windsor-essex hars special initiative study … windsor/essex housing analysis and recommended...

Windsor-Essex HARS Special Initiative Study

Background Report Three: Social Housing Policies and Programs

Final June 2010

i Housing Analysis and Recommended Strategy (HARS) Background Report Three: Social Housing Policies and Programs

Acknowledgements The Windsor/Essex Housing Analysis and Recommended Strategy Special Initiatives Study was undertaken on behalf of the City of Windsor. We would like to thank the Housing Advisory Committee for their input and assistance during the preparation of the report. Alan Halberstadt, City Council Gary McNamara, County Council Jim Steele, Housing Provider (Windsor Essex Community Housing Corporation) Janette Calendra, Housing Provider Marina Clemens, Chair, Central Housing Registry Anna Angelidis, Labour Community Joelle Chase, Consumer & Tenant Representative Lorena Shepley, Consumer & Tenant Representative Heather McNamara, Community Groups (Multicultural Council) Steve Govette, Community Groups (Canadian Mental Health Association) Rob Catford, Community Groups (Legal Assistance of Windsor) Shelley Hodare, Community Groups (Housing Information Services) Elayne Isaacs, Community Groups (Can-Am Urban Native Non-Profit Homes) Linda Wilson, Emergency Housing (Salvation Army) Bill Bijl, Lodging/Rest Homes (Bruce Villa Inc.) We also wish to thank the many representatives from the community, including various social service agencies, social housing applicants and tenants, social housing providers, municipal departments and the private sector for providing valuable input into key components of this study. In particular we would like to thank the individuals who completed a survey, participated in interviews and attended the various focus group sessions.

ii Housing Analysis and Recommended Strategy (HARS) Background Report Three: Social Housing Policies and Programs

Consulting Team

The Windsor/Essex Housing Analysis and Recommended Strategy (HARS) Special Initiative Study was prepared by SHS Consulting.

The consulting team for this study was comprised of:

Ed Starr, Principal, SHS Consulting, Study Manager Christine Pacini, SHS Consulting, Study Manager

Jodi Ball, SHS Consulting, Senior Research and Policy Analyst Glenda Lucas, SHS Consulting, Senior Research and Policy Analyst

Michel Sereacki, SHS Consulting, Research Analyst Zainab Habib, SHS Consulting, Research Analyst

iii Housing Analysis and Recommended Strategy (HARS) Background Report Three: Social Housing Policies and Programs

Table of Contents 1.0 Delivery of Social Housing Programs .................................................... 1

1.1 Inventory of Social Housing Programs ................................................ 1

1.1.1 Windsor Essex Community Housing Corporation (CHC) ....................... 1

1.1.2 Affordable Housing Initiative ..................................................... 2

1.1.3 Homelessness Partnering Strategy .............................................. 3

1.1.4 Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program ................................ 4

1.1.5 Rent Supplement ................................................................... 5

1.1.6 Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP)..................... 6

1.1.7 Domiciliary and Emergency Hostels ............................................. 6

1.1.8 Emergency Shelters ................................................................ 7

1.1.9 Rent Bank ........................................................................... 7

1.1.10 Keep the Heat Energy Fund ...................................................... 7

1.1.11 Shelter Allowances ................................................................ 8

1.1.12 Hostels to Homes Pilot Program ................................................. 9

1.2 Summary of Program Coordination and Service Delivery .........................19

1.2.1 Organizational Structure .........................................................19

1.2.2 Dynamics of Program Delivery ..................................................23

1.2.3 Overview of Focus Group Results ...............................................26

1.2.4 Anticipated Changes over the Next Five to Ten Years ......................32

1.2.5 Effective and Efficient Programs and Policies ................................32

1.2.5.1 Rent Supplements ..............................................................32

1.2.5.2 Local Priorities .................................................................33

1.3 Opportunities Available in Windsor-Essex to Improve Access to Affordable

Housing ..........................................................................................33

1.3.1 Partnerships for Supportive Housing ...........................................33

1.3.2 New Spaces in Newer Places ....................................................33

1.3.3 Flexibility in Addressing Poverty and Housing ................................34

1.3.4 Recognition of Other Marginalized Groups ....................................34

2.0 Central Housing Registry Policies, Practices, and Procedures ......................35

2.1 Current Practice ........................................................................35

2.2 Process for Identifying Need ..........................................................36

2.2.1 Need for Service ..................................................................36

2.2.2 Chronological and Priority Applications .......................................36

2.2.2.1 Proof of Status ..................................................................37

2.2.3 Appeals Process ...................................................................38

2.2.4 Access for and Needs of Applicants with Disabilities ........................38

2.2.5 Applicants and Tenants on the Application Process .........................41

2.2.6 Changes to the Application Form ...............................................41

2.3 Capacity to Deliver Supports .........................................................42

2.3.1 Waiting List ........................................................................42

2.3.2 Meeting the Needs of Persons with Disabilities ...............................44

2.3.3 Funding for Technology ..........................................................45

iv Housing Analysis and Recommended Strategy (HARS) Background Report Three: Social Housing Policies and Programs

2.3.4 Funding for Hiring and Staff Development ....................................45

2.3.5 Location and Hours of Operation ...............................................46

2.4 Summary of Challenges in the Delivery of Social Housing Programs ............46

3.0 Approaches to the Delivery of Social Housing Programs in Other Municipalities 48

3.1 Organizational Structure and Programs .............................................48

3.2 Partnerships and Networks with Stakeholders in Delivering Housing and/or

Homelessness Programs .......................................................................50

3.3 Opportunities for Integration of the Delivery of Housing and Other Social

Assistance Programs ...........................................................................51

3.4 Addressing Barriers for Persons with Physical Disabilities ........................53

4.0 Evaluation of Housing Model Produced by the Homeless Coalition ................55

5.0 Summary of Issues in Improving the Delivery of Social Housing Programs and

Policies .............................................................................................58

v Housing Analysis and Recommended Strategy (HARS) Background Report Three: Social Housing Policies and Programs

List of Tables Table 1: Comparison of Shelter Allowances and Average Market Rents in Windsor, 2009 .............................................................................. 9

Table 2: Summary of Housing Programs .............................................. 11

Table 3: Central Housing Registry of Windsor-Essex County's Waiting List by Type of Applicant, December 2009 ................................................... 27

Table 4: Comparison of Social Housing Demand and Supply, December 2009 .. 43

Table 5 : Summary of Feedback from Central Housing Registry Staff on Operational Issues ....................................................................... 46

List of Figures Figure 1: Selected Organizational Chart under Social and Health Services at the City of Windsor, 2009 ................................................................... 20

Figure 2: Flow of Funding for Selected Funding Programs from the Province, 2009 ........................................................................................ 22

Figure 3: Application Process at the Central Housing Registry Windsor-Essex County ..................................................................................... 40

Figure 4: Number of Applications to the Central Housing Registry Windsor-Essex County, April 2005 to October 2009 .................................................. 44

1 Housing Analysis and Recommended Strategy (HARS) Background Report Three: Social Housing Policies and Programs

1.0 Delivery of Social Housing Programs

Background Report Three examines the delivery of social housing policies and programs in the City of Windsor and County of Essex. This report includes an inventory of social housing programs administered by the City of Windsor. This inventory includes an overview of intended goals/objectives of the program, current structure and delivery, as well as funding. Following the inventory of housing programs, this section of the report provides an overview and analysis of the structure and delivery of social housing programs in Windsor-Essex. This analysis is based largely on focus group results and information provided by various stakeholders including municipal staff and staff at the Central Housing Registry (CHR). 1.1 Inventory of Social Housing Programs

The following programs comprise the inventory of social housing programs. All programs are administered by the City of Windsor as Service Manager. Programs include:

Windsor Essex Community Housing Corporation (CHC)

Affordable Housing Initiative/Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program

Homelessness Partnering Strategy

Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program

Rent Supplement Program(s)

Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP)

Domiciliary Hostels

Emergency Shelters

Rent Bank

Keep the Heat (Energy Fund)

Shelter Allowance Programs

Hostels to Homes Pilot Program A brief overview of each program is provided in the following sections, followed by a summary table of program goals, structure, delivery, funding and partnerships (Table 2). 1.1.1 Windsor Essex Community Housing Corporation (CHC)

Windsor Essex Community Housing Corporation is the largest social housing provider in the City of Windsor and County of Essex. Managing 3,538 public housing units, WECHC provides affordable housing for seniors, families, single persons, and persons with special needs in homes ranging from low-rise apartments to town homes to single detached homes. In addition CHC administers a further 829 social housing units throughout the City and County.


The Windsor Essex Community Housing Corporation was formed in January 2007 through the amalgamation of Winhome and the Windsor Essex County Housing Corporation. The City of Windsor is the Service Manager for Windsor/Essex and the sole shareholder of the CHC. 1.1.2 Affordable Housing Initiative

The Affordable Housing Initiative (AHI) is the federal government‘s affordable housing funding initiative implemented in 2001 and originally provided $1 billion in contributions. Agreements were signed with each province and territory that established the terms of the program, under which the provincial/ territorial governments matched the federal investment. In Ontario, it is administered by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The Ministry directs the allocation of units to the various Service Managers who are responsible for establishing the local council-approved program requirements for their areas. It has the following objectives:

Provide economic stimulus in Ontario;

Provide Service Managers and housing proponents with the flexibility to meet local housing needs;

Provide dedicated units for seniors and persons with disabilities;

Incorporate energy efficiency requirements and accessibility into the new units;

Improve the health and safety of residents living in social housing communities;

Support the development of a green economy;

Contribute to the reduction of social housing project operating costs; and,

Assist in the reduction of social housing wait lists. On March 20, 2009, the provincial government announced an investment of $622 million to match funding announced in the federal government‘s 2009 budget. This brings the overall investment for affordable housing in Ontario to $1.2 billion. The current AHP has three components:

Rental Housing Component – this provides funding for the creation of new affordable rental housing units, with a specific focus on housing for low-income seniors and persons with disabilities. Funding of $120,000 to a maximum of $150,000 per unit is available for eligible projects.

Homeownership Component – this component was developed to assist low- to moderate-income rental households to purchase affordable homes by providing down payment assistance in the form of a forgivable loan. A maximum of $50,000 per unit, or 10% of the purchase price, is available to eligible households.


Northern Component – the provides assistance in the form of a forgivable loan in order to provide low- and moderate-income individuals and families with an opportunity to repair their homes, bring them up to health and safety standards, and improve accessibility for persons with disabilities. It also aims to encourage the repair of modest and affordable rental housing and prevent the loss of affordable housing stock in Northern communities. Funding of $25,000 to $50,000 is available to eligible households.

1.1.3 Homelessness Partnering Strategy

The Federal government announced a new homelessness program in 2006, the Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS), which replaced the previous National Homelessness Initiative (NHI). The HPS is based on a housing-first approach, which emphasizes transitional and supportive housing followed by supports for the individuals. The Strategy is composed of three main components:

The Homelessness Partnership Initiative (HPI) is a community-based program in which Designated Communities are eligible for funding based on identified needs. The approach encourages community involvement through the use of a community planning process and Community Advisory Boards to include local stakeholders. Funding must be matched from other sources, but can be used to support community planning efforts as well as chosen projects. Two other funding streams, for Outreach Communities and Aboriginal Communities are also available to respectively service the needs of smaller outlying communities and homeless Aboriginal people in cities and rural areas.

The Homelessness Accountability Network builds on research and data initiatives such as HIFIS (Homeless Individuals and Families Information System) with the goal of developing knowledge of homelessness and improving networking and sharing opportunities.

The Surplus Federal Real Property for Homelessness Initiative (SFRPHI) compensates federal departments and agencies for the transfer of surplus properties to be made available for a variety of housing uses.

In 2006, the government renewed HPS funding for $526 million over two years, starting as of April 2007. The January 2009 federal budget announced new funding for social/affordable housing including $1 billion over two years for energy retrofits and renovations for up to 200,000 social housing units, $400 million over two years for new low-income seniors units, and $75 million over


two years for new supportive housing units for people with disabilities. Additionally, $150 million of this funding will be allocated to renovations and retrofits of the CMHC administered portion of the social housing stock. 1.1.4 Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program

The Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP), which is administered by CMHC, is designed to help low-income Canadians, people with disabilities, and Aboriginals live in decent, affordable homes by providing funding for improvements, repairs, or renovations to housing units. The general goals of this program are to provide funding to:

Fix up owner-occupied or private rental properties;

Modify homes for occupancy by people with disabilities;

Repair and rehabilitate community shelters;

Convert buildings from other uses to low-cost housing;

Facilitate neighbourhood revitalization projects; and,

Maximize the impact of funds from other sources. RRAP consists of eight distinct ―chapters,‖ each with specific target groups or goals:

Rental RRAP – the component is designed to provide assistance to landlords of affordable housing in order to pay for mandatory repairs to self-contained rental units to be occupied by tenants with low incomes. Funding of up to $24,000 per unit is available to eligible applicants.

Rooming Housing RRAP – intended to provide assistance to owners of rooming houses to pay for mandatory repairs to housing intended for permanent accommodation at rents which are affordable to low-income individuals.

RRAP for Non-Residential Conversion – this component provides assistance to owners of non-residential buildings to convert their structure for use as permanent rental accommodation at rents that will continue to be affordable. Funding of $16,000 per bed or $24,000 per unit is available.

Homeowner RRAP – designed to provide assistance to low-income homeowners to bring their properties up to minimum health and safety standards. Properties must be lacking in basic facilities or require major repairs in one of five key areas: structural, electrical, plumbing, heating, or fire safety. Funding of up to $16,000 per home is available to eligible households.

RRAP for Persons with Disabilities – this provides support to low-income households with persons with disabilities who require special modifications to their residence to improve access. A maximum of $24,000 is available for eligible applicants.

On-Reserve Non-Profit Housing Program – designed to provide assistance to low-income homeowners on reserves in the construction, purchase and rehabilitation, and administration of suitable, adequate and


affordable rental housing on-reserve. The loans can be up to 100% of the total eligible capital of a project. CMHC delivers the program in partnership with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) and First Nations to determine allocations of funding for eligible reserves.

Home Adaptations for Seniors‘ Independence (HASI)—designed to provide assistance to homeowners and landlords to pay for home adaptations which can extend the time low-income seniors can live in their own homes independently. To be eligible occupants must be over the age of 65, have difficulty with daily activities brought on by ageing, have a total household income at or below a specified limit for the area, and have the dwelling unit in question as a permanent residence. Assistance is a forgivable loan of up to $3,500, applicable to installing elements that include handrails, easy-to-reach work and storage areas in kitchens, lever handles on doors, walk-in showers with grab bars, and bathtub grab bars and seats.

RRAP for Secondary/Garden Suites – this component is designed to provide assistance to homeowners to assist in the creation of secondary rental and garden suites. A secondary suite involves the creation of a unit within an existing dwelling or an addition to the home. A Garden Suite is a separate self-contained living area created on the owner‘s property. Homeowners, private landlords, and First Nations owning a single-family residential property that can accommodate the creation of an affordable self-contained secondary suite or garden suite will now be eligible to apply for RRAP funds. Assistance is in the form of a forgivable loan up to $24,000.

1.1.5 Rent Supplement

Rent supplement units provide a much needed affordable form of accommodation for low-income households. The City of Windsor administers a range of rent supplement programs including; AHP Housing Allowance (175 units), Strong Communities Rent Supplement Program (201 units), Commercial Rent Supplement (160 units) and the Stack Rent Supplement program (293 units). These programs are outlined below.

Housing Allowance Program An additional component of the Affordable Housing Initiative is the Housing Allowance program. The Housing Allowance program is designed to provide immediate assistance to applicants on or eligible to be on the social housing waiting list. The program differs from rent supplement, as it is a short-term program intended to assist households for five years only and is based on flat-rate assistance per unit.

Strong Communities Rent Supplement


Originally this program was 100% provincially funded, however as of September 1, 2004 it was converted to fixed funding. This program assists municipalities to provide affordable housing, based on local needs. This program was implemented prior to the recent Housing Allowance program under the new Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program. This funding is based on tenants‘ income and provides them with rent-geared-to-income rent levels. The program provides a rent supplement funding for a twenty year period unlike the Housing Allowance program which is short term (five-year) program.

Commercial Rent Supplement Program The Commercial Rent Supplement Program was established in the early 1980s and was transferred to local Service Managers in January of 2001. The rent supplement is provided by the Service Manager and is the difference between a tenant‘s geared-to-income rent and the full rental rate negotiated between the landlord and CHC.

Stack Rent Supplement Program The Stack Rent Supplement Program combines the former Community Sponsored Housing Program and the former Ontario Community Housing Assistance Program. The Stack Rent Supplement Program enables non-profit housing companies and cooperatives to offer geared-to-income units where it is determined there is a need.

1.1.6 Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP)

This program is designed to help individuals who are homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless. This includes supportive services for ―hard to house‖ populations, such as ex-offenders or individuals with mental illnesses, which can help establish and maintain living independence in their communities. The programs are developed by each municipality and community partners. 1.1.7 Domiciliary and Emergency Hostels

Under CHPP, the province provides funding for the 280 domiciliary hostels and numerous emergency hostels throughout Ontario. The domiciliary facilities serve individuals with mental health and addiction issues, developmental disabilities, as well as frail and elderly individuals by providing accommodation and supportive services. Emergency hostels emphasize short-term accommodations, board, and personal needs items as well as various supports needed by individuals and families who are homeless and help provide transitional services by moving people off the street and connecting them with resources and community services that can help them. The per diem costs are shared between the province and municipalities.


1.1.8 Emergency Shelters

There are six emergency and transitional housing facilities in Windsor/Essex. The City of Windsor has agreements with both the Salvation Army and the Well-Come Home Emergency Shelter for Women. Cost sharing with the province, funding is provided for 11 beds at the Well-Come Home Shelter and 59 beds through the men‘s shelter. Funding is also provided on a case-by-case basis for families to use motels as emergency housing. 1.1.9 Rent Bank

The province‘s Rent Bank program is administered and funded through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and was first launched in 2004 to provide funding to existing municipally-run rent banks, or help service managers set-up rent banks. The program is intended to promote housing stability by assisting low-income people who have short-term rental arrears in avoiding eviction. It is also intended to divert people from emergency shelters, thus creating cost savings for the Province and municipalities who share responsibilities for shelter costs. Rent bank programs are generally administered directly by the Service Manager or by a community agency. The City of Windsor rent bank program is available for low income tenants who, as a result of an emergency, are in short-term arrears and are facing eviction. Funding must not exceed two times the average market rent for the area. Assistance may only be issued once every two years. An applicant applying for assistance must:

Be a resident of the Service Manager area and meet requirements for status in Canada

Have an income that is not from Ontario Works or the Ontario Disability Support Program.

Be in immediate danger of losing his or her residence due to unpaid rent N4/mediated agreement.

Not be receiving Rent-Geared-To-Income assistance.

Be at the residence for a minimum of one year

Have household income below the household income limits as set by the Ministry.

1.1.10 Keep the Heat Energy Fund

Keep the Heat is an emergency energy assistance program which provides funding for heat and energy for individuals and families experiencing financial difficulties and who have received a notice of termination of heating utilities. The program also offers workshops to educate consumers on how to conserve and better use energy within their household.


1.1.11 Shelter Allowances

There are two shelter allowance programs in Ontario which provide income and employment support for eligible households: Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program. Ontario Works (OW) provides financial and employment assistance to individuals who are in temporary financial need. Financial assistance helps cover the costs of basic needs such as food, housing, and clothing and some health benefits are also covered such as dental and drug coverage. Employment assistance provides job-skills training, and education programs. The Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) provides income and employment supports to individuals with disabilities and their families who are in financial need. The income supports helps pay for food, housing, as well as some health benefits such as dental and drug coverage. The employment support provides a variety of help to individuals to train for a job, find employment, or keep a job. It also includes software or mobility devices that can help individuals with their job. The 2006 Provincial Budget of March 2006 provided for a 2% increase to both Ontario Works (OW) and ODSP payments. This announcement resulted in an increase to the shelter allowance of an individual on OW by approximately $7 per month, and $9 per month for an individual on ODSP. This change was implemented as of November (ODSP) and December (OW) 2006. A further 2% increase to OW and ODSP rates was made as of November 2007. The 2008 Provincial Budget included a further increase of 2% to the OW and ODSP basic adult allowance and maximum shelter allowance rates, with a $123 million funding commitment for 2008 to 2010. The 2009 Ontario budget included an increase of 2% for the basic and shelter allowance components of Ontario Works and ODSP. An important component, and barrier to affordability, is how much people earn as it directly affects their capacity to access housing. This is especially true for lower income households. Table 1 below shows that the current maximum shelter allowances available are not sufficient for households receiving financial assistance to afford the average market rents in Windsor. This severely limits the housing choices of low-income families and households.


Table 1: Comparison of Shelter Allowances and Average Market Rents in Windsor, 2009

Unit Size

Maximum Shelter Allowance Average

Market Rents Ontario Works

Ontario Disability Support Program

1 Bedroom $364 $464 $682

2 Bedroom $572 $729 $757

3+ Bedroom $620 $791 $829

Source: CMHC Rental Market Report, 2008; Ontario Works Act; Ontario Disability Support Program Act

1.1.12 Hostels to Homes Pilot Program

The Hostels to Homes (H2H) Pilot Program is an MCSS initiative with the purpose of assisting chronic hostel users in attaining safe, appropriate, affordable and stable accommodation. It is based on a Housing First approach where the emphases is on helping homeless people to quickly access and sustain housing. The program is premised on research findings that homeless people are more responsive to intervention and social service supports after they are in their own housing. The three key components of the H2H Program are:

1. Crisis intervention and needs assessment

2. Re-housing to more permanent accommodation.

3. ―Wrap-around‖ supports based on individualized case management. These supports include health, addictions services, life skills training, informal counselling, and employment supports.

The H2H Program aims to return the use of emergency hostel services to its original intent, which is for short term and infrequent use. It also aims to enhance coordination and integration of housing and other support services and to produce long-term savings for the province and municipalities. Phase I of the program began in January 2007 and Phase II began in January 2008 with the expected final end date of the pilot program to be June 2010. There are six municipal pilot sites: Hamilton, Kingston, London, Ottawa, Toronto, and Windsor. All pilot sites involve working in collaboration with hostels and other community service providers although the level of integration for service delivery varies among the sites, resulting in two major service delivery models: purchase of service agreements and direct delivery. The target population of the H2H program are single adult males, families, youth, single women, and the hard-to-house who are chronic hostel users, spending 30 days or more in a hostel per year, and who are eligible for Ontario Works assistance. The benefit is provided in full for the first 12 months of


participation in the program with phase-out services beginning in the 12th month and is completely phased out after 18 months. After the 18 months, eligible participants receive regular income assistance and benefits. The amount of funding provided is the difference between the maximum monthly emergency hostel per diem and the Ontario Works basic needs and shelter and shelter allowance. Approximately $800 is provided for a single participant.1

1 Ministry of Community and Social Services, Ontario Works Branch (2009). From Hostels to Homes: Presentation to the National Housing Research Committee


Table 2: Summary of Housing Programs

Program Meeting Community

Needs Program Structure Program Delivery Funding/Costs

Partnerships (departments/programs/

committees)

Community Housing Corporation (CHC)

Largest social housing provider in Windsor/Essex

Provides homes to seniors, families, single persons and persons with special needs

Includes high rise apartments, low rise apartments, town homes, row housing and detached homes

CHC was created in January 2007 through the amalgamation of two organizations; Winhome and Windsor-Essex County Housing Corporation

The City of Windsor is the sole shareholder of CHC

Operates at arm‘s length from the City with a Board of Directors of 15 members; including City of Windsor Councillor representation, Essex County representation, members at large from community and two tenant representatives

CHC operates under a decentralized district management system with strong centralized support

The districts are supported by Operations, Asset Management, Finance and Corporate Services

Social housing units as well as rent supplement units are managed by six districts

Units are accessed through the Central Housing Registry which administers all applications for social housing in the city of Windsor and County of Essex

Forecasted capital expenditures include general building maintenance, heating and plumbing, and energy conservation.

The CHC has a total budget of $29,697,665 for capital expenditures between 2010 and 2015, with 41.8% of the budget to be spent during the first year.

Non-profit family and seniors‘ units are estimated to need $2,740,000 instead – about 9.1% compared to the CHC‘s requirements.

Rental inquiries for the public housing stock are made through the Central Housing Registry

Summer Recreation Program offers free day camp for kids aged 5-12. It was offered in six communities in 2008.

Programs such as fire safety, income tax workshops are offered periodically by location

VON Program

Community Living Essex County and Windsor

Hiatus House

Canadian Mental Health Association

Windsor Essex County Children‘s Aid Society

Citizens Advocacy of Windsor Essex

Grandview Youth Centre

University of Windsor Community Revitalization Partnership

Support for Daily Living Program

Canada-Ontario Affordable

An agreement between Ontario

Four components; rent supplement,

The City of Windsor is

Under the homeownership

7 of the homeownership units were committed to






committees)

Housing Program (AHP)

and Canada to each commit to $734 million to the development of affordable housing

Funding extends to March 31, 2010

Recent announcements include new funding for energy retrofits and renovations to social housing units

rental and supportive, brownfields, northern, and homeownership

Program is administered by the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MAH).

The Ministry directs the allocation of units to the various Service Managers (i.e. City of Windsor) across the province.

responsible for establishing the local council-approved program requirements for Windsor/Essex

component the City of Windsor and County of Essex received an allocation of $981,000, resulting in the addition of 104 units with an additional 15 committed to purchase

Under the Rental and Supportive stream, the City of Windsor was allocated $9.1 million, resulting in 130 new units of affordable housing built

The City of Windsor was allocated 140 units or $1.848 million under the Housing Allowance program

Habitat for Humanity

Homelessness Partnering Strategy

HPS replaced the previous National Homelessness

The Strategy is composed of three main components;

Program is administered through the City

The City of Windsor received $661,534






committees)

Initiative

Based on a Housing First approach which emphasizes transitional and supportive housing followed by supports for the individual

Homelessness Partnering Initiative, Homelessness Accountability Network; and the Surplus Federal Real Property for Homelessness Initiative

Under the HPI designated communities (including the City of Windsor) are eligible for funding based on needs

of Windsor

Six projects and served 1,167 individuals in 2008

Funding must be matched from other sources

Funding can be used to support community planning as well projects

Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP)

RRAP is designed to help low-income Canadians, persons with disabilities and Aboriginals live in decent affordable housing by providing funding for improvements, repairs, or renovations to housing units

RRAP consists of eight ‗chapters‘ with specific target groups or goals: Rental RRAP, Rooming House RRAP, RRAP for Non-Residential Conversion, Homeowner RRAP, RRAP for Persons with Disabilities, On-Reserve Non-Profit Housing Program, Home

Under the program a homeowner would meet with a City of Windsor Housing Loans Officer to review the application and its process

Upon completion the application would go to CMHC for approval

Once approved a Building Inspector

Funding is in the form of forgivable loans

The Building Department at the City of Windsor receives approximately $500,000 for all components of RRAP.

They bring in about $40,000 a year but estimate that it

CMHC






committees)

Adaptations for Seniors‘ Independence, RRAP for Secondary/Garden Suites

would approve the work

Payment is requested by the contractor through the Housing Loans Officer to CMHC

takes twice as much to run the program.

Rent Supplement

Rent supplement units provide rent-geared-to-income accommodation in buildings owned and operated by private sector landlords (45%) and non-profit housing providers (55%).

The City of Windsor administers a range of rent supplement programs including; Strong Communities Rent Supplement Program (201 units), AHP Housing Allowance (175 units), Commercial rent supplement (160 units) and the Stack Rent Supplement program (which combines the former Community Sponsored Housing Program and the Ontario Community Housing Assistance Program) (293 units)

Rent supplement units are first offered to the private sector and failing full take-up of the units, they are allocated to non-profit providers

Units under the Strong Communities are funded until 2023

Units under the Commercial Rent Supplement have a maximum life span of 35 years some which will expire in 2011

Units under the Housing Allowance will expire in 2013

$1.848 was allocated to the City of Windsor/County of Essex under the Housing Allowance program

Private landlords

Non-profit housing providers






committees)

Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program

Homeless prevention program to assist persons who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness

Program offers various types of assistance with the aim of providing emergency assistance to low-income families and individuals that are at-risk of becoming homeless

7 agencies in Windsor/Essex served 27,000 households in 2008

Funded through MCSS

Receive $401,607 annually

Domiciliary Hostels

Residential care for persons who have mental health or intellectual challenges or who are frail/elderly and who require supervised care

Domiciliary hostels provide permanent housing, room and board, personal support and some assistance with activities of daily living to vulnerable adults

The City of Windsor partners with community agencies to provide domiciliary hostel services and support to individuals with special needs

Funding for domiciliary hostels if for permanent housing with limited supports with limited financial resources for persons who require some supervision and supports

Subsidies with 13 homes in Windsor serves 367 persons per month

Annual funding is $2,832,724

Cost shared with MSCC 80:20

Funding is provided by way of per diem

Emergency Shelters

There are six emergency and transitional housing facilities in Windsor/Essex as

The Social Services Department has an arrangement with two Emergency Hostels in the City

The City of Windsor, through cost sharing with MCSS, provide funding for 11

Spent approximately $930,000 in 2008

Cost shared with MCSS 80:20; 1

Shelters with funding provided by the City are run by Salvation Army (men‘s shelter) and Well-Come Home






committees)

well as emergency beds available through Canadian Mental Health Association and the Windsor Y Residence

Provide food and shelter to homeless men and women in Windsor/Essex

(Salvation Army and the Well-Come Home Emergency Shelter for Women)

beds in the women‘s shelter and 59 beds in the men‘s shelter as well as funding for families to use motels

Served 2,918 individuals in 2008

women shelter (11 beds) and 1 men's shelter (59 beds) and motel use

(women‘s shelter)

Rent Bank Program provides funds to assist low income households with rental arrears to prevent eviction

Applicants can apply for assistance through the City of Windsor

Program is administered by the City of Windsor and funded through MMAH

Provides up to 2 months ($1,500) rental arrears to individuals and families in imminent danger of eviction in Windsor/Essex

Applicants can only receive assistance once in a two-year period

Rental arrears must be not greater than 2 months

Applicants must be at the residence for a min. of one year

Applicants must be able to maintain the units after arrears are paid

Served 195 households in 2007 and 247 in

Funded through MMAH

No set funding amount

In 2007 received $478,662 and in 2008 received $88,089






committees)

2008

Emergency Energy Fund (Keep the Heat program)

Provides funds to low-income residents to assist with energy arrears, security deposits and reconnection fees

Application sites are located throughout City and County

Applications are then submitted to the City of Windsor

Program is administered by the City of Windsor

Applicants must be in receipt of a notice of termination of heating utilities

Served 119 households in 2008

Funded through MCSS

Receive $64,310 annually

Shelter Allowances

Provides income and employment support for eligible households under the Ontario Works (OW) program and Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP)

OW provides assistance to those in temporary financial need

ODSP supports individuals with disabilities and their families who are in financial need

Both application processes must be initiated through the Ontario Works offices located at City Hall and in Leamington, along with proof of financial criteria

For ODSP, medical proof must be provided with OW application to show eligibility for ODSP

Ontario Works is administered by the City of Windsor and ODSP is administered by the Ministry.

The Employment Resource Centre is located at City Hall as well, and proof must be provided that recipient is looking for work

Both programs are funded by MCSS

City of Windsor budgeted $82,352,351to run the OW program in 2009

$20,403,426 to run ODSP program in 2009

Applicants may be eligible for ODSP Employment Supports while participating in Human Resource and Service Development Canada (HRSDC) Employment Assistance Services if they have exhausted the services and supports available from HRSDC/ Employment Insurance but require further supports to remove disability-related employment barriers






committees)

Hostels to Homes Pilot

To stabilize the use of emergency shelters and return its service delivery to its original intent (short-term and infrequent) by providing permanent housing and supports to chronic shelter users

This is an MCSS initiative

It is based on a Housing First approach

Program includes 3 key components; crisis intervention, re-housing to more permanent accommodation, and ―wrap around‖ supports based on individual case management.

15 participants funded in Phase I (2007/2008) and 15 during Phase II

Funded through MCSS and Ontario Works 80:20


1.2 Summary of Program Coordination and Service Delivery

1.2.1 Organizational Structure

Employees at the City of Windsor addressing housing and homeless programs are housed under the service area of Social and Health Services. Comprised of Ontario Works, and Housing and Children's Services, this service area provides a diverse range of human services to City of Windsor residents. They aim to enhance the quality of life of individuals and families as they deliver or partner with community agencies to provide employment, financial assistance, housing supports and children's services. The Housing and Children‘s Service portion oversees the staff who are responsible for social and public housing policies and programming, homelessness (such as shelters and domiciliary hostels), and children‘s services. Social Services deals with the provision of social assistance, mainly through Ontario Works and its partner programs such as the Resource Centre and family support. Additionally, each of these departments are also comprised of administrative staff and additional roles, such as the Diversity and Accessibility Officer, clerks, and a Staff Development Coordinator, the last of whom works specifically with Ontario Works staff. These departments also work with additional staff members, particularly with programs such as the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP), which is offered jointly with the Building Department; and with the office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) to continuously improve the delivery of City services and programs. They also act as resources to the Housing Advisory Committee; which advises, educates, and advances the awareness of City Council on issues relating to affordable housing in Windsor and Essex County. As members of Council do sit on this Committee and staff members here interact with these representatives, they can help inform and raise awareness about the way programs operate. The following chart illustrates the organizational structure of Social and Health Services at the City of Windsor.


Figure 1: Selected Organizational Chart under Social and Health Services at the City of Windsor, 2009

General Manager, Social and Health Services

Executive Director of Social Services

Manager, Ontario Worksand Staff, including Policy

and Proceduure Coordinator, Family

Support Workers, Intro/Intake Workers, and

Job Developer

Manager, Ontario Worksand Staff, including

Ontario Works Supervisors and Caseworkers

Manager, Ontario Works and Staff, including Social Workers, Job Developers, and Resource Centre staff

Manager of Administration and Staff, including Clerks and Staff Development Coordinator

Administrative Assistant

Executive Director of Housing and Children's Services

Manager, Residential Support Services with Clerk Steno (1)

Supervisor, Domicillary Rest Homes with Social Worker (1), Caseworkers (Rest Home) (5), Clerk

Junior (Team) (1)

Coordinator, Housing

Administration and Policy

Children's Services System Manager and Staff

Manager of Municipal Early Learning & Child Care Centres and Staff

Administrative Assistant

Diversity and Accessibility Officer

Coordinator, HousingAdministration and

Development

Maintenance/

Technical Support Person

Social Housing Analyst


The City staff then fit into the larger picture of program and funding delivery in Ontario. Figure 2 illustratesa segment of the funding programs and how they are delivered from the Government of Ontario down to the City and/or other community members and agencies. The Ministries that fund such programs are comprised mainly of the Ministries of Community and Social Services (MCSS), Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), and Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC). Most funding programs from the MCSS are administered by the Service Manager, with funding flowing first to the City of Windsor. The Ontario Works shelter component is the only part of the Ontario Works package funded by the Ministry (the remaining is funded through the City). This portion goes directly to the household in the community, so that they are able to look for their shelter wherever they may choose as long as it fits within the allowance. Some funding programs, such as the emergency shelters and Consolidated Homeless Prevention Programs, stop right at the City level and do not redirect funding again to the individual household. MMAH provides funding to the City mainly through programs that have an emphasis on infrastructure, such as the Affordable Housing Program (AHP), the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP), and the Rent Bank. The MOHLTC recently implemented the Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) and their affiliated Community Care Access Centres (CCACs) in a move to localize healthcare; following regionalization efforts in provinces like Quebec and Saskatchewan. The LHIN is the head body on the planning and funding of healthcare while the CCAC provides community and health care services, long-term care placement and referrals. The LHIN provides funding to community and social service agencies, who may work with housing providers in order to provide certain tenants with support services. The three ministries also provide a joint program called the Strong Communities Rent Supplement, a long-term rent-supplement program which is designed to provide funding for regular and supportive housing units. While the MMAH designed the guidelines and monitors the project, the MCSS and the MOHLTC provide the funding required for supports. Having various programs strives to ensure that different needs are addressed. As emphasized below, this is only a selective portion of funding programs available to the City of Windsor in order to address housing and homelessness. It does not account for federal dollars, other sources of funding, or other programs that indirectly fund housing and homelessness work and activities.


Figure 2: Flow of Funding for Selected Funding Programs from the Province, 2009

Individual and/or Family (Household)

City of Windsor

All program funding is distributed here (see previous

Figure for organizational breakdown)

Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS)

Ministry of Muncipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH)

Community Housing Corporation (CHC) and Non-Profit Housing Providers

Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC)

Canada-Ontario AffordableHousing Program (AHP)

Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP)

Rent Bank

Ontario Works

(Shelter

Allowances)

Provincially administered

Hostels to Homes Pilot

Emergency Energy Fund

Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP)

Emergency Shelters

Domicillary Hostels

Homelessness Partnering

Consolidated Homelessness Prevention

Program

Ontario Works Municipally funded

- Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP)- Ontario Disability Support

Program (ODSP)Provincially funded, municipally

administered

Strong Communities Rent Supplement MMAH develops and monitors guidelines while MCSS and MOHLTC designates support services.

Social Housing funding Erie-St. Clair Local Health Integrated Network (LHIN)/

Community Care Access Centre (CCAC) LHIN decides where the

funding should go when it is recieved by the MOHLTC; while CCAC provides

nformation and locations of community and health care services, long-term

care placement and referrals.

Community healthcare and social services

providers, particularly

those who provide services for seniors

Long-TermCare

Homes

In supportive housing, an agreement is reached between a) community healthcare and social services

providers, or in some cases long-term care homes, and b) housing providers.

The former provides the support services (as the service provider)

while the housing provider will provide the housing (the "bricks and

mortar"). This allows partnerships to build upon existing infrastructure and

organizational capacities.


1.2.2 Dynamics of Program Delivery

This section provides an overview of discussions with City staff, including their perspective on operations. Overall, most agencies and organizations that work within the realm of housing and homelessness interact closely and are well coordinated. Through committees and groups like the Housing Advisory Committee (HAC, a City council committee), the Central Housing Registry Advisory Committee (CHRAC), and the Homelessness Coalition of Windsor Essex County (HCWEC or Homeless Coalition),agencies involve each other on a regular basis and usually keep each other informed of their work and explore opportunities to integrate their efforts and services.

Housing Administration, Policy, and Technical Support The housing administration and policy staff have an overarching role in the delivery of housing administration and policy.. Areas of concern expressed by staff include working with providers around changes; substantiating their budgets; and developing policies and rules. Priority Two status, though a current policy, is one example of a change that required immediate attention by providers. With 39 providers, staff and providers acknowledge the need to meet more often to ensure effective communication on policy and other arising issues. The administration of various funding sources also was expressed as a challenge. There are seven different financial programs available within the City of Windsor for housing, and each one is required to provide annual reports. Generally, costs are rising faster than funds are being brought into the system, and though they are meeting their financial obligations, there are still budget restraints from the City. Staff mentioned that there were often roadblocks during the program delivery process, particularly around the requirements for reporting, as the social housing format is binding. If staff members would like to be proactive and go beyond the bare minimum in order to tailor the programs and funding to the area‘s needs, they are required to go through Ministerial Consent and then council, and these approval processes take time and work that may not be realized in the end. Municipal funding, particularly, is very tightly controlled since the City is often held liable by the Ministry to make such initiatives happen if they are approved. Staff point out that the Social Housing Reform Act dictates how funding should be allocated for different providers; although they expressed that this does not fit the realities on the ground in the City of Windsor. The administration also could use some assistance with information technology. For example, the administration‘s tracking sheet is basic and staff would welcome the possibility of having more specialized software.. Although


systems are well-documented and staff tries to ensure their non-profit managers are also on board, there is still some more work required around consistency. Government-approved software would also allow for more streamlined and integrated reporting processes; as different Ministries (such as MCSS and MMAH) have their own rules, regulations, and reporting processes.

Homelessness and Residential Services This group of staff oversees the provincial and federal funding for homelessness programs in Windsor. One area of concern is the provision of services for youth. Staff expressed that youth are a challenging group as they do not have enough resources for them and youth require trustees to access OW. The Homelessness and Residential Services team are hoping to set a trustee program in place as they recognize that the trustee requirement contributes to a lot of the hidden homelessness experienced by youth, particularly in the County. A lack of supports are also a concern since they may be able to move people into housing initially, but users often come back into the shelter system as they are unable to cope with their newfound responsibilities as a household maintainer. Staff would like to hire more social workers, to help ensure on-going case management to provide supports once individual leave the shelter system. However, funding is recognised as a challenge and though the Community Plan allows the community to take more control over this area, the financial resources provided to the Homelessness and Residential Services are often inadequate to meet the need for such services. Staff indicated that programs such as Hostels to Homes are working well. Staff indicated that rent supplements are vital to its success. Overall, the combination of rent supplements and supports is an efficient and effective model.

Social Workers in Housing Social workers who work within the housing system work with a range of clients at various stages along the continuum Working with seniors who are at risk or may be experiencing abuse is one area of work. In these situations, staff has been able to access funds from the AHP Housing Allowance/Rent Supplements (HARS) program by helping them get registered. At shelters, social workers work with individuals and families who need emergency assistance by housing them temporarily in hotels and motels. Staff also assist individuals with applying for Priority 2. Social workers also associate with the Housing Information Services, who help families with applications. In addition, staff work together with the Community Care Access Centres (CCAC) to assist individuals applying for a long-term care home. If the crisis


has settled, or there is no longer a need for LTC, they assist individuals back into the community and help them live independently. In general, social workers believe that the system is working, and attribute this to solid collaboration and cooperation. In crisis situations, agencies and social workers are able to talk to other staff at the City of Windsor in order to help clients who agree to go into any of the shelters, domiciliary homes and long-term care homes. Workers from all agencies are also trying to build ―a Windsor model‖; multi-disciplinary committees, like the Elder Abuse Resource and Prevention Committee (EAR&P), to allow staff from different organizations to come together and work together on solutions around the common issues in their work. The biggest gaps expressed are in staffing, particularly for services to seniors. Social workers suggested that more funding for programs such as RRAP could help address some of the issues behind why people may need to apply for Priority 2 status.

Ontario Works The Ontario Works program has seen an increase in its caseload. There were about 10,000 families on OW in Windsor-Essex in November 2009. Housing is a core issue and staff hear the need from both clients and landlords. Unfortunately, they are unable to provide more in their payments to each recipient, although they recognize that many of their clients cannot afford typical rents of $650 a month if they only have about $350 as a shelter allowance. They are also seeing an increase in youth applicants, a challenging demographic as they have yet to establish themselves and find housing for the first time. They are noticing a decline in applications from recent immigrants, although it was suggested that this could be cyclical and would also be based on changes arising from policies in the United States and border policies and practices, among other things. They noted that there was a period of time where they could expect to come in the morning and see lines of people waiting with their luggage. They do what they can and they feel they respond quite well in such situations, but they are also working with different levels of government for an immigration planning document so that they can help potential immigrants proactively anticipate the supports they may need before arriving in Canada. For their part, the steering committee guiding the process has conducted focus groups and will be bringing recommendations forward. They see housing as a large part of this, in terms of the support required. Staff are encouraging of closer relationships among Central Housing Registry (CHR) and Ontario Works (OW) staff.


Building Department and RRAP The Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) is administered by the Building Department. Staff indicated that the program was highly effective in bringing revenue into the City until approximately 2005, when the economy began to decline. Although the program is not financially self-sufficient, staff believe it should be supported as it improves the current housing stock and allows for the employment of local contractors. Another limitation for staff was that while they may get many referrals for RRAP Disability funding, the clients may not be eligible because they are note considered to be of low-income. Also, RRAP cannot be used in social housing funded federally by CMHC. One way they have managed to mitigate this challenge is by proactively taking on projects under RRAP Conversion. The Department is working to find other opportunities to fund the development of more modified units. In addition, the Electrical Service Authority (ESA) also has its requirements from the Building Department. Overall it costs approximately $22,000 per application to meet these standards. However RRAP has a maximum of $16,000 so even if RRAP money is not available, the homeowner or provider is still liable to pay for the ESA. The Department then cautions its inspectors about going in the door because the client is then bound by an order. As the enforcement agency, they are not able to change the rules; and they know that there are costs, in terms of resources and in consequences, to their reporting. However, in 2009, they found that CMHC was more accommodating and that if they really needed the money, they would find the funding. They also realize that there will be a higher need demonstrated for modified units when the AODA comes out. 1.2.3 Overview of Focus Group Results

During the focus group sessions, housing providers and City staff (Focus Groups A and E) and social housing tenants and applicants (Focus Group C) were consulted to identify any issues affecting the ability of these programs and policies to meet intended goals. With this in mind, we also examined where there were any barriers and perhaps opportunities to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of housing and homeless programs and policies. CHRAC members agreed that the policies and practices that work well at the local level do so due to their partnerships and agreements, both formal and informal; and that City staff are doing their job. Their biggest frustration lies in the inability to be self-determinant as a City, and they would prefer block funding in order to do what they feel needs to be done. Below we outline the issues and concerns expressed during these sessions in relation to housing programs and policies.


Priorities and the Centralized Waiting List There are concerns about the Special Priority Policies (SPP) which are putting pressure on non-profit housing providers, as they may house people who fit into the SPP categories but not house those who have been waiting on the chronological waiting list. This is reflected in the types of applications that the Registry is receiving, as outlined in Table 3, below: as of December 31 2009, 96 people on the waiting list at the Central Housing Registry were Priority applicants and not chronologically placed on the list. This issue is currently affecting centralized waiting lists across Ontario.

Table 3: Central Housing Registry of Windsor-Essex County's Waiting List by Type of Applicant, December 2009

Type of Applicant Number of Applicants Proportion of List

Special Priority Placement (SPP/PI) 50 2.5%

Priority II Status 46 2.3%

Chronological 1,943 95.3%

Total 2,039 100.0%

Source: Central Housing Registry, 2010

Priority 2 status particularly is a concern. Members of CHRAC have noted that many young people – a population they felt is underserved – might be able to apply as Priority 2 (homeless) status to get to the top of the waiting lists faster. Most of these youth are applying to few projects, mainly the Windsor Y Residence, as there are not enough supports provided in other places for this particular demographic. It was suggested that a credit system for time on the waiting list would help expedite certain groups and people outside of priority status.

Conversions to Condominiums It has been observed that an increasing number of owners of rental housing are moving to convert them to condominium units in order to reduce their property taxes from multi-residential rates to single residence rates. Historically, the City saw two or three such concerns each year. In 2006, they had seven applications and in 2008, there were 18. The Planning Department is monitoring this issue. Should the numbers continue to increase, the City may need to re-examine its policies on this issue in order to avoid losing more affordable rental housing units.

Coordinating Housing and Supports The Homeless Coalition has taken the view that housing should be shifted from being at centre of the model for addressing the needs of homelessness, to being a piece of the ―puzzle‖ with support services at the centre of the model. More people need supports to maintain their housing, and there is an increasing need though not always the capacity and/or ability from the housing provider


to address this properly. Generally, housing and support service agencies find that the difficulty is in tying both housing and supports together to deliver effective solutions to the problem. Participants at the CHRAC meeting emphasized that one of the greatest challenges is to coordinate supports provided by the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care and/or the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and affordable housing supply programs funded by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Their programs are administered separately, which can create challenges in coordinating the two components. It was further emphasized that supports have to be sustainable and long-term; as opposed to many support programs which have starting and end dates. Another challenge noted was that, although specialized service agencies like Hiatus House may receive some referrals from other organizations, their transitional units are not rent-geared-to-income. This is limiting for some clients who cannot afford to move there. The clients are then required to find affordable housing that may not have those necessary supports. During Focus Group A, providers felt they did not have enough transitional support to help with SPP and other special needs clients and tenants. Hiatus House is an example of a group where clients have transitional workers that follow tenants with the supports. Can-Am, through federal support and programming, also has a good plan of care, along with a tenant liaison. There are several programs that provide transitional housing and support in the community, and service agencies here feel that a good job is being done in this sector.

Knowledge of and Access to Resources Many social housing tenants and applicants attending Focus Group C were not aware of the various housing programs and services. Other than accessing social housing and the central waiting list, participants were generally unaware of what other programs were out there to assist them. Housing providers and city staff who attended Focus Group A agreed that residents do not usually know about help that exists for obtaining and maintaining their housing, such as programs like Keep the Heat and the Rent Bank and expressed that these are well used by those who know of them, but are not well known otherwise.


Flow and Flexibility of Funding and Programs Some CHRAC members noted that funding was not accessible. For example, some found funding through the Homelessness Prevention Strategy was easily accessible while others disagreed. Although not all applicants were able to acquire HPS funding and few projects were approved, there was still funding left over within the City for which there were no applicants. The flow of funding does present challenges, as costs are only paid for at certain milestones during the project and it does not allow for funding between key achievements in the process, such as payments to contractors. It was emphasized that funding for a project‘s sustainability is a key issue for housing providers. According to housing providers like the Windsor Y Residence and the Windsor Homes Coalition Inc., funds are available for renovations and rehabilitation. The frustrations, however, lie in the long wait required to hear about the outcomes of the applications and the impacts these long wait times have on the feasibility of proposed projects. The WECHC reported that they would like more flexibility within program requirements in order to make housing-related funding more effective in meeting local needs. For example, WECHC believes that eliminating the RGI rent system and replacing it with a flat rent would save as much as $500,000 per year in the administrative cost of calculating these rents. Another example is that, under the current regulations governing social housing, vacant seniors units are often left vacant in the absence of suitable senior applicants, rather than renting them to those who need housing who could use the units of that size – like single adults – but who do not fit the age criteria required.

Focus Group A and Focus Group E participants felt that senior governments should provide more block funding to Municipal Service Managers and enable them to determine where best to use these funds, rather than simply administering highly prescribed Federal and Provincial programs and furthermore that any programs that are operating should allow greater flexibility in benchmarks to recognize differences between communities.

Application Processes and Rent Calculations It was also emphasized that there was a greater need for transparency at the application stage of the process. For example, tenants felt that it would be helpful if they knew which properties had longer wait times and which had shorter ones. It was believed that this would help streamline the process. Many participants did not know that the more locations they select the faster they could be allocated a unit. Additionally, some applicants found the process time consuming. Others noted that the medical questions seemed too in-depth.


The Central Housing Registry advises all applicants that call or come to the office that the more selections they make the shorter the waiting period. This point is also stressed to agencies and advocates when they call regarding the status of an applicant. Applicants are also advised as to how many housing providers they have selected, with the key factor being that the more selections they make, the shorter the waiting period will be. If the Registry is aware of vacancies in particular buildings or geographic locations, applicants are advised of the short waiting period in that area to assist them in a possible offer of accommodation and to also help the housing provider with their vacancies. Applicants are informed about quick turnover areas but in many cases, applicants are interested in a specific area and state that they are willing to wait for that location.

The Registry uses a Medical Report Form in order to determine eligibility and required type of accommodation the applicant will require in order to live independently and to maintain the unit. The Medical Report Form is completed by the applicant‘s medical professional and the information provided is vital in assisting with the placement on the appropriate waiting lists and the offer and placement ensure that the specific medical needs are met. CHR-WEC can revisit this form later on when examining eligibility if they require possible clarification or changes.

Tenants and applicants also expressed a desire to have greater transparency around rent calculations and around vacancies in buildings. It was felt that there is a need for more ongoing education and communication, especially with new applicants unfamiliar with the social housing system.

Building Community Participants generally expressed a need to have a greater sense of community and ownership of their housing. Many social housing tenants wanted more effective and organized tenant associations; some properties have associations and some do not. Having such organizations in place could help respond to other concerns such as the desire for more services and programs (such as social or cultural activities). This would also help encourage and maintain meaningful dialogue between tenants and staff. Fostering such dialogue would ultimately provide tenants with a greater sense of autonomy and give an appropriate framework to make positive changes in their community. Additionally, many tenants expressed the desire for community workers to be more involved and available.


Lack of Maintenance in Social Housing The lack of maintenance in some social housing properties was identified by some participants as a major issue. These participants felt that the level of maintenance had declined over the years. Some tenants found managers unresponsive and ―things are just not done‖. The degree of maintenance issues expressed varied by location.

Some tenants felt that maintenance problems often go unattended too long and building conditions deteriorate. Tenants of larger properties expressed frustration at sometimes having just one custodian for large buildings It was suggested that maintenance committees could be developed to improve the dialogue on such issues and concerns.

Tenant Security Some tenants also raised concerns around the security of their buildings; some expressed feeling vulnerable in their communities. They suggested that cameras in lobbies and around buildings would help, as well as further follow-up on complaints about other tenants when they pose a concern about safety and security.

Accessibility Barriers Some Focus Group participants noted that there are a growing range of economic, regulatory, and/or physical barriers impacting on accessibility of housing. They pointed out that it is difficult to overcome negative stereotypes of social housing tenants in some parts of Windsor-Essex. Further, there is concern that some local residents and councils are reluctant to support a wide range of social housing tenants, so there is an emphasis on groups that are often considered easier to accommodate, such as seniors and people with disabilities. Housing providers are required to make accessibility modifications, but these are not easy to fund. RRAP funding can be helpful but the funding available is limited. Some providers do find the funding from different pockets; for example, the Windsor Y was able to acquire several sources of funding to build 5 universally designed emergency units, while incorporating supportive transitional housing (for 8 months) within two of the five units. In addition, there are extra costs required to conform to the new Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) and these costs need to be known to providers and communities alike. Some tenants and applicants who were living in or had applied for modified units felt that they were systemically discriminated against because of their disabilities, generally in terms of the waiting time for a suitable unit. When making inquiries at the CHR, some applicants reported that they were told automatically that their waiting time would be doubled as a result of the requirement for a modified unit. As further discussed in Section 2.2.4, below,


they felt discriminated against during the application process when discussing their situations with staff and while living in social housing due to concerns such as the inaccessibility of parking spots and units. 1.2.4 Anticipated Changes over the Next Five to Ten Years

As outlined in Background Report One: Analysis of Housing Needs, it is anticipated that local housing needs will continue to change within five to ten years in view of changing economic, social and demographic trends. Increasing maintenance costs, an economic shift due to the restructuring of the auto sector, and public knowledge about resources and assistive measures for housing are key issues highlighted for the long-term. With regards to maintenance costs, it was pointed out that, along with an aging housing stock, many providers do not have enough capital reserves. Some aging units need to be replaced, as pointed out by a partial building condition assessment which was recently completed. This study also identified that $13 million was required in immediate repair/maintenance work, while there are only approximately $11 million in reserves. The downturn in the local economy has meant that many residents have gone from jobs paying $30 an hour to those paying $10 to $20 an hour. Flexibility is required in benchmarking of market rents, as CMHC market rents are no longer affordable for many residents. One of the most significant impacts of the economic downturn includes the emergence of the ―new poor‖, or people who were not at the low end before and who may now place higher demands on the system. What this means for housing and what demands and needs will be placed on the current housing stock need to be explored further as the impact of these changes is better understood. 1.2.5 Effective and Efficient Programs and Policies

1.2.5.1 Rent Supplements

Rent supplements work, according to housing providers and City staff alike, as they are less cumbersome, they allow for assistance to be provided in different places at different times, and they are able to address vacancies in the private sector. Landlords used to be reluctant to take up such programs but are not so anymore, in light of current vacancy rates.

Clients at Windsor-Essex Community Housing and Can-Am Urban Native Homes, amongst others, actively use the rent supplement programs. Members of CHRAC noted that rent supplements allow for more flexibility and work to the favour of both the landlord/provider and the tenant. Similarly, the benefits of using rent supplements can work with specific target groups, such as persons with disabilities. The Windsor Y Residence Inc., for


example, has made 10 units with rent supplements available to clients who are referred by the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA). The CMHA also runs another rent supplement program through the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, where the client pays the maximum Ontario Works (OW) or Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) rate for shelter. The CMHA then places what they call a ―rent supplement over a rent supplement‖ by adding in the remainder of the rent. This provides clients with a greater choice in units that suit their needs. One concern that was mentioned with rent supplements was the possibility that some units receiving rent supplements (especially in the private sector) may be in poor condition or not up to the standard of other forms of social housing. City staff emphasized, however, that they conduct careful inspections of all units before allocating rent supplements in order to guard against such problems. 1.2.5.2 Local Priorities

Local priorities used in allocating units to applicants on the social housing waiting list have been successful as they have been regularly reviewed and revised from time-to-time, usually annually. Although it is a time-intensive exercise, it allows for better flexibility, as these can be adjusted to the community‘s needs. CHRAC and HAC are very attentive at assessing various needs while City Council has been fully willing to listen to these voices as well. For example, CHRAC has been working at reducing the application burden by reducing the application form from 19 pages to 5, which is easier on applicants, many of whom are unfamiliar with the social housing system. 1.3 Opportunities Available in Windsor-Essex to Improve Access to

Affordable Housing

1.3.1 Partnerships for Supportive Housing

As noted earlier, it is important that social service agencies, such as Children‘s Aid Society (CAS), and housing providers (in particular providers such as the Windsor Y Residence), work collaboratively when serving the same populations. The City does play a central role in bringing such partners together to provide both the housing and supports needed by such individuals. Vehicles such as HAC, CHRAC and the Homeless Coalition are proving effective in this regard. 1.3.2 New Spaces in Newer Places

Intensification in existing neighbourhoods on city-owned lands, and on some vacant land and/or in buildings, could be used for this purpose. With that, alternatives like garden suites and secondary unit types should be examined to determine where they can be classified as ―intensification‖ on larger properties like the ones belonging to Can-Am Urban Native Homes.


The development of affordable housing in places like downtown Leamington was also suggested through the use of official plan documents. Official Plan guidelines could be used to provide directions for minimum unit sizes, amongst other requirements. There is also potential with the many brownfields and industrial areas in Windsor. Municipalities should try to stay at least two to five years ahead of plans, especially with brownfields, as the funding and political will may come at any time; and will require the municipality to be action-ready. 1.3.3 Flexibility in Addressing Poverty and Housing

An emphasis on flexible solutions is required in order to address the complex relationship between poverty and housing. Rent supplements highlight a positive and flexible way of providing assistance where and when needed. The City‘s Anti-Poverty Strategy is being developed to help derive a series of responses to this fundamental problem. Energy poverty is also a concern. Further research is needed to outline the burden of energy costs, in order to demonstrate the values and costs behind energy retrofits. Housing providers should be encouraged to maintain records of energy savings achieved through various energy-related initiatives and promote further actions in this regard. 1.3.4 Recognition of Other Marginalized Groups

It was noted by Focus Group participants that local priorities need to recognize and address underserviced groups. For example, youth were emphasized by stakeholders as a population group currently underserved. Providers and support service agencies working with youth have suggested that creating one or two youth-specific units in each building would help reduce youth on streets by providing options, if targeted at those aged 16 to 19 years of age. This suggestion could also be extended to other groups as well. New immigrants are a group that are cited as often having larger families and it was reported that many larger units were needed in order to accommodate this group. It is important that dialogue continue on the most suitable approaches for meeting these gaps. Again, vehicles such as CHRAC, HAC and the Homeless Coalition are providing considerable ongoing opportunities in this regard.


2.0 Central Housing Registry Policies, Practices, and

Procedures

2.1 Current Practice

The CHR was established in November 2002 as required under the Social Housing Reform Act that year. A Service Agreement allowed the Service Manager to delegate the responsibility for administering the CHR to the Windsor-Essex Community Housing Corporation (WECHC), including ―appropriate accountability‖. The Central Housing Registry Windsor-Essex County (CHR-WEC) assists households in the area looking to apply for accommodation in social housing. Low income individuals, families and seniors are eligible to apply provided they meet certain criteria. Coordinated access centres, like the CHR-WEC, allow households to apply, using one application at one central location, to all of the housing providers in the area. The Registry office is located in the City of Windsor, with a drop-off location for applications located on Talbot Street for applicants in the County. Currently, there are four employees at the Central Housing Registry: the executive director and three applications/interview clerks. Employees of the Windsor-Essex Community Housing Corporation

Eligibility Criteria for Applying to Social Housing

In order to be eligible and to maintain continued subsidized housing once housed, all applicants must meet the following criteria as set out by the Government of Ontario‘s Social Housing Reform Act:

Each household member must be a Canadian Citizen, Landed Immigrant, Indian Status (per Indian Act), Refugee or have Refugee Claimant status, with no outstanding deportation, departure, or exclusion order in effect.

Any member of the household must not have been convicted of misrepresentation of income or found by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal to have represented their income for the purpose of receiving rent geared to income housing within the last two years.

Any member of the household must not owe rent/housing charge arrears to any federally, provincially, or municipally funded housing groups in Ontario, or must be actively adhering to an approved repayment schedule.

Any member of the household that owns residential property suitable for year-round occupancy must agree to sell it within 6 months of being housed.

At least one member must be 16 years or older and able to live independently.

All members of the household who are 16 years or older must sign the application and consent.

At time of offer, any member of the household applying for social housing must make reasonable efforts to pursue income if entitled to receive such income under the Ontario Works Act, the Divorce Act, Employment Insurance Act, financial undertakings


(WECHC), report to the Chief Executive Officer at WECHC. Staff at the WECHC have access to the Centralize Waiting List Registry information; therefore, they work closely with the Registry, particularly to help priority applicants move into social housing faster. The Registry also maintains waiting lists for other housing providers (i.e. non-profit housing providers) and works with them to ensure that updates on vacancies and/or waiting lists are communicated regularly. Housing providers that have on-line access are able to have on-line access to only their specific waiting lists. Those housing providers which do not have on-line access to their specific waiting list request a copy of their waiting list when needed. 2.2 Process for Identifying Need

2.2.1 Need for Service

The Central Housing Registry was established by the Service Manager and the Windsor-Essex Community Housing Corporation in 2002, in order to meet the requirements under the Social Housing Reform Act in 2000. The aim of establishing housing registries was to ensure that rent-geared-to-income and market rent public housing was easily accessible to people in need. Non-profit housing providers that are provincially or municipally funded are also required to choose tenants from the centralized waiting list; however, other non-profit housing providers may choose not to if they are federally funded. Though the coordinated access system was established in Ontario during the early 1990s, the Act allowed for a shift towards centralized waiting lists that would be municipally administered so that the service was administered locally. The need for social housing may result from family break-up, affordability challenges, loss of income or employment, or an inability to secure suitable/adequate housing. Referrals are most likely the best way to find out about social housing; particularly from social service agencies/agents such as shelters and social work professionals and/or from friends and family members who are also applying to or are living in social housing. 2.2.2 Chronological and Priority Applications

The rule generally is ―first come, first served‖ for applicants, provided there are no particular circumstances that warrant priority. The provincial government has mandated a Priority I status for applicants in which one member is or was subject to abuse by another individual who is or was living in the household. This must be requested in writing by the applicant, a guardian, or by an attorney of the member authorized to make the request on their behalf.


In order to qualify for Priority 2 status, households must be otherwise eligible for Rent-Geared-To-Income (RGI) or Special Needs housing. Households with a Priority 2 housing need may be given a Priority 2 status on the Wait List and will be required to provide a completed Request for Priority II Form, including the Verification Declaration section. Priority 2 applicants, mandated through the Service Manager (City of Windsor), must meet one of the following requirements:

Agency assisted person(s) without housing or person(s) without housing living in or that has lived in a temporary emergency shelter (i.e. Salvation Army, 1101 McDougall, Well-Come Centre, Agency sponsored placements) in the last 6 months and has not secured permanent affordable and / or adequate housing.

Person(s) whose permanent residence has been destroyed and are not entitled to funds to rectify the circumstance, including funds for permanent affordable and/or adequate housing and have no place to live

Person(s) living in substandard housing which has been condemned by the municipality

Households with child(ren) separated from each other by a child protection agency due to lack of housing and housing is the sole reason where the child(ren) will be returned to the household by a child protection agency when the household secures adequate housing.

Households with child(ren) where a child protection agency confirms the child(ren) will be removed from the household if the household does not secure adequate housing and inadequate housing is the sole reason for such removal.

Person(s) or groups designated as having Priority II Status by the Service Manager in the establishment of local priority rules from time to time. (This would include Programs funded by the Service Manager, such as Transitional Housing, HARSP, Hostels to Homes etc.)

2.2.2.1 Proof of Status

Priority 1 and Priority 2 applicants are given precedence for social housing units over other applicants on the social housing waiting list. Often priority applicants come into the Registry through a referral from a social service provider, depending on their situation. Households whose children have been removed or separated due to inadequate housing need to show that this is the sole reason for removal; therefore, the child protection agency can testify to this reason for requiring social housing. Homeless persons are placed on priority lists through the shelter(s). In each of these cases, priority applicants are to provide proof of their situations; unless the act or process of obtaining such documents may put their safety at risk, as is the case with some Priority 1 applicants.


Chronological applicants are required to provide verification of status in Canada (examples provided on the application form include birth certificates, immigration papers, and/or Canadian citizenship papers) and a copy of Social Insurance Card (optional). CHR-WEC underwent a review approximately a year ago and it was determined at that time that some of the processes and procedures being followed could be changed in order to process applications more quickly and efficiently and still meet the requirements set out in the SHRA. This change included the discontinuance of verifying such things as income, custody and support as well as other requirements. All applicants are also required to report any changes within ten business days regarding change of address, phone number, household size, and the type or amount of income/assets. Also noted is that chronological applicants are only allowed to receive three offers and if they reject all three, they will be taken off the waiting list and required to reapply. The same process applies to Priority 2 applicants, but they are only allowed one offer which they must take or they face removal from the Priority 2 list and would be placed with the chronological applicants. Also, Priority 2 applicants are allowed to choose one or more geographic areas but must choose all housing providers within the area, or cease to qualify for Priority 2 status. 2.2.3 Appeals Process

There is an appeals process that can take place, should the applicant feel they have a case to make with the Central Housing Registry as to why they rejected their offers. In the case they choose to appeal, they would go to the Appeals Committee. This internal review may take place on the following bases:

Type of accommodation for the household

Category the household has been placed on the Waiting List

Amount of geared-to-income rent payable

Deferral of geared-to-income rent payable

Determination that the household is ineligible for rent-geared-to-income assistance and/or special needs

2.2.4 Access for and Needs of Applicants with Disabilities

An applicant seeking a modified unit in a social housing building must be able to live independently. In order to qualify for supportive housing, applicants must require the specific support services connected with the housing,services will vary from provider to provider. In order to determine an applicant‘s eligibility for a given provider, they have to complete a supplementary application for each supportive housing provider.


Participants stated that there are not enough modified units and persons waiting for such units feel ―stuck‖ on the waiting list. Some participants stated that there was discrimination towards applicants who have disabilities. Other issues raised were that parking spots for disabled persons were often too few and some were in inaccessible places. Participants, in particular senior participants, emphasized a need for elevators to improve accessibility of their buildings. Though a person may not require a unit that has been modified on the inside, many applicants and tenants do require other amenities in and around the buildings they live in. It was noted that the upper levels were harder to fill as they were not as accessible. It was stated that elevators would make for more senior-friendly homes. There are funding sources that may be possible to tap into for the required funding. Senior participants at the County focus group session also highlighted a need for education around applying for social housing and the services available to them during the application process and when they are living in social housing. An example of information they wish they had previously would be a guide on how rent calculations are completed and why they vary.


Figure 3: Application Process at the Central Housing Registry Windsor-Essex County

Professional Workers*

Basic eligibility is assessed while

application is input

into the system.

After three rejections, CHR takes

applicant off waiting list.

Applicant

Applicant has to decide if they will

take the offer.

Reject offer. PRIORITY II APPLICANTS: MOVE STRAIGHT

TO REMOVAL FROM LIST.

Accept offer. END HERE.

PRIORITY I APPLICANTS - START HERE: Shelter and/or social worker may help you for Priority I status, if you or a member of your

household is being abused. Apply directly to the registry.

PRIORITY II APPLICANTS - START HERE: You can sign up at the shelter and a social worker will get in touch with you to help you put in an application in if you are homeless. In other cases, you may need

a letter or other documentation from a professional worker that states you require housing due to other circumstances.

CHRONOLOGICAL APPLICANTS - START HERE: Applicant conducts self-

assessment for eligibility and fills out

forms with required documentation.

Housing Provider

The housing provider contacts

the applicant

when they are in a position to

process this application

further, or to make an offer.

If applicant does not accept CHR's decision to remove them from the list, they may appeal through the Registry's Appeals Committee. The Committee may either place them back on the list if reason for rejections is sufficient, or reaffirm the removal.

In the latter case, the applicant will have to start over again to get back on the list. END HERE.

Names are forwarded to applicant's preferred providers,

or where eligibility fits.

Central Housing Registry


2.2.5 Applicants and Tenants on the Application Process

Many applicants and tenants have said that they find the application process takes too long, although there were also many who found the process ―quick‖ and ―pleasant‖.

As noted earlier, it was also emphasized that there was a greater need for transparency at the application phase of the process. For example, it would be helpful if tenants knew which properties had longer wait times and which had shorter ones. It might help streamline the process. Many participants did not know that the more locations they select the faster they will get a unit. Applicants and tenants alike thought more information and education around ‗how to apply‘ would be helpful.

As noted earlier, Registry staff indicated that they do provide this information to new applicants. The Registry might double check with applicants to ensure they are aware of the meaning of this information and understand its implications.

2.2.6 Changes to the Application Form

The CHR has updated their application form to be more user-friendly by reducing it from 19 pages to 5. This allows for applicants to go through the form much faster, while ensuring that information is not repeated unnecessarily. An important change being made is the new option to now choose any location, allowing residents who do not have specific geographic preferences to speed through the process by taking a suitable unit offered in party of the City and/or County. This was the most common suggestion offered by applicants and tenants with respect to the Registry‘s form. At this time, the Registry does not conduct any outreach activities. Their website is comprised of one page, although this could become an effective resource for applicants before and during the application process by providing additional information such as information on housing providers, the status of the waiting list, or procedural guidelines. The staff at the Registry suggested that enabling applicants to apply online would be highly beneficial in a number of ways. Applicants would be able to submit, or at least print off, these forms from their own homes or wherever they may have access to a computer; as opposed to having to make a trip to one of the application sites. Online applications could also be posted in different languages. Numerous other central registries in Ontario operate in this fashion. Priority applicants, in particular those that applied under Priority I status, appreciated the ability to apply and claim their emergency situations; as this


allowed them to move up the list faster at a time when they were most vulnerable. More changes can still be anticipated, particularly as the new Accessibility for Ontarians Disability Act requires better customer service and more easy-to-read communications materials. This is one way in which the Registry is trying to increase their capacity to delivery their services. Other alternatives have also been suggested, as outlined in the next section. 2.3 Capacity to Deliver Supports

The aim of the CHR is to ensure access to rent-geared-to-income and market rent social housing when someone is in need due to a financial, physical, or social situation, as is the case with all applicants, whether they are applying as chronological or Priority Status applicants. The one point of contact for applicants for security and housing is with the Central Housing Registry; accordingly, the capacity of the organization must be examined in order to determine its ability to meet its goals and objectives. 2.3.1 Waiting List

The needs analysis conducted as part of Background Report One examined in detail the demand and supply of social housing, including social housing waiting list trends and statistics. Waiting list statistics identify the ability of the CHR to meet the needs of current applicants. Some of the key findings are described below. The demand for two-bedroom units as well as larger family units exceeds the supply (by proportion). Based on the December 2009 figures, 22% percent of waiting list applicants are seeking two-bedroom units, while these units only compromise 10% of the supply. In addition, 11% of applicants on the waiting list are seeking four or five-bedroom units, while just 4% of the supply is comprised of four or more bedroom units. This mismatch is resulting in longer wait times for such units. For example, wait times for larger units (four or more bedrooms) are a minimum of three years. Conversely, in the case of three-bedroom units, 29% of the supply is comprised of three-bedrooms while only 19% of applicants are waiting for a three-bedroom unit. Accordingly, wait times for three-bedroom units are shorter and range from three months to three years.


Table 4: Comparison of Social Housing Demand and Supply, December 2009

Unit Size Demand Supply Difference

(Demand - Supply)

Bachelor 0.4% 5.5% -5.1%

1 bedroom 48.1% 52.1% -4.0%

2 bedrooms 21.9% 10.1% 11.8%

3 bedrooms 18.6% 28.5% -9.9%

4+ bedrooms 11.1% 3.8% 7.3%

Source: Windsor-Essex Central Housing Registry

ONPHA‘s 2009 Report on Waiting List Statistics for Ontario finds that the number of households looking for assisted housing across Ontario has grown by 5,221 households ( or by 4.2%) from January 2008 to January 2009. Respondents to this annual survey have indicated in this report as well as past versions that while many of their waiting lists had remained fairly static, there are many applicants who are discouraged by long wait times and simply do not bother to apply. Consistent with findings for the Windsor/Essex area, results from the waiting list survey indicate that the longest wait times in most Municipal Service Manager areas are experienced by single persons (under the age of 65). Most had wait times of at least six years. The largest numbers of applicants on waiting lists are now non-senior singles at 48.4%. Seniors are generally the most manageable with wait times averaging one to six months. Long wait times signal that the Registry is not able to respond to the needs of the applicants, as a result of a lack of supply. The Registry was able to house 65 applicants in December 2009, which qualifies as 3.2% of the total waiting list including chronological and priority applicants. The local standard is currently set for 72 hours from the time an application is submitted to be put onto the waiting list. As noted earlier, staff of the Registry indicated that, due to backlogs in demand and insufficient human resources, they are finding it difficult to meet this standard, even if they are able to meet the provincial standards of 7 days. One interesting trend that has been occurring is that the number of applications placed with the Registry has declined following its move to a new location in February 2008, despite the economic recession in the Windsor-Essex area. Although the number of applications rose by 30.4% between October 2007 and April 2008, there has been a steady decline since, by 16.9% over the last year and a half. This points to an interesting trend and a bigger question of the role of social housing in times of economic turbulence; particularly since social housing is meant to provide housing to those households that are experiencing issues with


affordability, adequacy, and suitability. The decline in the waiting list and the increase in private sector vacancy rates indicate that many individuals and families in need have likely left the area in search of job opportunities elsewhere, rather than staying and waiting for social housing units to come available.

Figure 4: Number of Applications to the Central Housing Registry Windsor-Essex County, April 2005 to October 2009

2,119 2,1622,025

2,4162,279

2,537 2,6142,470

2,3372,171

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Nu

mb

er

of

Ap

pli

cati

on

s

Month and Year

Source: Windsor EssexCounty Central Housing Registry, November2009

Old location New location

2.3.2 Meeting the Needs of Persons with Disabilities

Applicants and tenants, through consultation activities, expressed concern over long wait times for modified units. Some reported that wait times appeared to be about double the length of time compared to a non-modified unit. These concerns have also been echoed by representatives from many community and advocacy groups serving people with disabilities and/or seniors. Staff from the Registry, however, commented that they receive few applications for modified units. At the time we received the Registry‘s waiting list data in April 2009, there were only four applicants for modified units in the City of Windsor, with no applicants in the County requiring modified units. This may be due to the lack of suitable units within the social housing portfolio, which discourages potential applicants from contacting the Registry. As noted earlier, more detailed information on the number and type of modified units available in the social housing portfolio should be made readily available at the Registry offices. The Registry has since received an updated list on the number of modified units in each housing project in the City and County, with information on the specific


modifications in each unit. They have also received a revised list of housing providers with supportive housing units, which identifies the service providers and the services available amongst other criteria. 2.3.3 Funding for Technology

It was recommended by staff that, if funding were available, newer technology would be beneficial. It was expressed that new resources such as up-to-date computers would assist with reporting and help ‗speed-up‘ tasks. Additionally, newer technology could allow for more open communication between the Registry and housing providers. At this point, not all providers are connecting online with the Registry. All housing providers may have computers but they do not all have on-line access to their waiting lists. This option was offered to all housing providers. However, some of the smaller housing providers in the County with low turnaround rate chose not to go on-line and instead, they request their respective waiting lists when they require one. In such cases, they can make their request to CHR-WEC and their waiting list is faxed the same day. 2.3.4 Funding for Hiring and Staff Development

As noted previously, Registry staff are finding that caseloads are heavy and challenging to maintain with four staff members. Staff expressed concerns about an inability to keep up with the volume of applications. Adding additional staff would enable them to:

Better assist applicants in understanding all of their housing options;

Improve access to an application form;

Help more applicants complete an application;

Help make changes to an application when required;

Improve communications with housing providers regarding the status of their particular waiting lists and the availability of units in their projects;

Help gather data and conduct evaluations for reporting purposes

At the same time, staff believe it would also benefit the City if they were able to update their skills in these areas consistently to ensure they are operating at the same standards as other registries across the province. Staff indicated that there is little or no budget for staff training and development, such as attending the training sessions and quarterly meetings offered by the Social Housing Coordinated Access Network of Ontario (SHCANO), the province-wide association for coordinated access centres for social housing. This committee is compromised of Service Managers across Ontario and meets on a quarterly basis


to discuss waiting list issues and other concerns experienced in the operation of a coordinated access center. 2.3.5 Location and Hours of Operation

Staff members at the Central Housing Registry appreciate having a separate office, as opposed to one that is connected to a housing provider, as they like to be able to meet with applicants privately. This ensures that requirements and procedures can be explained more precisely, as they are able to show applicants forms, maps, and other important materials and documents. However, staff reported that the location of the office can be a challenge for some applicants public transit access can be difficult for some applicants, especially those coming for outside the inner city. Staff commented that while they like the hours of operation,they noted that some applicants find the office hours inconvenient. Many applicants can only visit between noon and 1 o‘clock (on their lunch hour), however, the Registry is also closed during this time. It was suggested that at least one additional staff member would be needed to help address this gap. 2.4 Summary of Challenges in the Delivery of Social Housing Programs

Table 5 below provides a summary of feedback from Registry staff on various operational issues related to the Registry.

Table 5 : Summary of Feedback from Central Housing Registry Staff on Operational Issues

Criteria Description

Staffing

Although they are able to meet the provincially-set timeframes set out in the Social Housing Reform Act of 7 days, staff members feel that more human resources are needed in order to comply with the local 72-hour benchmark timeframes,

Location and Hours Registry staff expressed concern that some applicants can only meet during lunch hour, but that the Registry is closed at that time of day. The location of the office can also be challenging to access by public transit.

Application forms

The CHR has reduced its application form from 19 pages to 5 to be more user-friendly, allowing applicants to complete the application faster with less paperwork required. Although the Registry‘s application is not online at the moment, the CEP of CHC is looking into this as a possibility as another way for applicants to access the registry..

Information required from applicants

The Registry can only update their information on an application when the applicant has reported the changes to the Registry.

Method of contact The Registry is available by phone, email, or in person. There are no limits as to the number of times they will assist someone. However, if applicants come to the office, CHR-WEC is better able to provide assistance with the


Table 5 : Summary of Feedback from Central Housing Registry Staff on Operational Issues

Criteria Description

aid of the map in a position to show, explain and clarify to the applicant the various sections of the forms and walk them through the application process.

Meeting Standards on Processed Applications

The Registry is not always able to process applications in accordance with the standard of 72 hours as set locally, even if they are able to meet provincial standards. Staff indicated that they are challenged due to the large volume of work required to meet this timeframe in relation to staffing levels.

Availability of information on modified units

It was acknowledged that there currently is insufficient information on modified units, especially in relation to the nature of the modifications within such units. Staff suggested a computer could be placed in the lobby of the Registry for providing information on all units, particularly for modified units. This would allow people to browse through units with all details listed, including the specific modifications made to the unit.

Use of electronic technology

Current technology could be updated to help improve efficiency.

Income and other verifications

A recent review of the CHR determined that some of the processes could be changed in order to process applications more quickly and efficiently while still meeting the requirements set out in the SHRA.

Use of sub-lists

Each provider has a waiting list which they are able to access. However, this requires that all providers also have online access to their waiting lists, which is not always the case, as some providers specifically opted to not go online and instead request their waiting list when they required one.

Referral practices

Registry staff pointed out that, due to their linkage to WECHC, some of WECHC staff has the same access to CHR-WEC system as the staff at the Registry although all other housing providers only have access to their specific waiting lists. They emphasized that the system should be reviewed to ensure all providers have equal access to such information. An operational review of WECHC by the Service Manager could help assess this situation.


3.0 Approaches to the Delivery of Social Housing Programs in

Other Municipalities

We consulted a number of other service managers in Ontario to determine whether there were any best practices that could be considered to help improve the effectiveness of program delivery in Windsor-Essex. We spoke to staff members at the City of Ottawa, Halton Region, Peel Region, and York Region via telephone about organizational and reporting structures, committees and partnerships, and integrating the delivery of housing assistance and other social assistance programs like Ontario Works. 3.1 Organizational Structure and Programs

At the City of Ottawa, there are three divisions under the Social Housing and Shelter Management Branch within the Community and Social Services Department under the City Manager‘s City Operations Portfolio: Social Housing, Residential and Support Services, and Affordable Housing. Our interviewee stated that before this particular frame of organization, the organization was structured more vertically with more directors but now there are more branches so it has flattened out. This newer structure allows for less reporting to senior managers as approval from the uppermost officials is not required for all decisions, allowing some leeway for housing initiatives and activities to take place. In particular, the City of Ottawa‘s Affordable Housing Division conducts some very interesting work with groups interested in providing affordable housing, as they aim to create community capacity at all levels:

Facilitating affordable housing development by identifying and negotiating mechanisms to improve the regulatory and development system to improve affordability, including negotiating and advocating with other levels of government, community agencies, developers and other city departments;

Developing and managing funding and incentive programs to support the development of affordable housing by leveraging other resources, including federal and provincial funding, private funding, land and other equity

Developing community capacity by brokering partnerships in the community to transfer and share knowledge and expertise, and to leverage additional resources towards increased supply of affordable housing


Though this certainly happens at an informal level in the City of Windsor, a formalized process may allow for a stronger and firmer presence when required; particularly when proposed projects may face some opposition from the community and a voice from within the City is needed to advocate for the project at hand. It also provides a forum where providers can bring up ideas with staff about what is and is not considered effective within the scope of their work, while being able to ask questions regarding the various approval processes and development options. The Human Services Department in Peel Region is comprised of the following branches: Early Years Integration; Children‘s Services - Child Care Centres; Ontario Works - Welfare Assistance (Ontario Works); Hostel Programs; Employment Supports; Housing Policy and Programs; Residential Property Management; Housing Finance; and Human Services Transition and Integration. Therefore, housing staff find themselves working side-by-side with staff from other areas of social assistance like Ontario Works. Since 2003, housing has been managed by Peel Living and Ontario Works for the most part, although the Region of Peel is the Service Manager and therefore in charge of program administration. Housing responsibilities are divided into four areas, where each is required to be a part of developing and connecting residents to affordable housing in Peel Region:

Social Housing Administration, which oversees social housing providers and local rent supplement units.

Peel Access to Housing (PATH), which maintains a centralized waiting list for households applying for subsidized rent-geared-to-income (RGI) housing; determines applicant eligibility; answers inquiries regarding social housing in Peel; and provides referrals and resources regarding emergency shelters and community support services.

Rent Supplement, which administers applications and allocations of rent supplement.

Housing Policy staff, which analyses senior government policy impacts on Peel and prepares recommendations for Peel‘s housing programs.

Halton Region has four divisions under the Social and Community Services Department: Children‘s Services, Housing, Income and Employment, and Services for Seniors. The Housing Division provides management services for the Halton Community Housing Corporation, the Local Housing Corporation; funding and administration of the Social Housing program; administration of the Centralized Waiting List (HATCH) for the 23 social housing providers in Halton; and the development and administration of housing programs to address the need for assisted housing. What makes this particular structure unique, among other factors, is that they are responsible for maintaining the social housing coordinated access.


The Region also has the Coordinated Intervention Business Services (CIBS), another division within the Department. CIBS is the first point of contact for clients, where they conduct an overall assessment in one place that allows clients to avoid having to repeat their stories to multiple employees as they try to access services, while allowing that group of staff to then see where clients may also be eligible for other services they may have not known about. At York Region, the Community and Health Services (C&HS) Department oversees Housing and Homelessness Programs. While the Housing and Long Term Care Branch is responsible for housing programs, the Strategic Service Integration and Policy (SSIP) Branch within C&HS maintains responsibility for homelessness programs. The Region has recently merged two Departments, Community and Housing Services and Health Services, to become the Community and Health Services Department. Housing Services has now become Housing and Long Term Care and they are seeing the integration of these two areas, supportive housing programs partnered with affordable housing projects. The City of Windsor can consider how the various models allow for possible opportunities for integration in goals and service provision and for other activities that can be considered within the scope of the work required from the Housing Services Division in order to meet its underlying mandate. 3.2 Partnerships and Networks with Stakeholders in Delivering Housing

and/or Homelessness Programs

All four interviewees indicated that they have at least informal networks with staff in other areas and with community agencies and organizations involved and interested in housing and homelessness services. This shows particularly when they undertake new initiatives, as they see more of their service providers and other stakeholders. They are in touch with their housing providers more formally in accordance with the responsibilities transferred through the downloading of social housing onto the municipalities, where as Service Managers, they are to be the point of contact for changes in policy and practices in the provision and operations of social and non-profit housing. The City of Ottawa holds informal meetings every two months to discuss various issues including tenant relations and monitoring guidelines, with an agenda guiding each session. It was estimated that approximately 15 to 20 people, established and new project managers and providers, attend each session. They say that instead of a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) process, holding these meetings and engaging in the process described earlier conducted by Affordable Housing staff allows for a better evaluation of housing providers as it gives even newer groups with relatively little experience the chance to participate. However, for the City of Ottawa, building relationships with other organizations in the community, such as shelters, is still relatively a newer process.


Staff at York Region also elaborated on their partnerships within the community. They will often partner with an agency to provide support services to residents of new affordable housing projects. For example, the Region partnered with the Canadian Hearing Society to house seven of their clients in a Regional affordable housing building, Tom Taylor Place. Staff also work with Women Shelter Groups and have hired two Housing Support Workers to assist victims of domestic violence. In addition to the Region‘s membership in several sector organizations such as ONPHA and SHCANO, there are some working groups that involve staff and other community organizations:

The Reference Group, which is a working group made up of Housing Providers and Regional staff. This group meets about four times a year. The Region often receives input and feedback from this Group with respect to proposed housing legislation/policies.

The Community Networking Group, which includes various support agencies in York Region

The Community Planning Group, made up of members from community social service agencies that provide service to homeless and at-risk individuals, and Regional staff, meets to develop and revise the Community Plan to Address Homelessness. This plan provides a framework for addressing priority homeless issues in the community.

The Community Advisory Board (CAB) is a group comprised of community funders and Regional staff that meets to select Federally funded homelessness projects

Though the City of Windsor‘s staff were commended by community agencies and housing providers for their ability to coordinate, network, and collaborate with other stakeholders, the staff may want to consider expanding and formally establishing their networks in such ways to further their strength as a natural leader within the housing and homelessness sectors. 3.3 Opportunities for Integration of the Delivery of Housing and Other

Social Assistance Programs

Many of the municipalities said staff try to work together in areas of mutual interest if they understand it benefits the client and if it still falls within the scope and authority of their work. Peel Region, as mentioned previously, has a Human Services Transition and Integration branch within the Human Services Department. They have put out a Human Services Plan effective 2009 to 2011 based on input gathered from employees, partner agencies and organizations, and their clients. The plan aims to support section 6.2 in the Official Plan relating to human services; in order to ―plan, manage, and deliver quality, integrated human services and


resources that invest in people to enable participation in the changing community and the economy‖ (Human Services Plan, 2009). Of six objectives, Objective #3 is to provide a continuum of housing options followed by 5 intended outcomes and 5 actions that will be explored. These actions include exploring creative solutions towards housing development and maintenance, establishing an integrated approach for services for social housing residents, promoting public acceptance and support for inclusive housing and neighbourhood models, implementing enhancements to the Region‘s homelessness prevention strategy, and promoting strategies to enable residents to move along the continuum. This has been an organizational plan built with the help of the community and so it is important to follow through with the integration as much as possible. Our interviewee confirmed that they have been fully integrated in many ways, particularly in the area of homelessness thanks to a cross-departmental Homelessness Service Strategy Business Plan (SSBP). For example, they use a wrap-around method to provide services to their homeless clients, and it is most evident in their methodology where they try to provide supports and housing, mostly through transitional housing for the homeless, together out of the Ontario Works Division. Staff at Halton Region also practice a wrap-around approach within housing, though this process has been formalized within the Children‘s Services Division. In this case, they use an individual client manager for wrap-up around service for a coordinated approach that works best for the client. Wrap-around services, if implemented in the City of Windsor even informally, could allow for residents to feel better serviced; particularly if they are serviced by one manager. It would also cut down on the number of people to contact for the client, as they would have one person to speak to about all areas when questions are general and the authority is provided to discuss multiple areas of service provision. Regional staff in York Region pointed out that a couple of years ago, Council established a working group to look into merging OW, childcare assistance, and housing assistance programs onto one form. The working group identified several challenges, given that the process around OW and childcare assistance are very different from housing assistance. They then resolved to hire a social worker who assists households with highly complex needs to navigate through the different support programs offered by the Region. Another challenge they found with integrating the delivery of housing assistance programs and social assistance programs is that OW and childcare assistance legislation prevents the sharing of information with Housing Departments. They did point out that there is a working group at the Provincial level that is working on developing information sharing agreements with MCSS


that would allow the exchange of information between Housing and social assistance programs. This can be an area where the City of Windsor can perhaps take charge, because as previously indicated, Ontario Works staff wanted to play a bigger role within the housing team; and the length of time and types of questions asked had been identified as a point of frustration for clients for clients at the Registry as well. 3.4 Addressing Barriers for Persons with Physical Disabilities

There are several barriers for persons with physical disabilities, as identified through the Background Reports produced for this study. These include but are not limited to the number of modified units available and the way in which residents who require accessible units can look for affordable housing. To address concerns in supply, the City of Ottawa requires that all new housing projects must have a minimum of 5% of units that are deemed accessible, although a higher score would be awarded for more accessible units if the provider chose to include more than the minimum. They are trying to encourage more acquisition projects as well, so that reduced costs can be translated into more financial accessibility, but they are harder to modify, although it depends on the extent of the modifications required. They have some providers, however, who are very proactive and will work with tenants with specific needs or will move them to newer buildings for more suitable units. One particular example cited is the Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation (CCOC), which believes that everyone should be housed and that all residents should be in control of their housing. York Region has been identified as the face behind many best practices in the area of accessibility. In this interview, they provided us with an example of increasing accessibility during the application process. They point out that the application for rent-geared-to-income housing is available online for easy access. Applicants are expected to download the form, complete it and either mail or deliver it to the Housing Access Unit. This application indicates where accessible units exist. Only recently have accessible units become part of York Region‘s Centralized Waitlist. Prior to that, persons with disabilities would have to apply to each Housing Provider to acquire an accessible unit. The website also indicates which buildings have accessible units and includes additional information such as the pictures of the unit, entrance dimensions and measurements, support services (if available), appliance features, laundry facilities, and other amenities (distance of amenities from the building). These changes had come about as a result of Special Needs Audits carried out by the Region of York in order to determine the supply of accessible housing in their social housing stock. The findings of these audits enabled them to ensure better access and knowledge of the accessible housing stock for clients needing


modified housing. The Region of York has incorporated photographs and descriptions of all modified units under each building, accessible online from its social housing directory. Simcoe County has also developed a searchable database with the inventory and description of modified units that is available for clients needing modified units. The audit was done by conducting site visits of each housing provider that had modified units in their portfolio, with a total of 25 projects visited and 100 units inventoried. An assessment of buildings and units was conducted to determine whether certain features met current accessibility standards. These features included the unit entry, living area, main bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, doors and windows, controls, parking, ramps, handrails, circulation spaces, common areas, laundry room, garbage room, elevators, and main, secondary entries and emergency exits.


4.0 Evaluation of Housing Model Produced by the Homeless Coalition

An interesting approach to housing policies and programs in the Windsor-Essex area has been developed by the Homeless Coalition of Windsor – Essex County. They have developed a model that helps identify housing and support needs of individuals and families in Windsor-Essex. We have reviewed this model to determine if it can help provide further direction on the effective delivery of housing policies and programs in the area. The Homeless Coalition was formed in January 2002 in response to the ―SCPI‖ (Supporting Communities Partnership Initiatives) program, which was a federal program providing funding to help address homelessness. It is comprised of 36 organizations and individuals from the housing, health and social services sectors. It meets monthly and supports four active subcommittees: Executive, Public Awareness, Lobbying and Tenancy at Risk. The Homeless Coalition prepared a paper in May, 2009 entitled: ―An Integrated Support and Housing Model for Windsor-Essex Updated 2009‖, in which it outlines its thinking on the most effective approaches to address problems related to homelessness. The Coalition points out that it understands homelessness as described by Dr. Uzo Anucha of the University of Windsor, School of Social Work. This model recognizes that housing cannot be viewed as one-dimensional, but is, in fact, the result of complex interaction between factors related to the private market, the state, society and household/individual characteristics. Responses to homelessness must take these factors into account and must be designed accordingly. The model revolves around the concept that support is the integral component for individuals and families who are seeking and/or needing to maintain housing. This is a significant shift from traditional analysis, which focused on the supply of housing as the solution to homelessness. Dr. Anucha argues that housing issues will only be resolved when ―life issues‖ that impact on a person or family‘s ability to obtain and maintain housing are addressed. Support includes providing services based on individual needs, ensuring adequate funding for persons requiring support as well as service providers, and systemic, regulatory changes, particularly in areas related to increasing income support rates, minimum wage and rent control. He indicates that emergency, transitional and permanent housing options, although different in the levels of support needed, should be viewed as a continuum requiring an integrated funding envelope. The report of the Coalition goes on to note that a number of improvements have been introduced to both the support and housing system in Windsor-Essex


since their Integrated Support and Housing Model was first introduced in 2005. The report identifies a long list of improvements in 6 key areas - supports, access, combined emergency/transitional housing, transitional housing on its own, permanent housing and legal/regulatory changes (such as increases in the minimum wage, increases in the NCBS supplement and more programs providing increased capital dollars for expansion and improvement of the current housing stock). The Report goes on to set out a series of 39 recommendations under these 6 areas, ranging from specific recommendations aimed at specific programs (eg. the Aboriginal community receive at least 1 transitional worker) to more general recommendations for broad policy change (eg. more annualized operational funding for support services should be provided). The Coalition emphasizes that it is proposing a comprehensive and coordinated strategy, which is premised upon the provision of a range of housing options and support services. The framework for this strategy recognizes that some clients only need short-term assistance, while others may require intensive, longer-term support to secure and maintain permanent housing. The Coalition points out that the primary recommendations include increasing the number of transitional units in the community and combining emergency/transitional facilities. In addition, they emphasize the need to provide an integrated assessment and case management function that is flexible and responsive to homeless individuals and families. They strongly urge all levels of government to assume responsibility for ensuring a comprehensive and coordinated approach to homelessness and to enhance collaboration in the design and delivery of responses to homelessness. They support the development of a core funding formula that would assist communities to stabilize housing and support services for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness and are critical of the current funding system, which they call unpredictable, unstable and inadequate. They support the ―block funding‖ approach whereby housing and support funding would be provided to local communities in a flexible manner in order to develop and deliver customized approaches to meeting local needs. The Report of the Homeless Coalition is highly consistent with the viewpoints of participants throughout the Focus Group sessions conducted over the course of this study. In particular, the notion of block funding to enable local communities to direct housing and support dollars where they can best meet local needs is a key principle that needs to be strongly advocated to senior levels of government by municipalities such as the City of Windsor and the County of Essex. Our research in conducting this study also finds much in common with the model put forward by the Homeless Coalition and similarly supports a highly integrated and collaborative approach by housing providers, support service agencies and government funders.


In terms of the 39 specific recommendations contained in the Report of the Homeless Coalition, there are few with which we would disagree. The recommendations related to access are particularly consistent with the findings regarding the Central Housing Registry and the need to improve access for applicants. The Coalition should continue to press all levels of government to support and implement these recommendations. We commend the Homeless Coalition for a thoughtful and highly relevant approach to addressing homelessness in Windsor-Essex. The recommendations contained in the Final Report and Recommendations for this study have incorporated some of the key ideas and approaches put forward by the members of the Coalition. We also strongly urge the City and County to support the ongoing work of the Coalition, which is one of the most effective vehicles for sharing of information and development of policies and programs addressing homelessness in the Windsor-Essex area.


5.0 Summary of Issues in Improving the Delivery of Social

Housing Programs and Policies

The following is a summary of the issues that have been identified with regard to improving the delivery of social housing programs and policies in Windsor-Essex. The policy-making approach to social housing programs requires local relevance and context in order to be more effective in meeting local needs.

There is little input from municipalities on ―customized‖ approaches to applying available funding. The needs of the City of Windsor differ greatly from other parts of Ontario; yet, the City must adhere to the same criteria and conditions as all other communities. The City understands its own needs in greater depth than senior levels of government and is in the best position to determine how best to apply available housing supports.

Staff collaborate together, and partner with community agencies effectively.

Considerable evidence was found that the delivery of mandated programs by the City and partner agencies is both effective and collaborative. The existence of HAC, CHRAC (Central Housing Registry Advisory Committee) and the Homeless Coalition of Windsor Essex County provide effective ongoing forums for exchange of information and mutual support in housing initiatives.

Consultations found the City‘s approach to the delivery of programs highly positive – staff work with applicants in a collaborative, flexible and supportive manner in order to enhance the opportunities for successfully accessing housing programs.

More frequent meetings between the City Social Housing staff and social housing providers as a group should be encouraged to ensure a full and ongoing exchange of issues and concerns between the City as Municipal Service Manager and these providers. For example, the City could spearhead an initiative to assist smaller social housing providers in adopting more effective information technology to enhance communications and reduce costs for all involved.

Opportunities for improving efficiency by integrating the application process for the Central Housing Registry with the application process for Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disabilities Support Program (ODSP)


should be explored. Essentially, it is recognized that, if an individual qualifies for OW or ODSP and is in need of housing, they would automatically be eligible to be placed on the Central Housing Registry waiting list without needing to provide income documentation, etc. to a second agency. This needs to be explored so that OW/ODSP staff can become a bigger part of the housing team. It is recognized that the client has to have choice in enabling their personal information to be provided to both agencies.

Concerns were expressed about the increasing cost of delivering the federal RRAP program, while administrative fees have been frozen by CMHC for many years. City staff have determined that the cost of delivering the program exceeds the fees being paid; nevertheless, this method of delivery maximizes the funding that comes to Windsor and the benefits to local homeowners, landlords and tenants. The City should advocate to CMHC to review the administration fee structure for the program, which has not been changed for many years.

The Windsor Essex County Central Housing Registry is effective in its operations, but some improvements could be introduced.

Staff are concerned that they are under-resourced. There are currently four individuals responsible for all functions of the Registry and staff have expressed that keeping fully up-to-date with the flow of applications and documentation is increasingly challenging. This has created a backlog in keeping up with the workload.

The move to a separate location has been highly important in establishing a separate identity for the Registry. However, staff at the Registry are concerned that the current location presents accessibility challenges for some applicants. Face-to-face contact is important to help staff explain the process to applicants, yet it was expressed that the current location can be a barrier to some. It is acknowledged that there may be other reasons for this decline in face-to-face contact, such as a lack of knowledge among applicants about the change in location. Staff of the Registry should work with the Housing Services Division to review this issue to determine how to enhance access to the location for applicants.

The paper flow (primarily applications) between the Registry and CHC can be lengthy. Staff of the Registry should work with CHC to determine a better approach to speed up the flow of information to the Registry.

The current application process does not permit online (electronic) applications. This disadvantages both the clients and the staff and leads


to increased cost for both applicants and staff and reduced levels of efficiency in processing applications. Many other similar registries are utilizing electronic applications.

Similarly, not all social housing providers utilize computer technology to communicate with the Registry. The City should work to ensure all providers are able to take advantage of information technology.

Staff expressed concern that some applicants were moving to the head of the list by claiming Priority 2 Status (homeless) by simply going to a shelter and registering their names. They advised that the City needed to review its process for verifying homeless status.

Both applicants and Registry staff expressed concern that the supply of modified units is not meeting the demand, especially within central areas of the City. It was also expressed that the types of modifications available are not always consistent with the current needs of disabled individuals.

Registry staff felt they should be meeting regularly with housing providers to ensure they are fully familiar with the role of the Registry, its processes and its regulatory framework. Applicants also felt more ongoing education was required to assist them in understanding the application process and improving their opportunities to access available units.

Registry staff noted a desire for more training and development to stay up-to-date with changes in social housing.


Appendix A: Consultation Participants


Central Housing Registry Advisory Committee

Contact Organization

Marina Clemens Chair; Director, Drouillard Place

Josephine Heuton Director, Windsor-Essex Central Housing Registry (WECHR)

Chris Vickers Residence Director, Windsor Y Residence Inc.

Jim Steele Chief Executive Officer, Windsor Essex Community Housing Corporation

(WECHC)

Steve Govette Manager of Housing, Facilities and Employment Services, Canadian Mental

Health Association (CMHA)

Shelley Gilbert Coorindator of Social Work Services, Legal Assistance of Windsor-Essex

Susan Kennedy Windsor-Essex Children‘s Aid Society

Major Malba Holiday Salvation Army, Executive Director

Gary Pryor Executive Director, Windsor Homes Coalition Inc.

Elayne Isaac Tenant Liaison, Can-Am Urban Native Non-Profit Homes, Inc.

Judy Williamson Housing Information Services

Karen Boal Program Coordinator, Association of Persons with Physical Disabilities

(APPD)

Thom Rolfe Executive Director, Hiatus House

Homeless Coalition of Windsor-Essex County


Colleen Mitchell Coordinator, Health Initiatives, Multicultural Council of Windsor-

Essex County; Preceptor, Faculty of Nursing, University of Windsor and Chair, Homeless Coalition of Windsor-Essex County

Becky Parent Community Developer, Homeless Coalition of Windsor-Essex County

Michelle Stein Executive Director, Youth and Family Resources Network

Chris Vickers Residence Director, Windsor Y Residence Inc.

Elayne Isaac Tenant Liaison, Can-Am Urban Native Non-Profit Homes, Inc.

Nicole Meunier Nursing student, University of Windsor

Andrew de Jesus Nursing student, University of Windsor

Social Work student, University of Windsor

Central Housing Registry Staff


Josephine Heuton Director

Nancy Wightman Applications/Interview Clerk

Jeannette Cole Applications/Interview Clerk

Joyce Nagy Applications/Interview Clerk


City and County Staff


Rob Oleynik Coordinator, Housing Administration and Development

Kathy Macintyre Social Worker, Social and Health Services

Paul Miron Coordinator, Housing Administration and Policy

Jean Marc Smith Technical/Maintenance Support

Teresa Piruzza Executive Director of Social Support

Mary Quaggiotto Loans Officer, RRAP, Building Department

Mike Deimling Social Housing Analyst

Kathy Martel Manager, Ontario Works South

Lucy Sobczyk Acting Manager of Residential Services

Al Peach Manager of Inspections, Building Department


Appendix B: Bibliography

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). (2008). Rental Market

Reports – Windsor. 24 October 2008. Available online at the CMHC Order Desk at https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/b2c/b2c/init.do?language=en

City of Ottawa. (2001-2010). Investing in Affordable Housing.

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/housing/investing/index_en.html City of Windsor. (2009). 2009 Approved Operating Budget.

http://www.citywindsor.ca/DisplayAttach.asp?AttachID=15610 Government of Ontario, Ministry of Community and Social Services. (2008, July

7). About the Ontario Disability Support Program. Retrieved from http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/english/pillars/social/odsp

Government of Ontario, Ministry of Community and Social Services. (2004,

December). Review of Employment Assistance Programs in Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program.

Government of Ontario, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2000,

October 12). Backgrounder: Coordinated Access to Social Housing. 2 December 2009. Retrieved from http://www.knpha.ca/Reference/MMAH_Coordinated_Access_download_20001012-1e.htm

Income Security Advocacy Centre. (2009, November). Current Social Assistance

Rates. Retrieved from http://incomesecurity.org/documents/2percentincrease-NovDec2009.doc

Peel Region. (2009). Human Services Plan: Putting it into Action 2009 – 2011

(Executive Summary). http://www.peelregion.ca/social-services/plan09-12/pdfs/HumanServicePlan-Public-Summary.pdf

Windsor-Essex Community Information Database and Community Information

Online Consortium (CIOC). ―Organization/Program Search‖. 2009.

https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/b2c/b2c/init.do?language=en

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/housing/investing/index_en.html

http://www.citywindsor.ca/DisplayAttach.asp?AttachID=15610

http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/english/pillars/social/odsp

http://www.knpha.ca/Reference/MMAH_Coordinated_Access_download_20001012-1e.htm

http://www.knpha.ca/Reference/MMAH_Coordinated_Access_download_20001012-1e.htm

http://incomesecurity.org/documents/2percentincrease-NovDec2009.doc

http://www.peelregion.ca/social-services/plan09-12/pdfs/HumanServicePlan-Public-Summary.pdf

http://www.peelregion.ca/social-services/plan09-12/pdfs/HumanServicePlan-Public-Summary.pdf

windsor-essex hars special initiative study … windsor/essex housing analysis and recommended...

Documents