The eviction and death of social housing tenant Al Gosling made national headlines. Gosling died in October 2009 after having lived for 21 years at a Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) building. At age 81, Gosling was evicted for failure to pay rent. He subsequently became homeless and died of an infection five months later.

The case spurred a close examination and overhaul of TCHC’s internal, eviction and mental health policies:

• Mental Health Framework
• Eviction Prevention Policy for Non-payment of Rent (Arrears)
• Report on the Eviction of Al Gosling and the Eviction Prevention Policy of Toronto Community Housing Corporation.

The recommendations in the report highlighted a troubled relationship between the role of social housing landlord and tenants with mental health issues. And the events themselves have left housing providers wondering about the right way to go. While these policies have been implemented within TCHC they illustrate the complicated dynamic faced sector-wide by social housing landlords.

Social+Housing: The Extra Responsibility of the Social Housing Provider

The first recommendation made in the Report on the Eviction of Al Gosling is that “TCHC must better communicate its mandate. It is a landlord, not a direct provider of social work services.”

While this may seem straightforward, it is often not the case for two key reasons.

First, social housing is home to a high percentage of vulnerable residents, many having mental health issues. In housing this population, the role between being strictly a landlord and providing a support service becomes, at times, difficult to navigate.

Second, the responsibility of the social housing landlord is not restricted to providing housing. The same recommendation also notes that TCHC “must assist tenants to identify, locate and contact appropriate support services.”

The result is that social housing landlords do not play the same role as a commercial landlord, nor are they support workers; instead in addition to their building-related responsibilities, they are responsible for identifying those with mental illness and connecting them with the appropriate service.

Challenges and Possibilities

The current system depends heavily on the social housing landlord’s ability to initiate connections with existing services and organizations while juggling their day to day responsibilities. There are also other challenges:

• Support services are often funded by a different level of government, adding complexity to the landlord’s connecting job
• Residents may not accept the services provided by an outside agency
• Outside services may simply not exist within the area

For any of the policies or recommendations to be successful, the disconnect between support services and the population living in social housing must be remedied. Rather than relying exclusively on the social housing landlord to initiate the connection, it seems logical that support services should also initiate interactions with social housing landlords.  The differing needs of residents require a policy approach that is multifaceted and versatile, one that promotes relationships with relevant supportive agencies and clarifies the role confusion that social housing landlords often face.

It is important to note that out of the recent influx of mental health and eviction prevention policies and recommendations there is no singular benchmark for success. However what is apparent within these policies and recommendations is that by expanding what it is to be a landlord, while continuing to function as a landlord, tenants with mental health issues can receive both the help they may need and a stable place to live.