Housing - dnssab

7 th 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
Temagami
Bear Island 1
Témiscamingue
Nipissing, Unorganized, North Part
West Nipissing / Nipissing Ouest
North Bay
Nipissing 10
Nipissing
Bonfield
East Ferris
Mattawan Mattawa
Calvin
Papineau-Cameron
Chisholm
Nipissing, Unorganized, South Part
Parry Sound
South Algonquin
Muskoka
Haliburton

About Nipissing District
Temagami
Bear Island 1
West Nipissing / Nipissing Ouest
Nipissing 10
Parry Sound
Nipissing, Unorganized, North Part
North Bay
Nipissing
Bonfield
East Ferris
Chisholm
Muskoka
Mattawan Mattawa
Calvin
‣ Established in 1858: the oldest
of the 10 Districts in Northern
Ontario.
Témiscamingue
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.
‣ Papineau-Cameron
Population (2006) ~ 86,000, or
15% of Northeastern Ontario.
Density ~ 5 people /sq. km.
‣ Cultural Diversity:
Nipissing, Unorganized, South Part
approximately 25% of the
District’s population is
Francophone.
Haliburton
South Algonquin
8.5% of the population is
Aboriginal and 5% are
Immigrants.

About DNSSAB
Temagami
Bear Island 1
West Nipissing / Nipissing Ouest
Nipissing 10
Nipissing, Unorganized, North Part
North Bay
Nipissing
Bonfield
East Ferris
Chisholm
Mattawan Mattawa
Calvin
Témiscamingue
Papineau-Cameron
STRUCTURE
Board established
Feb.1, 1999: A
merger of the District
Welfare
Administration Board
(DWAB) and City
Social Services
Comprised of 12
elected Municipal
Counselors
Parry Sound
Nipissing, Unorganized, South Part
Represents eleven
(11) Municipalities
and two (2)
South Algonquin
Unincorporated
Territories
Muskoka
Haliburton

About DNSSAB
SERVICES
Temagami
Bear Island 1
Témiscamingue
Ontario Works
(OW)
West Nipissing / Nipissing Ouest
Nipissing 10
Nipissing, Unorganized, North Part
North Bay
Nipissing
Bonfield
East Ferris
Chisholm
Mattawan Mattawa
Calvin
Papineau-Cameron
Ontario Disability
Support Program
(ODSP)
Children’s Services
Social Housing
Homelessness
Parry Sound
Nipissing, Unorganized, South Part
Emergency Medical
Services (EMS)
South Algonquin
Muskoka
Haliburton

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?
What
• A study to review the needs of the ODSP clients
for community services and the capacity of the
community to deliver services, based upon these
needs.

ODSP Community Services
Review, 2006: what & why?
What
• A study to review the needs of the ODSP clients
for community services and the capacity of the
community to deliver services, based upon these
needs.
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.

ODSP Community Services
Review, 2006: what & why?
What
• A study to review the needs of the ODSP clients
for community services and the capacity of the
community to deliver services, based upon these
needs.
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 ODSP
Caseload, 2005
Caseload: 2.5X, Dependent Children: 3X, average
ODSP Caseload: Nipissing District & Ontario, 2005
Population: adults (18 yrs. >) and
children (< 17 yrs.)
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
Caseload Dependent
Children
Caseload
Dependent
Children
Nipissing District Ontario
Adults (18>) 5.5% 2.4%
Children (

Nipissing District ODSP
Caseload, 2005
Caseload: 2.5X, Dependent Children: 3X, average Younger caseload than average (ages 25-54)
ODSP Caseload: Nipissing District & Ontario, 2005
ODSP Caseload by Age Group :
Nipissing District and Ontario, 2005
Population: adults (18 yrs. >) and
children (< 17 yrs.)
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
Caseload Dependent
Children
Caseload
Dependent
Children
Caseload (%)
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Nipissing District Ontario
Adults (18>) 5.5% 2.4%
Children (

Nipissing District ODSP
Caseload, 2005
Caseload: 2.5X, Dependent Children: 3X, average Younger caseload than average (ages 25-54)
ODSP Caseload: Nipissing District & Ontario, 2005
ODSP Caseload by Age Group :
Nipissing District and Ontario, 2005
Population: adults (18 yrs. >) and
children (< 17 yrs.)
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
Caseload Dependent
Children
Caseload
Dependent
Children
Caseload (%)
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Nipissing District Ontario
Adults (18>) 5.5% 2.4%
Children (

Scope of Review
Scope
• Identified 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
Scope
• Identified 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.

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.

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.

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 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 & legislation
While others can be acted upon locally.
- Approximately half of these are directed towards
MCSS – it is hard to disentangle the delivery of
‘community services’ from the administration of the
ODSP 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.

Outcomes: Recommendations
Some of these recommendations include:
Review ODSP incomes: index to average household
expenditures (LICO or market basket measure).
Alternatively, make changes to the Shelter Maximum
which better reflects the national housing standards
(affordability, suitability & adequacy) and local market
(rent) conditions.

Outcomes: Recommendations
Some of these recommendations include:
Review ODSP incomes: index to average household
expenditures (LICO or market basket measure).
Alternatively, make changes to the Shelter Maximum
which 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).

Outcomes: Recommendations
Some of these recommendations include:
Review the present Strong Communities Rent
Supplement Program with the view of providing
support-services funding that matches the
rent-subsidy funding.

Outcomes: Recommendations
Some of these recommendations include:
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 counseling
services to the Special Benefits program.

Outcomes: Recommendations
Some of these recommendations include:
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 counseling
services to the Special Benefits program.
Hold regular community forums to provide updates on core
services 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.).

Outcomes: Recommendations
Some of these recommendations include:
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 counseling
services to the Special Benefits program.
Hold regular community forums to provide updates on core
services 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 for
people with disabilities (in multiple mediums).

Present Status (1 year later)
Some recommendations have been acted upon
The gap in trustee programs is being addressed
by 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 the
outcomes
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 to
HIFIS (Homeless Individuals & Families Information
System).
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!
Canada
Nipissing

Policy and Service Delivery
Implications Final note
Think Globally – Act Locally!
Canada
Ontario
Ontario
Nipissing

Policy and Service Delivery
Implications Final note
Think Globally – Act Locally!
Canada
Ontario
Nipissing
Nipissing

Any questions before moving on
to the next presentation?
Questions?

7 th 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:
Single Households & Sr. Citizens (#)
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
Demographic Shift: Senior Citizens and Single Households :
Nipissing District, 1981 - 2006
0
Population:
80,265
7,575
4,835
Population:
79,000
8,645
5,445
Population:
84,725
10,110
6,680
1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006
Senior Citizens (65+)
Population:
84,830
10,990
7,975
Single Households
Population:
82,910
12,210
8,505
Population:
84,685
13,485
9,465
• 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
Rent ($ /month)
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
Examples of Affordability Gaps for Social Assistance
Recipients: North Bay, 2007
$900
Ave. Rent,
$800
2-bdrm: $733
$700 Ave. Rent,
1-bdrm: $573
$600
$274
$273
ODSP
$300
ODSP
$459
Single Single
Parent &
Child
Average Rent,
3-bdrm: $823
$238
ODSP
$585
Couple
with Two
Children
OW & ODSP: Maximum Rent @ 30% of Income
Average Rent,
2-bdrm: $733
Average Rent,
1-bdrm: $573
$424
$405
OW
$168
OW
$309
Single Single
Parent &
Child
Average Rent,
3-bdrm: $823
$432
OW
$391
Couple
with Two
Children
Affordability Gap
• 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:

Total Waiting List (# people /month)
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Jan 2006
Feb
Mar
Apr
Social Housing Waiting List, 2006 & 2007
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Key Indicators: Social Housing
Waiting List
Dec
RGI
Jan 2007
Feb
Mar
Market
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
1326
Nov
Dec
• Waiting list
surpassed the
1300-people mark
in 3 rd 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: Housing
Construction
Housing Starts & Completions (#)
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1981
1983
Housing Completions : North Bay, 1981 - 2007
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
Completions
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
• 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 of
Housing Construction
Housing Completions (#)
250
200
150
100
50
0
Housing Completions in North Bay:
Single-detached Houses , Apartments & Other Types ,
1981 - 2007
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
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 Price (MLS)
$200,000
$180,000
$160,000
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
$0
Average House Resale Price: North Bay, 2000 -
2007
Mar 2000
June
Sept
Dec
Mar 2001
June
Sept
Dec
Mar 2002
June
Sept
Dec
Mar 2003
June
Sept
Dec
Mar 2004
June
Sept
Dec
Mar 2005
June
Sept
Dec
Mar 2006
June
Sept
Dec
Mar 2007
June
Sept
Average House Price
Annual House Sales
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
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
Average Vacancy Rate
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
Vacancy Rate & Rent : North Bay CA, 2000 - 2007
$700
$680
$660
$640
$620
$600
$580
$560
Average Rent ($)
• 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.
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
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
$540
• This is making it
increasingly difficult
for people with low
incomes, to find
affordable housing.

10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
Vacancy Rate Comparison, 2007
Vacancy Rates in Ontario's 28 CA's (Census Agglomerations),
Oct. 2007
• North Bay
currently has one of
the lowest vacancy
rates in Ontario,
relative to other
cities that form
“census
agglomerations”
Vacancy Rate
Petawawa
Ingersoll
Leamington
Chatham-Kent
Cornwall
Elliot Lake
Temiskaming Shores
Sarnia
Tillsonburg
Stratford
Belleville
Cobourg
Hawkesbury
Woodstock
Midland
Orillia
Brockville
Kawartha Lakes
Owen Sound
Collingwood
Wellington Centre
Timmins
Norfolk
Port Hope
Sault Ste. Marie
North Bay
Pembroke
Kenora

Key Indicators: Housing Roles &
Responsibilities
Housing Price ($)
p
Housing Supply & Demand
E
Supply
• The Provincial
Policy Statement
(2005), the
Municipal Planning
Act and the Social
Housing Reform Act
(2000) provide
some direction for
housing policy and
roles &
responsibilities.
q
Housing Quantity (#)
Demand
• 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 gaps
within 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 alignments
and 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 characteristics
that 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:

The Housing Continuum
Absolute homelessness
Retirement Homes, Long-term care, etc.
Private sector market
Low Income High Income Time

The Housing Continuum
Absolute homelessness
Shelters, transitional housing,
Supportive housing, etc.
Retirement Homes, Long-term care, etc.
Private sector market
Traditional
focus of Nonprofit
sector
Low Income High Income Time

The Housing Continuum
Absolute homelessness
Shelters, transitional housing,
Supportive housing, etc.
Retirement Homes, Long-term care, etc.
Not for profit, community, social housing
Private sector market
Traditional
focus of Nonprofit
sector
“Affordable” private
rental and entry
homeownership
Low Income High Income Time

The Housing Continuum
Absolute homelessness
Shelters, transitional housing,
Supportive housing, etc.
Retirement Homes, Long-term care, etc.
Not for profit, community, social housing
Private
Private
sector
sector
market
market
Mortgage- free asset
Traditional
focus of Nonprofit
sector
“Affordable” private
rental and entry
homeownership
Low Income High Income Time

The Housing Continuum
Absolute homelessness
Shelters, transitional housing,
Supportive housing, etc.
Retirement Homes, Long-term care, etc.
Private
Private
sector
sector
market
market
Mortgage- free asset
Not for profit, community, social housing
Traditional
focus of Nonprofit
sector
“Affordable” private
rental and entry
homeownership
Private /Public
sectors
Low Income High Income Time

The Housing Continuum
Absolute homelessness
Shelters, transitional housing,
Supportive housing, etc.
Retirement Homes, Long-term care, etc.
Private
Private
sector
sector
market
market
Mortgage- free asset
Not for profit, community, social housing
Traditional
focus of Nonprofit
sector
“Affordable” private
rental and entry
homeownership
Private /Public
sectors
Low Income High Income Time

Supply & Demand
Housing Supply & Demand
• Model is important
for understanding the
housing market
Housing Price ($)
p
E
Supply
• Helps with
understanding the
affordable housing
issues better and to
implement effective
solutions:
q
Housing Quantity (#)
Demand
• By providing insight
into movements
along the continuum
• By helping to
analyze all the
interactive housing
variables:

Supply & Demand
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.
Housing Price ($)
p
Housing Supply & Demand
E
q
Housing Quantity (#)
Supply
Demand
• 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-use
planning.

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.

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.
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).

General key Findings
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’s
Continuum
Where are the gaps in the continuum?
Low Income
High Income
Time

Gaps Along Nipissing’s
Continuum
Shelters;
Transitional;
Supportive
housing
Low Income High Income Time

Gaps Along Nipissing’s
Continuum
Shelters;
Transitional;
Supportive
housing
Social
housing
Low Income High Income Time

Gaps Along Nipissing’s
Continuum
Shelters;
Transitional;
Supportive
housing
Renters in
core housing
need & poor
housing
condition
Social
housing
Low Income High Income Time

Gaps Along Nipissing’s
Continuum
Shelters;
Transitional;
Supportive
housing
Renters in
core housing
need & poor
housing
condition
Social
housing
Lack of
rental
supply
Low Income High Income Time

Gaps Along Nipissing’s
Continuum
Shelters;
Transitional;
Supportive
housing
Renters in
core housing
need & poor
housing
condition
Owners in
core housing
need & poor
housing
condition
Social
housing
Lack of
rental
supply
Low Income High Income Time

Gaps Along Nipissing’s
Continuum
Shelters;
Transitional;
Supportive
housing
Renters in
core housing
need & poor
housing
condition
Owners in
core housing
need & poor
housing
condition
Social
housing
Lack of
rental
supply
Lack of
entry-level
houses to
buy
Low Income High Income Time

Gaps Along Nipissing’s
Continuum
Shelters;
Transitional;
Supportive
housing
Renters in
core housing
need & poor
housing
condition
Owners in
core housing
need & poor
housing
condition
Seniors
housing (LTC,
supportive,
retirement,
etc.)
Social
housing
Lack of
rental
supply
Lack of
entry-level
houses to
buy
Low Income High Income Time

Affordable Housing Best
Practices: Partnerships at Work
Potters Hands Housing: Affordable, mixed-tenant Apartment Building
CMHC Award Winner (2004)
• 39-unit, mixed tenant
Building with rents that
are 30% lower than
average market rents.
• Construction costs:
$47.92 /sq. ft.

Affordable Housing Best
Practices: Partnerships at Work
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)
Potters Hands Housing: Affordable, mixed-tenant Apartment Building
CMHC Award Winner (2004)
• 39-unit, mixed tenant
Building with rents that
are 30% lower than
average market rents.
• Construction costs:
$47.92 /sq. ft.

Affordable Housing Best
Practices: Partnerships at Work
• Includes 15 bachelor units for people
with mental illness and others requiring
support 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.

Affordable Housing Best
Practices: Partnerships at Work
• Includes 15 bachelor units for people
with mental illness and others requiring
support 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?!

Affordable Housing Best
Practices: Partnerships at Work
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.
• Includes 15 bachelor units for people
with mental illness and others requiring
support 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?!

Next Step in Moving Forward
Look at the recommendations from the report
and 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 report
and 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!