9. Social Housing Reform Act Loi
sur la réforme du logement social |
That Council receive this report for
information and direct staff to submit a copy of this report to the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing as a submission to the current Provincial review
of the Social Housing Reform Act, including a statement that the City of Ottawa believes strongly that the
province needs to amend regulations in the SHRA and to fundamentally address
problems in the Act itself.
Au Conseil de recevoir le présent
rapport à titre d’information et de charger le personnel d’en soumettre une
copie au ministère des Affaires municipales et du Logement de l’Ontario aux
fins de l’examen de la Loi sur la réforme
du logement social actuellement mené par la Province, en ajoutant une
déclaration indiquant que la Ville d’Ottawa croit fermement que le gouvernement provincial doit modifier la réglementation relative
à la LRLS et s’attaquer aux problèmes de fond que pose la Loi elle-même.
DOCUMENTATION
1.
Deputy City Manager report dated 26 January 2007 (ACS2007-CPS-HOU-0005).
2.
Extract
of Draft Minute, 15 February 2007 will be distributed prior to Council.
Community and Protective Services Committee
Comité des services communautaires et de protection
and Council / et au Conseil
26 January 2007 / le 26 janvier
2007
Submitted by/Soumis par : Steve Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal
adjoint,
Community and Protective
Services/Services communautaires et de protection
Contact
Person/Personne ressource : Russell Mawby, Director
Housing/Logement
(613) 580-2424 x, 44162
|
SUBJECT: |
Social
Housing Reform Act
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Community and Protective Services Committee recommend that
Council receive this report for information and direct staff to submit a copy
of this report to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as a submission
to the current Provincial review of the Social Housing Reform Act.
RECOMMANDATION DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité des services communautaires et de protection recommande au
Conseil de recevoir le présent rapport à titre d’information et de charger le
personnel d’en soumettre une copie au ministère des Affaires municipales et du
Logement de l’Ontario aux fins de l’examen de la Loi sur la réforme du logement social actuellement mené par la
Province.
The Social Housing Reform Act (SHRA) was enacted in December 2000 to transfer responsibility for social housing funding and program administration from the Province to municipalities. The SHRA prescribes via specific regulations how municipal service manager and housing providers manage social housing. In November 2005, the Province introduced a range of regulation amendments that dealt with many of the issues that had been raised by service managers and housing provider associations. The Province is currently undertaking further consultation on regulatory issues identified by stakeholders to improve the functioning of social housing under the SHRA. The current provincial consultation covers three broad areas:
In September 2006, Council approved and directed:
"That the Housing Branch and the housing providers work together to present a joint presentation to the Provincial Government with a report back to the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee."
Staff worked with a consultant to undertake a series of consultations with local social housing stakeholders on specific operational issues related to the regulations in the SHRA. This consultation complements and is intended to inform the current Provincial consultation process with Provincial stakeholder organizations. Local representatives of the provincial stakeholder groups have submitted detailed documents on improvements to the SHRA regulations directly to the province for consideration.
Local groups, including staff from the City, housing providers and community services agencies have generally participated in the development of those submissions, and copies of the Service Managers Housing Network (SMHN), Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, Ontario Region (CHF) and Ottawa Social Housing Network documents were presented at the September 27th meeting of HRSS. These documents call for changes including streamlined accountability processes, adequate funding, and reduced prescriptiveness of administration requirements.
This consultation process built on those documents, and provided an opportunity for other local stakeholders, including tenants and advocacy groups to provide their perspective on housing regulations in Ottawa.
The discussion generated 5 key messages:
While there was strong support
for these principles, there was not always agreement on how to implement them
from the perspective of managing the housing system. Stakeholders have diverse mandates and face differing challenges
within the social housing system, but the main issue is that the current
legislation creates rigid rules for dealing with very complex issues.
Social housing is not just a government program, but also home to families and individuals, with unique needs and concerns.
While the Ministry is focusing the latest round of consultations on specific changes to the SHRA regulations, many organizations have identified the need for a broader review of the entire SHRA legislation and its continuing effectiveness, as well as other major policy considerations.
The discussions generated during the consultations helped all parties better understand the positions of other stakeholders. Two more consultation processes are planned for 2007 that will help address issues arising from this consultation, particularly focused on the need for better supports for tenants to live independently in the community, as well as the expected Provincial review which should allow discussion of principles of the legislation such as the downloading of costs and responsibility for funding social housing.
Adoptée en décembre 2000, la Loi sur la réforme du logement social
vise à transférer aux municipalités les responsabilités de la Province en
matière de financement du logement social et d’administration des programmes
offerts dans ce domaine. La Loi établit, par l’entremise des règlements
pris en application de celle-ci, la façon dont les gestionnaires de services
municipaux et les fournisseurs de logements doivent gérer le logement social.
En novembre 2005, la Province a adopté une série de modifications aux
règlements pour répondre à de nombreuses questions qui avaient été soulevées
par des gestionnaires de services et des associations de fournisseurs de
logements. À l’heure actuelle, la Province mène d’autres consultations sur les
questions liées à la réglementation cernées par les intervenants en vue
d’améliorer le fonctionnement de ce secteur de service, conformément à la Loi sur la réforme du logement social.
Les trois grands domaines suivants font l’objet de discussions :
En septembre 2006, le Conseil a approuvé
la recommandation suivante :
« Que la Direction du logement et les
fournisseurs de logements travaillent de concert à la préparation d’une
présentation conjointe à l’intention du gouvernement provincial et soumettent
un rapport à cet égard au Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux. »
Le personnel a fait appel à un expert-conseil
en vue de tenir une série de consultations à l’intention d’intervenants de la
région oeuvrant dans le domaine du
logement social pour discuter de questions opérationnelles précises liées aux
règlements pris en application de la Loi
sur la réforme du logement social. Ces séances s’inscrivent dans le
processus actuel de consultation mené par le gouvernement de l’Ontario auprès
d’organismes provinciaux spécialisés dans le domaine et visent à l’appuyer. Des
représentants locaux des groupes d’intervenants provinciaux ont soumis
directement à la Province des documents détaillés dans lesquels sont présentées
des améliorations proposées aux règlements pris en application de la Loi sur la réforme du logement social.
Des groupes locaux, y compris le personnel
municipal, des fournisseurs de logements et des organismes de services
communautaires, ont participé à l’élaboration de ces documents. Par ailleurs,
des copies de documents émanant du Service Manager Housing Network (SMHN), de
la Fédération de l’habitation coopérative du Canada (région de l’Ontario) et du
Ottawa Social Housing Network ont été présentés à la réunion du
27 septembre du Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux
(CSLSS). Ces documents recommandent que des changements soient apportés au
secteur du logement, notamment l’adoption de processus rationalisés de
reddition de comptes, l’attribution d’un financement approprié et
l’assouplissement des exigences administratives en matière de logement social.
Ce processus de consultation s’inspire de ces
documents et donne l’occasion à d’autres intervenants de la région, notamment
des locataires et des groupes de revendication, de formuler leur point de vue
sur la réglementation régissant le logement à Ottawa.
Les cinq principes clés suivants sont ressortis
des discussions sur le logement social :
1.
Les demandeurs et les
occupants de logements sociaux doivent être traités de façon juste et
respectueuse.
2.
Le logement social fait
partie intégrante des communautés et des quartiers et vise à offrir un foyer
aux résidents.
3.
Il incombe aux demandeurs
et aux occupants de logements sociaux d’agir à titre de membres à part entière
de leur communauté et de respecter les règles en vigueur.
4.
Les fournisseurs de logements
sociaux doivent disposer de la latitude voulue pour administrer leur
portefeuille de logements de façon responsable.
5.
La Province devrait
permettre à la Ville, à titre de gestionnaire de services, d’exercer un plus
grand contrôle sur le logement social et lui donner une plus grande marge de
manœuvre à l’échelle locale pour qu’elle puisse gérer plus efficacement ce type
de logement grâce à des méthodes de reddition de comptes dont les procédures et
les exigences bureaucratiques auront été simplifiées.
Bien que ces principes aient reçu un appui
solide de la part des intervenants, ceux-ci ne s’entendaient pas toujours sur
la façon de les mettre en œuvre du point de vue de la gestion du système de
logement. Les intervenants du secteur du logement social remplissent des
mandats variés et doivent relever divers défis; toutefois, ils font tous face
au problème fondamental des mesures législatives trop rigides pour leur
permettre de résoudre les questions très complexes.
Le logement social n’est pas qu’un programme
gouvernemental, il permet également de fournir un foyer à des familles et à des
particuliers ayant des besoins et des préoccupations uniques.
La dernière série de consultations menées par
le Ministère porte principalement sur les modifications proposées aux
règlements pris en application de la Loi
sur la réforme du logement social, mais bon nombre d’organismes ont signalé
la nécessité d’effectuer un examen plus vaste de la Loi et des
règlements pris en application de celle‑ci ainsi que de leur pertinence à
long terme, et de se pencher sur d’autres éléments stratégiques importants.
En prenant part aux débats qui ont eu lieu
pendant les séances, toutes les parties ont pu mieux saisir les points de vue
des autres intervenants. Deux autres processus de consultation sont prévus en
2007 afin de résoudre les questions soulevées au cours de la dernière série de
consultations et de discuter plus particulièrement, d’une part, de la nécessité
d’offrir aux locataires davantage de soutien pour les aider à vivre de manière
autonome dans la communauté et, d’autre part, de l’examen provincial prévu qui
devrait ouvrir le débat sur certains principes énoncés dans les mesures
législatives, comme le transfert de la Province aux municipalités des coûts et
des responsabilités associés au financement du logement social.
BACKGROUND
The Social Housing Reform Act (SHRA) was enacted in December 2000 to transfer responsibility for social housing funding and program administration from the Province to municipalities.
The SHRA is highly prescriptive, and tells municipal service managers how they must administer, fund and account for the subsidies for social housing, and tells housing providers how to govern and how to house tenants.
The SHRA provides the City as service manager with the ability to set local rules in certain areas. The City has delegated certain Rent Geared to Income (RGI) administrative functions to housing providers and administration of the centralized waiting list for social housing (CWL) to The Registry. The City has established rules on local access priorities, policies for the management of the centralized waiting list through the Registry, and procedural directives on arrears, internal reviews and retroactive adjustment of rents.
On September 27, 2006 Committee recommended Council petition the province to move forward with changes to the Social Housing Reform Act (SHRA). Council approved and directed:
"That the Housing Branch and the housing providers work together to present a joint presentation to the Provincial Government with a report back to the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee."
City staff and housing providers have been concerned with the slow progress being made by the Province in implementing much needed changes to the Social Housing Reform Act (SHRA). Municipal Service Managers, the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association (ONPHA) and the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, Ontario Region (CHF) have developed recommended changes to the SHRA. These issues were discussed at the September 27th meeting of HRSS with a view to seeing changes made to the Act and include the need for streamlined accountability processes, adequate funding, and reduced prescriptiveness of administration requirements.
In
late 2006, the province began a review of the SHRA regulations. The provincial consultation will wrap-up in
early February 2007. City staff have
attended several workgroup meetings, as have housing sector organizations,
including the Cooperative Housing Federation and its regional affiliates, the
Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, tenant/applicant advocates, the Service
Manager Housing Network and other organizations.
The Provincial review process appears to address the significant concerns by all parties about the current regulations, which can be broadly summarized as a prescriptive approach that goes beyond what is needed to ensure accountability. For example, the Minister of Housing still needs to approve many operational and administrative decisions that should be decided at a local level.
Staff support the need for changes to the Social Housing Reform Act, and have been participating in a process with other Service Managers to recommend changes to the current legislation. Some Service Managers continue to directly own and operate housing as a municipal department, while others have separated those functions, as is the case in Ottawa. As such, these recommendations attempt to balance the need for flexibility and “common sense” in terms of managing and providing housing as a landlord, and the need for accountability, equitability and consistency across the province for the management and use of the significant public resources invested in social housing.
Housing subsidies cover the difference between the cost of providing a housing unit and the rent a low-income tenant can afford to pay, based on 30% of the gross household income. In Ottawa, the net cost to the City for the current operating subsidy for social housing is about $48 million per year. Costs for utilities, insurance and other essentials continue to rise, putting significant additional pressure on municipal property taxes, and there is continued concern over the potential future liabilities for the maintenance and repair of the 18,930 units of housing for which the City is responsible.
DISCUSSION
The City’s Housing Branch engaged a consultant to lead a local consultation process on desired changes to the Social Housing Reform Act and to prepare a report with a summary of stakeholder perspectives on the need for changes to SHRA regulations (Document 1). The report includes background on the Social Housing Reform Act, a summary of the current Provincial consultation process, and discussion on issues and perspectives of local stakeholders on the SHRA regulations
The consultation focused on the regulatory changes being considered now by the Province for potential implementation in the spring of 2007, and particularly on the issues pertaining to RGI Assistance and Special Needs Housing. This report incorporates the background information and stakeholder feedback as presented by the consultant in her final consultation report to the Housing Branch.
Provincial stakeholder groups who have each submitted detailed documents on improvements to the SHRA regulations directly to the province for consideration include:
Local groups, including staff from the City, housing providers and community services agencies have generally participated in the development of those submissions, and copies of the SMHN, CHF and Ottawa Social Housing Network documents were presented at the September 27th meeting of HRSS.
This consultation process built on those documents, and provided an opportunity for other local stakeholders, including tenants and advocacy groups to provide their perspective on housing regulations in Ottawa.
The main points highlighted in the discussions are:
Participants were asked to identify key messages they would want the City to send to the Province with respect to the SHRA and associated regulations. There were a number of general principles that were consistently and clearly identified by stakeholders during these consultations. They are as follows:
Social housing is a scarce resource and so decisions about who accesses and who remains in social housing are difficult and require careful balancing of the needs of applicants and the needs of existing occupants.
Social housing is intended to provide choices for people who often don’t have many. It offers long-term, stable places for families to have space for privacy, rest and study and for seniors and disabled people to remain in their communities, benefiting from the important support that families, friends and locally-based services can provide.
Social housing, like any community, benefits from people being good neighbours and responsible occupants. Because there is a public subsidy involved, there is a high expectation of integrity on the part of occupants and applicants, and appropriate recourse if obligations are not fulfilled.
Operating social housing is complex and multifaceted, requiring social housing providers to combine business-like practices as landlords with sensitivity to resident needs as community-based non-profit organizations. Faced with many unique circumstances, social housing providers would benefit from the flexibility to be able to reasonably and independently operate within broad accountability frameworks.
With major funding obligations for social housing on the municipal tax base, the City should have greater control over social housing operations and substantially less prescriptive direction on the part of the Province. Similarly, housing providers would manage their portfolios within a simplified accountability structure.
Feedback on nine issues relating to eligibility for RGI subsidies, occupancy standards and access to social housing was received during the local consultation. Highlights include:
· All participants in the consultation agreed that arrears on money owed for damages caused by a guest of the household should be recognized as cause for ineligibility. Most participants were also open to suggestions to increase awareness and education of tenants of the implications of not paying their arrears.
· One issue raised specifically by tenants in the consultation process is that housing providers need to make very clear to tenants what to expect from the internal review process and what is “appealable” or not, under current legislation.
· Participants in the consultation generally agreed with the requirement to move over-housed households and therefore supported the recommendation that households be required to select a reasonable number of housing preferences when they move to the centralized waiting list. Many participants were sympathetic to the needs of applicants, and especially sensitive to the shortage of larger-sized units for families. In addition, because the rent of RGI households is based on their income and not the size of their unit, it was recognized that there is no financial incentive for them to move to a smaller unit. There was also sensitivity to the special circumstances of people with special needs who are over-housed.
· All participants in the consultation favoured the proposal that would allow an exemption to the rule on ineligibility after three refusals where applicants are staying in a shelter for additional security or safety supports.
Consistent with the feedback received by the Province from housing sector representatives, local stakeholders expressed independent and sometimes opposing views on some issues during the local consultations. It was clear that all stakeholders supported the general principles identified above. However, stakeholders could not always agree on one ‘ideal’ position or solution for each issue discussed. This was not unexpected as stakeholders have diverse mandates and objectives, and face differing challenges within the social housing system.
In
particular, the main difficulty with the current regulations is that they
create rigid “black and white” rules for dealing with very complex issues. Social housing is not just a government
program, but also home to families and individuals, with unique needs and
concerns.
The discussions generated during the consultations helped all parties better understand the positions of other stakeholders, and two more consultation processes are planned for 2007 that will help address issues arising from this consultation, particularly focused on the need for better supports for tenants to live independently in the community.
Strong collaborative relations among housing providers, the Registry and Housing Branch staff characterizes social housing administration in Ottawa. All parties are working to implement a detailed, complex and prescriptive piece of legislation in ways that are cost-effective, as well as fair and reasonable to providers, tenants and applicants.
All stakeholders agree that improving the regulations is critical for a more cost-efficient, simplified social housing system for all housing stakeholders. There is a need for greater local control and flexibility to the City as service manager and a simplified accountability structure.
There is however the bigger question of the principles of the legislation itself, including the basic fact of downloading the costs and responsibility for funding social housing. At the Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference in Ottawa in September 2006, the province announced that they intend to review the whole downloading question, including social housing. The scope of that review is unknown at this time, and could range from who pays for social housing to full uploading of responsibility back to the province.
Staff recognize that a focus on regulation changes is only the first step in making the necessary changes to social housing administration and accordingly have embarked on a three phase local process, as follows:
All local stakeholders look forward to the next stage of our consultation process - Local Policies and Priorities Review in 2007 to have an opportunity for a more comprehensive discussion on the relative merits of the options brought forward during this initial consultation, along with discussion about other issues related to the SHRA and possibly bring forward broad stakeholder consensus recommendations, where appropriate.
As the promised review of the SHRA unfolds, staff will provide updates on the proceedings (within the bounds of any communications agreements the province may impose) and will bring forward reports and updates to Committee and Council summarizing key issues and any potential concerns, so that the SHRA can be improved and be made to work in support of the important role that social housing plays in our communities.
CONSULTATION
This report summarizes discussions and consultations with local stakeholders in the social housing system in November and December 2006.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 – Report on Local Consultations on the Social Housing Reform Act, dated January 2007
DISPOSITION
With Council direction, staff to submit a copy of this full report to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing MMAH.
Housing Branch to continue to engage community stakeholders in consultations on broader social housing issues for input to the MMAH “Fiscal and Service Delivery Review” and review of local policies for priority access to social housing, and to report back to Committee as appropriate.
January 2007
The Social Housing Reform Act (SHRA) was enacted in December 2000 to transfer responsibility for social housing funding and program administration from the Province to municipalities.
The SHRA is very prescriptive, and tells municipal service managers how they must administer, fund and account for the subsidies for social housing, and tells housing providers how to govern and how to house tenants. The two major parts of the SHRA that apply to transferred housing providers are:
The SHRA provides the City as service manager with the ability to set local rules in certain areas. By way of service agreements The City has delegated certain RGI administrative functions to housing providers and administration of the centralized waiting list for social housing (CWL) to The Registry. The City has established rules on local access priorities, policies for the management of the centralized waiting list through the Registry, and procedural directives on arrears, internal reviews and retroactive adjustment of rents.
While the Ministry is focussing the latest round of consultations on specific changes to the SHRA regulations, many organizations have identified the need for a broader review of the entire SHRA legislation and its continuing effectiveness, as well as other major policy considerations.
At the 2006 annual conference of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), Premier Dalton McGuinty announced a provincial-municipal review of how to improve the delivery and funding of municipal services. This review will include a study of delivery and funding of social housing, along with other areas and is intended to be finalized by the spring of 2008. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has indicated that any major change to the SHRA would not be contemplated until after the completion of the provincial/municipal service review.
Service managers across the province have also identified a number of broad policy issues that require further work. These include:
The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada (CHF) Ontario Region has made reform of the SHRA their top priority. In a brief to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, CHF maintains that the SHRA is undermining all of the elements that have contributed to the success of the co-op housing model. CHF is seeking major changes to the SHRA that would meet the following goals for reform:
The Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario (ACTO) also has proposed amending the SHRA. In a letter to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, ACTO expressed their general view that aspects of the SHRA are inconsistent with preserving the tenancies of socially and economically vulnerable tenants. Over and above the regulatory changes that ACTO is recommending, they have emphasized the need for an amendment to the SHRA itself to provide for a right of appeal to an independent tribunal.
Regulations to the SHRA were passed in 2001 and since then, have been amended on a regular basis. Initially, amendments were made largely to correct mistakes or clarify intent. Then as municipalities and housing providers experienced increasing difficulties with the detailed and prescriptive regulations for social housing administration, they began to propose regulation changes that would improve how programs were delivered.
In November 2005, the Province introduced a range of regulation amendments that dealt with many of the issues that had been raised by service managers and housing provider associations. These changes were the most substantive amendments to date and gave more local discretion, clarity and consistency in regulations and were intended to ease administrative requirements.
The Province is currently undertaking further consultation on regulatory issues identified by stakeholders to improve the functioning of social housing under the SHRA. The current provincial consultation covers three broad areas:
The Province has announced that regulation changes on these issues will likely occur in spring 2007, with consultations being held in late 2006, continuing into early 2007.
Issues related to special priority policy (priority placement for victims of domestic violence) and financing/benchmarking are being considered as part of other consultations led by the Ministry and they have their own timetables. The Ministry has made it clear that as part of this current consultation, issues pertaining to the funding model, benchmarks and special priority policy are not open for discussion.
In late 2006, the Provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) held three separate one-day consultation sessions, one on each of the three regulation areas:
RGI administration and
eligibility
Regulations related to determining tenant eligibility for RGI subsidies were discussed, including issues such as:
Utility Scales
SHRA regulations attempt to account for the differences in costs between social housing residents who pay directly for their own utilities and those for whom utility costs are included in the rent. The regulations specify allowances for various services and utilities that need to be added or subtracted from the RGI formula. The problem is that these allowances have not been updated since 2000 and, with rapidly rising utility costs, there are significant increases in costs for social housing residents who pay for their utilities directly.
Governance
SHRA regulations prescribe how both service managers and housing providers administer social housing, with primary direction on service manager funding requirements, housing provider reporting requirements and rent-geared-to-income administration. Areas of discussion for potential regulation change during consultation included:
During those meetings, stakeholder consensus was reached on some specific proposed changes to regulations. The Province will consider those points of consensus as part of the regulation changes expected in the spring. Other recommendations require further discussion or evaluation, and additional consultation meetings have been scheduled in late January and early February 2007 to discuss further. The province will prepare a final report, expected to be tabled in the early part of the second quarter of 2007, which will summarize their consultation process and outline their position on recommended regulation changes to the SHRA.
4. Local Consultation on the Social Housing Reform Act
As directed by HRSS Committee in the fall of 2006, the Housing Branch commenced a local consultation process to collect and summarize local stakeholder perspectives on the SHRA and associated regulations. The consultation process involved three steps:
The local consultation focused on three primary social housing categories:
1) Eligibility for and the calculation of rent-geared-to-income subsidies,
2) Occupancy standards for social housing, and
3) Access to social housing.
Within these three broad categories, nine specific issues were identified and presented in the consultation issues paper and were discussed at length during the consultation meetings. These specific issues were chosen as they are still being considered by the Province for regulatory reform due to the lack of stakeholder consensus on an approach to the resolution of the issue. A description of issues and a summary of feedback on the proposals for reform suggested by various stakeholders have been attached to this report as Addendum ’A’.
Participants were asked to identify key messages they would
want the City to send to the Province with respect to the SHRA and associated
regulations. There were a number of
general principles that were consistently and clearly identified by
stakeholders during these consultations.
They are as follows:
Social housing is a scarce resource and so decisions about who accesses and who remains in social housing are difficult and require careful balancing of the needs of applicants and the needs of existing occupants.
Social housing is intended to provide choices for people who often don’t have many. It offers long-term, stable places for families to have space for privacy, rest and study and for seniors and disabled people to remain in their communities, benefiting from the important support that families, friends and locally-based services can provide.
Social housing, like any community, benefits from people being good neighbours and responsible occupants. Because there is a public subsidy involved, there is a high expectation of integrity on the part of occupants and applicants, and appropriate recourse if obligations are not fulfilled.
Operating social housing is complex and multifaceted, requiring social housing providers to combine business-like practices as landlords with sensitivity to resident needs as community-based non-profit organizations. Faced with many unique circumstances, social housing providers would benefit from the flexibility to be able to reasonably and independently operate within broad accountability frameworks.
With major funding obligations for social housing on the municipal tax base, the City should have greater control over social housing operations and far less prescriptive direction on the part of the Province. Similarly, housing providers would manage their portfolios within a simplified accountability structure.
The consultation focused on three primary social housing categories:
· Eligibility for and the calculation of rent-geared-to-income subsidies,
· Occupancy standards for social housing, and
· Access to social housing.
Within the three categories nine issues were discussed during the local consultation.
Rent Geared to Income housing is based on the principle of households paying no more than 30% of their gross household income towards rent. The social housing subsidies paid by the City cover the difference between what a household can pay and what the housing actually costs to provide. For example, a typical 2 bedroom apartment may cost the housing provider $1,000 per month to provide, including the cost of property taxes, administration and maintenance, utilities (sometimes paid by tenants directly) and other costs. Unit rents are generally determined by both provider budgets as well as provincial legislation. If the resident household has a gross monthly income of $1000, and the rent for the unit is $1000, the required subsidy is $700. It should be noted that many of the community-based social housing providers in Ontario have a number of “market rent” units available to households who do not need, or receive, a rent subsidy. This reflects the continuing intent to ensure that social housing communities include a range of households and incomes, as well as providing on-going security of tenure – in other words, tenants do not have to leave their communities just because they no longer need a subsidy themselves.
Calculation of household incomes is thus an important part of the administration of social housing, to ensure that tenants do not pay more than they can afford, and to ensure that the City does not pay more subsidy than is required. Issues 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are issues that relate to eligibility for and calculation of rent geared to income subsidies.
Issue 1:
Definition of the Household – RGI Calculations
Using Income of All Household Occupants
The SHRA Regulations currently require that if a person’s income is included in RGI calculations, their name must be on the lease.
In some cases, housing providers may not wish to accept someone who is a long-term guest as a tenant or co-operative member, but they do want to ensure that the income of the long-term guest (who may have no other address) is included in the calculation of RGI. For example, this may occur in the case of a special priority policy individual that reconciles with her partner but does not want to give him tenancy rights. Permitting someone to reside in the household without being on the lease could allow for more security in tenure for the original occupant.
Service managers are proposing that the regulations should give discretion to decide whether household members whose incomes are considered in the amount of rent payable have to sign the lease or agreement. Service managers want to ensure that the appropriate amount of rent is collected based on the income of all persons residing in the dwelling, but they recognize that housing providers may not necessarily want to enter into tenancy agreements with all household members. This is also an area where local non-profit and co-op housing providers would prefer to have greater control.
Allowing service managers to include the income of household members without them being on the lease may not be possible since, once an added member of the household pays rent and the landlord accepts this rent, the action may imply a tenancy agreement with the accompanying rights and obligations. There may be inconsistency with the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) provisions if service managers are provided with discretion in who signs the lease or agreement.
Housing sector stakeholder suggestions presented to the Province for dealing with this issue are:
One comment received during the consultation indicated that without this provision, there is the possibility of queue jumping of the waiting list. The example given was where an uncle moves in to stay with the family and then subsequently takes over the unit when the family moves out. There is a need to consider household composition when considering who should be included on the lease, for example a dependent child becoming an adult vs. an adult friend who is a roommate.
The Province has indicated that giving discretion to decide whose name is on the lease contravenes the RTA and will not necessarily address the problem it was meant to solve. An alternative suggested during the local consultation is to create a new category under the RTA to reflect tenancies that are long-term but without the rights and obligations of a primary tenant. The issue of inconsistency with the RTA is not an issue for co-ops at present because they are governed by separate legislation.
A problem identified with this provision is that if the amount of income to which the RGI household is entitled under the income source for which they qualify would not be in an amount high enough to bring the rent calculation to full market rates, ceasing eligibility for that household is unnecessarily punitive. For example, if a household resides within a social housing unit that has a market rent of $750 and the household declares that they now have no income and are living on savings while they search for employment, they would pay the minimum $85 rent for a unit. As well they would potentially qualify for OW assistance. If the household did not make attempts to pursuit OW assistance, under current regulations the housing provider can either determine the tenant is completely ineligible for RGI assistance and raise the rent to the market rent of $750, or can determine that reasonable efforts to pursue income from Ontario Works have been made and retain the rent at $85.
A compromise suggestion has been made that would allow housing providers to charge rent on “deemed income” when tenants refuse to pursue additional income. Continuing the above example, the housing provider could deem the additional income that the household could have received from Ontario Works, even if it is not provided, and increase the rent to the OW shelter component of $335. Clearly this would be less onerous than the increase to $750, but it still recognizes the tenant’s obligation to pursue income unless further pursuit would put him/her at risk.
Opposition to this approach has noted that this type of provision may result in economic eviction. In the case of the above example, if the tenant does not actually receive income from Ontario Works, the rent has increased to such a level that other financial obligations may no longer be met.
Others would argue that tenants have a responsibility to at least make efforts to pursue income to which they are entitled, as long as this does not create a risk to their health and safety. Allowing tenants to not pursue additional income places a greater subsidy burden on social housing budgets when the additional income could be paid through other sources (such as Ontario Works, Employment Insurance, Immigration, pensions or former spouses).
Housing sector stakeholder suggestions presented to the Province for dealing with this issue are:
Consultation Feedback: Several local respondents were not in favour of “deeming” income. City staff pointed out that other social assistance programs, such as Ontario Works, are moving away from a “deemed income” approach. If people are not actually receiving the income, then they will experience serious financial problems if they are deemed to receive income and have an increase in their rent.
Many examples were given in the consultations of people who for cultural reasons, deteriorating mental health or fraudulent behaviour were not pursuing income. Some participants suggested that if a tenant is not pursuing income through OW or other government programs, it may well be because they have hidden income sources and would not be eligible. Others cited religious or cultural barriers that may work against pursuing certain sources of income.
For the most part, participants were satisfied that the current regulations provide housing providers with the tools they need to pursue income. Housing providers indicated they did not enjoy the role of policing income but they do not agree with taking away accountability of people to pursue income to which they are entitled.
Under current regulations, households are ineligible for RGI assistance if they owe money with respect to a previous tenancy with any social housing provider administering a social housing program, either for rent arrears, reimbursement of arrears or damage caused by a member of the household. This ineligibility criteria may be over-ruled by the service manager or housing provider (if the service manager has delegated RGI administration to the housing provider) is satisfied that extenuating circumstances exist or the household is making all reasonable efforts to repay the arrears or money owed.
At the provincial level, certain tenant groups have maintained that service managers/housing providers are never satisfied with any repayment schedule or agreement and so RGI eligibility is continually denied. They state housing providers may not be advising households in arrears that they could enter into a repayment agreement to avoid ineligibility for subsidy. Many tenants in RGI units have difficult personal circumstances that make it less likely that the tenant will initiate the negotiation of a rent repayment agreement. Further, applicants/tenants may only realize the impact of their rent or damage arrears years after their former tenancy where the arrear occurred, when they may again reach the top of the waiting list and are in the process of being offered a new social housing unit.
The RTA is broader than the SHRA in defining money owed for damages. The RTA includes money owed for damages caused by a tenant or by a person permitted in the residential complex by the tenant. The SHRA regulations confine assessment of damages to those caused by a member of the household, although in practice this can be difficult to determine or assess.
An additional issue pertaining to arrears is the timing of when providers can identify a tenant in arrears to be added to the local and provincial social housing arrears database. Currently, names can be entered on the arrears database only after a tenant has moved out, (in that, arrears from a current tenancy with a social housing provider are not included in this category). Accordingly, in some circumstances, this can result in the tenant being re-housed with another social housing provider without the new housing provider being aware of the arrears history of the tenant with the current landlord.
Of note, the City of Ottawa, as Service Manager, chose to apply a more practical and consistent definition for social housing arrear, and issued a Directive on June 16, 2005, expanding the definition of a social housing arrear to be consistent with the previous TPA (now RTA) definition.
Housing sector stakeholder suggestions presented to the Province for dealing with this issue are:
Most participants were also open to suggestions to increase awareness and education of tenants of the implications of not paying their arrears. Some housing providers indicated they have an inspection report that is provided to tenants following the move-out inspection of their unit. It clarifies what actions tenants are required to take in order to clean or repair damages to various elements in their units and costs that will be charged to the tenant if such work is not completed by the tenant prior to move-out. In addition, Registry staff indicated they have a booklet about social housing arrears with practical advice for potential tenants that could be a starting point for a guide available to all providers. Providers generally supported a proactive approach to informing tenants about the impact of arrears, but felt that for the most part they were already sensitive to the personal circumstances of tenants when establishing arrear repayment schedules.
To deal with the timing issue related to the local and provincial arrears database, it was suggested there needs to be an amendment to the service manager arrear Directive, in that names be permitted to be added when a household has been in arrears for at least 3 months, even if the tenant continues to be housed. This change would then require arrangements to be made for repayment of arrears, prior to the household being re-housed in another social housing community. Not all stakeholders could agree to the inclusion of current tenants arrears to the arrears database.
In Ottawa, the service manager has delegated the internal review process to housing providers as part of RGI administration. Providers were required to develop an internal review process and submit it to the service manager for approval. A key requirement of the internal review process is that only staff or Board members who were not involved in the initial decision may be part of the internal review of that decision.
This review process has been contrasted with the review process in place for Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) where an independent adjudicative body – the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) – is the forum for appeal of internal review decisions. The Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal (ORHT) has also been suggested as a forum for hearing internal reviews for social housing. The ORHT has determined that it lacks jurisdiction to review the internal decision of a housing provider to revoke a subsidy.
Housing sector stakeholders suggestions presented to the Province as potential solutions to this issue include:
·
Expressly provide
for a right of appeal before the ORHT or the SBT from decisions that have been
internally reviewed under Section 82 of the SHRA.
·
Expressly provide
that the ORHT has jurisdiction to determine applications based on rent arrears
arising as a result of termination or decrease of RGI assistance.
·
Increase
flexibility in the requirements concerning timeframes, notices and hearings
related to appeals.
·
Increase
flexibility in terms of who can sit on review panels and who can request a
review and provide clear authority to change a decision if new information is
received.
Consultation Feedback: Generally, in Ottawa there is support that the internal review process should remain at the local level. During the consultation only one of the respondents supported the use of a province-wide body such as the Social Benefits Tribunal or the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal for internal reviews. However, it was pointed out by another stakeholder there is currently an average wait of 11 months for a hearing before the SBT and both province-wide bodies were seen as bureaucratic and overly formalized.
With respect to the existing local process, for the most part it is seen to be working well. Some respondents felt that the process could be improved by promoting greater third-party involvement at the local level. It was proposed that, especially for small providers, the relationship with the service manager could be strengthened to promote best practices and provide support as required. As well, it was suggested that advocacy organizations should be encouraged to advise the service manager of situations where the review process may appear to not being conducted in an objective and independent way.
One issue raised specifically by tenants in the consultation process is that housing providers need to make very clear to tenants what to expect from the internal review process and what is “appealable” or not, under current legislation. An example given during the consultation was of a tenant who had been a student, then subsequently attained full-time work and whose rent increased as a result. The tenant appealed the rent increase that was now unaffordable to her and seen to be unfair because it did not consider an outstanding student loan. However, because the new rent had been calculated according to the prescribed RGI rules, the internal review resulted in no changes, leaving the tenant very disappointed. Clarification at the outset about what can be decided by an internal appeal could improve the process.
The SHRA requires that when a decision adverse to a household is going to be made, members of the household must be given an opportunity to comment on any information that may form the basis for that decision.
The “opportunity to comment” requirement has been identified as an administrative burden, with rules that are complicated and inflexible. If one household member, such as the household head for example, provides income information, other members of the household must be given an opportunity to comment before the RGI payable is changed. This has even included giving an opportunity to comment where rent decreases are occurring.
On the other hand, if household members are not given the opportunity to comment, changes affecting the entire household may occur without other members of the household knowing. For example, there may be roommates sharing accommodation and one has an increase in income and such information is submitted to the housing provider. The other household member may find the rent has increased without having any knowledge why this occurred. Income increases may even result in the household becoming ineligible for RGI assistance without all members of the household knowing or understanding the implications.
Housing sector stakeholders suggestions presented to the Province as potential solutions to this issue include:
Consultation Feedback: No local stakeholder proposed removing the opportunity to comment altogether. Housing providers tended to seek simplification of this requirement; although it is clear there are many different ways that it is being implemented. Advocates were concerned with power imbalance issues within a household and saw the opportunity to comment as a way to ensure that individual household members were protected from surprises affecting their eligibility for RGI assistance. Housing providers were in favour of the option that proposed an overall “sign-off” from all members of the household to indicate who may provide information on behalf of the household. The advocates or tenants did not support this option.
Many respondents agreed with clarifying that a rent decrease is not an adverse decision that requires an opportunity to comment. The advocates group preferred no changes to the opportunity to comment provisions at all.
The SHRA prescribes occupancy standards that specify the appropriate unit size unit for households, based on the number and composition of people in the household. For example, the occupancy standard (the size of unit a household is eligible to receive RGI assistance for) for a 1-parent family with a 12-year-old boy and 8-year-old girl is a minimum of a two-bedroom apartment and a maximum of a three-bedroom apartment.
Service Managers have the option of specifying more stringent local occupancy standards to specify appropriate unit sizes for households of different sizes and types. In Ottawa, provincial occupancy standards are being used. Issues 6, 7 and 8 are issues that relate to occupancy standards.
Issue 6
Local Discretion to Determine More Restrictive Occupancy
Standards
The Service Manager currently has authority to set local occupancy standards that are more restrictive than the provincial standards.
One housing sector stakeholder suggestion presented to the Province as a potential solution to this issue is:
Consultation Feedback: Some stakeholders have called for the removal of the service manager discretion to set occupancy standards that are more restrictive than the provincial standards. This change would require an amendment to the Social Housing Reform Act itself. This issue was not considered to be significant in Ottawa since the City uses the provincial standard. However, most consultation participants felt that the provincial standard was already very tight, and there should be no need for one that is more restrictive.
Issue 7:
Over - Housed Households
As a result of normal changes to household composition over time, households can become either over-housed (unit too big for the household) or under housed (unit is too small). For example, the composition of an existing household would decrease when a child reaches adulthood and moves into their own accommodation resulting in the household being over-housed. Alternatively a baby is born into an existing household increasing the household composition, resulting in the household being under-housed.
The SHRA does not address the issue of under-housed households, other than to state that a household may chose the option of being under-housed and still be eligible to receive RGI assistance.
On the other hand, because of the significant demand for larger units for large families, there are numerous regulations on how to manage over-housed households. In general, over-housed households are required to move to a smaller unit, and are placed on their housing provider’s internal transfer list so that when a smaller unit becomes available they will be relocated. If the existing housing provider does not have a suitably sized unit anywhere within their portfolio the household must immediately be placed on the centralized waiting list. Where there are suitably sized units within the portfolio, but a suitably sized unit is still not available after one year with their current housing provider, they must be placed on the central waiting list (which in Ottawa is operated by The Registry).
The rationale for this policy is that allowing households to continue to occupy units that are too large for their needs may not be the best use of scarce social housing resources. For example, there may be households on a waiting list for a three-bedroom unit, who cannot access these units because they continue to be occupied by an “empty-nester” household, even though they are over-housed in such unit. This raises the issue of fairness to those who are waiting for housing or who may be under-housed.
On the other hand, many non-profit and co-operative housing
developments were created with a view to providing long-term stable housing to
meet the needs of their residents.
Making the regulations dealing with over-housed households more strict
will mean that long-time residents who have a change in household composition
may be forced from their communities and homes if their building does not have
a unit of appropriate size. Such change
may be very upsetting for some households and does not allow for stability of
communities, aging-in-place and temporary adjustments in housing composition.
For example, a household who occupies a three-bedroom unit in Kanata may face a situation when the household decreases in size and now requires a one-bedroom unit and no one-bedroom units exist in the community of Kanata. Such a household would need to move to an entirely new area of the city where such a unit does exist, leaving well-established connections to the Kanata community and the range of services and facilities there.
All applicants have the option of specifying the housing developments where they choose to live, subject to the condition that the housing development has an appropriately sized unit for the household. This means the applicant could either limit their options to only one housing development or could choose the option of selecting all housing projects within Ottawa that meet the required occupancy standards for that household. As a result, an over-housed household can limit their selection of an acceptable location to their current building only, effectively frustrating the intent to transfer them to an appropriately sized unit. This means a household whose children have grown and moved away may continue to occupy a three-bedroom unit in a development that has very few smaller sized units. Under current regulations, that household can limit their choice of where they want to live to their current housing development, and may remain over-housed for several years until a suitably-sized unit becomes available.
To deal with this situation, it has been proposed that over-housed households be required to select and maintain a reasonable number of housing preferences when they are moved to the centralized waiting list.
In order to allow reasonable support for the principles of community living in social housing, housing providers are seeking the ability to apply reasonable discretion for households that are minimally over housed, and allow them to remain in their community.
Housing sector stakeholders suggestions presented to the Province as potential solutions to this issue include:
Consultation Feedback: The issue of over housing and how it is currently regulated creates a number of problems, for the household, the housing provider and the centralized waiting list.
Participants in the consultation generally agreed with the requirement to move over-housed households and therefore supported the recommendation that households be required to select a reasonable number of housing preferences when they move to the centralized waiting list. Many participants were sympathetic to the needs of applicants, and especially sensitive to the shortage of larger-sized units for families. In addition, because the rent of RGI households is based on their income and not the size of their unit, it was recognized that there is no financial incentive for them to move to a smaller unit.
Some participants questioned what a “reasonable” number of housing preferences would be and recognized that this would likely vary by municipality, depending upon the nature of social housing in place and the availability of different unit sizes. It was supported that service manager discretion to define “reasonable” would be appropriate.
At the same time, many participants identified how important it can be for households to stay in their own community where they often have family, friends and local support services. It was pointed out that many social housing residents have invested considerable time and energy becoming involved with their housing development and their neighbourhood. This is often the case with co-ops. The co-op sector suggested an alternative to having people forced to move by giving them a financial incentive. The incentive would be created through a surcharge over and above the RGI rent being paid that would represent the difference between the market rents charged on a smaller and larger sized unit. The surcharge suggestion was not endorsed by other housing providers who were concerned with the violation of the principle of rent based on income, which is intended to reflect a reasonable proportion of income as an expenditure on housing.
In order to facilitate over-housed households moving to different locations, a suggestion was made to link residents to community services that could assist with moving and lining up support services in the new location. Along with the notice to deal with the over-housing situation, housing providers could send a notice advising residents about local support organizations who could assist with the move. This could also include information about language services for those needing interpretation or translation.
All participants agreed that providers should have some discretion when dealing with over-housed households under certain conditions, such as with seniors, long-term residents, and households with health, age or family challenges for whom a move would be disturbing or dangerous. Several participants pointed out that people develop close ties with their community and may have essential services in that geographical location, including medical services, schooling, church, and so on.
Many participants proposed that discretion for providers should be accompanied by service manager guidelines and structure, so that it is not open-ended. Conditions need to be specified. One proposal was for providers to be given discretion to consider the strength of community ties and the demonstrated need for support services in that geographical location, responding to situations involving seniors, long-term residents, or households with health, age or family challenges for whom a move would be disturbing or dangerous, before requiring households to select and maintain a reasonable number of housing preferences.
One sector stakeholder suggestion presented to the Province as potential solution to this issue include:
Consultation Feedback: There were opposing opinions from local stakeholders with respect to special needs households who are over-housed. Some respondents noted that larger accessible units are harder to rent and the waiting list for them is not long or non- existent. On the other hand, at least one respondent noted there was a lack of availability of special needs units and there may be limited options for these tenants to move to smaller units with appropriate modifications to accommodate their special needs. Others identified various reasons why persons with special needs may need to have larger units (medical reasons for not sharing bedrooms, equipment storage requirements and so on).
Access to
Social Housing
The SHRA prescribes rules for households that wish to access RGI housing assistance. All households must: apply to a centralized waiting list for social housing (The Registry), meet prescribed eligibility criteria and make housing selections that meet the occupancy standards prescribed for their household. A household has an opportunity to decline up to three valid housing offers (an offer of a unit that is of the size, type and location appropriate for or selected by the household), after which the household ceases to be eligible for RGI assistance. Issue 9 relates to access to social housing.
Under the SHRA, a household ceases to be eligible for RGI assistance if it refuses three valid offers of housing as selected by the household. In certain situations, some special provincial priority applicants (priority placement for victims of domestic violence) may require support services, treatment or safety of a shelter or transitional housing and may not be ready to move into permanent social housing.
The Provincial Special Priority Working Group (SPWG) has proposed that in circumstances where the SPP applicant is in need of and currently in receipt of such support, shelter or treatment and such support is necessary in order to ensure long-term successful social housing tenancies, the household should be put into a “pending” status on the centralized waiting list, thereby exempting the household from the three offers rule as long as there is documented, professional verification that such support or treatment is necessary and the household is currently receiving it.
In Ottawa, some shelters for victims of violence have time limits that restrict the length of time that people can remain in shelter. These limits are in place because of the excessive demand for space that most shelters experience. Harmony House, which is the only 2nd stage transitional housing for women in Ottawa, permits residents to remain for one year.
Housing sector stakeholder suggestions presented to the Province for dealing with this issue are:
All participants in the consultation favoured the SPWG proposal that would allow an exemption to the rule on ineligibility after three refusals where applicants are staying in shelter for additional security or safety supports. It was pointed out that without this provision, some women were moving into social housing without supports, even though they should be in supportive housing or second stage transitional housing. Participants agreed that there would need to be a formalized process around the exemption, with professional verification and it should not just be at the discretion of the individual.
Some participants suggested that perhaps a time constraint should be placed on the length of time that the exemption could be applied. For example, a one-year time limit was proposed. Others were comfortable with the notion of leaving this decision to a professional.
Shelter operators who were consulted about the SPWG recommendation agreed with the proposal to permit a “pending” status, indicating that such an approach has worked in the past. Shelter operators supported a time limit on the “pending” status, noting that it becomes more and more difficult to document special needs as increasing time goes by. One respondent expressed caution with respect to additional requirements for documenting support or treatment needs, because of the potential of evidence being used against a special needs client in subsequent legal action.
The following local stakeholder comments were raised during the local consultation. Of note, not all stakeholders supported all of the comments outlined below. The intent of the summary is to identify the broad range of feedback received from individual stakeholders for general consideration by the service manager and the province. General principles that all local stakeholders supported have been identified in Section 5.3 - Local Consultation: Summary of Principles That Should be Considered When Reviewing the SHRA and Associated Regulations of the Housing Branch staff report. Comments heard from various individual stakeholders include: