understand the local context in more detail.)

---

---

It proposed using a recent City-acquired convent tucked away near St Joseph Boulevard as the reception centre for newcomers. Asylum seekers could stay there for 1-2 months², while they are provided with the legal and other supports required to become productive members of society.

Following the reception centre, newcomers would transition to communal homes for 3-6 months, as a springboard into the regular housing market.

In this Plan B, newcomers would be in the system for up to 2+6=8 months.

Plan A vs Plan B

The diagram below describes the two plans. The City’s Plan A is most likely to result in an 18 month process to regular housing. The existing Plan B approach would be designed around a workflow that gets people into regular housing within 8 months.

Faster turnover means the ability to serve more newcomers, and to lower overall costs.

Plan B also has a lower unit cost. As noted in my previous article, analysis by one support agency, Matthew House, shows that communal homes cost about one-third of the cost of a shelter or a motel. The City has not provided the cost per bed to house asylum seekers in community centres or in Sprung Structures, but I believe it would be comparable to a standard shelter.

Why the love affair with Sprung?

It’s a mystery why the City is so wedded to using Sprung Structures.

Compared to the existing approach that support groups in the city have been using for years, the Sprung proposal is likely more expensive, it is untested in Ottawa, and it provides newcomers with a less dignified entry into Canadian life.

Furthermore, politically, Sprung Structures have become a lightning rod. Communities have legitimate concerns about these shelters, but which has been brushed aside as xenophobia.

Specifics of a Plan B

Let me summarize what I think is a sensible Plan B for managing asylum seekers in Ottawa.

1. Cancel the plan to use the contentious Sprung Structures.

2. Instead, repurpose an existing facility into a Newcomer Reception Centre. It could be the former convent on St Joseph Boulevard, or it could be any other suitable building (and experts can point to a few different possibilities). Use this site to provide housing for up to 150 individuals for 1-2 months, as well as to provide asylum seekers with the legal, employment, health and other services required to become productive members of society while waiting for their claim to be heard.

3. Following a short stay in the reception centre, move newcomers into transitional scattered sites — communal homes operated by specialized support agencies — for 3-6 months and until they find a regular housing solution. About 40-50 of these homes already exist throughout Ottawa, many of which are already in your neighbourhood without you even knowing it. They have a track record of integrating seamlessly with local communities.

4. Renegotiate with the federal government so that the ~$30 million allocated for Sprung Structures is reallocated to buying additional communal homes. We should be able to use this money to acquire about 30 homes. This would allow the City to house up to 300 asylum seekers (two to a room) while they look for regular housing.

The people of Ottawa deserve better than what City Hall is advancing. Let’s put a stop to this misguided plan to build Sprung Structures.

Let’s get serious about a Plan B for managing asylum seekers. A plan that is cheaper, already shown to work and more dignified for those new arrivals.

1. Legal services are the critical first step in helping asylum seekers become productive members of Canadian society while they wait for their refugee claim to be heard. The infographic below from the City of Ottawa is not clear, however, whether those legal services are provided in the Reception Centres, or if this is a prerequisite to get into the Newcomer Reception system. If it is a prerequisite, that could be a significant concern with the City’s approach. Without legal services to navigate new and foreign systems, there is a real risk that asylum seekers will simply linger in the standard shelter system.

2. My original article said reception centres would only need to house newcomers for a few days only, to get their legal claims processed. The updated thinking is that a reception centre could provide a wider set of supports, such as employment services. Those supports could be moved out of communal homes and consolidated into one building.