An agency dedicated to supporting vulnerable citizens in London, Ontario, is raising the alarm over a new contractual requirement imposed by the city. London Cares is expressing deep concern that a recently added "good neighbour clause" to funding agreements for homelessness services could have punitive consequences for the very people these programs are designed to help.
What is the 'Good Neighbour Clause'?
The clause in question has been inserted into contracts for organizations that receive municipal funding to address homelessness. While the exact legal wording has not been made fully public, the general intent is to hold service providers accountable for the behaviour and activities occurring in and around their facilities. This could include issues like loitering, public disturbances, or littering in the neighbourhoods where these services are located.
London Cares, which operates a homeless response hub, worries that the clause frames complex social issues as simple matters of neighbourly conduct. The organization's leadership argues that such a clause could force agencies to implement exclusionary practices, potentially banning individuals from essential services for behavioural issues that are often symptoms of trauma, addiction, or untreated mental health conditions.
Advocacy for a Supportive Approach
Instead of punitive measures, London Cares is advocating for a model rooted in support and harm reduction. The agency emphasizes that the path out of homelessness is rarely linear and often involves setbacks. Punishing individuals by restricting their access to shelter, food, or counselling services could deepen their crisis and make community integration more difficult.
The concern is that under the pressure of contractual obligations, agencies might be compelled to prioritize compliance with the "good neighbour" terms over their core mission of providing unconditional, low-barrier support. This shift could undermine trust between service workers and the homeless population, a trust that is crucial for effective outreach and long-term success.
Broader Implications for Social Services
This debate in London touches on a larger, national conversation about how municipalities balance community concerns with the rights and needs of marginalized populations. The introduction of the clause suggests a move towards making continued funding contingent on managing the externalities of homelessness, rather than solely on the delivery of care.
Critics, including London Cares, fear this sets a dangerous precedent. They argue it downloads the responsibility for solving systemic, city-wide issues onto individual agencies and the people they serve. The call is for the city to collaborate on solutions that address root causes—such as affordable housing and accessible healthcare—instead of adding contractual layers that risk excluding the most vulnerable from life-saving services.
The situation remains developing as London Cares continues its dialogue with city officials, seeking to ensure that compassion and evidence-based support remain at the forefront of London's strategy to combat homelessness.
