All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018

Business Plan 2013-2018 All-Together Affordable Housing Corporation alltogetherhousing.ca

1|Page

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS All-Together wishes to recognize the work done by our Board Directors Scott Henderson and Matt Richardson. Their studies have helped define the key strategic directions for our business plan 2013 – 2018. We would also like to thank Mr. John MacTavish, the Executive Director of HIV/AIDS Regional Services (HARS) for his willingness to form a new partnership with All-Together in support of our plan to provide a range of housing options to Persons living with HIV/AIDS (PHAs) in the Hastings-Prince Edward region. We also wish to thank the Hamilton Affordable Housing Flagship for sharing with us its business plans for pocket housing in the City of Hamilton. And finally the Board of All-Together wishes to acknowledge the advice and financial support of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation through its seed funding program for affordable housing.

2|Page

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary

pages 4-6

2. Organization and Services

pages 7- 8

  

Mission Vision Values Strategic Goals and Directions

3. Market Analysis    

Demographic Profile Households Housing Affordability Income Dynamics

4. Competitive Analysis 

pages 9 - 18

pages 19 - 22

Marketing and Service Objectives

5. Housing Projects  

3|Page

Micro-Space Housing Positive Space Housing

pages 24 - 32 pages 33 – 41

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY All-Together Affordable Housing Corporation (“All-Together”) is a not-for-profit, charitable housing corporation founded in July 2007 by four local agencies in the Hastings-Prince Edward region. Its mandate is to provide housing for low and modest income individuals, primarily in the communities of Hastings County (including Belleville and Quinte West) All-Together is also an active member of the Affordable Housing Action Network (AHAN), a group of more than 100 individuals and agencies who have chosen to work collaboratively to make a difference in the area of homelessness and affordable housing. In the fall of 2012, the Board of All-Together authorized two studies which would form the basis of our first five (5) year Business Plan. The Housing Need and Demand study for Hastings County provides a detail report on the affordable housing crisis in Hastings County. The data from the report has been shared with the Affordable Housing Action Network and the Hastings County Housing Branch which is currently developing its ten-year plan to address affordable housing and homelessness. The Positive Space study confirms a need for a range of housing options for persons living with HIV/AIDS in our area and would ensure All-Together’s status as the main local housing provider for this unique group of at-risk individuals. Observations and Recommendations from our two studies: 

 

Hastings County is getting older. Most of the communities in this region had a percentage of their population 65 years of age and older that was higher than the provincial rate. Single non-seniors, aged 55 to 64, have traditionally been the hardest to house because there are fewer options available to them in a rental market. We need to prepare for this. In 2011, Households without children was the largest represented group in Hastings County. According to 2008 tax filer data, the median household income for all households was $60,940 in Hastings County; almost $10,000 less than the median household income for all households in Ontario. Median household income for one person households was significantly less at $23,480 for Hastings County and lone parent family households were not much higher at $30,500. This means housing options for one person households and single family households are limited by these lower incomes.

4|Page

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 









Vacancy rates for some bedroom units such as 1 bedroom apartments in Belleville and 2 bedroom apartments in Quinte West are not as healthy as they could be. Also, there are relatively few bachelor apartments in Quinte West and the communities of Centre and North Hastings. There has been a 77.6% increase in the Social Housing Wait List in Hastings County from 2007 to 2011. Although families comprise the bulk of households on the waiting list, the number of non-senior singles on the list has increased by 128.9% since 2007 compared to the 76.9% for seniors and the 47.2% for families. The current wait time in Hastings County for seniors waiting for housing is 6 months to two years, families can expect to wait two to five years, and singles have the longest wait at an estimated six to eight years. The need and demand for supportive housing and supportive services for Persons living with HIV/AIDS (PHA) in Hastings-Prince Edward and South East Ontario is strong. There are no options in the region outside of Ottawa and Toronto. It is recommended that All-Together Affordable Housing proceed with plans to implement supportive housing and support services for PHAs in South East Ontario. There are decisions to be made when it comes to choosing a housing model. Each model has its strengths and weaknesses. For reasons that include: simplification of case management functions, centralization and integration of services, cost effectiveness, reduced risk, increased accessibility, client affordability, and ability to provide clients the opportunity to stabilize, it is recommended that the transitional communal living housing model be implemented as the starting point. Acting as a regional solution offers the ability to help more people, enter into a larger selection of innovative partnerships and potentially access a greater pool of funding opportunities. It is recommended that the program’s jurisdiction cover all South East Ontario. This would match the jurisdiction of HARS and the South East Local Health Integration Network (SE LHIN). Doing so would make partnerships with these agencies natural and easier to administer and open doors to funding. Regional solutions are highly regarded and encouraged by the SE LHIN and viewed as a funding priority in the SE region.

Conclusion For the period 2013-2018, All-Together will focus on housing solutions for unattached, single, non-senior individuals. We will promote small-scale, sustainable, energy-efficient micro-housing solutions for our clients. Housing may be transitional or permanent, supportive or non-supportive, depending on the partnerships that can be developed and

5|Page

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 the needs of our clients. Our approach to housing solutions for our target markets will be SMART, SIMPLE and SUSTAINABLE (S3) All-Together will focus on four strategic directions for the period 2013-2018: Strategic Direction #1 To provide more affordable, independent living units for single individuals of low or modest income with a focus on micro-housing solutions. Strategic Direction #2 To provide a range of housing options for single individuals of low or modest income living with HV/AIDS in partnership with local/regional health and service providers Strategic Direction #3 To launch a major capital fundraising campaign in 2014 in support of strategic directions #1 and #2. Strategic Direction #4 To implement an effective communications strategy in support of our micro-space and positive space campaigns 

“Housing is a fundamental human right and a major determinant of the health of individuals, families and indeed our whole community. Our community, all of us together, is responsible to ensure all our citizens are adequately housed.” 

6|Page

-John Martyn, Peterborough housing activist

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 ORGANIZATION AND SERVICES All-Together Affordable Housing Corporation (“All-Together”) is a registered charity and not-for-profit housing corporation founded in July 2007 by four local agencies: Community Advocacy and Legal Centre, Hastings Housing Resource Centre, Three Oaks Foundation and United Way of Quinte. All-Together is an active member of the Affordable Housing Action Network (AHAN), a group of more than 100 individuals and agencies who have chosen to work collaboratively to make a difference in the area of homelessness and affordable housing. The corporation owns and operates a transitional communal housing project called Tom’s Place (Belleville) for individuals who are homeless or at risk-of-homelessness. Our partner, Canadian Mental Health Association, provides support to the tenants. All-Together also owns a one bedroom condo on Haig Road (Belleville) which is a rentgeared-to-income unit for individuals leaving Tom’s Place. Mission/Vision To provide and operate non-profit residential accommodation and incidental facilities exclusively for persons of low income; senior citizens primarily of low or modest income; or disabled persons primarily of low or modest income. All-Together believes that every person has the right to live in dignity, the right to reside in sustainable housing that is safe, decent, affordable, suited to the person’s individual and familial needs, adapted to the person’s physical and mental capabilities, and supportive of the person’s physical and psychological requirements. Values: Partnerships: We build collaborative, cooperative relationships to meet the needs of clients and the community as a whole. Client-centred: We treat all of our clients in a compassionate, understanding, non-judgmental way, while respecting the client’s right to informed decision-making. Accountability: We are responsible, transparent, ethical and professional in everything we do.

7|Page

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 Strategic Goals  Non-financial goals 1. To successfully house clients and provide appropriate support and services. 2. To be known as a local leader in the provision of affordable micro-housing solutions. 3. To be known as a responsible “Housing First” community partner that provides safe, affordable, and environmentally sustainable housing. 4. To establish connections and relationships with other service providers and stakeholders 5. To build and expand on our network of partnerships with local business, the trades, government and private citizens (opinion leaders)  Financial goals 1. To provide affordable housing while maximizing financial returns in order to fund the creation of more affordable housing. 2. To access all manner of government grants, donations, and other funding programs in order to build more affordable housing. 3. To become known as an innovator in financing the creation of affordable housing. 4. To build partnerships with the private sector to help fund the development of affordable housing. 5. To connect with politicians, the local business community and private citizens to obtain donations of land, buildings and capital. Strategic Directions 2013-2018 Strategic Direction #1 To provide more affordable, independent living units for single individuals of low or modest income with a focus on micro-housing solutions. Strategic Direction #2 To provide a range of housing options for single individuals of low or modest income living with HV/AIDS in partnership with local/regional health and service providers Strategic Direction #3 To launch a major capital fundraising campaign in 2014 in support of strategic directions #1 and 2. Strategic Direction #4 To implement an effective communications strategy in support of our micro-space and positive space campaigns

8|Page

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 MARKET ANALYSIS DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 1. POPULATION CHANGE

Hastings County’s population has increased at a fairly constant rate of 3.4% to 3.6 % since 2001 despite having previously declined by -0.1% from 1996-2001. The rate of growth is lower than the provincial level of growth that has been steady at between 5.5% and 6.5% over the same period. The median growth in Central Hastings was 4.1% with the Municipality of Tweed experiencing the highest growth rate from 2006 to 2011 at 7.9%. Deseronto’s growth rate was minimal at 0.6%. Neither Belleville nor Quinte West has kept up with the County trend in growth with Belleville registering 1.3% and Quinte West 0.9%. Most of the municipalities in North Hastings declined significantly from 2006 to 2011. 2. AN AGING POPULATION In 2011, percentages of the population 65 years or older in Belleville at 19.2% and Quinte West at 16.9 % were higher than the provincial average of 14.6%. All of the communities in Central Hastings had percentages in excess of 17% while all of the municipalities in North Hastings had percentages of the population 65+ exceeding 20%. It is estimated that fully 41.7% of the population of Hastings County will be 55 years of age or older by 2036. The age group of 55+ has traditionally been a group that requires more housing options. Some in their mid-50s may take early retirement as an option and may also consider downsizing their current housing option; moving from traditional single-detached homes to smaller homes or apartments. Seniors may also need more supports as they age and may relocate to dwellings with these supportive options provided. Single non-seniors, aged 55 to 64, have traditionally been the hardest to house because there are fewer options available to them in a rental market.

9|Page

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018

HOUSEHOLDS 1. HOUSEHOLD DYNAMICS In 2011, Households without children were the largest represented group in Hastings County. The percentage of households containing a couple (married or common-law) without children was 30.7%. In Belleville, the largest household group was one person households at 30.4% compared to the predominant group of households containing a couple (married or common-law) The implications of these household dynamics are that there may not be enough housing options for these groups. Certainly, there are relatively few bachelor apartments in Central and North Hastings so the options are limited to larger units at an increased cost or shared accommodations with less privacy. For couples without children, there may be more rental units but the cost of purchasing a new home is prohibitive to one income couples or low income families; especially for those requiring even more space in anticipation of having children. 2. NON-CENSUS FAMILIES

Statistics are also available that allow us to view the total number of persons not in census families. These are persons who are not in a normal family dynamic but rather persons who are either living with relatives, non-relatives, or by themselves. These same profiles are also available for the age group 65 years and over. The percentage of persons not in census families who are living alone and the percentage aged 65 years and over who are living alone were highest in Belleville at 86.8%; higher than Quinte West, Hastings County and provincial levels. In Central Hastings, the Municipality of Tweed had the highest percentage of non-census family persons living alone at 88.5%. Every municipality in North Hastings encountered higher percentages of persons living alone when compared to Hastings County. The Town of Bancroft reported the highest percentage of seniors, at 90.8%, living alone. Seniors who live alone value their independence but may require less space and may be over-housed. Adversely there are many families who are under-housed and require more space for growing families. Having more housing options available suited to the space requirements for those who choose to live alone would free up larger apartments and homes for those who need them the most.

10 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Traditionally, affordability has been based on a ratio of housing costs to total household income. A household paying 30% or more of its pre-tax income for housing is considered to have affordability problems. Those who have to spend 30% or more of their income on housing may have insufficient income left for nutritious meals and other basic necessities. In 2006 (the last year for which we have Census housing affordability data), 24.7% of households in Hastings County paid 30% or more of their household income on housing. The range was from 13.9% of couple families with children, to 43.8% of one person households. Lone parent families also had a high rate (42.6%) of lack of affordable housing. In 2006, 5.6% of all homeowner households and 30.6% of renter households in Hastings County were spending more than 30% of before-tax household income on shelter. Even more alarming, 2.6% percent of owner households and 11.8% of renter households were spending in excess of 50% of household income on shelter costs. 1. THE RENTAL MARKET There are several indicators that provide solid analysis of affordability in a region. Average rents provide a good comparison to rental markets in other municipalities. Vacancy and availability rates illustrate how healthy the rental market is in an area by providing data what rental units may be available. Also, tracking what a household pays for rent can tell us if the unit is affordable and if a family or individual is paying too much for shelter costs as a percentage of their income. 2. AVERAGE RENTS: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s (CMHC) Rental Market Survey provides a snapshot of vacancy and availability rates, and average rents in both new and existing structures. Utilities such as heating, electricity and hot water may or may not be included in the rent. The following table provides a snapshot of average rents in Belleville and Quinte West from 2010 to 2012.

11 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 TABLE 1: PRIVATE APARTMENT AVERAGE RENTS BY BEDROOM TYPE, BELLEVILLE & QUINTE WEST, 2010 – 2012

Centre Belleville CA Zone 1 - City of Belleville Zone 2 - City of Quinte West Ontario 10,000+

Bachelor OctOct201 2010 1 $59 $590 9 $61 $597 1

Oct201 2 $60 8 $61 7

$478

**

498

$708

$74 1

$75 9

1 Bedroom Oct- OctOct201 201 2012 0 1 $70 $73 $766 4 5 $72 $76 $798 1 2 $64 $65 $671 9 0 $84 $86 $893 4 6

2 Bedroom

3 Bedroom +

Oct2010

Oct2011

Oct2012

Oct2010

Oct2011

Oct2012

$810

$840

$866

$912

$948

$1,031

$833

$873

$900

$945

$1,010

$1,060

$761

$770

$795

$795

$780

$923

$980

$1,002

$1,03 3

$1,205 $1,234

$1,280

Source: Rental Market Report, 2010, 2011, & 2012 Canada Mortgage and Housing

** Data suppressed to protect confidentiality or data not statistically reliable The average rent for a Bachelor apartment in the City of Belleville increased by 3.4% from 2010 to 2012 and by 4.2% in Quinte West. The average rent for 1 bedroom units increased by 10.7% over the same time period in Belleville compared to the 3.4% in Quinte West and 5.8% at the Ontario level. This comparison was also similar for 2 and 3 bedroom units. In Belleville, the increase in average rent for 2 bedroom units from 2010 to 2012 was 8.0% compared to 4.5% for Quinte West and 5.4% for Ontario. For 3+ bedroom apartments, the increase in average rent from 2010 to 2012 was highest in Quinte West at 16.1% and was 12.2% in Belleville compared to a relatively lower increase of 6.2% for Ontario.

TABLE 2: PRIVATE ROW (TOWNHOUSE) AVERAGE RENTS BY BEDROOM TYPE, BELLEVILLE & QUINTE WEST, 2010 -- 2012

Centre Belleville CA Zone 1 - City of Belleville Zone 2 - City of Quinte West Ontario 10,000+

Bachelor Oct- Oct- Oct2010 2011 2012 n/u n/u n/u

1 Bedroom Oct- Oct- Oct2010 2011 2012 ** ** n/s

2 Bedroom Oct- OctOct2010 2011 2012 $789 $829 $811

3 Bedroom + OctOctOct2010 2011 2012 $885 $909 $912

n/u

n/u

n/u

**

**

n/s

$801

$839

$822

$894

**

**

n/u

n/u

n/u

n/u

n/u

n/u

**

**

**

**

**

**

$468

$517

$503

$738

$720

$764

$932

$937

$962

$1,123

$1,154

$1,173

Source: Rental Market Report, 2010, 2011 & 2012 Canada Mortgage and Housing **= Data suppressed to protect confidentiality or data not statistically reliable. N/u= No units exist for this category

As can be seen in the table above, there is not as much information available for Private Row (Townhouse) average rents. Townhouses traditionally contain two or more bedrooms so the inclusion of Bachelor or 1 Bedroom units is to illustrate that these options do not exist in this region or that data is not available for these.

12 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 3. 2012 RENTAL RATES FOR OTHER COMMUNITIES IN HASTINGS COUNTY The following are current rental rates for other communities in Hastings County. These rates were obtained through listings available through the Hastings Housing Resource Centre, Kijiji, local newspapers, and online real estate companies. Duplication in listings has been removed to create a more accurate average for these rental rates. Where no listings exist or the sampling rate was too low to create an accurate average, N/A will be displayed. The chart below the rental rates details what gross monthly or gross annual income would be required to afford the rent without exceeding 30% of gross income. TABLE 3: 2012 RENTAL RATES, DESERONTO, 2012 MONTHLY AVERAGE HOUSE RENTAL RATES 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3+ BEDROOM AREA HOUSE HOUSE HOUSE DESERONTO

AREA

$700

N/A

$1,125

GROSS MONTHLY INCOME REQUIRED (ANNUAL INCOME) 2 BEDROOM 3+ BEDROOM HOUSE HOUSE /SINGLE PARENT /SINGLE 1 BEDROOM WITH 1 CHILD PARENT WITH HOUSE OR 2 2+ CHILDREN /1 INDIVIDUALS OR A COUPLE INDIVIDUAL WITH OR WITH 1 OR WITHOUT CHILDREN

DESERONTO

$2,334 ($28,000)

N/A

MONTHLY AVERAGE APARTMENT RENTAL RATES 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3+ BEDROOM APARTMENT APARTMENT APARTMENT $650

N/A

GROSS MONTHLY INCOME REQUIRED (ANNUAL INCOME) 2 BEDROOM 3+ BEDROOM APARTMENT APARTMENT /SINGLE PARENT /SINGLE 1 BEDROOM WITH 1 CHILD PARENT WITH APARTMENT OR 2 2+ CHILDREN /1 INDIVIDUAL INDIVIDUALS WITH OR WITHOUT CHILDREN

MORE

CHILDREN $3,750 ($45,000)

$817

$2,167 ($26,000)

OR A COUPLE WITH 1 OR MORE CHILDREN

$2,723 ($32,680)

N/A

*Several listings for 3 bedroom apartment units were found but no listings for apartments with 4 or more bedrooms.

TABLE 4: 2012 RENTAL RATES AND GROSS MONTHLY INCOME REQUIRED, MUNICIPALITIES IN CENTRAL HASTINGS, 2012 MONTHLY AVERAGE APARTMENT RENTAL MONTHLY AVERAGE HOUSE RENTAL RATES RATES 3+ 1 BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM AREA 2 BEDROOM HOUSE 3+ BEDROOM HOUSE BEDROOM HOUSE APARTMENT APARTMENT APARTMENT MADOC

$700

$960

$1,107

N/A

$650

N/A

MARMORA

$625

$814

$1,031

$675

N/A

N/A

TWEED

$660

$813

$1,056

$697

$741

$767*

STIRLING

N/A

$975

N/A

$605

$699

N/A

13 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 GROSS MONTHLY INCOME REQUIRED (ANNUAL INCOME)

AREA

MADOC MARMORA TWEED STIRLING

1 BEDROOM HOUSE /1 INDIVIDUAL

$2,334 ($28,000) $2,083 ($25,000) $2,200 ($26,400) N/A

2 BEDROOM HOUSE /SINGLE PARENT WITH 1 CHILD OR 2 INDIVIDUALS WITH OR WITHOUT CHILDREN

$3,200 ($38,400) $2,713 ($32,560) $2,710 ($32,520) $3,250 ($39,000)

3+ BEDROOM HOUSE /SINGLE PARENT WITH 2+ CHILDREN OR A COUPLE WITH 1 OR MORE CHILDREN

$3,690 ($44,280) $3,437 ($41,240) $3,520 ($42,240) N/A

GROSS MONTHLY INCOME REQUIRED (ANNUAL INCOME) 3+ 2 BEDROOM BEDROOM APARTMENT APARTMENT /SINGLE /SINGLE 1 BEDROOM PARENT PARENT APARTMENT WITH 1 WITH 2+ /1 CHILD OR 2 CHILDREN INDIVIDUAL INDIVIDUALS OR A WITH OR WITHOUT CHILDREN

N/A $2,250 ($27,000) $2,324 ($27,880) $2,017 ($24,200)

COUPLE WITH 1 OR MORE CHILDREN

$2,167 ($26,000)

N/A

N/A

N/A

$2.470 ($29,640) $2,330 ($27,960)

$2,557 ($30,680) N/A

TABLE 5: 2012 RENTAL RATES AND GROSS MONTHLY INCOME REQUIRED, BANCROFT, 2012 MONTHLY AVERAGE HOUSE RENTAL RATES AREA

1 BEDROOM HOUSE

2 BEDROOM HOUSE

3+ BEDROOM HOUSE

BANCROFT

$533

$717

$875

GROSS MONTHLY INCOME REQUIRED (ANNUAL INCOME)

AREA

BANCROFT

14 | P a g e

1 BEDROOM HOUSE /1 INDIVIDUAL

$1.777 ($21,320)

2 BEDROOM HOUSE /SINGLE PARENT WITH 1 CHILD OR 2 INDIVIDUALS WITH OR WITHOUT CHILDREN

3+ BEDROOM HOUSE /SINGLE PARENT WITH 2+ CHILDREN OR A COUPLE WITH 1 OR MORE CHILDREN

$2,390 ($28,680)

$2,917 ($35,000)

MONTHLY AVERAGE APARTMENT RENTAL RATES 3+ 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM BEDROOM APARTMENT APARTMENT APARTMENT $629

$690

N/A

GROSS MONTHLY INCOME REQUIRED (ANNUAL INCOME) 3+ 2 BEDROOM BEDROOM APARTMENT APARTMENT /SINGLE /SINGLE PARENT 1 BEDROOM PARENT WITH 1 APARTMENT WITH 2+ CHILD /1 CHILDREN OR 2 INDIVIDUAL OR A INDIVIDUALS WITH OR WITHOUT CHILDREN

$2,167 ($26,000)

$2,300 ($27,600)

COUPLE WITH 1 OR MORE CHILDREN

N/A

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 INCOME DYNAMICS Families and individuals who pay more than 30% of their income on shelter costs do not have enough money left for nutritious food and other necessities.

1. INCOME DISPARITIES & LOW INCOME Median household incomes for one and two or more person households were higher in Belleville and Quinte West than those reported at the County level but significantly lower than those reported for all of Ontario. Interestingly, median household incomes for all households were higher in Quinte West than in Belleville. Despite having median incomes above the County level, Belleville reported a higher percentage in 2006 of persons living on a low income; 15.1% compared to 12.0% in Quinte West, 13.2% in Hastings County and 14.7% in Ontario

2. 2008 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN HASTINGS COUNTY According to 2008 tax filer data, the median household income for all households was $60,940 in Hastings County; almost $10,000 less than the median household income for all households in Ontario. Median household income for one person households was significantly less at $23,480 for Hastings County and lone parent family households were not much higher at $30,500. This means housing options for one person households and single family households are limited by these lower incomes. TABLE 6: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES, HASTINGS COUNTY, 2008 MUNICIPALITY

HASTINGS COUNTY ONTARIO

HOUSEHOLDS (2008) MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 2008

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 2008 - ONE-PERSON

– COUPLE HOUSEHOLDS

HOUSEHOLDS

WITHOUT CHILDREN

$23,480 $25,450

$57,380 $61,770

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 2008 - ALL HOUSEHOLDS $60,940 $70,910

Source: 2008 Tax Filer Data, Revenue Canada & Statistics Canada

TABLE 7: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES BY FAMILY TYPE, HASTINGS COUNTY, 2008 COUPLE FAMILIES

HASTINGS COUNTY 15 | P a g e

LONE PARENT FAMILIES MEDIAN MEDIAN

MEDIAN

MEDIAN INCOME IN 2008 -LONE PARENT FAMILIES WITH 1 CHILD

INCOME IN 2008 -LONE PARENT FAMILIES WITH 2 CHILDREN

INCOME IN 2008 -LONE PARENT FAMILIES WITH 3+ CHILDREN

INCOME IN 2008 -ALL LONE PARENT FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN

$29,870

$31,200

$31,890

$30,500

MEDIAN

MEDIAN

MEDIAN

INCOME IN 2008 -COUPLE FAMILIES WITH 1 CHILD

INCOME IN 2008 -COUPLE FAMILIES WITH 2 CHILDREN

INCOME IN 2008 -COUPLE FAMILIES WITH 3+ CHILDREN

INCOME IN 2008 -ALL COUPLE FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN

$74,340

$84,090

$79,570

$66,740

MEDIAN

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 ONTARIO

$86,870

$97,160

$90,700

$78,350

$36,680

$37,940

$35,410

$36,840

Source: 2008 Tax Filer Data, Revenue Canada & Statistics Canada

3. 2011 ESTIMATED INCOMES FOR THE CITY OF BELLEVILLE The Financial Post publishes an annual report which includes information on more than 1,200 Canadian Markets with statistics including population, households, income, and housing among others. “FP Markets - Canadian Demographics 2011 Estimates” is the newest edition and included information on the Average Household Income and Average Family Income in Belleville. TABLE 8: FINANCIAL POST ESTIMATED 2011 INCOMES, BELLEVILLE, 2012 EARNINGS AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME $ AVERAGE FAMILY INCOME $ 2009 PER CAPITA $

BELLEVILLE $66,001 $75,134 $27,234

ONTARIO $87,389 $96,853 $33,417

CANADA $82,608 $94,284 $33,036

(Source: FP Markets - Canadian Demographics 2011 Estimates & Belleville Community Profile 2011)

The 2011 estimates of Income for Belleville are significantly lower than the Provincial and Federal averages. The Average Household Income estimates are 32.4% below the Ontario estimated averages and 25.2% below the Canada totals. The Average Family Income is estimate to be 28.9% less than Ontario and 25.5% less than Canada. 4. SOCIAL ASSISTANCE AND HOUSING The Ontario Works Caseload in Hastings County declined from 3287 in November 2011 to 3093 in November of 2012. This 3093 represents 7352 beneficiaries and even though there was a decrease in the caseload, it does not mean that these recipients were in any less need for affordable housing. The amount provided on social assistance to pay for housing costs has a “maximum limit” which has changed very little. The provincial government increased Ontario Works (OW) and Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) rates by 1%, in December of 2012 but maximum shelter allowances are still not in an acceptable range. For example, a couple family on social assistance with one child receives a maximum of $634 for their housing. If their rent is lower than the maximum, the shelter portion of their social assistance is reduced to the actual rent. If their rent is higher than the maximum, they must pay the difference; money that traditionally would go toward other budget necessities such as nutritional food. The table below shows the monthly Basic Needs and Maximum Shelter amounts both before and after the increase for select family types. Ontario Child Benefit (OCB) amounts are included here to provide a sense of the total maximum monthly income that people on social assistance receive from these provincial sources. No increases were made to the OCB this year. 16 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 TABLE 9: RATES SOCIAL ASSISTANCE, ONTARIO, 2012 CASE TYPE OW SINGLE COUPLE SINGLE PARENT + 1 CHILD 1 SINGLE PARENT + 2 CHILDREN 1 COUPLE + 1 CHILD 1 ODSP SINGLE COUPLE 2 SINGLE PARENT + 1 CHILD 3 SINGLE PARENT + 2 CHILDREN 4

COUPLE 2 + 1 CHILD 3

BEFORE DEC 2012 BASIC NEEDS

AFTER DEC 2012

MAX SHELTER

MAX OCB

TOTAL

MAX SHELTER

MAX OCB

TOTAL

$227 $448 $347

$372 $584 $584

$0 $0 $92

$599 $1032 $1023

$230 $453 $350

$376 $590 $590

$0 $0 $92

$606 $1043 $1032

$347

$634

$184

$1165

$350

$641

$184

$1175

$448

$634

$92

$1174

$453

$641

$92

$1186

$590 $873 $733

$474 $745 $745

$0 $0 $92

$1064 $1618 $1570

$596 $882 $739

$479 $753 $753

$0 $0 $92

$1075 $1635 $1584

$751

$807

$184

$1742

$757

$816

$184

$1757

$873

$807

$92

$1772

$882

$816

$92

$1790

ALLOWANCE

BASIC NEEDS

ALLOWANCE

Source: Select Social Assistance Rates – November / December 2012 Income Security Advocacy Centre TABLE 10: WAITING LIST FOR SOCIAL HOUSING, HASTINGS COUNTY, 2007 – 2011 2007 2008 SENIORS 201 231 FAMILIES 415 352 NON-SENIOR SINGLES 239 363 ALL HOUSEHOLDS 855 946

2009 323 472 440 1235

2010 352 539 475 1366

SOURCE: ONTARIO NON-PROFIT HOUSING ASSOCIATION

There has been a 77.6% increase in the Social Housing Wait List since 2007; with a 15.7 average percentage increase over those 4 years. Although Families make up the bulk of households on the waiting list, the number of Non-Senior Singles on the list has increased by 128.9% since 2011 compared to the 76.9% for Seniors and the 47.2% for Families. The following table illustrates the expected time families, seniors, and non-senior singles may have to wait for social housing in Hastings County.

17 | P a g e

2011 361 611 547 1519

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 TABLE 11: LENGTH OF WAIT FOR SOCIAL HOUSING, HASTINGS COUNTY, 2011 SENIORS

NON-SENIOR SINGLES

FAMILIES

TIME SENIORS WAIT FOR HOUSING

TIME SINGLES WAIT FOR HOUSING

361

547

611

6 months to 2 years

6 to 8 years

TIME FAMILIES WAIT FOR HOUSING

2.5 - 5 years

SOURCE: ONTARIO NON-PROFIT HOUSING ASSOCIATION

The longest wait time is for non-senior singles which comprises the second largest group on the waiting list.

18 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS This section outlines the marketing objectives for All-Together Affordable Housing Corporation, identifying target markets, points of difference, and service positioning. Marketing and Service Objectives – Marketing objectives are divided into two categories, short-term and long-term. One-Year Marketing Objectives -

Connecting with politicians, local businesses, and private citizens to get donations of land, buildings, and funds where possible Establishing connections and relationships with other service providers and benefactors Acquiring sufficient funding to obtain a building and provide affordable rental units, including the hiring of a Fund Developer

Five-Year Marketing Objectives -

-

Become a “Housing First” leader in the community Become the preferred choice for funding allocation for the construction/renovation of micro-housing solutions in the area Become the preferred choice for non-profits who wish to partner with a ‘Housing First bricks-and-mortar’ agency to develop housing options for their clients and tenants Build and expand a network of partnerships with local businesses, the trades, municipal governments, and private citizens

Target Market: Single, unattached low-income residents of Hastings County -

Persons living with HIV/AIDS (PHAs) Persons with mental health issues The “hard-to-house” Social Assistance recipients The “working poor”

Points of Difference All-Together has at least 5 characteristics that distinguish it from other housing providers: -

Eviction Prevention Focus: All-Together’s concern will be in maintaining and preserving tenancies whenever possible, with termination exercised only in the direst of situations.

19 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 -

Communal Wealth: Unlike the private for profit corporations/individuals who have received funding to provide affordable housing units for a specific period of time, All-Together, as a non-profit housing corporation, will keep the funding in the public domain and will provide affordable housing on a permanent basis.

-

Environmentally Friendly Focus: All-Together’s goal is to create 'green' developments in as many respects as possible, including the ability for tenants to easily walk, or take public transit to their destination; incorporating energyefficient design and functionality; incorporating as much efficiency as feasible with an eye to conserving water, minimizing energy consumption, and reducing costs.

-

Micro-housing Focus: All-Together will focus on housing solutions that emphasize small, compact units which offer rents within the maximum shelter allowance of individuals living on ODSP or no more than 30% of the gross income for individuals earning minimum wage. Micro-housing will offer superior accommodation over single room occupancy or rooming houses and because of the built-in features of our smaller units and pricing All-together will be able compete effectively with bachelor apartments. Positive Space Focus: There are currently no agencies between Toronto and Ottawa who are providing a range of housing options to support persons living with HIV/AIDS. All-Together’s entry into this market would be a first for our area.

Positioning All-Together will be able to uniquely position itself in the affordable housing market by: -

Designing rental units to endure the high wear and tear normally associated with low-income housing. This will enable All-Together to cut costs over the long run while providing tenants with quality rental accommodations

-

Creating a tenant friendly environment which will give the tenants a sense of having a “stake” in the enterprise. This will allow All-Together to reduce management costs while giving the tenants a sense of community and belonging

-

Having expertise in landlord and tenant law. This will both allow All-together to keep tenants apprised of their rights and responsibilities and assist All-Together in not running afoul of its responsibilities (a problem that often inhibits private landlords from running their enterprises effectively).

20 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 Marketing Program The four elements of the marketing program for All-Together are described below. 1. Service Strategy We will focus on micro-housing solutions with various stylistic attributes (e.g. open concept, etc.) Units will be: -

accessible (for all types of disabilities) made of durable construction materials energy efficient affordable aesthetically pleasing designed for communal living (noise dampening, independent access)

Rental agreements will be flexible: -

rent may be payable in installments if necessary (e.g. to coincide with pay periods and income payments) tenants will not be required to commit to a 12 month lease transparent complaint procedures will be established proactive property management strategies will be implemented in regards to maintenance of the units

2. Price Strategy Price per unit for social assistance recipients will be the maximum shelter allowance for ODSP and OW + any rent supplements available. Price per unit for non-recipients will be lowest market rent feasible. 3. Place Strategy The planned location of All-Together buildings initially will be in disparate geographical locations of the urban centers of Belleville, Quinte West, Center Hastings, and North Hastings. 4. Advertising, Publicity, and Promotional Activities Community networking will be a large part of All-Together’s promotional agenda. Communications materials such as our new website, social media, pamphlets, brochures, and business cards will be utilized in promotional activities.

21 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 Advertising will be done through public service announcements, and direct distribution of organizational literature. All-Together launched its fully redesigned website in November 2012 to promote its services in the community, including the promotion of membership in the organization, board recruitment, and awareness of affordable housing issues.

22 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018

HOUSING PROJECTS

MICROSPACE & POSITIVE SPACE HOUSING

23 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018

MICRO-SPACE HOUSING WE’LL DO IN A REALLY

WAY 24 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 1.0 Introduction Micro-housing is an increasingly popular idea for creating smaller, more sustainable, more affordable spaces. All-Together will review local options for micro-housing, including new builds (such as pocket housing) and renovation of large, older houses to create a minimum of 5 independent living suites 2.0 Conversion of large single family homes to independent living suites Older single family homes, in particular, can be found in any of the major urban communities of Hastings County and are perfectly poised for repurposing into smaller, more compact multiple units. Micro housing is a viable option to meet the affordable housing challenge in Canada today! As our population ages, downsizing, smaller design, and more effective living spaces, as well as cooperative, intentional, collaborative community building will gain prominence! Small is indeed beautiful, especially when it comes to houses! It is also innovative, affordable, and effective! Phase One All-Together will purchase and convert ONE existing single family house (2500 sq. ft. – 3000 sq. ft.) to accommodate FIVE separate and independent units/suites plus common area spaces to house FIVE low to modest income individuals. This house will demonstrate the viability and sustainability of the ‘micro-housing model’ and include: * FIVE 1- bedroom suites including living/dining room, bathroom, and snack bar * Common area spaces for shared living – kitchen, dining, and living rooms, plus office, laundry, and perhaps even a guest room 3.0 Pocket Housing Model The need to develop low-cost, sustainable, neighbourhood-oriented housing solutions within urban environments is a major issue across Canada. In many jurisdictions, innovative alternative housing models have been proposed to reconcile economic realities with space availability and client needs. 3.1 One particularly innovative alternative that has gained attention is “Pocket Housing”. Initially pioneered in Winnipeg in 2006, the Pocket Housing model brought together divergent groups and funding streams with the goal of implementing housing solutions within the urban centre. The term Pocket Housing reflects the ‘concept of the housing slipping into narrow infill lots like a hand slipping into a pocket’ and has several unique features: 25 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 















Units within a Pocket Housing complex are built to be self-contained and foster independent living within a community context, within a broader neighbourhood setting. Each unit within a Pocket Housing complex maintains a small footprint: typically each unit will contain a kitchenette, washroom, and living space and have its own entrance and front door, all within 200-250 sq. feet. As a result, building (including land and construction) costs are relatively low and as a result rents can be as affordable as possible (approx. $350-400/mth). Pocket Housing complexes are typically constructed using in-fill principles and techniques. In this way, underutilized urban space (for example, vacant lots or surplus city land) can be effectively repurposed to meet social needs. Typically complexes are two storey containing eight units on 30ft by 100 ft. lots. Pocket Housing complexes are designed to integrate within the existing neighbourhood fabric. Through architecture, design, and building material selection, the goal is to ensure these complexes are consistent with the general look-and-feel of the neighbourhood. Recent versions have incorporated the use of more sustainable and energy efficient building practices and design such as, increased insulation levels, vacuum tube solar collection for water pre-heating, high efficiency boiler for normal base heating requirements, multi-zone in-floor radiant heating, and high efficiency lighting. All ground units are barrier free and one ground floor unit is fully wheelchair accessible reflecting the needs of the community including issues of disability and seniors aging in place. Community based support is essential. Community consultation in Winnipeg was extensive and provided residents of the neighbourhood with the assurance that pocket-housing residents will, with community support, be successful neighbours. This is particularly crucial with respect to specific planning-related preparations especially when rezoning or application for variances is required. Pocket Housing allows for partnerships between different levels of government and other stakeholders.

The Pocket Housing model is unique in featuring individual units within a community context embedded within pre-existing neighbourhoods with services and infrastructure. Unlike other forms of affordable housing, such as rooming houses, lodging houses etc., which emphasize shared living and shared space, Pocket Housing emphasizes individual autonomy and privacy balanced with the values of community living and neighbourhood life. Through this design, Pocket Housing not only achieves specific housing-related goals, it also begins to address community reintegration objectives.

26 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 Further, by utilizing in-fill and redevelopment principles, urban intensification creates more sustainable development and sustainable communities. 3.1 Pocket Housing Workplan (based on Affordable Housing Flagship Hamilton Business Plan model) The overall approach to developing pocket housing in Hastings is to have All-Together and interested non-profit housing providers working through the recently created Housing Task Force of the Affordable Housing Action Network to: •

show the viability of the model,

•

identify appropriate sites,

•

advocate to local municipalities for modest levels of capital funding and work with potential community partners who could contribute equity to the pocket housing developments,

•

advocate to local municipalities and provide outreach to neighbours regarding zoning issues/planning approvals to permit the pocket housing

•

identify appropriate builders and architects to be involved in the design and construction of the pocket housing,

•

identify which organizations could provide support or links to support for potential residents, if required,

3.2 Financial Viability 





The estimated hard construction costs of the proposed Pocket Housing Model project would be approximately $347,600, or approximately $43,450 per unit or $158 per square foot (not including land) - based on 275 square feet per apartment for a total building square footage of 2,200. The pocket housing could be financially self-sustaining with a per unit capital grant of $45,000 per unit, assuming the land is donated and the rents are set at $479 per month (an amount equivalent to the current ODSP single person shelter allowance). For project viability, the pocket housing would also need to request a waiver of development charges from the local municipality.

3.2.1 Financial Background The proposed pocket housing project would be developed in accordance with a financially viable business plan. The financial viability of developing new affordable housing is determined by the following key factors: 3.2.2 Cost of Developing/building the new units 27 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 3.2.3 Cost of the Land/Potential Sites 3.2.4 Potential Capital Funding Sources - capital funding from government available and the equity contribution of the housing proponent which both reduce the size of the mortgage needed 3.2.5 Rental Revenues 3.2.6 Operating Costs including the costs of servicing a mortgage. The Cost of Developing/building new units The preferred financial scenario consists of an above grade structure whereby a two storey 8 unit infill building would be constructed including a parking lot for at least two cars that would accommodate a yet to be determined number of vehicles according to zoning requirements. The estimated hard construction cost based on woodframe construction would be $347,000 or approximately $43,450 per unit or $158 per square foot (not including land). Cost of the Land/Potential sites For the purposes of this scenario we have assumed land would be donated or free. Alternatively infill land is relatively inexpensive in Hamilton. All-Together has identified a number of potential sites within the City of Belleville. Potential Capital Funding Sources New Federal Affordable Housing Initiative Financial assistance needs to be provided through government capital funding in order for this project to be financially viable. The required amount of government funds - $45,000 per unit – is almost two-thirds below the $120,000 per unit for recent larger affordable housing projects, thus making the pocket housing very cost efficient from the perspective of government investment in affordable housing. Other Capital Funding Sources Equity/Fundraising: Although there are no concrete plans at this point for fundraising for additional monies, All-Together will undertake a major fundraising campaign in 2014 in order to move this project forward either by in-kind building resources and contractor services or cash.

28 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 There is the potential however, for potential private sector investors and/or community organizations looking to be developers /owners of the pocket housing, to bring their own equity/investment to the project, thus strengthening the financial viability of the project. Rental Revenues Rental Assistance for Residents Most of the residents for whom this model may work as transitional or longer-term housing have low incomes. Many potential occupants would be in receipt of Ontario Disability Support Plan (ODSP) or Ontario Works. The project operating budget assumes that all of the residents will pay $476 for a studio apartment per month. The $479 equals the maximum shelter allowance for persons receiving ODSP. These rent levels will include the cost of all utilities. It is important to note that this will make the project financially self-sustaining over the long run without the need for any additional operating or rent supplements. It is recognized that persons with minimum wage jobs or in receipt of Ontario Works would need modest housing allowance support to make these rents affordable for them and it would be up to Hastings County Housing Services if they wish to allocate housing allowance top ups for this purpose. Operating Costs The viability of the model for a very modest surplus is based on a monthly rent of $479. The operating expenses are based on examples of other recently built affordable housing projects. Advertising and Promotions The rent levels for the 8 new affordable apartments will be below the current market average. As a result, they are anticipated to be highly sought-after particularly by those on a low/fixed income. This fact will serve to reduce the need for extensive advertising or promotional activities. A plan will be established with the operator as to the need for a direct marketing campaign for potential residents to help ensure prompt take-up of the new units. 3.5 Development Readiness All-Together is well situated to act as a champion for this project. Its mandate aligns with the needs of the community, and through its extensive network of stakeholders, it seems well positioned to lead discussion, planning, and implementation of a pockethousing initiative in Hastings County. Further research will be required to support AllTogether in this work, and a pilot project may provide a “quick win” in demonstrating the 29 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 value and impact of pocket housing in Hastings County. The opportunities provided through the pocket-housing model are significant, both for neighbourhoods, communities, and individual clients. As part of the continuum of housing options within a community, Pocket Housing’s affordability and unique features make it an option that warrants serious consideration. The proposed project is in the early stage of development but All-Together is undertaking a number of activities to move the project forward. Several potential infill sites have already been visited. A key issue to be worked through is that of the planning approvals required by the local municipalities in Hastings County. All-Together’s initial focus will be on City of Belleville and City of Quinte West.. While the concept of Pocket housing is to design and build a structure which is similar in size to existing neighbouring homes, the zoning requirements for most residential streets, even in older established neighbourhoods, present barriers to Pocket housing. These barriers exist even though the planning goals of both the Province of Ontario and local municipalities are to encourage compact development, residential intensification and the creation of affordable housing. An example of the planning barriers is that of parking requirements. Even though none of the potential residents of the units are expected to have cars due to their very modest incomes, the zoning requirements in almost all residential neighbourhoods require a minimum of one parking space per residential unit. In addition to working with municipalities on planning issues, All-Together’s next steps in support of pocket housing will be to: •

Locate and determine the pocket housing infill properties which can move ahead at this time

•

Identify which non-profit housing providers are willing to support a pocket housing pilot project development

•

Undertake an environmental assessment on the properties

•

Facilitate an appropriate contractor and architect to undertake the designing and building of the pocket housing.

•

Work with local municipalities to ensure a portion of the new Affordable Housing Investment funding is set aside for pocket housing projects.

•

Identify which organizations could provide support services to those residents in need of support.

30 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 •

Seek a confirmation from local interested municipalities that they will waive the development charges for the pocket housing.

•

Work with the community foundations, Infrastructure Ontario or other financial institutions to obtain mortgage financing.

7.0 OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS Opportunities There are a number of opportunities, as outlined below, that All-Together will seek o capitalize on through development of potential sites. More Effective Use of Land, Infrastructure and Amenities Intensification of an existing property or utilization of a vacant lot or building that is already fully serviced by roads, sewer, and utilities will allow for better and more efficient use of land and infrastructure. It will also permit more effective utilization of on and offsite services and amenities. Pocket housing’s strength is that it fits into existing neighbourhoods utilizing vacant infill sites, as well as the available infrastructure and existing amenities. Demand for Additional Seniors/Singles Housing As noted, there currently exists a strong need for additional affordable housing options for single un attached individuals, including seniors in our area. Over time, this demand is anticipated to grow as the population ages, the number of seniors in the community increases and as those employed in the typically low paying service sector further expands. Hence, the operator should be able to secure residents for the proposed new units, both now and in the future. Risks The 8-unit rental project proposed by All-Together is not without its share of risks and uncertainties. What follows is a summary of some of the potential risks faced by All-Together as it endeavors to pursue its affordable housing goal. 

Business Risks In a seven hundred thousand dollar construction project a number of business risks are likely to be encountered. Detailed financial planning and complex business requirements, for example, could challenge a potential owner and operator.

31 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 

Marketing Risks The new affordable units will be made available to moderate and low-income seniors, non-senior singles at rents significantly below the market average for similar apartments. With numerous households within this demographic currently on the waiting list for affordable housing, All-Together is confident there will be rapid take up.



NIMBYism While community and neighbourhood opposition and vocal ‘Not in My Back Yard’ or ‘NIMBY’ reactions are always possible with any affordable housing development, All-Together members will work with local councillors and the neighbourhood residents through rezoning or minor variance process to ensure support. Neighbourhood engagement is critical for the success of pocket-housing. Further research is required to identify neighourhood-by-neighbourhood needs and concerns, and methods for engaging existing communities in the pockethousing development process. One possible approach would be to leverage the existing (frequently sub-optimal) experience of current neighbourhood rooming houses and provide pocket-housing as a more successful alternative model.



Regulatory Risks Perhaps the greatest uncertainty and therefore, risk, concerns the regulatory approvals process. Most potential properties will require minor variances or rezoning which will require a number of public meetings and the input of councillors and neighborhood residents. This use and infill development should complement the renewal strategies of local municipalities. It will also be of benefit to municipalities if this project is an upgrade from an existing or vacant rooming house or infill property.

8.0 CONCLUSION The opportunities provided through the pocket housing model are significant, both for neighbourhoods, communities, and individual clients. As part of the continuum of housing options within a community, Pocket Housing’s affordability and unique features make it an option that warrants serious consideration.

32 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018

POSITIVE SPACE HOUSING

Protecting Dignity Supporting Healthy Spaces 33 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 INTRODUCTION Housing In Eastern Ontario just 13% of persons living with HIV/AIDS has been provided with housing and support services. What little is available is generally accessible only in major urban centres. There are no options between Ottawa (Bruce House) in the East and Toronto (Fife House) in the West. Despite great need and demand there is a very limited supply of housing and support services all along the housing continuum. Housing Continuum Residential Housing

Supportive/ Transitional Housing

Permanent Affordable Rental Units

-Onsite primary care & case management services

-Onsite support services

-Independent

-Communal living -Transitional

-Dispersed

-Onsite support services

-Greater level of independence

-No limit of length of stay

-Transitional

-Dispersed

Two-thirds of PHAs spend more than 30% of their income (with one-third spending more than 50%) on housing compared to 25% of people in the general population. Rent Geared to Income (RGI) housing was available to only 43% of those sampled. Overall nearly one quarter moved in the past year with 57% of reporting they have moved twice or more. Many PHAs feel significant anxiety about being forced out of their homes due to stigma with 25% reporting that they feel they do not belong in their neighborhood. Over one third report that they have experienced discrimination when trying to find a place to rent. Of those that are housed just 20% feel that their home is a safe and healthy place to live. People with HIV/AIDS who experienced housing instability are more likely to have mental health and addiction issues, more likely to encounter police / incarceration and experience discrimination.

34 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 Housing is a key Social Determinant of Health (SDoH). PHAs with stable housing are more likely to access appropriate health and social services and adhere to antiretroviral treatment regimes. When housing stability increases, risky behaviours have been shown to be reduced by as much as half. Housing is an important component of an HIV/AIDS management treatment plan and a cost effective investment in prevention (by reducing behaviours that cause new infections). It reduces health and social costs related to treatment, care and support. Housing Model Housing models, in general, come in a variety of forms. The most prevalent are; communal/residential, clustered and dispersed. Hybrid models are comprised of a combination of these. The Supportive Housing for HIV/AIDS (SHHA) team has investigated a number of housing models and factored in a variety of considerations in the decision-making process. The most crucial aspect of the proposed SHHA program is filling a void in the continuum of housing by providing supportive housing options that offer a blend of residential and dispersed options that are integrated with the community with case management services. Residential models are centralized and therefore offer a greater level of convenience (and possibly cost savings) in terms of service provision and possibly maintenance. Unfortunately, centralized residential models are highly visible, increasing the specter of stigma associated with HIV / AIDS. They also increase the prospect of NIMBYism. Dispersed models, are as the name suggests, spread throughout the community. They are anonymous and therefore offer a greater level of privacy and independence. This decreases the prospect of stigma, discrimination and NIMBYism but also raises the cost and complexity of providing primary health care and support services. Further, residents that are not living in communal models are more likely to become socially isolated so measures to counter isolation need to be developed. A Hybrid Model offers the most options for clients and providers. Clients requiring more intensive primary health care services would benefit from a residential setting with easier access to health services. Tenants that are less sick are more likely to benefit from a greater level of independence (with appropriate support services). Residential living provides the opportunity to stabilize clients and help them prepare for a greater level of independence. Upon intake it would become clear which clients would be best suited for residential vs. independent living.

35 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 Please see a summary of housing models evaluated on the following page:

Table 1: Housing Model Comparison Housing Models Description Communal/Residential Private client rooms in a residential building with shared common areas and amenities.

Conclusions Advantages: Cost, convenience for service provider (i.e. clients are in one location, no need to travel); clients have the opportunity to socialize. Disadvantaged: Less independence, higher visibility, less privacy, increased risk of interpersonal conflict (and by extension police encounters), potential for complications with municipal bylaws, not conducive to the goal of independence, potential for added staff requirements, potential for increased costs (i.e. staffing, higher levels of support etc.), NIMBY, stigma and discrimination (i.e. ghettoization).

Clustered

Dispersed

Private bachelor or one bedroom units with private kitchen and bathrooms located in one building.

Private bachelor or one bedroom units dispersed through HPE.

Advantages: Cost, convenience for service providers, clients have the opportunity to socialize. Disadvantages: Less independence, increased risk of interpersonal conflict, potential for complication with municipal bylaws. This option is not conducive to the goal of independence. NIMBY, stigma and discrimination (i.e. ghettoization). Advantages: Cost, reduced risk of interpersonal conflict, better prepares clients for independent living, little to no risk of NIMBY, no conflict with municipal bylaws Disadvantages: convenience, social isolation, transportation.

36 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 Housing Models

Description

Conclusions

Hybrid

Combination of any of the above options.

Advantages: more options for clients and service providers, more flexibility to meet needs of clients. Disadvantages: complex to implement, cost, risk, planning and operations more complex, may take longer to develop and implement.

Table 2: Housing Models – Decision Matrix Note: Each option provides a level of benefit over the current situation (status quo). For this reason options are evaluated from 1 -3, with 1 representing the lowest score (options that offer less benefit) and 3 (options providing the greatest level of benefits).

Cost

Appropriateness and Flexibility

Health Equity

Stigma

Community Integration

Risk

Compatibility with SHHA Vision

Total Score

2

2

2

1

1

2

1

11

3

2

2

3

3

3

1

17

Communal Transitional

3

3

2

1

3

3

3

18

Hybrid

2

3

3

2

3

3

3

19

Housing Model Clustered Dispersed

Conclusions At the conclusion of the research and investigation process and based on objective evaluation criteria it was determined that the Hybrid option is the most desirable option in the long-term. Although the Hybrid option is preferred it may not be achievable in the short-term. The best starting point from a client service and cost perspective is a transitional communal living model. There is strong demand for affordable housing in the PHA population and a transitional communal living model represents an affordable and accessible option. The model is a particularly good fit for clients that are unstable, those with co-morbidities i.e. mental illness, addictions, Hepatitis C infections etc., and those released from secure custody. A centralized location for case management purposes simplifies the process of coordinating services and centralizing services increases accessibility for clients. 37 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 The transitional communal model is the best starting point. The model affords the opportunity to develop trust and relationships with clients and partners providing services. Over time and as demand dictates the program can grow into the housing continuum (e.g. by adding independent units in the community). The transitional communal living model should be viewed as the beginning and a stepping stone to permanent affordable housing options. The most important aspect of the proposed SHHA program is PHAs are provided with an opportunity to stabilize their situations and ultimately live independently in the community. An Effective Communications Strategy: A detailed communication strategy will be developed to launch the Supportive Housing for Persons Living with HIV/AIDS (SHHA) program. This strategy will include mail outs to local community partners and family doctors, in-service education sessions will be delivered with relevant community partners and opportunities to speak with relevant community groups will be established. The communications strategy will also include: 

Brochures distributed to stakeholders and community partners.



Cover letter announcing the service will be emailed to all HSPs and community partners.



Public presentations will be offered to community partners, and to community groups (i.e. Health and Social Services Coalition, Housing Action L&A, PELASS, OW etc.) Information posted on websites



Audiences will include; community stakeholders i.e. HSPs, clients, client families, community groups etc. There will be tailored communications for marginalized populations i.e. seniors, Aboriginal community. Key messages will include: 

Education and awareness on the physiological and psychosocial effects of HIV/AIDS



The impact of HIV/AIDS on families and loved ones



Making clients aware that program staff are not judgmental and that all clients will be treated respectively and client choices will be respected.



Awareness of HIV/AIDS and its impacts (including impacts on specific populations)

38 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 

Service is physically accessible and free of charge



Confidentiality and privacy will be respected at all times



Registration information



Contact Information



Awareness of key sponsors and partnerships.



Registration is voluntary



Clients are partners in their plan of care and have the right to make decisions



Help is available for families

Communications activities will include: 

Targeted E-mails



Public presentations



Presentations for stakeholders

 

Print media Service Fair (Annual)

Communications products will include: 

Brochures



PowerPoint presentations



Cover letters



Informational Postings



Website

Recommendations 1. The need and demand for supportive housing and supportive services for PHAs in HPE and South East Ontario is strong. There are no options in the region outside of Ottawa and Toronto. It is recommended that All-Together Affordable Housing proceed with plans to implement supportive housing and support services for PHAs in South East Ontario. 2. There are decisions to be made when it comes to choosing a housing model. Each model has their strengths and weaknesses. For reasons that include: simplification of case management functions, centralization and integration of services, cost effectiveness, reduced risk, increased accessibility, client affordability, and ability to provide clients the opportunity to stabilize the “transitional communal living” model is the best fit. It is recommended that the 39 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 transitional communal living housing model is implemented as the starting point. 3. PHAs have concurrent issues and conditions and complex needs. Consequently, careful attention to the development of an appropriate service mix is needed. It is recommended that the service mix includes; primary health care, mental health and addictions support, and intensive case management services. 4. Acting as a regional solution offers the ability to help more people, enter into a larger selection of innovative partnerships and potentially access a greater pool of funding opportunities. It is recommended that the program’s jurisdiction cover all South East Ontario. This would match the jurisdiction of HARS and the South East Local Health Integration Network (SE LHIN). Doing so would make partnerships with these agencies natural and easier to administer and open doors to funding. Regional solutions are highly regarded and encouraged by the SE LHIN and viewed as a funding priority in the SE region. 5. Meeting the needs of a complex client population, living in a mix of urban, small and rural communities in a large geographic area will require regional partnerships designed to meet needs at a regional level. It is recommended that the initial partnerships include; HIV AIDS Regional Services (HARS), Belleville Quinte West Community Health Centre (BQWCHC), South East Community Care Access Centre (SE CCAC), the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA), the SE LHIN, Hospice Quinte and local physicians and nurse practitioners. It is further recommended that the potential for entering into a service agreement be explored with HARS. 6. There are opportunities for funding, provided the right steps are taken and the right parties are consulted. If a Health Service Provider (HSP) willing to act as “lead agency” can be found then SE LHIN funds can be accessed through the Community Funding Allocation process. All LHINs are being encouraged to support inter-sectoral partnerships so there is incentive and precedent. It is recommended that the SE LHIN be given strong consideration as a funder and partner. In addition, it is recommended that faith-based groups and local service clubs be approached for funds. 7. Health Equity is an issue affecting the majority of PHAs in the target client group. There are many marginalized populations and a great many socioeconomic disadvantages (Social Determinants of Health or SDoH) affecting them. The 40 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018 populations and SDoH intersect, creating many complexities and an intense web of needs. Further; the development of a HEIA is also a requirement for health care funding for all new programs. It is recommended that very careful attention and an appropriate level of thought and planning go into creating a comprehensive Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA). The HEIA should identify; specific disadvantaged populations, key barriers to program access, unintended negative impacts, and strategies to eliminate or mitigate these barriers and negative outcomes.

41 | P a g e

All-Together Business Plan 2013-2018

42 | P a g e