1. EVALUATION OF LOCAL POLICIES IN SOCIAL HOUSING

ÉVALUATION DES POLITIQUES LOCALES DANS LES LOGEMENTS SOCIAUX

Committee Recommendations as amended

That Council:

1. Approve the recommended disposition of the 56 Local Policies established in 2002 by Council attached as Appendix A, including 12 recommendations, 20 with no changes and 24 deletions no longer required, as amended in order that the recommendations regarding the conversion of social housing to supportive housing not occur until there is Provincial or Federal funding to provide the necessary support services.

2. Request that the Province of Ontario amend their policies and housing selection process for Special Provincial Priority (SPP) applicants and provide the staff or resources required to ensure that a safety plan that identifies the processes and supports needed to improve the safety of the respective household is developed, and stipulates how these processes and supports will be delivered.

3. Request that the Province develop a rent supplement or housing allowance program to house SPP priority households in the private rental market rather than relying solely on the availability of subsidized social housing.

4. Request that the Provincial Government and the Federal Government develop and fund programs to ensure the availability of adequate mental health and related support and outreach services to meet the needs of Ottawa’s residents and to reduce the current cycles of homelessness, chronic shelter usage, overuse of emergency and acute care health services and to enable stability of tenure in the community.

5. Advocate with the Provincial Ministries of Health and Long Term Care, Community and Social Services and Municipal Affairs and Housing to develop a comprehensive and systematic approach to funding existing and new supportive services aimed at stabilizing and improving the success rate of vulnerable low-income tenants. This approach should be based on best practices and be in alignment with Ottawa’s Community Action Plan for Preventing and Ending Homelessness.

6. In an effort to satisfy the requirements of the Social Housing Reform Act (SHRA) with respect to the conduct of internal reviews, it is requested that Council approve the City’s participation in a one-year pilot project to implement a new internal review process to provide applicants and current residents of social housing who wish to appeal adverse decisions related to eligibility and access to RGI housing an impartial third party forum for the resolution of these matters.

7. Delegate authority to the Director of Housing to indemnify forgivable loans offered to social housing providers by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program for Disabilities in order to support the creation of additional modified units for people with disabilities on the condition that in the case of default by the housing provider on such loans, the City’s indemnification cost would be recovered by retention of a portion of the operating subsidy provided to that housing provider over the remaining period of the loan.

8. Direct staff to forward this report to the Minister of Community and Social Services, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care with a request that the Province immediately provide $2.75 million in on-going funding for the supportive services identified in this report, and that staff report back to the Committee by the end of October with an action plan to be implemented to obtain the requested amount.

9. Refer the financial considerations of the report ($2.75 million) to the 2009 Budget Process.

10. Direct staff to report on options for investing or otherwise supporting the development of affordable homeownership housing while respecting the principle of maximizing the return on public investments over the long term.

11. Direct staff to come forward with an action report on developing new supportive units through purchase or new construction.

12. Accept the consultant’s definition of challenging tenancies as the local definition in Ottawa until an agreed upon definition is arrived at the Housing Stakeholders Advisory Group and that the definition and process for a cap be finalized within the following six months.

RecommandationS MODIFIÉES du Comité

Que le Conseil :

1. approuve la recommandation relative aux 56 politiques locales établies en 2002 par le Conseil, jointes en annexe A et telles que décrites dans le présent rapport, y compris en ce qui a trait aux 12 politiques révisées, aux 20 politiques conservées telles quelles et aux 24 politiques abandonnées, qui ne s’avèrent plus nécessaires, telles que modifiées de manière à ce que les recomandations visant la transformation de logements sociaux en logements en milieu de soutien ne soient pas appliquées avant l’obtention d’un financement provincial ou fédéral permettant de fournir les services de soutien nécessaires.

2. approuve la participation de la Ville à un projet pilote d’un an pour mettre en œuvre un nouveau processus d’examen interne qui fournira aux bénéficiaires actuels du logement social et à ceux qui souhaitent le devenir des outils pour porter en appel des décisions niant leur admissibilité et leur accès à un loyer proportionné au revenu, au moyen d’une tribune indépendante appelée à résoudre ces questions;

3. demande que la province de l’Ontario modifie ses politiques et son processus de sélection des logements destinés aux ménages qui se présentent comme des « ménages prioritaires (priorité provinciale) » afin d’améliorer la sécurité et la stabilité à long terme des logements visés par cette priorité, et ce, en incitant la province à fournir directement le personnel et les ressources nécessaires à la mise en œuvre d’un programme d’appui pour ces ménages prioritaires qui font des demandes relatives au logement social, ou à financer le gestionnaire de services pour qu’il acquière le personnel ou les ressources nécessaires;

4. demande que la province se dote d’un programme de supplément de loyer ou d’allocation de loyer pour loger les ménages prioritaires (priorité provinciale) sur le marché de la location privé, sans dépendre uniquement de la disponibilité du logement social subventionné;

5. demande que les gouvernements provincial et fédéral établissent et financent des programmes pour assurer l’accès à des services adéquats en matière de santé mentale et à des services de soutien et de sensibilisation connexes afin de répondre aux besoins des résidents d’Ottawa, de briser le cycle actuel de l’itinérance et de réduire le recours chronique aux abris et l’utilisation excessive des soins de santé d’urgence et de courte durée, pour assurer la stabilité des modes d’occupation dans la collectivité;

6. défendre, de concert avec les ministères provinciaux de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée, des Services sociaux et communautaires ainsi que des Affaires municipales et du Logement, l’adoption d’une approche exhaustive et méthodique pour le financement des services de soutien existants et nouveaux afin d’améliorer et de stabiliser le taux de réussite des locataires vulnérables à faible revenu;

7. conféré au directeur du Logement le pouvoir d’engager la Ville à des demandes de prêts qui satisfont aux exigences de la Société canadienne d’hypothèques et de logement (SCHL) en vue d’indemniser les prêts-subventions accordés aux fournisseurs de logements sociaux par la SCHL dans le cadre du Programme d’aide à la remise en état des logements pour les personnes handicapées, afin d’appuyer la création d’unités modifiées supplémentaires à l’intention de ces personnes conformément aux dispositions de la Loi de 2000 sur la réforme du logement social .

8. charge le personnel de transmettre le présent rapport au ministre des Services sociaux et communautaires, au ministre des Affaires municipales et du Logement et au ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée, en demandant que le provincial fournisse immédiatement une somme de 2,75 millions de dollars, sous forme de financement permanent, afin d’offrir les services de soutien désignés dans le présent rapport, et de rendre compte au Comité d’ici la fin d’octobre en proposant un plan d’action permettant d’obtenir la somme nécessaire.

9. tenir compte des considérations financières du rapport (2,75 millions de dollars) dans le processus budgétaire de 2009.

10. charge le personnel de rendre compte des options d’investissement ou de soutien quelconque envers l’accès à la propriété abordable, tout en respectant le principe de maximisation du rendement à long terme des investissements publics.

11. charge le personnel de proposer un rapport d’intervention sur la création de nouveaux logements en milieu de soutien grâce à l’achat de nouvelles constructions.

12. accepte la définition de locations difficiles du consultant comme définition locale pour Ottawa, jusqu’à ce qu’une définition convenue soit soumise au Housing Stakeholders Advisory Group (Groupe consultatif d’intervenants en logement), et que cette définition et l’établissement d’un seuil soient finalisés dans les six prochains mois.

For the information of council

DIRECTIONS TO STAFF:

1. That the annual report of the Social Housing Registry be provided to Committee and Council.

2. That the criteria set as the tipping point for challenging tenancies be provided to Committee and Council once developed. (Also see Recommendation 12).

3. That the standards to reduce onerous paperwork required of social housing providers be provided to Committee and Council once developed.

Pour la gouverne du Conseil

DIRECTIVES AU PERSONNEL:

1. Que le rapport annuel du Registre du logement social soit remis au Comité et au Conseil.

2. Que les critères établis comme étant les points de basculement des locations difficiles soient fournis, lorsqu’ils auront été élaborés, au Comité et au Conseil (voir également la recommandation 12).

3. Que les normes de réduction des travaux d’écriture coûteux exigées par les fournisseurs de logement social soient fournies, lorsqu’elles auront été élaborées, au Comité et au Conseil.

Documentation

1. Deputy City Manager's report Community and Protective Services, dated 29 August 2008 (ACS2008-CPS-HOU-0012).

2. Extract of Draft Minute, 8 September 2008.

Report to/Rapport au :

Community and Protective Services Committee

Comité des services communautaires et de protection

and Council/et au Conseil

29 August 2008/le 29 âout 2008

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, Russell.Mawby@ottawa.ca

Médecin chef en santé publique

City-wide/ À l’échelle de la ville

Ref N°: ACS2008-CPS- HOU-0012

SUBJECT:

Evaluation of Local Policies in Social Housing

OBJET :

Évaluation des politiques locales dans les logements sociaux

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Community and Protective Services Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve the recommended disposition of the 56 Local Policies established in 2002 by Council, attached as Appendix A and as described in this report, including 12 revised recommendations, 20 with no changes and 24 deletions no longer required.

2. Approve the City’s participation in a one-year pilot project to implement a new internal review process to provide applicants and current residents of social housing who wish to appeal adverse decisions related to eligibility and access to RGI housing an impartial third party forum for the resolution of these matters.

3. Request that the Province of Ontario amend their policies and housing selection process for Special Provincial Priority (SPP) applicants to improve the safety and long term stability of the households placed under this priority by having the Province either directly provide staff and resources or to fund the Service Manager to acquire the required staff or resources to implement a support program for SPP households coming in to social housing.

4. Request that the Province develop a rent supplement or housing allowance program to house SPP priority households in the private rental market rather than relying solely on the availability of subsidized social housing.

5. Request that the Provincial Government and the Federal Government develop and fund programs to ensure the availability of adequate mental health and related support and outreach services to meet the needs of Ottawa’s residents and to reduce the current cycles of homelessness, chronic shelter usage, overuse of emergency and acute care health services to enable stability of tenure in the community.

6. Advocate with the Provincial Ministries of Health and Long Term Care, Community and Social Services and Municipal Affairs and Housing to develop a comprehensive and systematic approach to funding existing and new supportive services aimed at stabilizing and improving the success rate of vulnerable low-income tenants.

7. Delegate authority to the Director of Housing to commit the City, in loan applications that meet all CMHC requirements, to indemnify forgivable loans offered to social housing providers by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program for Disabilities in order to support the creation of additional modified units for people with disabilities, as permitted by the provisions of the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité des services communautaires et de protection recommande au Conseil :

1. d’approuver la recommandation relative aux 56 politiques locales établies en 2002 par le Conseil, jointes en annexe A et telles que décrites dans le présent rapport, y compris en ce qui a trait aux 12 politiques révisées, aux 20 politiques conservées telles quelles et aux 24 politiques abandonnées, qui ne s’avèrent plus nécessaires;

2. d’approuver la participation de la Ville à un projet pilote d’un an pour mettre en œuvre un nouveau processus d’examen interne qui fournira aux bénéficiaires actuels du logement social et à ceux qui souhaitent le devenir des outils pour porter en appel des décisions niant leur admissibilité et leur accès à un loyer proportionné au revenu, au moyen d’une tribune indépendante appelée à résoudre ces questions;

3. de demander que la province de l’Ontario modifie ses politiques et son processus de sélection des logements destinés aux ménages qui se présentent comme des « ménages prioritaires (priorité provinciale) » afin d’améliorer la sécurité et la stabilité à long terme des logements visés par cette priorité, et ce, en incitant la province à fournir directement le personnel et les ressources nécessaires à la mise en œuvre d’un programme d’appui pour ces ménages prioritaires qui font des demandes relatives au logement social, ou à financer le gestionnaire de services pour qu’il acquière le personnel ou les ressources nécessaires;

4. de demander que la province se dote d’un programme de supplément de loyer ou d’allocation de loyer pour loger les ménages prioritaires (priorité provinciale) sur le marché de la location privé, sans dépendre uniquement de la disponibilité du logement social subventionné;

5. de demander que les gouvernements provincial et fédéral établissent et financent des programmes pour assurer l’accès à des services adéquats en matière de santé mentale et à des services de soutien et de sensibilisation connexes afin de répondre aux besoins des résidents d’Ottawa, de briser le cycle actuel de l’itinérance et de réduire le recours chronique aux abris et l’utilisation excessive des soins de santé d’urgence et de courte durée, pour assurer la stabilité des modes d’occupation dans la collectivité;

6. de défendre, de concert avec les ministères provinciaux de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée, des Services sociaux et communautaires ainsi que des Affaires municipales et du Logement, l’adoption d’une approche exhaustive et méthodique pour le financement des services de soutien existants et nouveaux afin d’améliorer et de stabiliser le taux de réussite des locataires vulnérables à faible revenu;

7. de conférer au directeur du Logement le pouvoir d’engager la Ville à des demandes de prêts qui satisfont aux exigences de la Société canadienne d’hypothèques et de logement (SCHL) en vue d’indemniser les prêts-subventions accordés aux fournisseurs de logements sociaux par la SCHL dans le cadre du Programme d’aide à la remise en état des logements pour les personnes handicapées, afin d’appuyer la création d’unités modifiées supplémentaires à l’intention de ces personnes conformément aux dispositions de la Loi de 2000 sur la réforme du logement social .

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 (SHRA) was instituted to govern the transfer of responsibility for social housing from the Province to Ontario municipalities. Effective April 1, 2002, the City of Ottawa, as Service Manager, was responsible for meeting provincial requirements for the administration of social housing as prescribed in the SHRA and related regulations.

The SHRA deals with how individuals are allowed to access rent-geared-to-income (RGI) housing as well as how Service Managers and housing providers administer the various programs in social housing.

The SHRA and related regulations allow Service Manager flexibility in the development of local policies, standards and practices in support of the SHRA. Council adopted 56 Local Policies in 2002 as part of the report entitled Social Housing Local Policies (ACS 2002-PEO-HOU-0008), as summarized in Appendix A.

Local priorities are intended to address how to distribute the very limited social housing resources that exist today in an equitable way. The Local Policies can be grouped into four categories:

Local Occupancy Standards deal with matching household size to unit size by defining the largest and smallest sized housing units for which a household qualifies as measured by the number of bedrooms and based on the composition – number and relationship of adults and children - of the household;
Local Priority Rules deal with the additional rules that give priority access to RGI housing to certain populations over and above the general “chronological” access where applications are dealt with in the order in which they are received;
Local RGI Eligibility Rules deal with various aspects of RGI administration and the resolution of disputes concerning decisions to allow or deny RGI subsidies; and
Co-ordinated Access deals with the provision of a centralized co-ordinated access system for people applying to RGI social housing and to special needs housing under the administration of the Service Manager.

This report provides a review of the Local Policies to determine their effectiveness in meeting policy objectives and to assess which of the policies should be retained, revised or discontinued.

Staff worked with local housing providers and other stakeholders to establish a process for this review. The intent was to not just evaluate the effectiveness of the policies themselves, for example in terms of how many people did or did not get housed, but also to explore the underlying issues related to access to social housing as well as the consequences and outcomes of these and other policies so as to develop alternative solutions when warranted.

It was also recognized that an increasing number of households living in social housing need more than just a landlord to support them to be successful in their housing. Many households have additional support requirements that were not considered when social housing was being developed many decades ago. This review therefore had a underlying goal of developing a better understanding of the support requirements of those households now being housed and to determine how to support the households and the housing providers in this new role.

The original 56 Local Policies approved in 2002 were reviewed and recommendations for continuation, revision, addition and deletion have been made (Appendix A). It is recommended that twenty-four of the original policies be deleted because they are no longer necessary, mainly because the SHRA has been revised to provide provincial legislative authority for the respective actions, thus negating the need for a Local Policy. Modification of twelve of the original local policies is recommended to address emerging issues and to reflect the findings of this consultation.

The data collected from this review shows that we have been successful in housing the priority populations. The majority view across the stakeholder groups is that we need to continue to support the local priority populations.

There is also a broad recognition that we need to better support housing providers by providing support to tenants who may arrive in housing with a complex array of needs but without support. They therefore may end up being a “challenge” rather than a contributing member of the housing community. We also need to recognize that bringing balance to a community is not an exact science, so we need to give some latitude to Housing Providers to allow them to balance their communities within certain parameters in order to support the overall health and well-being of a specific community.

In alignment with the City Housing Strategy (ACS2007-CPS-HOU-0012) and the 2006-2008 Community Action Plan on Homelessness,( ACS2006-CPS-HOU-0001), the Housing Branch will work with stakeholders, including the Provincial Government toward the development of supportive housing that will enable residents of Ottawa to have appropriate and timely access to these resources. The City recognizes that currently these supports are not available in sufficient quantities but the City will work with the community to incrementally add to these supports when possible based on best practices and research evidence.

Supportive housing might include specialized supports such as workers with expertise in mental health, addictions and developmental disabilities along with more generic housing supports such as tenant support, life skill support and information and referral support. Supports may in some circumstances be intense and required on a 24/7 basis while others may only be required on occasion. Supportive housing should be developed in alignment with the framework of the Community Action Plan for Preventing and Ending Homelessness which addresses the whole continuum of tenant supports and builds upon the existing best practices.

This review has been a collaborative effort between various stakeholders and the Housing Branch in an effort to bring forth to Council recommendations that will set a course for the future. This path will, over time, sustain an integrated social housing system where tenants and housing providers are able to access appropriate resources that promote successful outcomes for tenants and their communities.

RÉSUMÉ

La Loi de 2000 sur la réforme du logement social (LRLS) a été adoptée pour régir le transfert des responsabilités en matière de logement social de la province aux municipalités de l’Ontario. À son entrée en vigueur le 1^er avril 2002, la Ville d’Ottawa, en tant que gestionnaire de services, devait veiller à ce que les exigences provinciales relatives à l’administration du logement social, conformément à la LRLS et à son règlement afférent, soient satisfaites.

La LRLS porte sur l’accès au logement proportionné au revenu ainsi que sur l’administration, par les gestionnaires de services et les fournisseurs de logements, des différents programmes offerts en matière de logement social.

La LRLS et son règlement afférent accordent aux gestionnaires de services une certaine souplesse dans la mise en œuvre de politiques, de normes et de pratiques locales, conformément à ses dispositions. En 2002, le Conseil a adopté 56 politiques locales dans la foulée d’un rapport, Logement social : politiques locales (ACS 2002-PEO-HOU-0008), résumé à l’annexe A.

Les priorités locales alors établies visaient à trouver des solutions pour répartir de façon équitable les ressources en matière de logement social, très limitées. Les politiques locales s’y rapportant se scindent en quatre catégories :

Les normes d’occupation locales, axées sur le jumelage des ménages et des unités en fonction de leur taille, définissent les unités d’habitation les plus grandes et les plus petites auxquelles ont droit les ménages en fonction du nombre de chambres à coucher et de la composition des ménages, c’est-à-dire le nombre d’adultes et d’enfants ainsi que leurs relations;
Les règles de priorité locales consistent en des règles supplémentaires qui accordent un accès prioritaire au logement proportionné au revenu à certains groupes démographiques, au-delà de l’accès « chronologique » général, pour lequel les demandes sont traitées dans l’ordre dans lequel elles ont été reçues;
Les règles d’admissibilité au logement proportionné au revenu portent sur différents aspects de l’administration du logement proportionné au revenu ainsi que le règlement des différends au sujet de décisions accordant ou refusant un accès à de telles subventions;
L’accès coordonné se rapporte à la mise en place d’un système centralisé de coordination de l’accès au logement proportionné au revenu, en tenant compte des besoins spéciaux en matière de logement sous la supervision du gestionnaire de services.

Le présent rapport examine les politiques locales pour en déterminer l’efficacité par rapport aux objectifs stratégiques. Il vise à cerner les politiques à conserver, à réviser ou à abandonner.

Le personnel a collaboré avec des fournisseurs de logements locaux et d’autres intervenants à l’établissement d’un processus d’examen. L’objectif ne consistait pas seulement à évaluer l’efficacité des politiques elles-mêmes, par exemple en ce qui a trait au nombre de personnes logées ou non, mais aussi à sonder des questions sous-jacentes relativement à l’accès au logement social ainsi qu’aux résultats et aux conséquences de ces politiques, et d’autres politiques, sur la recherche de solutions différentes.

On a également reconnu le fait qu’un nombre croissant de ménages habitant des logements sociaux ont besoin d’un soutien supérieur à celui que peut leur offrir un propriétaire pour réussir leur expérience comme locataires. Bon nombre de ménages ont d’autres besoins qui nécessitent un soutien particulier, et ceux-ci n’ont pas été pris en compte lors de l’élaboration des programmes touchant le logement social, il y a de nombreuses décennies. Aussi, le présent examen avait aussi pour but de mieux comprendre les besoins des ces ménages qui sont maintenant logés, et de trouver des moyens de soutenir ces ménages et les fournisseurs de logements face à ce nouveau rôle.

La version originale des 56 politiques locales approuvées en 2002 a été révisée, et on a recommandé la conservation, la correction, l’ajout et la suppression de certains passages (annexe A). Il est recommandé d’abandonner vingt-quatre des politiques originales qui ne s’avèrent plus nécessaires, surtout parce que la LRLS a été révisée pour conférer à la province un pouvoir législatif se rapportant à leurs mesures respectives, d’où l’annulation du besoin d’une politique locale. La modification de douze des politiques locales originales est aussi recommandée pour tenir compte de questions émergentes et des conclusions des présentes consultations.

D’après les données tirées de cet examen, la Ville a réussi à loger les populations prioritaires. La plupart des intervenants se sont prononcés en faveur de la poursuite de l’appui aux populations prioritaires locales.

La nécessité de mieux soutenir les fournisseurs de logements en aidant les propriétaires qui peuvent se trouver à composer avec une série complexe de besoins sans appui aucun a également été largement reconnue. Ces propriétaires mis à l’épreuve peuvent finir par poser des difficultés, au lieu de contribuer à la recherche de solutions en matière de logement. Il nous faut aussi reconnaître le fait que l’atteinte de l’équilibre collectif n’est pas une science exacte et qu’il faut donc accorder une certaine souplesse aux fournisseurs de logements pour leur permettre d’harmoniser les besoins de la collectivité avec certains paramètres pour favoriser le mieux-être et l’amélioration de la santé globale d’un milieu donné.

Conformément à la Stratégie du logement de la Ville (ACS2007-CPS-HOU-0012) et au Plan d’action communautaire 2006-2008 pour prévenir et résoudre la question des sans-abri (ACS2006-CPS-HOU-0001), la Direction du logement travaillera avec les intervenants, y compris le gouvernement provincial, à la création de logements en milieu de soutien pour offrir aux résidents d’Ottawa un accès approprié et rapide à de telles ressources. La Ville reconnaît que ces formes d’appui ne sont actuellement pas offertes en quantité suffisante, mais, de concert avec les intervenants de la collectivité, elle s’appliquera à les augmenter dans la mesure du possible, en tenant compte des pratiques exemplaires et des observations tirées des recherches.

L’offre de logements en milieu de soutien peut se traduire par la présence d’instruments adaptés, comme des travailleurs possédant des connaissances spécialisées dans les domaines de la santé mentale, des problèmes d’accoutumance et des troubles de développement, ainsi que par des mesures de soutien au logement plus générales, comme l’aide aux propriétaires, l’acquisition de compétences courantes et la prestation de services d’information et de référence. Il peut arriver que les mécanismes de soutien s’imposent de façon intensive, tous les jours et à toute heure, et ne s’avèrent utiles qu’à l’occasion dans d’autres circonstances. Il importe d’adapter le programme de logement en milieu de soutien au cadre du Plan d’action communautaire pour prévenir et résoudre la question des sans-abri, qui, basé sur les pratiques exemplaires actuelles, prévoit un éventail complet de mesures à l’intention des locataires.

Le présent examen est le fruit d’une collaboration entre divers intervenants et la Direction du logement pour formuler au Conseil des recommandations qui traceront la voie pour l’avenir. Au fil des ans, cette voie soutiendra la gestion intégrée du logement social pour que les locataires comme les fournisseurs de logements aient accès aux ressources dont ils ont besoin pour assurer leur réussite et celle de la collectivité à laquelle ils appartiennent.

BACKGROUND

There are 18,931 units of social housing and 3,000 rent supplements under the SHRA, under management by 56 local housing providers and 51 private landlords. Social housing is a significant public asset, with an estimated replacement cost of about $2.6 billion. Subsidizing social housing is also a significant cost to the City – over $74 million in 2007. There are two types of subsidies paid by the Service Manager. The first is the RGI subsidy that covers the gap between what low-income tenants can afford to pay and the actual cost of providing the housing unit. The second type of subsidy is the operating subsidy, which covers costs to physically maintain the property and administration costs related to RGI functions.

The main function of the City as Service Manager is to monitor and ensure accountability for this significant public investment. The SHRA overlays an additional layer of responsibility for monitoring housing providers’ compliance with the very prescriptive and detailed regulations of the Act:

- the roles and responsibilities of the Federal, Provincial, Federal/Provincial and Municipal Non-Profit Housing Providers and their relationship with the Service Manager;

- the responsibility of the Service Manager to fund existing social housing programs per prescribed operating agreements and as defined within the SHRA;

- the requirement of the Service Manager to maintain the Centralized Waiting List (CWL) for social housing;

- the general eligibility rules for households to initially qualify for Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) housing and the ongoing eligibility rules for households to continue to be eligible for RGI housing once housed;

- the areas in which the City of Ottawa, as Service Manager, has authority to set local policies for the delivery of social housing in specific areas;

- specific funding models, revenue and cost indices and other specific operating policies where prescribed and required.

The SHRA replaced the existing Provincial operating agreements with housing providers previously under provincial administration. The Act created new policies, new reporting requirements and a new funding model for these housing providers. The previous Federal operating agreements with CMHC are technically outside of the Act, but these agreements were not terminated at transfer. The Service Manager is to fund these programs as defined within the existing operating agreements and to ensure these housing providers are complying with the terms set out in their individual operating agreements.

Local priorities are intended to address how to distribute the very limited social housing resources that exist today in an equitable way. A set of principles for access to rent-geared-to-income housing was established as part of the study process that led to the adoption of the current Local Policies in 2002. The principles are that local priority rules must:

- be clear and easily understood by all applicants

- be equally applicable to all applicants

- give access to rent-geared-to-income housing for all eligible applicants

- address the need to relieve economic hardship or disadvantage

- consider length of time a household has been on the waiting list

- have regard to the Ontario Human Rights Code

- be consistent with provincial priority rules and other requirements of the Social Housing Reform Act.

The Local Policies can be grouped into four categories:

1. Local Occupancy Standards – (Appendix A # 1-5) deal with matching household size to unit size by defining the largest and smallest sized housing units for which a household qualifies as measured by the number of bedrooms and based on the composition – number and relationship of adults and children - of the household;

2. Local Priority Rules - (Appendix A # 6-12) deal with the additional rules that give priority access to RGI housing to certain populations over and above the general “chronological” access where applications are dealt with in the order in which they are received;

3. Local RGI Eligibility Rules – (Appendix A # 13- 35) deal with various aspects of RGI administration and the resolution of disputes concerning decisions to allow or deny RGI subsidies; and

4. Co-ordinated Access - (Appendix A # 36-56) deal with the provision of a centralized co-ordinated access system for people applying to RGI social housing and to special needs housing under the administration of the Service Manager.

This report provides a review of the Local Policies to determine their effectiveness in meeting policy objectives and to assess which of the policies should be retained, revised or discontinued.

It was also recognized that an increasing number of households living in social housing need more than just a landlord to support them to be successful in their housing. Many households have additional support requirements, with some being intensive in nature, that were not considered when Social Housing was being developed many decades ago. This review therefore had a underlying goal of developing a better understanding of the support requirements of those households now being housed and to determine how to support the households and the housing providers in this new role.

Housing Branch staff and the Housing Stakeholders Advisory Group (HSAG) (see Appendix B – List of HSAG Members) worked collaboratively to develop an RFP to review the Local Social Housing Policies established in 2002 by City Council. KPMG LLP (KPMG) was the successful proponent and commenced work on the project in the spring of 2007. The review encompassed community consultations with advocates, housing providers, support services providers and tenants, interviews with housing stakeholders, a review of the literature and practices in other jurisdictions along with an extensive collection of data from all SHRA social housing providers.

Study Methodology

The consultant worked under the direction of the Housing Branch and in consultation with the HSAG working group. They conducted a comprehensive consultation process that included primary as well as secondary sources of information which were used to guide the review of the local policies in social housing. The consultation process involved:

- Ongoing input from the Housing Stakeholder Advisory Group and City Staff Team, including an orientation session with key stakeholders (June 19^th 2007);

- Three information sessions concerning data collection with housing providers (August 1^st, August 7^th and 8^th 2007);

- Focus group sessions with housing advocates, non-profit housing providers and co-operative housing providers in both French and English (October 29^th and November 5^th 2007);

- Focus group sessions for residents and applicants in both English and French (October 29^th, November 5^th and November 29^th 2007);

- Interviews with key stakeholders including representatives from service agencies and housing advocates, as well as the provincial government and other Service Managers;

- Collection and analysis of data on tenants who were housed with the SHRA housing providers between 2003 and 2006.

A total of 2,600 tenant files were reviewed from the Centralized Waiting List (CWL) as housed by SHRA housing providers, including private rent supplement agreements. The samples were representative of the mix of housing providers in Ottawa, including Cooperatives (363 households); Non-Profit Housing Providers (863 households); Ottawa community Housing (1,191 households) and private Rent Supplement Agreements (183 households).

The Registry prepared a file for each household selected that included data related to any priority categories they qualified for, the length of time they were on the waiting list and where they were eventually housed.

The housing providers were then asked to provide information concerning the outcomes for the household concerned. Outcomes identified indicated whether they were still in the housing unit and if not; the circumstances of the departure; and other indicators of tenancy stability, including what supports, both formal and informal, the household received. The consultant provided training for the staff of the providers who collected their own data as required, and provided contracted staff to assist in the data collection for the larger providers.

Supportive Housing providers were also invited to provide data on the experience of their tenants, by completing all of the data indicated above for the longitudinal study (both the “Registry” portion and the “Provider” portion).

The data collected was compiled, inconsistencies resolved and the results summarized in a variety of ways, as demonstrated in the balance of this report.

This report also contains data on the placements in RGI housing over the period concerned, and the make-up of the waiting list and related changes over the past few years. This data was provided by The Registry from the Centralized Waiting List (CWL) data.

The consultant presented their final report to the Housing Branch in March 2008. All 56 Local Social Housing Policies approved by Council in 2002 were reviewed in the report. Appendix A contains a list of the 56 policies along with a recommended action for each. Twenty-four of the original policies were recommended to be deleted as being no longer required due to subsequent changes to the SHRA respecting those processes. Twenty were recommended to be continued. Twelve new policies were recommended to improve the processes by which the outcomes of accessing, living in and managing social housing in Ottawa can be improved.

In summary, these policies deal with Local Occupancy Standards, Local Policy Rules, Local RGI Eligibility Rules and Co-ordinated Access. This report will discuss each overall category and will make specific recommendations for change where required. The staff report to Council has been developed in collaboration with HSAG using the consultant study as a foundation for discussion - (Appendix D).

DISCUSSION

Social Housing is a limited resource. The number of RGI units available in Ottawa has not increased since 1996, while the demand for subsidized housing continues to grow. City funding for housing subsidies has increased by 24.8% since 2000 but the Federal share of funding is capped at $32.7 million and is beginning to decline. The Province provides $2.7 million for approximately 300 units of rent supplement. Therefore, social housing is an increasingly scarce resource and allocation of and access to this resource is constrained by public policy, including the Social Housing Reform Act as well as public expectations for fiscal accountability. Therefore, the SHRA and local policies try to strike a balance between the competing demands of ensuring equitable access to the scarce resource of subsidized housing – helping people get the housing they need, when, where they need it - against the principle that social housing is also the place people call home and that stability and belonging to a community of choice is as important as having a roof over one’s head.

Recommendation 1 – Disposition of the 56 Local Policies

The full disposition of the 56 Local Policies is included in Appendix A. This section provides an overview of each of the four categories in which the Local Policies are grouped and highlights the proposed revised policies.

1) Local Occupancy Standards (Appendix A # 1-5)

This section covers the rules associated with the size of unit a particular household is entitled to occupy. The standards adopted in 2002 are consistent with the provincial standards and differ only in that a household may choose to be housed in a smaller unit than they are entitled to as long as the landlord agrees that the unit size is reasonable for that household.

Overhoused Household

The size of unit an applicant household is eligible for is determined by the size and composition of their household. “Overhousing” arises when a household no longer requires as many bedrooms in a unit as they once did (e.g. children grow up and leave home, family composition changes, a household member may die). When this occurs the household is considered “overhoused” and must apply for a smaller unit. The 2002 provincial regulations required overhoused households to apply to the Centralized Waiting List (CWL) for placement.

This process is important because of the continued high demand for larger family units as these grow over time, as well as the requirement to accommodate an increasing number of large families from the Special Provincial Priority. Having smaller households continue to occupy those larger units deprives larger families of this scarce resource. However, the process must be done with respect to the fact that in most cases, the current occupants may have been living in their units for a long period of time, and therefore may have strong connections to their community and neighbourhood.

Applicants to the CWL are allowed to identify in what areas of the city they want to live, including identifying specific buildings and developments. This is to enable households to choose areas of the city where they work, go to school or have family. However, applicants that select fewer or more specific locations will result in fewer opportunities to be offered housing, given that offers are dependent on other households vacating units.

In the case of overhousing, if the overhoused household chooses a community with few units of the size appropriate to their needs, they will not be rehoused as quickly, and other households requiring that larger unit will wait longer to be housed.

A regulation change in 2007 now allows Service Managers to establish a minimum number of communities for which an overhoused household must apply. Staff has reviewed the options and agree that increasing the number of communities that the household must select is reasonable, while acknowledging the importance of remaining close to and a part of the community where one lives. The household's ties to its church, health professionals, community supports and schools should be considered where possible.

Therefore, staff are recommending two changes to local occupancy standards relating to overhoused households (which are captured under recommendation 49 within the co-ordinated access review section of Appendix A) that the policies be changed such that within one year of becoming overhoused, the overhoused household's selections for rehousing to an appropriate sized unit must include a minimum of 10 communities within the entire Service Manager area. If still not re-housed after two years after becoming overhoused, the overhoused household's selections must be increased to a minimum of 20 communities within the Service Manager area.

Because rural areas have much more limited choices for housing, a second recommendation is proposed to balance the need to address overhousing while allowing households to remain in their own community. Staff recommend that in the rural areas only (i.e. Osgoode, Metcalfe, Greely, Goulbourn, Richmond, North Gower, Carp, Manotick) seniors will be permitted to be overhoused until there is an appropriately sized unit available within their own community. These seniors also may choose to add their name to a community located elsewhere should they so wish.

Overhoused family households may choose to remain in their rural community or to move into the urban/suburban portion of the Service Manager area. If they wish to remain in their rural community, the overhoused household must register for all housing communities with appropriately sized units within the former township and they must also register with the Rent Supplement Program which will proactively attempt to find them an appropriate unit within the former township. Rent supplements are provided to both non-profit and private sector landlords to allow subsidy of “market” units anywhere in the City. While no new rent supplements are currently available, there is turn over in these programs as well, both in terms of tenants but also with landlords choosing to discontinue further rent supplement contracts. This policy change would mean that staff would give priority to allocating rent supplement units that assist in meeting this specific housing need.

If overhoused rural senior or family households choose to move into the urban/surburban area, they must select a minimum of 10 communities within the Service Manager area within one year of becoming overhoused and increase their selections to 20 communities two years after becoming overhoused.

These rule changes will significantly improve the chances and timing of moving overhoused households and making those larger units available to larger families, while respecting the importance of allowing households to remain in proximity to their communities.

In the table below “social housing communities” shall refer to the communities as listed on the CWL application form, generally treating a group of similar (ground oriented or high rise) units with similar target groups (senior citizen or mixed) as a community, and with the rent supplement program counting as one community.

(a) If Current residence is:	(b) Within one year of becoming overhoused, selection must be at least:	(c ) Two years after becoming overhoused, selection must be at least:
Urban/Suburban Boundary	10 social housing communities, and	20 social housing communities
Rural Areas: Seniors	Apply within the rural area
The rural areas: (non Seniors)	Must at a minimum register with all social housing communities within former township And with the Rent Supplement office

Underhoused Household

A household is underhoused when the unit is too small for the size of the household (not enough bedrooms for the size and composition of the household). This situation arises most often when there is an addition to the household such as a newborn child or when the family chooses to be underhoused in order to move into social housing.

Being underhoused may have an effect on household stability in that crowding has been shown to have negative impacts on health and performance in school and employment. Also, there are increasing numbers of households with larger families, which leads to underhousing as a result of their choosing to accept for example a 3 bedroom subsidized, and thus affordable, unit rather than waiting for 4 or 5 bedroom units to become available. But, of the more than 20,000 units in the portfolio only 190 are 5 bedroom units and 721 are 4 bedroom units. There is also a scarcity of these large units in the private rental market thus reducing the potential to use the Rent Supplement Program.

However, given the shortage of social housing in general, even households that are underhoused are at least in subsidized housing, and thus relieved of the additional burden of not being able to afford their housing.

Accordingly, it is not recommended that the underhoused be designated as a priority group and the Service Manager will continue to explore options to increase the supply of larger units including acquisition/rehab and the rent supplement program, in addition to new development.

It also is recommended that further research be undertaken to determine if there is any correlation between households that are underhoused and challenging tenancies.

2) Local Priority Rules (Appendix A # 6-10 and 12)

This section deals with the rules respecting local priority access to social housing

The SHRA requires that Service Managers maintain Centralized Waiting Lists to manage the application and housing placement process. In Ottawa, the Social Housing Registry, also known as The Registry, manages the Centralized Waiting List under contract to the Service Manager. Households interested in obtaining rent-geared-to-income (RGI) housing apply to The Registry, indicating where they prefer to live, by geographic location or by identifying specific buildings. The Registry manages the list and when a suitable unit becomes available – location and number of bedrooms – the housing provider accesses The Registry list and selects an appropriately sized household from the list for that building/community. The process is based on chronology, meaning that housing offers are made to the household that applied first. The amount of rent subsidy provided, if any, is calculated based on the household income at time of move-in and at least annually thereafter.

Local Priorities or Special Placement Priorities rules acknowledge that there are some households who should be given priority access to subsidized housing notwithstanding the chronological nature of the regular process. The reasons for conferring a priority are generally based on recognition that it is important for some members of our community to quickly move from their existing shelter to subsidized affordable housing because of specified health or safety concerns.

The Province has legislated both Special Provincial Priority (SPP - often referred to as Victims of Abuse) and households who are overhoused as receiving a special placement priority. The Service Manager was given the discretion to establish other priority categories, called “Local Priorities” to facilitate access to subsidized social housing.

The legislation states that local priority rules may include a rule on:

- how a household is ranked or not ranked;

- percentage of vacancies that must be filled by priority categories (e.g. 1 in 10);

- transitional matters in implementing the rule.

A priority rule cannot include local residency as a criterion for ranking one household ahead of another (i.e. the fact that a household may be living outside the City of Ottawa service area cannot be considered). The provincial regulations specify how overhoused households are to be ranked; specifically, the household is added to the centralized waiting list using the original date the household first applied for RGI assistance.

In 2002 Ottawa Council adopted four Local Priorities in addition to the provincially mandated ones:

1. In-situ: Tenants who meet the local occupancy standards (unit size matched to household size) in their current unit and who paid market (i.e. did not receive a subsidy) rent for their unit in a social housing community for at least 12 consecutive months and who subsequently experience a reduction in income such that they would qualify for rent geared-to-income assistance are to be given RGI assistance for their current unit when the next RGI subsidy becomes available.

2. Urgent Medical: Urgent medical priority status may be granted if a member of the household has a terminal illness made worse by the current housing situation, or if a member of the household has a serious life threatening medical condition made worse by the current housing situation and a change in housing will remedy the life threatening aspect of the medical condition.

3. Urgent Safety: Urgent safety priority status may be granted if a member of the household is subject to current abuse from a family member or former partner that they have not resided with for a period of more than three months, or if a member of the household is subject to ongoing or extraordinary threat to personal safety by a non-family member and a change in housing will result in an increase in personal safety.

4. Homeless: The following households may be granted Homeless priority status:

- Persons who are 'living on the street' with no shelter. 'Living on the street' includes households living in cars, tents, make-shift shelters, etc.

- Persons residing in an emergency shelter. A complete list of emergency shelters is available through The Registry.

- If the last permanent address was a social housing provider, the applicant will not be eligible for homeless priority if there was an eviction for cause within the 2 year period preceding the request for local priority status.

- If the applicant is staying temporarily with friends or family, they do not qualify for homeless status.

A review of the experience with the existing four local priority groups over the four year period under review shows that the Local Priorities have been relatively successful in terms of getting these urgent-needs groups into housing. However, the review of the outcomes of the Local Priorities policies also clearly identified the need to address some of the challenges that can come with housing higher-needs households in social housing.

For the purposes of this study and future program definition, “challenging tenancies” are defined as tenant/households with:

- 2 or more N5s (Substantial Interference/Damage to Property/Too Many People);

- 1 or more N6s (Illegal Act or Misrepresentation of Income);

- 1 or more N7s (Impaired Safety/Wilful Damage to Property);

- 1 or more N8s (Persistently Late Rent Payments/No Longer Qualifies for Public or Subsidized Housing);

- 1 or more L1s or L2s (eviction applications); and

- Co-op member households with equivalent notices from Co-op Boards.

The key findings of the consultants study include:

- “Challenging tenancies” are not confined to the households who come into social housing via a priority.

- The majority of households (82.5%), whether placed in social housing via priority or the regular chronological process either remained in social housing without becoming “challenging” tenants, or left in the normal course, on good terms with their housing provider.

- Even within the various priority categories, the majority of households had successful, non-challenging tenancies (homeless 74%, Urgent-Safety 77%, Urgent-Medical 87%, SPP households 77% and chronological 89%).

- Numerically chronological households have more challenging tenancies than those in any of the individual priority categories, even though on a percentage basis by category they are the least likely to be challenging (reflecting that there are more chronological tenants than any other group).

Notwithstanding this success, there have been problems with challenging tenancies that have given rise to two conflicting perspectives. Both of which are supported by the data compiled in the consultants’ report:

- Social agencies working with victims of violence and the homeless, the shelters and advocates note that there are people with severe needs that social housing can respond to. It can provide shelter for the homeless. It can help victims of violence escape their persecutors. Currently there are no other resources, so social housing must be used to meet these needs by giving these people priority access.

- Social housing tenants, social housing providers, and to some extent their neighbours note that some social housing communities are increasingly difficult places to live, blamed in part on the increasing concentrations of people with behavioural or other social problems, particularly the homeless and victims of violence who receive priority access into their community.

The task has been to seek solutions that will address these complex issues. Part of that solution is to strengthen the support service system for persons living in social housing and by doing so, begin to address their needs along with the concerns raised by housing providers. Recommendations on increasing access to support services are addressed later in this report.

In terms of the application and housing placement process for the existing priority categories, the following modifications are proposed:

Urgent Medical

That Urgent Medical priority be continued, but that the Service Manager establish a work group to review the Urgent-Medical category and develop a list of qualifying conditions and identify conditions that have been found not to be qualifying.

Urgent Safety

That the procedures for Urgent-Safety applicants be enhanced to assist in developing a safety plan for each household. The plan should identify the processes and supports required, and how they will be delivered.

Special Priority Population (Provincial Priority)

That the City urge the province to amend the process for SPP applicants and provide the staff or resources required to ensure a safety plan that identifies the processes and supports required, and how they will be delivered.

That the City encourage the province to develop a rent supplement type program to house SPP priority households in the private rental market.

Homelessness

The consultation study remarks on a need to identify supports an applicant may require to be a successful tenant. Best practice suggests that it is important to engage people voluntarily. Therefore, staff recommend that the application procedures for homeless applicants be amended to include an opportunity for the applicant to identify, when possible, any supports the applicant may require and develop, where possible, a plan with the applicant as to how those supports will be accessed. Recommendations on increasing the availability of supports are addressed later in this report.

In addition to continuing the Local Priorities as established in 2002 and as modified above, it is proposed that two new applicant local priority groups be established:

Displaced RGI Tenant

This refers to a situation where a household already in receipt of RGI is displaced from their current residence through no fault of their own (e.g. condominium conversion, fire, natural disaster, etc).

Tenants of Supportive Housing Provider

This refers to tenants of Supportive Housing who are recommended by their Supportive Housing Provider to move into independent living. This achieves two purposes. From a systems perspective it helps to allow a flow from supportive housing into social housing thereby freeing up space for those who need supportive housing. Secondly, under the current CWL system, any priority status for social housing is lost when an applicant moves into supportive housing. The current policy forces a person in need of supportive housing to have to choose one or the other type of housing. The proposed change in policy will enable those applicants best served by supportive housing to move into this type of housing without losing their priority status for social housing.

This priority would be managed by working with the network of defined supportive housing agencies. Qualifying tenants of supportive housing providers would be identified by their supportive housing provider as having achieved stability and no longer requiring on-site supports provided by that supportive housing provider. It has been determined that they are capable of living independently, with or without supports. The supportive housing providers who would identify these tenants include: Options Bytown, Salus, Cornerstone, Daybreak, Harmony House, Project Upstream, Youth Services Bureau, the YMCA, Tewegan, Montfort Renaissance, Bruce House, Shepherds of Good Hope Supportive Living Program and Emily Murphy.

Table 1, below summarizes the current and proposed priority placements.

Table 1: Proposed Priority Categories

Priority Group	In place since 2003 and to be continued
Victims of Abuse (SPP)	Provincial Mandatory (housed as they occur with no maximum in terms of placements)
Overhoused RGI Households	Provincial Mandatory (housed as they occur with no maximum in terms of placements.)
In-situ Market Rents	Local Priority continued – if market rent tenant in social housing for more than 1 year
Homeless	Local Priority continued
Urgent (medical or safety)	Local Priority continued
	New in 2008
Tenants of supportive housing provider	Priority given on recommendation of designated Supportive Housing Provider
Displaced RGI tenant	Housed as they occur with no maximum in terms of placements.

Of equal importance to who gets priority access to social housing is how many priority households are being placed into social housing. Across the Province, there is growing concern that many housing providers are almost exclusively placing only priority households. As noted above, this is in part the cause of the growing concerns about changing the dynamics of long-established social housing communities.

Currently, the recommended requirement for the priority categories of Homeless, Urgent (Medical and Safety) and tenants of supportive housing, is that a total of 2 out 10 placements must be from any one of these categories combined.

Staff note however that housing providers need some flexibility in administering this expectation. Housing providers must be able to assess the ability of that particular housing community to absorb a resident who may constitute a “challenging tenancy”.

In discussions with housing providers, the concept of putting a cap on the number of placements from the local priority lists within a defined time frame has been raised.

Caps could be based on setting a maximum number of placements from priority lists, and once that cap is reached no more priority placements would be offered in that building or community.

There is however general acknowledgement that challenging tenancies are not just a result of priority placements, and further that the relative well being of the community is a better measure of the ability of a community to absorb priority group members than is the number of placements. Therefore, a cap based on the severity of the challenging tenancies being experienced within a social housing community at a given time has been proposed as a better way to manage tenant placements. The concept is that if a given community is experiencing very problematic challenging tenancies negatively impacting that community, then no further local priority placements will be made into that community until conditions improve. While this suspension of local priority placement activity is in effect, the housing provider will assist the household in accessing the types of supports and services needed to address the problematic aspect of their tenancy, or when required, will commence eviction proceedings for untenable tenancies. Depending on the nature and scope of the problems faced, a tenancy may be deemed to be untenable even though support services have not been explored with the household, (e.g. selling drugs, other illegal activities or endangering the safety of others). It is expected therefore that a cap on local priority placements into a given community could last for several months as the housing provider and the household(s) worked through the issues to be resolved.

Housing providers must request Service Manager approval of any proposed suspension of local priority placements within a given community. Furthermore, except for the untenable tenancies referenced above, it is expected that housing providers will have attempted to link the challenging household(s) with appropriate service agencies, prior to making such a request of the Service Manager.

Accordingly, as outlined in Appendix A, staff recommend that Council approve in principle the notion of an optional cap based on the severity of the challenging tenancies within a community at a given point and that the definition of “very problematic” challenging tenancies be adopted once determined through discussions currently underway with housing providers and tenant advocates.

3) Local RGI Eligibility Rules (Appendix A # 13-35)

This section pertains to the local rules governing various aspects of RGI administration and the resolution of disputes concerning RGI decisions.

As noted in the consultants report, many of the rules established in 2002 deal with minor process matters and received no comments, criticisms or suggestions for change. In addition, adjustments to these rules do not really present opportunities to improve the effectiveness of the system. Finally, new regulations adopted by the province since 2002 have rendered some of the local rules redundant (see Appendix A). Nevertheless, there are a two areas where changes are contemplated to keep up with evolving circumstances and expectations.

Rent Calculations

The first matter involves the calculation of rent payable by a RGI household. Although the consultants report suggested that an increase in income of less than $33 per month need not be reported by the household until next annual review, and any required rent adjustment have effect at the annual rent review time, the feedback from housing providers and tenant advocates alike is that this approach be at the discretion of the housing provider in that they both have concerns that tenants unintentionally may accrue arrears, if they fail to report increases in income greater than $33 per month. In this latter example, these arrears would have to be calculated retroactively and then paid to the housing provider.

It is therefore recommended that housing providers be granted the discretionary authority to have tenants and co-op members only report an increase in income of less than $33 per month at the annual review instead of within 31 days of the increase taking place, and that when this authority is exercised the rent adjustment would come into effect at the annual review.

The consultants also recommended that housing providers have the option to verify income every second year for Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and Old Age Security (OAS) & Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) recipients who are not employed, have no dependents, and receive consistent payments. This authority currently exists under the legislation, but it is not regularly used by housing providers for the same reason as explained above.

It is therefore recommended that the Service Manager communicate to housing providers that the option to verify income every second year for recipients of fixed amounts of income, such as ODSP and OAS & GIS, who are not employed, have no dependents, and receive consistent payments is available to them to use at their discretion.

Internal Reviews (relates to Recommendation 2)

The second subject deals with the appeal of RGI related decisions taken by housing providers and The Registry on behalf of the Service Manager. To date these internal reviews have been conducted by the housing provider/Registry that made the original decision, with the proviso that the person completing the internal review was not party to the original decision. It is a practice that has come under the scrutiny of housing advocates and legal clinics and that has been questioned in regard to its ability to satisfy the concept of natural justice wherein an appeal of a decision is heard by an independent body with no involvement in the original decision. Regulation 298.01, section 58(2) of the SHRA requires that the internal review process to be conducted by persons who have not participated in the initial decision. Therefore, staff have worked to develop a process that fully addresses this requirement by removing the initial decision makers from the appeal process.

In January 2007, the City of Ottawa participated in a provincial panel on this subject and decided that it should form a working group comprised of housing providers, Housing Branch staff, housing advocates and representatives from legal clinics to look at a better process that would ensure transparency and fairness to the applicants. To that end, the working group has developed a pilot internal review process that meets those needs.

Appeals would be heard by a three person independent panel composed of representatives from: The Service Manager, The Registry or a housing provider and Tenant/member/applicant advocates. It is further recommended that the new Internal Review Process be subject to an evaluation one year after implementation. Data concerning the performance of the current system should be collected immediately to provide a baseline.

These recommendations regarding internal reviews are endorsed by the HSAG workgroup that worked on this matter and are consistent with the proposed initiative. There are anticipated operational costs associated with this approach related to the time spent by panel members reviewing documentation, hearing the appeal and rendering a decision. In addition, Housing Branch will incur costs in the performance of the secretariat function needed to support the panels. These costs are estimated to be $100,000 annually and are included in the Branch’s 2009 budget. Although it is mentioned in the consultants’ study that there have been no complaints concerning the present approach to internal reviews in Ottawa, it is felt that this alternative model better responds to the concept of natural justice. It is as well fundamentally the 'right thing to do' in that it is a transparent and fair process, with no real or perceived conflict of interest.

It is therefore proposed that the Service Manager implement the new Internal Review Process as described by the Working Committee, including a first stage pre-review within the organization concerned, and that the new Internal Review Process be subject to an evaluation one year after implementation. Data concerning the performance of the current system should be collected immediately to provide a baseline.

4) Coordinated Access (Appendix A # 11 and 36-56)

This section addresses matters related to the provision of a centralized co-ordinated access system for people applying to subsidized social housing and to special needs housing coming under the administration of the Service Manager pursuant to the provincial regulation change in August 2007. Both modified units and units with support services are included.

This report proposes improvements to the manner in which the centralized co-ordinated access system operates so that applicants and housing providers alike are better served by addressing language challenges faced by applicants who can not adequately communicate in English or French, by adopting a web-based capability and by integrating the tenant intake processes for social housing and supportive housing. These proposed refinements in service are recommended to Council for adoption.

Currently, only the primary applicant is in receipt of any correspondence. It is recommended that CWL applicants have the opportunity to designate a second person if needed (advocate, relative) to receive in addition to themselves verbal/telephone information and/or copies of correspondence from The Registry.

Similarly, it is recommended that tenants of social housing providers, including those with the rent supplement program, have the opportunity to designate a second person if needed (advocate, relative) to receive in addition to themselves verbal/telephone information and/or copies of correspondence from their housing provider or the rent supplement program office.

It is also recommended that the Service Manager work with The Registry to develop a strategy to bring the waiting list on-line, with a web-based format for provider access and aids for community selection as part of application preparation.

It is recognized that, given their current roles in the application preparation process, both Action Logement and Housing Help will need additional capacity in terms of IT equipment and support to assist in this regard.

It is further recommended that The Registry, the Service Manager and supportive housing providers develop appropriate procedures to improve and integrate the intake processes for social housing and supportive housing.

In addition to the proposed changes to the 56 Local Policies attached as Appendix A and described in the previous sections of this report, the review also identified additional recommendations as set out in the following sections.

Recommendation 3 & 4 – Special Priority Population (Provincial Priority)

As noted in earlier in this report, Local Priorities or Special Placement Priorities rules acknowledge that there are some households who should be given priority access to subsidized housing. The Province has legislated Special Provincial Priority (SPP), often referred to as Victims of Abuse, as receiving a special placement priority.

Staff recommends that Council request the Province of Ontario amend its policies and housing selection process for SPP applicants to improve the safety and long term stability of the households placed under this priority by having the Province either directly provide staff and resources or to fund the Service Manager to acquire the required staff or resources to implement a support program for SPP households coming in to social housing.

Staff also recommends that the Province develop a rent supplement or housing allowance program to house SPP priority households in the private rental market rather than relying solely on the availability of subsidized social housing.

Recommendations 5 & 6 Supports to Housing

The study and consultation on Local Policies was not intended just to evaluate the effectiveness of the policies themselves, for example in terms of how many people did or did not get housed, but also to explore the underlying issues related to the need for access to social housing, as well as the consequences and outcomes of these and other policies.

The study clearly identified that an increasing number of households living in social housing need more than just a landlord to support them to be successful in their housing. As noted earlier in this report, the consultation study remarks on a need to identify supports an applicant may require to be a successful tenant. Best practice suggests that it is important to engage people voluntarily.

Therefore, staff recommend that the application procedures for homeless applicants be amended to include an opportunity for the applicant to identify, when possible, any supports the applicant may require and develop, where possible, a plan with the applicant as to how those supports will be accessed.

Therefore staff also recommends that the City support applications to the Province from support agencies to obtain the resources necessary to ensure adequate supports are available.

Many households have additional support requirements, with some being intensive in nature, that were not considered when social housing was being developed many decades ago. This review therefore had an underlying goal of developing a better understanding of the support requirements of those households now being housed and to determine how to support the households and the housing providers in this new role.

It is important to note that all residents of Ottawa rely to some extent on supports to live independently in the community. For most of us, our family, friends and neighbours provide that support. However, for many of Ottawa’s citizens, that support is either lacking or insufficient to address issues that may include mental illness, addiction, trauma, developmental delays or other situations. Therefore, additional supports may be required to support independent living. Supports vary from individual to individual and from time to time. Sometimes people need active one-on-one support, including living in purpose-built supportive or transitional housing. Other times, people just need someone to help out with day-to-day chores, or to have someone to talk to.

Ottawa has a reasonably well developed system of services and supports to enable people to live independently in the community, including a network of supportive housing providers, housing support workers and mental health and social service case workers.

The main problem with Ottawa’s system is lack of capacity to deal with the demand. For example, there are about 2,000 households on the waiting list for the supportive housing managed by the Housing Plus network of supportive housing providers. Some of these people may also be on the social housing waiting list, because there is a strong correlation between the need for supports and poverty, and thus the need for low-income housing. Staff are working with The Registry and Housing Plus to coordinate and integrate those lists and processes.

The lack of supports is clearly a factor in challenging tenancies, and at the extreme, the lack of supports underlies the continued presence of chronic homelessness in Ottawa.

The direct costs associated with “challenging tenancies”, using the data compiled in the consultants’ report and additional data collected from some of the large housing providers clearly indicate that the direct costs to the housing provider, and hence to the City, is significant. The direct costs incurred over the period of the study were approximately $2.15 million, which consists of $1.50 million for arrears and $650,000 for damages to housing units. The cost per household varies depending on the priority group with the Homeless, SPP and Urgent Safety being the highest, while Urgent Medical is the lowest.

When tenants of social housing lose their housing and become homeless again, they also recirculated through a range of emergency and institutional services as well as emergency shelters. The lack of an adequate response system to reduce homelessness causes appreciable costs to be incurred across the breadth of the public emergency and institutional support system. In the October 2007 report, commissioned by the City of Ottawa and authored by Steve Pomeroy and Brodie Berrigan, entitled: Costs of Responding to Homelessness in Ottawa: Pro-Active Versus Reactive Responses, the authors provide a summary of the costs associated with the emergency and institutional services that are most often utilized by persons who are homeless, (see Cost of Responding to Homelessness – ACS2007-CPS-HOU-0013). The cost of these services is shown in Table 2 below. While many of these costs are not directly borne by the municipality they are real costs to the system as a whole. The City does however encounter many direct costs including the daily per diem of $39.95 per day provided to shelter operators. Shelter operators are clear to point out that the cost of providing the service is in excess of this amount and that shelters must rely on fundraising and donations to maintain operations. In the analysis of the various costs done by Pomeroy and Berrigan (2007), they support the view that providing adequate supports to people to maintain their housing is much more cost effective to the system as a whole as opposed to having people recirculate through the homeless cycle. Stable affordable housing with support levels appropriate to their needs can remove an individual from the debilitating effects of repeat homeless cycles, improve their quality of life and may enable the individual to recover the ability to live and function independently and return to the labour market.

Table 2: Cost of Emergency and Support Services in Ottawa

Chronic homelessness is defined as someone who uses emergency shelters for more than 60 days (consecutively or not) in a year. In 2007, of the over 9,500 individuals who used emergency shelters in Ottawa, over 1,200 were defined as chronic users. Because Ottawa has a housing first policy of giving homeless households priority access to social housing, this indicates that many of these people do in fact get housing, they just are unable to remain housed.

Ottawa clearly needs both more low-income affordable housing and more supports to residents regardless of where they live. This study identifies and makes the case for the necessary resources, with particular emphasis for more supports to residents of social housing, for the benefit of individuals and the communities they live in.

In order to better understand the different supports to housing the following definitions are used. These definitions are drawn from the February 29, 2008 report entitled: Models of Housing with Supports: Final Report that was prepared for the City by Social Data Research and L. Bonnie Dinning.

- Transitional Housing – Time-limited supportive or supported housing where people at risk of homelessness prepare for independent living, (6 months to 3 years) with a mix of support services. Includes residential treatment programs, halfway houses, second stage housing for those leaving either an emergency shelter or a first stage health care facility.

- Supportive Housing – Permanent housing with on-site supports, for individuals who need assistance to stay housed. Either communal living situations (Group Homes, Domiciliary Hostels and small rooming house settings) or clustered self-contained apartments. Supports are linked to a specific accommodation unit and on-site staff support all who live there. Residents may also receive portable support for specific issues.

- Supported Housing – Housing provided to individuals at risk of housing loss where they benefit from housing support that is not tied to any particular housing location. Provided in apartments, housing co-ops, social housing, Semi-Independent Living (SIL). Portable support tied to the individual, not the housing site. Using support may be a requirement to access housing.

The following recommendations represent a reflection on how best to build on the work that has already been started and is in alignment with the community direction set out in the Community Action Plan on Homelessness (http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2006/02-08/hrss/ACS2006-CPS-HOU-0001.htm which addresses the whole continuum of tenant supports and builds upon existing best practices and research evidence.

1. Increase Supportive Housing

Consistent with the consultant’s report, with input from housing stakeholders including Housing Plus (Supportive Housing Network), and in keeping with the Community Action Plan on Homelessness, the quantity of supportive housing needs to be increased. It is recommended that as resources permit a number of existing social housing units be converted into supportive housing capable of providing a base level of support for priority placement tenants. Along with this process, a comprehensive request for the support resources required must be presented to the Province. In the meantime, the City should provide such additional resources as it can, to manage the situation as well as possible in the short term.

2. Resource Centres

Currently there are housing resource centres located in several OCHC communities that are affiliated with Options Bytown, Salus and the Community Care Access Centre Aging in Place program. Staffing of these resource centres ranges from full time to part time. In keeping with the Community Action Plan on Homelessness, staff propose an enhancement of the capabilities of the current resource centres located in some of the larger social housing communities by bolstering the professional qualifications of staff and by expanding the practice to provide support services to other housing providers requiring these services for their tenants. Established in 2000, these resource centres were included in at least two evaluations undertaken some years ago in regard to the delivery of services to homeless populations. A clear mandate and evaluation based on the outcomes expected should be conducted with regularity. It is our understanding that these resource centres will be evaluated by HRDC in the coming year. Notwithstanding the lack of a recent formal evaluation, these resource centres have proven to be an effective vehicle for providing both information and support to tenants requiring these services. Accordingly, staff propose expanding this service through the provision of suitable training to enhance the staff qualifications, rendering them better able to address the needs of their communities, and through the hiring of additional professionals where warranted.

The Resource Centres work closely and in partnership with other service providers such as the Community Houses, the Housing Loss Prevention Network, and the Community Health and Resource Centres so as to provide a continuum of linked services. The Community Houses provide meeting space for community programs, referral, and youth outreach and, are located in thirteen of the Ottawa Community Housing communities. The Housing Loss Prevention Network actively works with tenants and advocates on their behalf in order to support households to maintain or find housing whether it be in social housing or not. The fourteen Community Health and Resource Centres provide frontline health and social services. They have a mandate to serve the whole community but especially families and individuals who are disadvantaged and not able to easily access alternative resources.

3. Increase Housing Support

The City should seek federal and provincial funding to build on the housing first model and increase the tenant support program that provides generic support to persons and households in the transition from homelessness to independent living. This best practice model of intensive support has been found to be successful in many centres where it has been used. Here in Ottawa for example, there are a number of pilot housing first projects already underway that include priority access to social housing , the Hostels to Homes Program, the Housing Impact Team (HIT) housing first initiative that offers support services, as needed, to single individuals who have received offers of housing off the CWL local priority Homeless waiting list, to assist them to move and settle into their new housing and appropriately live in their communities so that they are best able to maintain successful and longer term tenancies, and the proposed Salvation Army Housing Response Team project. It should be noted that these pilots are all in their early stages. The City should expand the current tenant support program while at the same time requesting funding from the Province and the Federal Government.

Staff estimate that starting in 2009, an increase to the Housing Branch Operating Budget in the amount of $2.75 million would be required to support the above recommendations which would strengthen and improve the availability of support services available to tenants who live in Social Housing. This would be done by:

- Funding housing support agencies to increase their services to allow conversion of some existing social housing units into supportive housing ($1.0 million annually);

- Enhance the network of Tenant Resource Centres currently located only in Ottawa Community Housing buildings by bolstering the professional qualifications of staff and expanding the practice to provide support services to other housing providers requiring these services for tenants ($750,000 annually);

- Adding up to 10 Housing Support Workers to assist homeless clients with accessing and stabilizing their tenancy in social housing ($1.0 million annually).

Staff and housing providers would also work with specialized services (e.g. mental health, general behavioural supports, addictions, general life skills support and developmental delay support services) to expand outreach capacity into social housing.

Staff also recommend that Council actively advocate with the Provincial Government (MOHLTC, MCSS, MMAH) to develop a comprehensive and systemic approach to funding in order to put more supports into social housing. This approach should be based on best practices and be in alignment with Ottawa’s Community Action Plan on Homelessness and the City Housing Strategy 2007 to 2012.

Recommendation 7 – Indemnification of Forgiveable Loans

This recommendation addresses an emerging issue confronting both housing providers and their tenants who are either facing challenges related to physical disabilities and/or are aging in place. In increasing numbers, unit modifications are required in order to sustain their tenancies in their current communities. Unit modifications would assist these households to maintain their existing social, religious and health related supports while remaining in their homes as opposed to having to move to long-term care or health facilities. One source of funding to assist with modifying units is the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program for the Disabled (RRAP-D). This program provides forgivable loans of up to $25,000 per unit to complete the requisite renovations. However, CMHC has advised Housing staff that in addition to the usual program requirements, loans under this program that are made to social housing providers (i.e. that are subject to the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 or Federal Operating Agreements) must be indemnified by the Province. The Province will not provide the indemnification due to a long standing dispute over the interpretation of a November 15 1999 "Social Housing Agreement" between CMHC and the Province. The City, in its role as Service Manager under the SHRA, will, subject to Council approval, therefore offer to provide the required indemnification to CMHC in order to take advantage of this program if CMHC will accept the Service Manager's indemnification on terms that are acceptable to City Legal Counsel.

There is minimal financial risk, in that any default on the forgivable loan would be retrieved from the housing providers operating subsidy paid by the City as Service Manager. Given the nature of the CMHC RRAP-D program, it should be noted that the risk of default is negligible. Default on the forgivable loan only occurs if the modifications are removed within the term of the loan (1 to 5 years depending on the funding amount, with a maximum of $24,000 per unit).

It is recommended that Council delegate authority to staff to indemnify forgivable loans offered to social housing providers by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program for Disabilities in order to support the creation of additional modified units for people with disabilities on the condition that in the case of default by the housing provider on such loans, the City’s indemnification cost would be recovered by retention of a portion of the operating subsidy provided to that housing provider over the remaining period of the loan.

Next Steps - Future Evaluation and Research

The next evaluation of Local Policies and Priorities, recommended to be three years following Council’s approval of the currently proposed local policies, should focus on:

- The outcomes for those housed in social housing whether with or without supports;

- The outcomes in the communities re: the number of challenging tenancies and their effects on the community;

- The outcomes of the proposed pilot initiatives; and

- The level of resident engagement with their community.

Further research should be conducted to properly understand:

- The effect of higher rates of priority tenancies on the experience of non-priority tenants in various types of social housing environments.

- The extent to which provider type, provider size, management policies or style, size of community and levels of support/intervention impact tenant outcomes.

- The best ways to support priority tenants in social housing in order to maximize their potential to stabilize their lives and to minimize any negative impacts on other tenants within their community.

- Whether or not there is any correlation between underhoused households and challenging tenancies, and the effects, if any, on the unit/building of those who are underhoused.

- The profile and needs of households on the centralized waiting list.

CONSULTATION

The recommendations of this report are based on an extensive consultation process with the community of stakeholders in social housing in Ottawa, including housing providers, community support agencies, Housing Help and Action Logement (see Appendix C - List of Consultations Stakeholders).

The consultation process was led by an independent third party under the direction of and in collaboration with the Housing Branch and the Housing Stakeholders Advisory Group (HSAG).

Financial Analysis – Cost to Implement Recommendations

The cost to subsidize social housing is expected to increase for two reasons. First, the cost to operate rental housing in Ottawa continues to climb, primarily due to increases in energy and materials costs. Second, the incomes of the majority of tenants living in social housing are not expected to climb in concert with inflation, and in fact are expected to decrease relative to average incomes in the community. Because RGI subsidies cover the difference between what it costs to provide a housing unit and what the tenant can afford to pay based on 30% of gross household income, RGI subsidy costs are expected to increase faster than inflation for the next several years.

In general terms, implementing the recommendations of this report will result in additional costs related to implementing new programs to better support the application, eligibility assessment and monitoring processes related to administering rent-geared to income housing. In particular, additional costs may be incurred by The Social Housing Registry as part of implementing improved application processes. An audit of the RGI application and eligibility process is underway in 2008 that may also affect these processes. Staff will bring forward any budget implications related to these functions as part of the annual budgeting process, and will identify where any such impacts arise from this report.

$100,000 has been identified in the 2009 Housing Branch Operating Budget to support the implementation of the proposed internal review process.

An additional $2.75 million in funding would be required on an annual basis to increase the availability of supportive housing services in Ottawa. This funding would be used to allow housing support agencies to increase their services to allow conversion of some existing social housing units into supportive housing ($1.0 million annually); enhance the network of Tenant Resource Centres by bolstering the professional qualifications of staff and expanding the practice to provide support services to other housing providers requiring these services for tenants, including those located in Ottawa Community Housing buildings ($500,000 annually); and add up to 10 Housing Support Workers to assist homeless clients with accessing and stabilizing their tenancy in social housing ($1.0 million annually). No funding source has been identified.

While the Province of Ontario is the primary funder of these kinds of services, lobbying efforts to secure additional funding have not been successful. Staff are concerned because of the potential and immediate costs of not funding these services in terms of increased shelter costs, and increased operating costs to social housing providers, each of which are subsidized by the City. Providing this funding is in part expected to help mitigate increased immediate and future costs in other areas such as shelters, disruption of other community members, eviction and re-housing costs, paramedic and emergency services, hospitalization, and police, courts and correctional services costs.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

$100,000 has been identified in the 2009 Housing Branch Operating Budget to support the implementation of the proposed internal review process.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

The Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 (the SHRA) stipulates that a person affected by the decision of service manager or a supportive housing provider with respect to rent-geared-to-income (RGI) assistance may request an internal review of the decision. The SHRA further stipulates that an internal review must be conducted in accordance the requirements as prescribed by the Regulations to the SHRA. The Regulations set out the requirements for the conduct of an internal review by a service manager or a supportive housing provider and stipulate that no individual who participated in the making of the decision being reviewed shall participate in the review of that decision.

If the Service Manager is to involve an independent individual in the internal review process it is recommended that (i) Council approve the City's participation in the proposed one-year internal review process, and (ii) the City, in its role as Service Manager under the SHRA, enter into an agreement for services with the independent individual who is to be involved in the internal review of an RGI decision. The agreement must include the appropriate insurance and indemnification provisions as recommended by Legal.

DISPOSITION

Upon Council direction, Housing Branch will draft letters from the Mayor to the Federal and Provincial governments requesting commitments of funding and resources to improve the availability of support services to residents of Ottawa, with particular emphasis to the services required for residents of social housing.

Housing Branch staff will execute the changes to the Local Policies, and prepare directives to housing providers and the Registry to modify the application, housing offers and on-going eligibility processes affecting housing providers and tenants.

Housing Branch staff will consult with social housing providers, housing advocates and representatives from legal clinics to implement the internal review process as developed by the HSAG workgroup.

Housing Branch staff will consult with social housing providers and housing support services agencies to develop and execute purchase of service agreements to improve the availably of support services to tenants of social housing, per the adopted recommendations of this report.

Housing Branch will notify local housing providers of the ability of the City of Ottawa to indemnify loans made by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program for Disabilities in order to support the creation of additional modified units for people with disabilities.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Appendix A – Recommended Disposition of the 56 Local Policy Recommendations

Appendix B – List of Housing Stakeholders Advisory Group (HSAG) Membership

Appendix C – List of Consultation Stakeholders Fall 2007

Appendix D – KPMG - Evaluation of Local Policies and Priorities for Social Housing - On file with the City Clerk’s Office.

Appendix A

The original 56 Local Policies approved in 2002 were reviewed and recommendations for continuation, revision, addition and deletion have been made. It is recommended that 24 of the original policies be deleted as they are no longer necessary. This is due mainly to SHRA revisions that provide provincial legislative authority for the respective actions, thus negating the need for a Local Policy. Modifications and/or enhancements of 12 of the original local policies is recommended to address emerging issues and to reflect the findings of the community consultations. The remaining 20 original recommendations remain unchanged, given their continuing relevance. The recommendations are grouped under four categories:

1) Local Occupancy Standards

2) Local Priority Rules

3) Local RGI Eligibility Rules

4) Co-ordinated Access Review.

Recommendation	Disposition
1) Local Occupancy Standards (Recommendations 1-5)
1. That the Service Manager adopt the provincial occupancy standards established in subsections 26 to 31 of O. Reg. 298/00 with the provision that households may choose to be under housed, as long as the housing provider agrees that the unit size is suitable for the household given the physical characteristics of the unit in relation to the number, gender and ages of the members of the household and as long as the municipal occupancy standards are respected.	No change
2. That the definition of the smallest unit size be used for the purposes of defining a household that is underhoused.	No change
3. That the definition of the largest unit size be used for the purposes of defining a household that is overhoused.	No change
4. That all housing providers be encouraged to harmonize their occupancy standards to adhere to the Service Manager’s standards.	No change
5. That housing providers be permitted to grandparent their existing occupancy standards for in-situ residents to avoid a deluge of requests for internal transfers.	Delete. This recommendation is no longer required in that it was only applicable to in-situ residents prior to December 1, 2002 who were on the provider internal transfer wait list but had not yet been housed based on their transfer request.

Recommendation	Disposition
2) Local Priority Rules (Recommendations 6 – 12)
6. That, for a three year pilot period, the Service Manager establish local priority rules (in addition to victims of abuse, as required by legislation) as follows: - A minimum of 1 in 10 vacancies will be filled by households who are homeless; - A minimum of 1 in 10 vacancies will be filled by households in a severe medical/personal safety urgent situation; - Market rent households applying for RGI assistance with their current housing provider will receive a ranking date that is the date of occupancy, provided that the household has resided with the provider for a minimum of one year and provided that the City solicitor confirms that the Service Manager has discretion to decide if in-situ market rent residents may be given priority for RGI assistance. Market rent households applying for RGI assistance in another project will be considered a new application.	Revised. That, the Service Manager establish local priority rules (in addition to victims of abuse and overhoused, as required by legislation) as follows: -Market rent households applying for RGI assistance with their current housing provider will receive priority over other applicants by receiving a ranking date that is the effective date of their application to the CWL, provided that the household has resided with the provider for a minimum of one year and the unit they occupy meets local occupancy standards. Market rent households applying for RGI assistance in another project will be considered a new application. -RGI recipients who are displaced as a result of their housing unit no longer being available for RGI housing receive immediate priority for a new RGI placement. -a minimum of 2 in 10 RGI vacancies will be filled by households who are Homeless; Medical urgent; Urgent safety; Tenants of a supportive housing provider. -A minimum of 2 in 10 Rent Geared to Income (RGI) unit placements for the Homeless, Urgent (Medical or Safety) and those transitioning from supportive housing while recognizing the need for housing providers to balance the communities by developing an optional cap based on the severity of the challenging tenancies within a community and that the definition of “very problematic” challenging tenancies be adopted once determined through discussions currently underway with housing providers and tenant advocates. -The Service Manager will determine provider compliance with priority group placements as part of the site reviews.
7. That applicants currently on the waiting list for RGI assistance with newcomer and youth priority status retain their priority status and all housing providers be required to fill vacancies from this group of applicants based on a 1 in 10 formula.	Delete. This recommendation is no longer required in that any applicant with newcomer priority status on November 30, 2002 would have had their priority status sunset one year after being granted that status, or on November 30, 2003, whichever came first. Similarly, any applicant with youth priority status on November 30, 2002 would have had their priority status sunset upon becoming eighteen years of age, or on November 30, 2004.
8. That the current policy whereby newcomers lose their priority status two years after being assigned the status and youth lose their priority status once they reach 18 years of age remain in effect.	Delete. This recommendation is no longer required in that these priorities respectively expired on November 30, 2003 and November 30, 2004, as outlined above in # 7.
9. That at the end of the three year period, the Service Manager re-evaluates the appropriateness of the local priority rules and formulas recommended in this report.	That the next evaluation of Local Policies and Priorities focus on evaluating the outcomes for those housed in social housing whether with or without support, and on the outcomes experienced in the communities (e.g. any change in the number of challenging tenancies, and new/more resident engagement in their communities).
10. That the Service Manager encourage housing providers operating under unilateral federal housing programs to participate in the centralized waiting list system.	Delete. Although encouraged to participate, unilateral Federal program housing providers that do not come under the SHRA have not expressed an interest in participating in the CWL system. Accordingly, the City does not have to pay subsidies on their behalf for CWL administration.
11. That the Service Manager review all referral agreements between housing providers and support agencies and determine whether or not a mandate issue exists, and if so, resolve it.	This activity has not been undertaken to date, but on August 1^st 2007 MMAH changed the SHRA regulation wherein responsibility for special needs units with non-supportive housing providers within the existing social housing portfolio has been assigned to the Service Manager. Therefore, this task will be addressed in 2009, as part of the discussions concerning the relationship between The Registry, the Service Manager and Supportive Housing providers and support agencies.

12. That, during the three year pilot period, the Service Manager undertake a detailed study of the housing needs in its service area, including developing a profile of households currently residing in all social housing communities within its service area; creating an inventory of all social housing supply within its service area (this would include identifying all RGI housing administered by another government agency (e.g. CMHC, MOH-LTC, MCFCS)); conducting a detailed analysis of the profile and needs of households on the waiting list; and monitoring who is housed for a three year period and the impact of the changes on in-situ market rent residents who lose income.

This recommendation has been partially met by Housing Branch through the 2004 modified units questionnaire of housing providers, the City Housing Strategy of November 2007 and the Housing Needs report of July 2007.

It is recommended that a review of the Local Policies be conducted every three years, and include a detailed assessment of housing needs in the local service area

To this end, there is the need to establish baseline data for comparison with evaluation findings three years from now.

Recommendation	Disposition
3) Local RGI Eligibility Rules (Recommendations 13 – 35)
Maximum Gross Household Income Limits (Gross Limits)
13. That the Service Manager not establish a local eligibility rule on income limits at this time; however, the Service Manager should re-examine the financial impact of this decision once the Annual Information Returns are received from all housing providers.	No change
Maximum Aggregate Assets Value of Household (Asset Limit)
14. That the Service Manager not set a local eligibility rule on asset limits	No change
Exclusion of Specified Payments for an Income Limit Local Eligibility Rule
15. That the Service Manager not make any additions to the list of excluded assets identified in the legislation.	No change
Divestment of Residential Property
16. That the Service Manager not extend the provisions set out in the regulations requiring divestment of residential property within 180 days.	No change
17. That the Service Manager set a policy which allows housing providers to extend the time for effecting the divestment period on a case-by-case basis, for such time periods as the housing provider considers appropriate, if the housing provider is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to do so.	No change
Maximum Absence From A Unit
18. That the Service Manager set a policy permitting all the members of an RGI households to be absent from their unit for a maximum of 60 days and still be eligible for RGI assistance.	No change
19. That the Service Manager set a policy which allows housing providers to make exceptions to the local rule on maximum absence from a unit in exceptional circumstances that are well documented.	No change
RGI Ineligibility Period
20. That the Service Manager not set a rule to extend the automatic two-year period of ineligibility for future RGI assistance if a member of a household has been convicted in the Courts of fraud or found by the Rental Tribunal to have misrepresented income in relation to the receipt of RGI assistance.	No change
Rent Increases of Less than $10
21. That the Service Manager set a policy whereby an increase in RGI rent payable of less than $10 will not be required, except at the annual review.	The amount of increase in income affects the amount of subsidy that the Service Manager provides to the housing provider. All incomes and thus subsidies are adjusted on at least an annual basis, but income increases are supposed to be reported when they occur. However, there are significant administrative costs associated with managing frequent, and often minimal, changes to eligibility and subsidy, by both the housing providers and the Service Manager. The provincial rules allow Service Managers to determine whether or not an increase in income of less than $33 per month will require the RGI rent payable to be recalculated and collected between annual reviews. Such an increase in income results in a net change in subsidy of about $10 per month, or a maximum of $120 per year, which is less than the administrative cost to register the income change and make the subsidy adjustments. Households on fixed incomes do not require active income monitoring, and so the period for regular checking can safely be changed from every year to every two years with minimal changes to the overall subsidy to be paid. Improved communication between social assistance programs and housing providers, (for example if a household leaves social assistance), also improves accountability while minimizing administrative costs. It is recommended that Housing Providers be granted the discretionary authority to have tenants and co-op members only report an increase in income of less than $33 per month at the next annual review instead of within 31 days of the increase taking place and that when this authority is exercised, the rent adjustment would come into effect at the annual review. It also is recommended that the province not be approached to increase the amount of the reporting exemption now permitted under the legislation. It is further recommended that the Service Manager communicate to housing providers that the option to verify income every second year for ODSP and OAS & GIS recipients who are not employed, have no dependents, and receive consistent payments is available to them to use at their discretion.
Fraud Control
22. That the Service Manager not set up a separate fraud control unit and that links be established for better communication between Ontario Works/Ontario Disability Support Program and social housing providers	No change
23. That the Service Manager conduct random audits of RGI household files to check for fraud.	No change
Rent Reimbursement
24. That the Service Manager not pursue rent reimbursement from an RGI household who has underpaid their rent due to a calculation error made by the housing provider.	Delete as Local Policy. Recent MMAH regulation change has made this approach mandatory and no longer subject to local policy interpretation.
Reporting Changes in Information
25. That the Service Manager extend the period for reporting changes in information from 10 business days to 31 calendar days for households in receipt of RGI assistance and 366 calendar days for applicants for RGI assistance.	No change.
26. That the Service Manager explore how it may establish exceptions to this rule in order to mitigate the severity of the consequence for failure to report within the specified time period. It appears that the legislation, as it exists, does not allow the Service Manager to establish extenuating circumstances for exceptions to the rule. There may be an opportunity to deal with exceptions through the internal review process.	Delete. Recent MMAH regulation changes remove the need for this provision.
27. That the Service Manager seek a legal opinion and/or clarification from the province on whether or not failing to report changes in information within the recommended 31 or 366 calendar day period and the subsequent result of withdrawal of RGI subsidy is a decision which may be appealed by an applicant or household in receipt of RGI assistance.	Delete. Recent MMAH regulation changes remove the need for this provision.
Determining RGI Eligibility
28. That the Service Manager delegate the responsibility of determining basic RGI eligibility to The Registry during the period that an applicant is on the waiting list;	No change
29. That the Service Manager delegate the responsibility of determining RGI eligibility to housing providers at the point when a unit is offered to an applicant and on an ongoing basis once the applicant is housed;	No change
30. That the Service Manager monitor The Registry’s and housing providers’ performance on determining RGI eligibility as part of the operational review process.	No change
Income Verification and Rent Calculation
31. That the Service Manager delegate the responsibility for income verification and rent calculation to housing providers.	No change
32. That the Service Manager monitor housing providers’ performance on income verification and rent calculation as part of the operational review process.	No change
33. That the Service Manager establish formal links between housing providers and Ontario Works to provide for the sharing of Ontario Works information in regard to income and household composition information, as appropriate.	A pilot project established in 2005 involving the EFA, OCHC, the Rent Supplement Program and the Service Manager will be expanded to include other housing providers.
Internal Review of Decisions Regarding RGI Eligibility
34. That the Service Manager adopt an interim process for handling of internal reviews as follows: -Internal reviews on decisions made by The Registry shall be assigned to The Registry; -Internal reviews on decisions made by housing providers shall be assigned to housing providers; -Decision-makers must provide the Service Manager with their policy on how they plan to handle internal reviews within 60 days of approval of this recommendation; -Decision-makers must demonstrate to the Service Manager that its internal review policies and procedures adhere to the following principles: -have regard for the legislative requirements specified in the Social Housing Reform Act sections 82 & 83 and O. Reg 298/01 sections 57 and 58 set out the legislative context for this local decision; -Protect confidentiality of the person requesting the review; -Allow households to bring a representative with them to the internal review; -Consider language and literacy needs of the household requesting the review; -Consider accessibility needs of the household requesting the review; -Have regard to decisions made by other providers in the service area; -Be a transparent and an open process; -Be easily understood by households requesting the review; -Consider the expertise required of the individual/body hearing the appeal; -Address capacity of provider to undertake the review; -Be appropriate for different types of review, for example a review on simple errors (objective) versus a review on extenuating circumstances (subjective); -Consider a pre-review of the issue before the formal review begins to avoid the onerous legislative requirements, while respecting the intent of the legislation; -Where a decision-maker is unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Service Manager that its internal review policies and procedures adhere to the stated principles, the Service Manager will make a decision about the internal review process applicable to that decision-maker following consultation with the decision-maker; -Decision-makers must inform the Service Manager of all internal review decisions, including the rationale for decisions, within 30 days of the decision being made, in a form approved by the Service Manager, and attach a copy of the written notice provided by the decision-maker to the individual(s) who requested the internal review, as per section 58 (6) of O. Reg. 298; -The Service Manager shall, on a periodic basis, provide decision-makers with a summary of decisions made by others, as well as guidelines for making decisions, as it deems appropriate; In 2007, as part of the Provincial review of the SHRA regulations, staff began to consider the benefits of changing the way internal reviews are undertaken. Accordingly, a working group was formed comprised of housing providers, Housing Branch staff, housing advocates and representatives from legal clinics. The work group set out to explore options in regard to a better process that would ensure transparency and fairness to the applicants. To that end, the working group has developed a pilot internal review process that meets those needs. Appeals would be heard by a three person independent panel composed of representatives from: The Service Manager, The Registry or a housing provider and Tenant/member/applicant advocates.	Revised. In 2007, as part of the Provincial review of the SHRA regulations, staff began to consider the benefits of changing the way internal reviews are undertaken. Accordingly, a working group was formed comprised of housing providers, Housing Branch staff, housing advocates and representatives from legal clinics. The work group set out to explore options in regard to a better process that would ensure transparency and fairness to the applicants. To that end, the working group has developed a pilot internal review process that meets those needs. Appeals would be heard by a three person independent panel composed of representatives from: The Service Manager, The Registry or a housing provider and Tenant/member/applicant advocates. It is recommended that the new Internal Review Process as described by the Working Committee be implemented, including a first stage pre-review within the Housing Provider/Registry concerned.
35. That the Service Manager undertake a comprehensive review of the interim internal review system put in place, within three years, to ensure that the guiding principles identified in 3.13.7 are being met and continue to be valid and that the Service Manager involve the following key stakeholders in the comprehensive review process: housing providers, The Registry, community agencies advocating for applicants and residents, housing sector organizations, and applicants and residents.	It is recommended that the new Internal Review Process be subject to an evaluation one year after implementation. Data concerning the performance of the current system should be collected immediately to provide a baseline.

Recommendation	Disposition
4) Co-ordinated Access Review (Recommendations 36-56)
Governance Structure and Accountability Framework
36. That the Service Manager enter into a service agreement with The Registry to maintain the centralized waiting list, and its associated subsidiary waiting lists on its behalf and that the agreement specify how services requested by the Service Manager beyond legislative requirements shall be handled.	The service agreement with The Registry will be modified as required to reflect the business needs of managing access to rent-geared-to-income housing.
37. That the Service Manager endorse the current funding arrangement whereby housing provider members pay user fees to The Registry for the administration of the application process and the management of their subsidiary waiting list(s) for rent geared-to-income housing.	Delete. The Registry is contracted by the Service Manager to manage the CWL. Although the service provided to Housing Providers remains unchanged, Housing Providers are no longer required to pay fees to cover this service. The Service Manager covers the cost of the administration of the CWL in full.
38. That the Service Manager consider requesting that The Registry create an ex-officio position for a Service Manager representative on The Registry Board of Directors.	Delete. This ex-officio position was temporarily created and occupied by a Service Manager representative, until the service agreement between The Registry and the Service Manager was finalized and executed, at which time the position was no longer required and accordingly terminated.
39. That the Service Manager request that The Registry prepare a proposal on how it could improve its services to applicants who require additional assistance filling out the application form, especially those with special needs such as the disabled, seniors and individuals whose first language is not English or French.	It is recommended that the English and French versions of public documents related to access and eligibility for rent-geared to income social housing remain consistent on all material aspects, such as definitions of eligibility. It is recommended that to assist applicants for RGI housing who may need translation services during the application, housing offer and housing placement process, The Registry and housing providers should: a) Ensure CWL applicants and tenant/members have the right to designate a second person (advocate, relative) to receive on their behalf verbal/telephone information and/or copies of correspondence from the Registry (and from providers). b) Assist applicants to identify possible persons or agencies who could assist in the event they are unable to identify suitable resources in the circumstances.
Funding of The Registry/Fee Structure
40. That, once the benchmarks are released by the Province, The Registry, housing providers and the Service Manager work together to determine an agreed upon user fee for the services to be provided. In the meantime, it is recommended that the existing fee structure be maintained and that consideration be given for additional funding to be paid directly by the Service Manager to The Registry to meet legislative requirements, keeping in mind that housing providers and others involved in the social housing system have also had to find the resources to meet legislative requirements.	Delete – See # 37.
Legislative Requirements
41. That, pursuant to legislation, the Service Manager must maintain the waiting list by individual project and that the Service Manager instruct The Registry to maintain the waiting list in this manner.	Delete. Covered by the service agreement between The Registry and Service Manager.
42. That the Service Manager ensure that The Registry demonstrate how it plans to address the legislative requirement to produce a monthly subsidiary list.	Delete. Covered by the service agreement between The Registry and Service Manager.
43. That the Service Manager ensure that The Registry assume the responsibility for formally notifying applicant households in writing who have refused three offers of housing of their ineligibility for RGI assistance.	Delete. Covered by the service agreement between The Registry and Service Manager.
44. That the Service Manager require that The Registry revise the standard letter notifying applicants about whether the household is on the waiting list to include in what category the household is placed and ensure that all applicants are sent the letter within seven (7) business days as required by legislation.	Delete. Covered by the service agreement between The Registry and Service Manager.
45. That the Service Manager advocate to the Province for an extension to the seven day requirement to notify applicants about whether or not they have been placed on the social housing waiting list.	Delete. Recent MMAH regulation changes remove the need for this provision.
46. That the Service Manager include the requirement to follow the rules specified in sections 37 and 38 of O. Reg 298/01 in the service agreement between the Service Manager and The Registry.	Delete. Covered by the service agreement between The Registry and Service Manager.
47. That the Service Manager review the updated application form to confirm it meets legislative requirements and other Service Manager information requirements, for example existing housing situation and housing need.	Delete. Completed
48. That the Service Manager and The Registry work together to develop a public information binder that includes all the information identified in section 60 of O. Reg 298/01.	It is recommended that the Service Manager work with The Registry to develop a strategy to bring the waiting list on-line, with a web-based format for provider access and aids for community selection as part of application preparation. It is recognized that, given their current roles in the application preparation process, both Action Logement and Housing Help will need additional capacity in terms of IT equipment and support to assist in this regard.
49.That the Service Manager require The Registry to maintain a ranking on the centralized waiting list for overhoused households as required in the legislation.	Overhoused: Overhoused households within the urban/suburban boundary: Wherein within one year of becoming overhoused, the overhoused household's selections must be a minimum of 10 communities within the service manager area, and two years after becoming overhoused, the overhoused household's selections must be increased to a minimum of 20 communities within the service manager area. Overhoused households in the rural areas: Seniors will be permitted to be overhoused until there is an appropriately sized unit available within their own community. Overhoused family households may choose to remain in their rural community or to move into the urban/suburban portion of the service manager area. If they wish to remain in their rural community, the overhoused household must register for all housing communities with appropriately sized units within the former township and they must register with the Rent Supplement Program which will proactively attempt to find them an appropriate unit within the former township. If rural senior or family households choose to move into the urban/suburban area, they must select a minimum of 10 communities within the service manager area within one year of becoming overhoused and increase their selections to 20 communities two years after becoming overhoused.
50. That the Service Manager carefully examines The Registry’s estimated cost to implement the legislative requirements once the benchmarks are released.	Delete. Completed
Location of The Registry
51. That the location of The Registry not be changed at this time.	Delete. No longer required
Information Technology
52. That the Service Manager request The Registry to prepare a cost-benefit report which compares its existing Lotus Notes system with other systems (e.g. Yardi Systems, Inc. centralized waiting list system), including an analysis of the respective systems’ capabilities to meet legislative requirements.	Delete. Analysis completed and is reflected in the service agreement between The Registry and the Service Manager.
Elements of the Service Agreement
53. That the Service Manager include the following elements in the service agreement between the Service Manager and The Registry: - a requirement to comply with the Social Housing Reform Act and applicable regulations; - a requirement that The Registry follow the rules specified in sections 37 and 38 of O. Reg 298/01 regarding waiting list management; a mechanism to adjust fees as required; - an adjustment in fees to take into account the increased costs for meeting legislative requirements; - a requirement to provide services in English and French; - an identification of ownership rights of the various elements of the centralized waiting list system, including the information technology system and applicant files.	Delete. Covered by the service agreement between The Registry and Service Manager.
Modified Units Without Supports
54. That the Service Manager request housing providers to delegate the responsibility for maintaining the waiting list for modified units without support to the Service Manager.	Delete. Recent MMAH regulation changes transferred administrative responsibility for the coordinated access to these units from housing providers to the Service Manager.
55. That the Service Manager delegate the responsibility for maintaining the waiting list for modified units without supports to The Registry, with the understanding that the Service Manager will incorporate into the service agreement with The Registry the requirement to use the centralized waiting list for modified units without supports to fill vacancies in these units.	Delete. Covered by the service agreement and recent MMAH regulation changes transferred administrative responsibility for the coordinated access to these units from housing providers to the Service Manager. That the Registry, the Service Manager and supportive housing providers develop appropriate procedures to improve and integrate the intake processes for social housing and supportive housing.
56. That the Service Manager, The Registry and housing providers work together to ensure that modified units are occupied by those households requiring them.	Delete. Covered by the service agreement between The Registry and Service Manager by utilizing RGI occupancy standards and eligibility criteria to ensure that eligible applicants are referred to fill vacant accessible units.

Appendix B

List of Housing Stakeholders Advisory Group Membership

The Housing Stakeholders Advisory Group (HSAG) membership list includes:

Twelve members from the Ottawa Social Housing Network including:

Four provider staff: Ottawa Community Housing and one each from the private non-profit, co-operative housing and supportive housing sectors
Representatives from ONPHA and CHASEO
Chair of the Ottawa Social Housing Network
One representative from The Registry
One representative from Housing Help
One representative from Action Logement
Two tenants/members who are active participants in the social housing sector (committee or Board members)

Two Housing Branch staff

Appendix C

List of Consultations Stakeholders - Fall 2007

Providers, Advocates and Agencies:

Action Logement*

Canadian Mental Health Association*

Cardinus Co-op

Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation* (CCOC)

CHASEO

Community Works Non-Profit Housing Corporation

Conservation Co-operative Homes Incorporated

Cumberland Housing Corporation

Emily Murphy Non-Profit Housing Corporation

FSW/TSW Minwaashin Lodge

Gloucester Non-Profit Housing Corporation*

Harmer House

Harmony House

Housing Branch Management*

Housing Help

Interval House

Kanata Co-operative Homes Incorporated

Maison d'Amitié

Mario De Giovanni Housing Co-operative Incorporated

Minwaashin Lodge/Family Services*

Nelson House

Nepean Housing Corporation*

Nepean, Rideau and Osgoode CRC

Ottawa Community Housing Corporation* (OCHC)

Pinecrest-Queensway Community Health Centre*

Program Admin. - Housing Branch*

Rent Supplement Program Staff- Housing Branch*

Somerset West Community Health Centre

South-East Ottawa Community Health Centre

Tewegan

The Registry*

Youth Services Bureau

* Indicates more than one participant in attendance representing the organization.

Tenants and Applicants:

Tenants from a number of housing providers, including CCOC, OCHC, Gignul NPHC and Nepean Housing attended the Tenant/Applicant sessions offered in English or French.

EVALUATION OF LOCAL POLICIES IN SOCIAL HOUSING

ÉVALUATION DES POLITIQUES LOCALES DANS LES LOGEMENTS SOCIAUX

ACS2008-CPS-HOU-0012 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Russell Mawby, Director of Housing, introduced Stephen Arbuckle, Manager of Housing Programs, who provided a PowerPoint presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk.

Lorraine Bentley, Supportive Housing Network stated her overall agreement with the report, noting it is a result of input from the network. She commended the systems approach that recognises supportive and social housing work in partnership. She advised that Options Bytown and Ottawa Salus have been working closely with Ottawa Community Housing for the last eight or nine years in the Tenant Resource Centres, which are effective in helping tenants access the services they need to live independently and have successful tenancies. The existing 18 resource centres are funded through various funding programs from all three levels of government with a variety of terms of conditions. Ms. Bentley voiced a need for increased resources to adequately address the needs of residents, which include mental illness, addiction, poverty and abuse. A single community housing support or mental health worker currently staffs each resource centre. Additional staff is required to adequately address the needs of the population and staff must have access to training and other resources to get the job done. The network supports the proposal to have supportive housing tenants maintain their priority homeless status in order to move into more independent living in social housing when they are ready. She also addressed coordinated access, noting the report is a positive step forward and must go hand-in-hand with the creation of more affordable and supportive housing. She agreed to continue working with the Housing branch on a go forward basis.

Chair Deans commented on the need for increased and continued federal funding, emphasizing that an election is an opportune time to ensure the government does not renege on such an important issue.

In response to questions from members, Ms. Bentley confirmed the Supportive Housing Network is comprised of 13 agencies, which provide approximately 800 units. She advised that tenant resource staff provide support services to tenants, work in partnership with the landlord but are at arms length. In the case of Salus, those workers focus on mental health needs. For Options Bytown, community tenant support services are available 40 hours per week during weekdays with some evenings. She commented that the requested $2.75 million is sufficient to increase capacity, staffing and salaries to attract higher qualified workers.

With regard to Option 3, Ms. Bentley noted that a great deal of work was done with little success. She invited Councillor Holmes to speak to her Board of Directors to pursue Option 3 but expressed support for moving forward with the other initiatives outlined in the report. On the issue of federal programs, she noted that current funding ends on March 31, 2009 and no announcements or progress have been made; however, lobbying efforts are on going and the network will advise the City on how it can assist.

Ishbel Solvason of the Social Housing Registry spoke on behalf of the Ottawa Social Housing Network (OSHN) and was accompanied by Chris Landry of the Nepean Housing Corporation. She said the network represents all social housing providers as well as community agencies and organizations that work for both tenants and applicants in terms of seeking affordable and safe housing. The steering committee fully supports the report, which balanced complex needs with go forward mechanisms. Housing providers, the registry and community organizations are significant stakeholders in the continuum of affordable and social housing and must be involved in all areas of the implementation of these recommendations. The OSHN recognized the review is important and the Housing branch has made real recognition of the day-to-day pressures facing housing providers, along with the needs of the many who are waiting for an offer of safe and affordable housing.

With regard to local priorities, Ms. Solvason recognized the need for the City to set local policy as the service manager for access to housing in a faster way. As the Director of the registry, she endorsed that view but noted every time one person is advantaged thousands of others are left waiting. She noted that none of the excellent things outlined in the report could occur without extra funding and resources to deliver them. Lastly, she spoke of the real meaning of evaluation as learning and the sum of all experiences. She noted that some of the data in the report is cutting edge in the Province in actually looking at successful tenancies.

In response to questions from Councillor Cullen, Ms. Solvason stated that the notion of an optional cap when dealing with challenging tenants might bend and shape in every community with a different tipping point. It should be looked at and negotiated periodically on a case-by-case basis.

Joanne Poirier, Ottawa Community Housing Corporation also confirmed that Tenant Resource Centres are located in Ottawa Community Housing buildings and are allotted a worker to meet with tenants in that building. They are housed in certain high-rise buildings in an apartment unit that has been converted.

Responding to questions from Councillor Bédard, Ms. Solvason noted the following:

· The Social Housing Registry currently includes 9400 active households, representing over 20,000 people who qualify on the centralized waiting list.

· Victims of abuse are a special priority population as determined by the Social Housing Reform Act, which sets out stringent rules for qualification. It is the only mandatory priority for leaping the waiting list.

· If someone indicates on the application form that they are fleeing violence or abuse, a protocol must be followed. A priority assessment meeting with the registry staff occurs to: determine the issues; review the supporting documentation; and ensure a self-declaration is on file indicating that the person is planning to permanently separate from the abuser. Safe communities and safe choices are also reviewed. A police or medical report could be received or even a letter from a Minister, as many women do not come through the shelter system.

· The evaluation is based on the outline in the Act and the Registry is confident that when someone is accorded special priority that they do meet the criteria.

· Statistically, a woman will have to leave an abusive spouse about nine times before permanently separating from an abuser. Sometimes people get caught in that cycle. Some years ago, the Province did change the regulations to ensure priority status could be removed at the waiting list component if someone was trying to sign their abuser back on.

· The violence against women sector makes very good efforts to have safety plans in place for the people that they are serving though the shelter system. Safety plans should be assessed and put in place at the registry, which is the point of commonality.

Councillor Holmes questioned if homeless applicants had the wherewithal to identify any supports they may require and to develop a plan where possible. Ms. Solvason suspected that someone coming into the registry to ask for homeless status will be followed through a protocol where social work trained staff will meet with the person and help identify the required supports with referrals to other community resources. The Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) was funded for the Housing Impact Team (HIT) that takes voluntary referrals from the homeless singles list.

Councillor Holmes commented that the HIT Team arrives often after a building is already in disarray. Ms. Solvason said that additional funding is required to get the support quicker at the point of being housed. She also noted the City of Ottawa has been a leader in setting new units in the province but it is still not enough to deal with the long waiting list. She indicated housing providers were consulted about the local priorities review paper and sit on the advisory group at CMHA for the HIT Team to address needs and issues.

Mr. Mawby noted some people need supports when housed at the outset and others require them down the road. He referenced that 10 per cent of local priority placements create challenging tenancies. Additional funding is required to ensure adequate supports are in place. He noted that Canada is the only G8 country without a National Housing Strategy. Investment in social housing can alleviate health costs, such as acute beds.

In response to questions from Councillor Leadman, Ms. Solvason clarified that 1000 to 2000 of the 94,000 households on the waiting list are currently housed but are deemed new applicants by the Social Housing Reform Act. They are under housed and have needs above and beyond with very few just looking to move to another building. They are living in private market accommodation, which is expensive for them to manage, or with family/friends. With regard to Option 4, rental supplements are not a long term solution but form part of the continuum of social and affordable housing. The private landlord does not favour them when the rental market vacancy rate is small.

Ms. Poirier noted the diversion of existing stock to supportive housing can be effective but other solutions must be looked at including additional block leases. The Healthy Communities initiative has shown that integration is the long-term key to successful tenancies.

Chair Deans advised that she has raised the issue of the hidden download with the Province that occurs when someone on the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) enters social housing. In that instance, the municipality pays 80 per cent and the Province pays 20 per cent. The opposite is true for ODSP recipient in private sector housing. This hidden download represents over $20 million every year for the City of Ottawa. She suggested the City should look at its policies to determine if some form of support could be given to those entering private units, which would be much more cost effective for the City.

Ms. Poirier indicated that Ottawa Community Housing (OCH) has worked with the OSHN and the Housing branch in identifying specific initiatives to assist many tenants who need more than a roof for a successful tenancy. In response to the local policies report, she brought a position paper to attention of the OCH Board with specific initiatives that could occur with additional resources, including additional block leases or additional supports. She confirmed some of the larger facilities have one resource person assigned to them but additional funding is required from all three levels of government to take a more strategic planned approach to those challenging tenancies. With regard to the tipping point or cap, they must be viewed on a case-by-case basis as each community has a very distinct complexion and factors can change one day to the next.

Councillor Cullen recalled the recent experience of converting seniors’ buildings to age-mixed and the tremendous disruption that occurred. He spoke of the need for some kind of balance to ensure challenging tenancies do not disrupt a building. He emphasised that housing is a basic human right under the United Nations Charter of Rights.

Trudy Sutton spoke on behalf of Housing Help and Action Logement/Action Housing that work with and advocate on behalf of tenants and applicants in search of affordable housing. The organizations also assist people to prevent loss of housing. She expressed support for the report, which addresses some of the difficulties that tenants and housing providers face. It provides direction for making changes that will result in a better quality of life for social housing tenants. The agencies were pleased that the local priorities have been retained because in crisis, access to affordable housing can literally change the life course of a person or family. Ms. Sutton said the evaluation of local policies has been a collaborative effort and looked forward to continuing to work with the service manager, non-profit housing providers, the co-op sector and other stakeholders to develop and implement the recommendations.

Margaret Singleton, Salus also expressed support for the recommendations and endorsed the Supportive Housing Network submission.

In response to questions from Councillor Holmes, Ms. Singleton advised that the mental health workers work with tenants who have other needs. Their mandate allows them to work with anybody whether or not they have a diagnosed medical illness; however their expertise, focus, background and way of doing things are all mental health oriented. She noted the mental health worker does not have a limited case list and can work with anybody. In return, Salus received a total of 35 referral units and provides three workers (one in each of the three buildings). Non-clients are not excluded from services but the extent of the work with individuals is not the extent needed due to lack of resources. She confirmed this was the case for Regina Towers, which Councillor Cullen raised.

Karen Sexsmith introduced Pam Cripps, President of the Co-op Housing Association of Eastern Ontario, which represents 4,000 co-op units in and across eastern Ontario, half of which are administered under the Social Housing Reform Act. They endorsed the recommendations of the report and worked cooperatively with the Housing branch through the Housing Stakeholder Group. Ms. Cripps stressed the importance of realising the funding for the much-needed supports for residents and housing providers. She added that the recommended internal review process is an interesting pilot to create an effective and realistic appeal process. Lastly, the association continues its efforts to upload housing co-ops to the Province.

Councillor Feltmate asked how co-ops deal with challenging tenancies due to their size and resources. Ms. Cripps responded that co-ops are smaller housing providers and access community support services, as they do not have resident support offices. For example, she noted that in her 86-unit community, one challenging tenant who came with priority status was recently evicted because he/she had become increasingly disruptive and all options were exhausted.

Mr. Arbuckle said that the increased funding would enhance Tenant Resource Centres by increasing capacity and expanding the number with new ones outside OCH. He added that the $2.75 million in additional funding is only a starting point to build on.

In response to questions from Councillor Holmes, Ms. Cripps noted that paperwork burden is on-going and caused mostly by the Province. Helping households to access support services is currently part of the Co-op Coordinator’s daily routine.

Dwayne Unruh, Canadian Mental Heath Association (Ottawa) spoke of the need for multifaceted solutions to these complex problems. He noted the lack of resources is a major issue with housing outreach workers totalling four full-time equivalents, as compared to 15 a few years ago. He referenced other approaches including the HIT Team, the Housing Outreach Team, the shelter Housing Support Teams and the Housing Response Team, which is run through the Salvation Army. He commented that implementation would be the challenge and must ensure maximization of a variety of approaches without diluting.

Councillor Cullen spoke of the tipping point while balancing harmony in communities with the supports needed by challenging tenancies. Mr. Unruh advised that reaching out to private landlords is key as is the definition of challenging tenancy.

Councillor Feltmate presented the following motion, which was amended in a friendly manner as a result of comments from Councillor Bédard.

Whereas the report on local policies and priorities for accessing social housing confirms that the number of people coming into social housing with mental health, addiction and other issues requiring supports to maintain successful tenancies continues to grow, and

Whereas investing in supportive housing at up to $20,000 per year has been clearly shown to be much more cost effective than allowing these tenants to lose their housing become homeless, consuming much more expensive emergency and hospital services, which can cost upwards of $130,000 per year, and

Whereas the need for more supportive housing in Ottawa, with over 2,000 applicants on local waiting lists, has been well documented, and communicated to both Provincial and Federal Ministers, and

Whereas no significant action has been taken by either level of government to resolve this shameful and wasteful lack of appropriate investment in our communities,

Therefore Be it resolved that staff forward this report to the Minister of Community and Social Services, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care with a request that the Province immediately provide $2.75 million in on-going funding for the supportive services identified in this report, and that staff report back to the Committee by the end of October on the status of this request; and

Be it further resolved that City Council and the Mayor invite local Members of Parliament and Provincial Parliament and the media to a press conference in October to clearly demonstrate the misallocation of resources in our community that continue to allow our most vulnerable citizens to be left without adequate supports to live in our community, while causing significant costs and pressures to hospitals, police services, the justice system, landlords and other residents.

Moved by P. Feltmate:

Whereas the City of Ottawa provides a broad range of policy and program options for public investments in affordable housing; and

Whereas the affordable housing market is failing to meet rising demand in the supply of affordable rental and ownership units; and

Whereas the Committee acknowledges that future public investment in affordable housing is necessary to add to the supply ogf both rental and ownership housing and the use of public funds should be strategically directed to advance priorities in the City Housing Strategy; and

Whereas the current programs for investing in affordable rental housing should be for long-term solutions that can address both present and future needs;

Therefore be it resolved that the Committee direct staff to report on options for investing or otherwise supporting the development of affordable homeownership housing while respecting the principles of maximizing the return on public investments over the long term.

CARRIED

Councillor Feltmate introduced her second motion dealing with the need for affordable homeownership.

Moved by P. Feltmate:

Whereas the need for more supportive housing in Ottawa, with over 2,000 applicants on local waiting lists, has been well documented, and communicated to both Provincial and Federal Ministers, and

Whereas no significant action has been taken by either level of government to resolve this shameful and wasteful lack of appropriate investment in our communities,

Therefore be it resolved that staff forward this report to the Minister of Community and Social Services, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care with a request that the Province immediately provide $2.75 million in on-going funding for the supportive services identified in this report, and that staff report back to the Committee by the end of October with an action plan to be implemented to obtain the requested amount.

CARRIED

Councillor Cullen commended staff and the housing community for the recommendations with respect to internal reviews and coordinated access for someone on the waiting list.

In response to questions from Councillor Cullen, Mr. Mawby and Mr. Arbuckle stated the following:

· With regard to an under housed household and overcrowding, providers have a good understanding of provincial guidelines for matching household to unit size. The benefit to allow some relaxing of the rules would allow individuals to be housed much quicker. Staff would work with providers to ensure the situation does not create extreme overcrowding.

· The decision to allow such a variance to the rule would be dealt with at the Registry and documented. It would form part of the Registry’s Annual Report, which staff agreed to provide to Committee and Council. An audit of the process is forthcoming in Fall 2008.

· With respect to local occupancy standards, individuals can refuse up to three times, without losing their rent-geared-to-income (RGI) subsidy.

Lisa Goodfellow, Senior Program Administrator, Housing Program Administrative Unit, advised that “urgent medical” and “urgent safety” definitions exist. An apartment break-in would not meet the definition of “urgent safety”, which is not being changed. With regard to “urgent medical”, many appeals were received. The definition will be clarified for greater public understanding and fairness. Currently, the Registry makes special priority decisions and the local provider decides internal transfers. She agreed with Councillor Cullen that consistency will be an important factor to be looked at by the work group.

Ms. Solvason explained that a safety plan is developed for someone applying under urgent safety status. These plans are very personalized to secure and retain safe housing. They may or may not involve a restraining order. Registry staff meet with the applicant to review issues approximately within 10 days of the application.

On the issue of challenging tenants, Mr. Mawby agreed to return to Committee and Council with the criteria set as the tipping point for challenging tenancies once developed.

With regard to financial implications, Steve Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager of Community and Protective Services Committee, indicated that the budget pressure will not be included in the 2009 Draft Budget because the amount identified is outside the Fiscal Framework submission in terms of projected budget pressures for 2009. A referral motion to the 2009 Budget process would be required.

Councillor Cullen indicated he would move a motion in that regard.

Further to subsequent questions from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Mawby confirmed that this report will have minimal impact on the administrative burden of housing providers; however, work is on-going with the OSHN to develop standards to reduce the oversight and paperwork for those that are meeting the approved standards. Best practices in other jurisdictions are being reviewed and such a model would be the first in Ontario if introduced. A report to Committee and Council would outline these standards and is expected shortly.

With regard to changes to the priority group, Mr. Arbuckle confirmed there is no impact in terms of the proportion (50 per cent) of persons entering social housing from the priority list.

Councillor Holmes pointed out that emergency shelters cost the City $51 a day, in comparison to $24 a day for supportive housing. Mr. Mawby said that evidence shows that getting people into housing is the right approach. He noted shelters are cost shared 80/20 with the Province paying the greater share.

Councillor Holmes hoped for a stronger push for new supportive housing units. She then introduced her motions.

Moved by D. Holmes:

That staff come forward with an action report on developing new supportive units through purchase or new construction.

CARRIED

Councillor Holmes indicated that the language in the report must be stronger with regard to funding from senior levels of government. Mr. Mawby responded that the supports are required and conversion would not occur without funding.

Moved by D. Holmes:

That the recommendations regarding the conversion of social housing to supportive housing not occur until there is Provincial or Federal funding to provide the necessary support services; and

That the “should” be replaced with “must” on page 29, last paragraph, last line to read: “Along with this process, a comprehensive request for support resources required ~~should~~ must be presented to the Province.”

CARRIED

Mr. Mawby explained that the consultant’s “challenging tenancies” definition was done to support data collection and research. It is adequate as a working definition; however work will be done with providers to come up with a definition that accommodates other issues that arose through the course of the research.

Moved by D. Holmes:

That the consultant’s definition of challenging tenancies be accepted as the local definition in Ottawa until an agreed upon definition is arrived at by the Housing Stakeholders Advisory Group; and that the definition and process for a cap be finalized within the following six months.

For the purposes of this study and future program definition, “challenging tenancies” are defined as tenant/households with:

- 2 or more N5s (Substantial Interference/Damage to Property/Too Many People);

- 1 or more N6s (Illegal Act or Misrepresentation of Income);

- 1 or more N7s (Impaired Safety/Wilful Damage to Property);

- 1 or more N8s (Persistently Late Rent Payments/No Longer Qualifies for Public or Subsidized Housing);

- 1 or more L1s or L2s (eviction applications); and

- Co-op member households and smaller housing providers with equivalent notices from Co-op Boards.

CARRIED

As a result of earlier advice provided by Mr. Kanellakos, Councillor Cullen presented the following motion.

Moved by A. Cullen:

That the Community and Protective Services Committee recommend Council refer the financial considerations ($2.75 million) of the report “Evaluation of Local Policies in Social Housing” to the 2009 Budget Process:

· $1 million – conversion of social housing units into supportive housing

· $750,000 – enhancing and expanding the network of Tenant Resource Centres

· $1 million – adding up to 10 Housing Support Workers to assist homeless clients with accessing and stabilizing their tenancies.

CARRIED

The Committee then considered the report recommendations as amended.

That the Community and Protective Services Committee recommend that Council:

9. Refer the financial considerations of the report ($2.75 million) to the 2009 Budget Process.

11. Direct staff to come forward with an action report on developing new supportive units through purchase or new construction.

CARRIED as amended

DIRECTIONS TO STAFF:

1. That the annual report of the Social Housing Registry be provided to Committee and Council.

2. That the criteria set as the tipping point for challenging tenancies be provided to Committee and Council once developed. (Also see Recommendation 12).

3. That the standards to reduce onerous paperwork required of social housing providers be provided to Committee and Council once developed.

Report to/Rapport au :

SUBJECT:

Evaluation of Local Policies in Social Housing

OBJET :

DISCUSSION

Table 1: Proposed Priority Categories

Priority Group

In place since 2003 and to be continued

New in 2008

Recommendations 5 & 6 Supports to Housing

Recommendation 7 – Indemnification of Forgiveable Loans

Next Steps - Future Evaluation and Research

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Funding of The Registry/Fee Structure

Legislative Requirements

Elements of the Service Agreement

Modified Units Without Supports

List of Housing Stakeholders Advisory Group Membership