7 Annual Mental Health and Addiction Day for Service...

7th Annual Mental Health and Addiction Day for Service Providers

DNSSAB Community Services Review, Based on the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) Client Population.

Presented by D. Plumstead, MBA;DNSSAB Researcher April 15, 2008

This Presentation:

• About Nipissing District & DNSSAB• Best & Promising Practices in

Human Services Delivery: ODSP Community Services Review

• Outcome of Review• Present Status• Policy and Service Delivery

Implications

Nipissing District and Ontario

Nipissing District

TémiscamingueTémiscamingueTémiscamingueTémiscamingueTémiscamingue

MuskokaMuskokaMuskokaMuskokaMuskoka HaliburtonHaliburtonHaliburtonHaliburtonHaliburton

NipissingNipissingNipissingNipissingNipissing

Parry SoundParry SoundParry SoundParry SoundParry Sound

South AlgonquinSouth AlgonquinSouth AlgonquinSouth AlgonquinSouth Algonquin

Papineau-CameronPapineau-CameronPapineau-CameronPapineau-CameronPapineau-Cameron

MattawanMattawanMattawanMattawanMattawanMattawaMattawaMattawaMattawaMattawa

CalvinCalvinCalvinCalvinCalvinBonfieldBonfieldBonfieldBonfieldBonfield

ChisholmChisholmChisholmChisholmChisholm

East FerrisEast FerrisEast FerrisEast FerrisEast Ferris

North BayNorth BayNorth BayNorth BayNorth Bay

West Nipissing / Nipissing OuestWest Nipissing / Nipissing OuestWest Nipissing / Nipissing OuestWest Nipissing / Nipissing OuestWest Nipissing / Nipissing Ouest

TemagamiTemagamiTemagamiTemagamiTemagami

Bear Island 1Bear Island 1Bear Island 1Bear Island 1Bear Island 1

Nipissing 10Nipissing 10Nipissing 10Nipissing 10Nipissing 10

Nipissing, Unorganized, South PartNipissing, Unorganized, South PartNipissing, Unorganized, South PartNipissing, Unorganized, South PartNipissing, Unorganized, South Part

Nipissing, Unorganized, North PartNipissing, Unorganized, North PartNipissing, Unorganized, North PartNipissing, Unorganized, North PartNipissing, Unorganized, North Part

About Nipissing District


















Established in 1858: the oldest of the 10 Districts in Northern Ontario. Comprised of 11 Municipalities, 2 Unincorporated Territories (North & South), and 2 First Nations.

Part of the economic region of Northeastern Ontario Area: 17,000 sq. km.

Population (2006) ~ 86,000, or 15% of Northeastern Ontario. Density ~ 5 people /sq. km.

Cultural Diversity: approximately 25% of the District’s population is Francophone.

8.5% of the population is Aboriginal and 5% are Immigrants.

About DNSSAB


















STRUCTURE

Board established Feb.1, 1999: A merger of the District WelfareAdministration Board(DWAB) and City Social Services

Comprised of 12 elected Municipal Counselors

Represents eleven (11) Municipalities and two (2) Unincorporated Territories

About DNSSAB


















SERVICES

Ontario Works (OW)

Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP)

Children’s Services

Social Housing

Homelessness

Emergency Medical Services (EMS)

ODSP Community Services Review and Best Practices – making the Connection

The ODSP Community Services Review:

Is community- based research (base camp) -analyzed needs and gaps at the community level

Is evidence-based (quantitatively & qualitatively)

Employed a methodology that led to a desired result

Lends itself to continuous learning and improvement

Facilitates learning and knowledge transfer while building relationships along the way

Provides a benchmark for moving forward

ODSP Community Services Review, 2006: what & why?

WhatA study to review the needs of the ODSP clientsfor community services and the capacity of thecommunity to deliver services, based upon theseneeds.



Why?Because the DNSSAB Board and Management Team identified a relatively large ODSP caseload in Nipissing District (approx. 3500 people in a population of 85,000)-they wondered about the impact on community services and if there were needs and gaps.



Why?Because the DNSSAB Board and Management Team identified a relatively large ODSP caseload in Nipissing District (approx. 3500 people in a population of 85,000)-they wondered about the impact on community services and if there were needs and gaps.

In response to the above, an initial study was undertaken (MCSS /MCYS 2005) and it confirmed the following - the highest provincial ODSP caseload per capita, a relatively high number of dependent children and a high rate of mental illness:

Nipissing District ODSPCaseload, 2005

Caseload: 2.5X, Dependent Children: 3X, average

ODSP Caseload: Nipissing District & Ontario, 2005

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

Popu

latio

n: a

dults

(18

yrs.

>) a

ndch

ildre

n (<

17

yrs.

)

Adults (18>) 5.5% 2.4%Children (<17) 4.8% 1.5%

Nipissing District Ontario

Caseload DependentChildren

DependentChildren

Caseload

ODSP Caseload by Age Group : Nipissing District and Ontario, 2005

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

18-21 22-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+Age Group

Cas

eloa

d (%

)

Nipissing Ontario


Caseload: 2.5X, Dependent Children: 3X, average Younger caseload than average (ages 25-54)


0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

Popu

latio

n: a

dults

(18

yrs.

>) a

ndch

ildre

n (<

17

yrs.

)

Adults (18>) 5.5% 2.4%Children (<17) 4.8% 1.5%



DependentChildren

Caseload

ODSP Caseload by Age Group : Nipissing District and Ontario, 2005

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

18-21 22-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+Age Group

Cas

eloa

d (%

)

Nipissing Ontario


Caseload: 2.5X, Dependent Children: 3X, average Younger caseload than average (ages 25-54)

A greater incidence of mental illness

23.0%21.0%

18.0%16.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Cas

eloa

d (%

)


ODSP Mental Illness , Nipissing District and Ontario, 2005

Nipissing Ontario

Psychosis

Psychosis

Neurosis

Neurosis


0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

Popu

latio

n: a

dults

(18

yrs.

>) a

ndch

ildre

n (<

17

yrs.

)

Adults (18>) 5.5% 2.4%Children (<17) 4.8% 1.5%



DependentChildren

Caseload

Scope of Review

ScopeIdentified nine (9) key service areas for review:

- Financial Supports- Housing- Food Security- Transportation- Child & Family Supports- Special & Discretionary Benefits- Counseling- Assessment & Referral- Legal /Advocacy

Scope of Review

ScopeIdentified nine (9) key service areas for review:

- Financial Supports- Housing- Food Security- Transportation- Child & Family Supports- Special & Discretionary Benefits- Counseling- Assessment & Referral- Legal /Advocacy

Not included in scope- Health Services delivered under the Health Act- Public Health Services- Education and Employment Supports /Assistance

How was Review Conducted?

How?Through a project structure: Steering Committee, Reference Committee and Terms of Reference.

Qualitative & quantitative analysis through stakeholder engagement - primarily ODSP clients and community service organizations.

Surveys, Focus Groups, Community Consultations, Meetings and Interviews.

Further quantitative analysis of data from the MCSS Stats.& Analysis Unit: beneficiaries, family structure, dependents and trends.

Additional disability-related reports referenced.

Challenges Encountered

Challenges: No roadmap or similar studies to follow -first kind of study at District level.

MCSS was unable to sit on the Steering and Reference Committees. MCSS Staff did however, provide input & feedback on all report drafts.

Disability by its nature is set within a complex environment – research & analysis becomes difficult.





North Bay’s service system is equally complex due to a multitude of organizations offering numerous services.






Difficult to obtain quantitative data from community service organizations.






Difficult to obtain quantitative data from community service organizations.

Difficult to differentiate between “community” and “publicly delivered” services, especially where mental illness is concerned.

Outcomes: Key Findings

Approximately 45 key findings across the nine (9) service areas – these findings can be summarized into the following themes:

Financial Hardship

Unmet Needs (housing, food, benefits, counseling)

Transportation difficulties (for clients & service organizations)

Children at Risk

The need for Services Integration /Gateway to Services

Better Communications (between key ODSP Stakeholders,i.e., clients, MCSS and service organizations).

Outcomes: Recommendations

25 recommendations for Improving Services

- Some require changes to policy & legislationWhile others can be acted upon locally.

- Approximately half of these are directed towardsMCSS – it is hard to disentangle the delivery of ‘community services’ from the administration of theODSP program.

- Viewed from the perspective of “all at once” the list may appear daunting or even unattainable. Viewed from the perspective of “incrementalism” however, these improvements are achievable.

- As with any investment decision, cost and impact on client outcomes needs to be considered.


Some of these recommendations include:

Review ODSP incomes: index to average householdexpenditures (LICO or market basket measure).

Alternatively, make changes to the Shelter Maximumwhich better reflects the national housing standards (affordability, suitability & adequacy) and local market(rent) conditions.



Review ODSP incomes: index to average householdexpenditures (LICO or market basket measure).

Alternatively, make changes to the Shelter Maximumwhich better reflects the national housing standards (affordability, suitability & adequacy) and local market(rent) conditions.

Increase the basic needs benefit by an amount that will decrease the clients’ food-to-income ratios to that of the median, or approximately 10% of income.

Alternatively, create a food allowance which would be added to the basic needs and shelter allowance (and index this to the nutritious food basket).



Review the present Strong Communities Rent Supplement Program with the view of providing support-services funding that matches the rent-subsidy funding.




For new ODSP clients: provide access to therapeutic counseling services. Also, consider adding these counselingservices to the Special Benefits program.





Hold regular community forums to provide updates on coreservices and changes to directives, such as benefits(MCSS).

Establish a lead (ex: DNSSAB) for organizing a community networking event for service organizations, Ministries, etc.on a set schedule (ex. quarterly, every 4 mos., etc.).





Hold regular community forums to provide updates on coreservices and changes to directives, such as benefits(MCSS).

Establish a lead (ex: DNSSAB) for organizing a community networking event for service organizations, Ministries, etc.on a set schedule (ex. quarterly, every 4 mos., etc.).

Produce an annual Community Services Directory forpeople with disabilities (in multiple mediums).

Present Status (1 year later)

Some recommendations have been acted upon

The gap in trustee programs is being addressedby MCSS (NE Region) and a local service organization (LIPI)

North Bay has extended bus discounts to all ODSP clients ($25)

Ontario Works (OW) will be tracking the number of ODSP clients who apply for Discretionary benefits, and theoutcomes

DNSSAB and MCSS are reviewing their respective Discretionary and Special Benefits programs

DNSSAB is planning an upcoming housing forum

Present Status (1 year later)

Some recommendations have been indirectly acted upon:

The streamlining of shelter data and information is in progress – the community is considering switching over toHIFIS (Homeless Individuals & Families InformationSystem).

The LHIN (NE Region) is focusing on supportive /supported housing in Nipissing District.

DNSSAB received an additional 25 housing allowance units under the AHP (Affordable Housing Program).

Social assistance rates have had a 4% increase (two increases of 2%).

Policy Implications

Policy Implications

- Need to monitor trends at all levels of geography (i.e. not only in cities of 100,000+); the caseload continues to grow in many communities, the family /household types are changing, and there are more complex cases of mental illness, etc.

- Multiple Ministries are funding multiple service organizations and programs – this lends itself to a convoluted, fragmented service sector.

- Social assistance is a complex file but nevertheless, we need to pay attention to the unmet needs throughout the province.

- Given current resource allocation, which marginal costs will produce the greatest social benefits?

- Standardization vs. Specialization…..?

Policy and Service Delivery Implications Final note

Think Globally – Act Locally!

Nipissing

Canada



Ontario

Nipissing

Canada

Ontario



Ontario

Canada

Nipissing

Nipissing

Questions?

Any questions before moving on to the next presentation?

7th Annual Mental Health and Addiction Day for Service Providers

Nipissing District Housing Needs, Supply & Affordability Study

Presented by Dave Plumstead, MBA; DNSSAB Researcher

April 15, 2008

This Presentation:

• Why do a Housing Study? Key Indicators

• Objectives, Scope, Methodology

• General Key Findings

• Affordable Housing: Best Practices

• Next Steps / Moving Forward

First Note!

The Final report is not yet Completed!

Report due in May, 2008

Will have to wait before commenting on recommendations…..

Why do a Housing Study?

… and Because of Key Indicators, such as Demographics:

7,57

5

4,83

5

8,64

5

5,44

5

10,1

10

6,68

0

10,9

90

7,97

5

12,2

10

8,50

5

13,4

859,

465

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Sing

le H

ouse

hold

s &

Sr.

Citi

zens

(#)

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

Demographic Shift: Senior Citizens and Single Households : Nipissing District, 1981 - 2006

Senior Citizens (65+) Single Households

Population:80,265

Population:79,000

Population:84,725

Population:84,830

Population:82,910

Population:84,685

Significant trends are occurring that impact housing:

78% increase in seniors during the past 25 years.

96% increase in single households during the past 25 years.

Net population growth over the 25 years only 5.5%.

Demand for smaller homes, condos., SIL, etc.

Key Indicators: Income Gaps

Examples of Affordability Gaps for Social Assistance Recipients: North Bay, 2007

$273

$274

$238

$405$585

$459

$300

$391$309

$168

$424

$432

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

Single SingleParent &

Child

Couplewith TwoChildren

Single SingleParent &

Child

Couplewith TwoChildren

Ren

t ($

/mon

th)

OW & ODSP: Maximum Rent @ 30% of Income Affordability Gap

ODSP OW

OWOW

ODSP

Ave. Rent,1-bdrm: $573

Ave. Rent,2-bdrm: $733

Average Rent,3-bdrm: $823




ODSP

Significant housing affordability gaps exist for social assistance clients.

Example: a single ODSP recipient has income of $999 /mo – this leaves $300 /mo. to spend on affordable housing.

Average market rent for a 1-bdrm. apartment is $573 –this leaves a shortage of $273.

..and social housing is in short supply:

Key Indicators: Social Housing Waiting List

Social Housing Waiting List, 2006 & 2007

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Jan

2006 Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

2007 Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Tota

l Wai

ting

List

(# p

eopl

e /m

onth

)

RGI Market

1326

Waiting list surpassed the 1300-people mark in 3rd quarter of 2007 (RGI & market).

19.5% increase over the past 2 years.

This increase however is coming from people waiting for market rent –not RGI!

This is indicative of the current rental-housing shortage

Key Indicators: HousingConstruction

Housing Completions : North Bay, 1981 - 2007

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

Hou

sing

Sta

rts

& C

ompl

etio

ns (#

)

Completions

Home building & buying is a key housing indicator –North Bay accounts for 65% of District’s population.

Robust building activity during early 80s -90s –construction peaked in 1987 at approximately 620 units.

1994: market dropped out and housing construction declined 75%.

Key Indicators: Type ofHousing Construction

Housing Completions in North Bay: Single-detached Houses , Apartments & Other Types ,

1981 - 2007

0

50

100

150

200

250

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Hou

sing

Com

plet

ions

(#)

Single-detached Apartments & other types

Construction continues but in the single-detached homes market.

healthy growth ~ 12% annually.

This growth however, does not include the new affordable housing that existed prior to the early 90s.

By 1995, the construction of new apartments had fallen to 0.

Key Indicators: Houses Resale Price

Average House Resale Price: North Bay, 2000 - 2007

$0$20,000$40,000$60,000$80,000

$100,000$120,000$140,000$160,000$180,000$200,000

Mar

200

0Ju

neS

ept

Dec

Mar

200

1Ju

neS

ept

Dec

Mar

200

2Ju

neS

ept

Dec

Mar

200

3Ju

neS

ept

Dec

Mar

200

4Ju

neS

ept

Dec

Mar

200

5Ju

neS

ept

Dec

Mar

200

6Ju

neS

ept

Dec

Mar

200

7Ju

neS

ept

Ave

rage

Pric

e (M

LS)

02004006008001000120014001600

Ann

ual H

ouse

Sal

es (#

)Average House Price Annual House Sales

Since 2000, North Bay’s ave. selling price has increased ~ 55%.

In 2006, a new sales record was set.

= strong housing market with increasing demand.

As the gap between rental and ownership widens however, the demand for rental housing can increase:

Key Indicators: Vacancy & Rent

Vacancy Rate & Rent : North Bay CA, 2000 - 2007

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

Ave

rage

Vac

ancy

Rat

e

$540

$560

$580

$600

$620

$640

$660

$680

$700

Ave

rage

Ren

t ($)

Vacancy Rate 5.5% 2.7% 3.3% 3.3% 3.7% 2.7% 2.4% 1.1%Rent $598 $612 $600 $613 $631 $637 $677 $683

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

This puts upward pressure on rent prices – and with no new rental supply coming onto market, vacancy rates drop.

Currently North Bay’s ave. vacancy is at 1% - well below the 3% equilibrium point.

This is making it increasingly difficult for people with low incomes, to find affordable housing.

Vacancy Rate Comparison, 2007

Vacancy Rates in Ontario's 28 CA's (Census Agglomerations), Oct. 2007

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%

10%

Pet

awaw

a

Inge

rsol

l

Leam

ingt

on

Cha

tham

-Ken

t

Cor

nwal

l

Elli

ot L

ake

Tem

iska

min

g S

hore

s

Sar

nia

Tills

onbu

rg

Stra

tford

Bel

levi

lle

Cob

ourg

Haw

kesb

ury

Woo

dsto

ck

Mid

land

Oril

lia

Bro

ckvi

lle

Kaw

arth

a La

kes

Ow

en S

ound

Col

lingw

ood

Wel

lingt

on C

entre

Tim

min

s

Nor

folk

Por

t Hop

e

Sau

lt S

te. M

arie

Nor

th B

ay

Pem

brok

e

Ken

ora

Vaca

ncy

Rat

e

North Bay currently has one of the lowest vacancy rates in Ontario, relative to other cities that form “census agglomerations”

Key Indicators: Housing Roles & Responsibilities

Housing Supply & Demand

Housing Quantity (#)

Hou

sing

Pri

ce ($

)

Demand

Supply

q

p E

The Provincial Policy Statement (2005), the Municipal Planning Act and the SocialHousing Reform Act (2000) provide some direction for housing policy and roles & responsibilities.

There still appears to be uncertainty as to the roles & responsibilities for housing, amongst community Leaders.

Housing Study Objectives

Review the affordable housing needs and gapswithin the District of Nipissing.

Review the current capacity of existing public and private housing supply/stock and the secondary rental market.

Review the impact that housing development and municipal planning have on the affordability of housing.

Identify current housing development alignmentsand affordability rates within the District of Nipissing.

Housing Study Scope

• Geography: Nipissing’s 11 municipalities.

• Compile a demographic profile (household size, type, tenure,) to identify any gaps in the present housing stock.

• Indicate the relevant socioeconomic characteristicsthat are unique to the District.

• Define the housing needs required to support the projected population based upon socio-economic indicators.

• Provide a population & household forecast.

• Identify Best Housing Practices in use in other Municipalities / Communities.

Housing Study Methodology

Extensive analysis on population and household data: census 2006 (Statistics Canada).

Information sessions and meetings with key housing providers along the housing continuum.

Heard from housing consumers through surveys.

Referenced other reports, data.

The framework for the study was developed around two models:

Retirement Homes, Long-term care, etc.

The Housing Continuum

Private sector market

Low Income High Income Time

Absolute homelessness




Traditional focus of Non-profit sector


Absolute homelessness Shelters, transitional housing, Supportive housing, etc.





“Affordable” private rental and entry homeownership



Not for profit, community, social housing

Shelters, transitional housing, Supportive housing, etc.










Mortgage- free asset






Private /Publicsectors






Mortgage- free asset


Supply & Demand



Hou

sing

Pri

ce ($

)

Demand

Supply

q

p E

Model is important for understanding the housing market

Helps with understanding the affordable housing issues better and to implement effective solutions:

By providing insight into movements along the continuum

By helping to analyze all the interactive housing variables:

Supply & Demand



Hou

sing

Pri

ce ($

)

Demand

Supply

q

p E

Other factors (besides price) which affect the supply & demand of housing: the economy; employment; income; demographics; interest rates; inflation; technology; construction costs; government policy; municipal land-useplanning.

People living on low incomes have few housing choices and can be significantly impacted by market changes which result in reduced housing supply and increased housing demand.

General key Findings

40-year population trends for Nipissing District and it’s municipalities and areas: general age groups, dependency ratios.

20-year household trends for Nipissing District and it’s municipalities and areas: household size, family types, tenure.


40-year population trends for Nipissing District and it’s municipalities and areas: general age groups, dependency ratios.

20-year household trends for Nipissing District and it’s municipalities and areas: household size, family types, tenure.

Profile of housing stock: structural type, age, secondary rental market.

10-year population & household forecast (2007 –2016) for Nipissing District & North Bay.

10- year affordable housing targets (rental & ownership) for households with incomes $0-$45,000 (Nipissing, North Bay and remaining areas).


A socioeconomic snapshot of Nipissing District and it’s municipalities and areas: culture, labour force, income, education, housing.

How affordable housing is provisioned for, in terms of municipal planning.

Identified gaps along the housing continuum.

Affordable Housing Best Practices.

Gaps Along Nipissing’sContinuum


Where are the gaps in the continuum?



Shelters; Transitional; Supportive housing




Social housing




Social housing

Renters in core housing need & poor housing condition




Social housing


Lack of rental supply




Social housing


Owners in core housing need & poor housing condition





Social housing




Lack of entry-level houses to buy




Social housing




Lack of entry-level houses to buy

Seniors housing (LTC, supportive, retirement, etc.)

Affordable Housing Best Practices: Partnerships at Work

Potters Hands Housing: Affordable, mixed-tenant Apartment Building

• 39-unit, mixed tenant Building with rents that are 30% lower than average market rents.

• Construction costs:$47.92 /sq. ft.

CMHC Award Winner (2004)


Potters Hands Housing: Affordable, mixed-tenant Apartment Building

Partners /Contributors:- David Thomson Health Authority- Community Initiatives Grant, Alberta Lottery- Federal /Provincial Affordable Housing Partnership Initiative- Canadian Mental Health Association- P & S Investments (local business)

• 39-unit, mixed tenant Building with rents that are 30% lower than average market rents.

• Construction costs:$47.92 /sq. ft.

CMHC Award Winner (2004)


• Includes 15 bachelor units for peoplewith mental illness and others requiringsupport services –rent includes some meals & utilities.

• Remaining units are 1 & 2 bedrooms for single parents, working couples, families and individuals with low income, and single people on disability.

• Rents: bachelor unit =$375 /mo. 2-bdrms. = $550 /mo.





HOW?!





Local businessmen had access to capital funding and compassion to address major social needs – the CMHA had information on funding streams, the ability to complete proposals and outreach support.

HOW?!

Next Step in Moving Forward

Look at the recommendations from the reportand set out a strategy for implementation.

A housing forum is planned for Tuesday, June 17 2008:Housing in Nipissing Communities: Building the Foundations.

Next Step in Moving Forward

Look at the recommendations from the reportand set out a strategy for implementation.

A housing forum is planned for Tuesday, June 17 2008:Housing in Nipissing Communities: Building the Foundations.

-The forum is for Community Leaders; Stakeholders; Municipal Planners; Builders /Developers; Employers; Health Providers;and organizations serving families, children, students, disabled, homeless and seniors – everyone who is impacted directly or indirectly by the current housing situation in Nipissing District.

-Intended outcomes of the forum include: developing a compendium of strategies for Nipissing’s

communities Establishing the partnerships & networks that will contribute to

the implementation of solutions

Thank you!

7 Annual Mental Health and Addiction Day for Service...

Documents

Transcript of 7 Annual Mental Health and Addiction Day for Service...