B.C. orders database destruction after professor presents controversial housing study

The B.C. government instructed an academic to destroy his database after he presented findings on a better way to house substance users

Dr. Julian Somers is a clinical psychologist and Simon Fraser University professor. [Photo credit: Simon Fraser University]

By Alexandra Keeler

After eking out a narrow win in last month’s election, B.C. Premier David Eby has pledged to prioritize voters’ top concerns — housing, affordability and the drug crisis — in his next administration.  

Yet, the NDP government’s plans to boost housing and support individuals with addiction do not align with the key findings of a housing study conducted by a leading academic in the province.

Dr. Julian Somers, a clinical psychologist and professor at Simon Fraser University, says a $30-million project he conducted found that enabling people with a substance use disorder to choose where they live leads to better recovery outcomes than placing individuals in group housing.

“Living in a good-quality apartment in a regular neighbourhood challenged [drug users’] self-perception as ‘loners’ or ‘outcasts,’ fostering a sense of belonging,” the article by Somers and a team of Simon Fraser University researchers says.

Somers says he was ordered to delete his research database shortly after briefing B.C. government officials on his study findings.

“What I was saying was in conflict with how they had already … committed to spending … basically growing the status quo,” said Somers.

The B.C. Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General acknowledges that Somers was ordered to destroy his research. But the department claims the data from Somers’ database have been integrated into a new platform with broader access.

The B.C. Ministry of Housing told Canadian Affairs it favours group housing because it is easier to provide on-site services — such as overdose prevention — to residents. It also noted that B.C. “has invested in numerous forms of research and data collection for evidence-based policy design.”

‘Noise, violence, bugs, and chaos’

In 2013, Somers was commissioned by Simon Fraser University to conduct a six-year, randomized trial involving 497 individuals facing homelessness, addiction and mental illness. Health Canada and the Mental Health Commission of Canada provided grants to fund the study.

In the trial, participants were divided into three groups.

Participants in the first group were able to choose where to live. These participants received personalized assistance, including mental health care and help with grocery shopping. 

The study refers to this option as “scattered, choice-based housing.”

Participants in this group saw improvements in their mental health, sense of security and self, and community connection. Some highlighted the benefits of living in a “normal” environment compared to the “noise, violence, bugs and chaos” often associated with shelters and rooming houses.

While many participants in this group continued to struggle with substance use, two reported complete cessation of hard drug use and many reported reduced substance use. Others reported significant periods of sobriety.

In the second group, participants lived with other individuals facing mental health and addiction challenges in a single building. The study refers to this option as a “congregate supportive housing facility.”

Many of the individuals in this second group reported feeling isolated due to the stigma of living in distressed neighbourhoods, where such housing is typically located in B.C. This environment reinforced “feelings of separation from the larger community” and limited personal freedom and integration, the study says.

The third group remained homeless and received the government’s standard level of care, such as short-term crisis interventions like emergency shelters and access to food banks.

The participants in choice-based housing experienced a 71 per cent reduction in criminal convictions and a 45 per cent reduction in medical emergencies such as overdoses. In contrast, the second and third groups showed no such improvements.

“Agency — having choice — was crucial in order to support autonomy. Neighbours were essential to promoting healthy social norms,” Somers told Canadian Affairs in an interview.

“Both components are missing from interventions that direct people to live with others who struggle with trauma, lack of autonomy [and] lack of exposure to healthy norms.”

Somers’ study findings were published in a 2014 issue of the peer-reviewed Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal.

A 2018 report by the government agency BC Housing had similar findings. It compared scattered, choice-based and congregate housing for vulnerable youth. 

The report showed that while choice-based housing could be more expensive, it helped avoid a “contagion effect,” where youth were exposed to others using drugs.

Integrated data

In a March 5, 2021 letter reviewed by Canadian Affairs, BC Corrections instructed Somers to destroy the Inter-Ministry Evaluation Database. This database, which Somers created, links records for approximately 250,000 individuals across B.C.’s health, criminal and social assistance departments. 

The timing of the deletion order alarmed Somers.

A week before receiving the letter, he had briefed provincial deputy ministers of health, justice and social development on the key findings from his housing study. These briefings indicated a scattered, choice-based housing model was more effective for promoting addiction recovery.

Somers says the order to destroy the Inter-Ministry Evaluation Database came as a shock.

The database included records for individuals who had consented to share their information as part of Somers’ study. It also contained work by other scientists and international experts that has influenced global research and informed housing and addiction recovery policies in Australia and the US.

In the letter ordering Somers to destroy the database, BC Corrections — the ministry responsible for managing data related to individuals in the provincial criminal justice system — told Somers they would move the data in the Inter-Ministry Evaluation Database to the government’s Data Innovation Program. 

The B.C. Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, which oversees BC Corrections, told Canadian Affairs this move was to “provide all academics in the province access to integrated data.”

But Somers says the Data Innovation Program, to which his data was transferred, does not include data from the B.C. justice department. 

In his view, the Data Innovation Program therefore fails to offer a comprehensive picture of how housing models affect individuals’ involvement with the criminal justice system.

This data omission also prevents Somers from mapping long-term outcomes — such as reductions in criminal convictions — as he conducts further research on homelessness, addiction and mental health.

“Since our database was destroyed, no one else is doing [this kind of research] in B.C.,” Somers said.

Congregate housing

The B.C. government appears to be reinforcing its commitment to a group housing model, despite Somers’ findings that this approach is less effective at promoting health and recovery for people with a substance use disorder. 

In April 2023, the B.C. government committed more than $4 billion for the first three years of its Homes for People action plan. This plan is part of a 10-year, $12-billion plan to tackle the province’s housing crisis.

The plan includes creating 3,900 supportive housing units — units that would constitute group housing in Somers’ study. These units are self-contained living spaces with communal areas and on-site, non-clinical support for those with substance use disorders. 

Additionally, the province will be developing 240 complex care spaces for individuals with overlapping mental health, substance use, trauma or brain injuries. These spaces would also fall under the category of group housing.

B.C.’s housing ministry told Canadian Affairs that group housing makes it easier for residents to have freedom to make lifestyle choices — including safe drug use.

“Residents at supportive housing buildings that BC Housing is affiliated with are permitted to make their own choices regarding lifestyle,” the ministry said. “This includes the decision to abstain or use drugs/alcohol in the privacy of their homes.”

The ministry confirmed it funds some recovery programs that use a choice-based housing model. But it says it prefers group housing for its efficiency.

“[Congregate care] allows care teams to be located in one place, which helps provide consistent, efficient support to everyone who needs it within a housing site,” the ministry said.

Megan Kriger, director of development at Lookout Housing and Health Society, a non-profit that provides harm-reduction housing across B.C., says she supports housing autonomy.

While Lookout provides a range of housing options, Kriger said individual choice is key to long-term success. 

Group housing can play a vital role in early recovery by fostering social support, she said. But many recovering residents in group housing eventually transition to independent housing when ready.

“It’s always up to the individual and what they want,” she said.

---

This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.