Housing Stability Fund

Transcription

1 Housing Stability Fund Peterborough Evaluation Report 2014

2 Report Released January 2015 Page 2

3 Table of Contents Table of Figures 4 Executive Summary 5 History of the funding 7 Community context 8 Purpose of the Study 9 Method Review of existing documentation Client Survey Focus Groups/ Individual Interviews File review 11 Results Summary of existing guidelines Summary of the spending in 2013 in each program by type of benefit Survey results Impact of HSF 14 a. Cautions about the data 14 b. Who applied for HSF benefits? 15 c. What are the differences between those granted or denied? 16 d. Qualitative information from the survey Focus group/ interview results File review results 22 Conclusions 23 Appendix A 25 Page 3

4 Table of Figures Figure 1. Housing stability funding in Peterborough Figure 2. Key components of HSF at each delivery site 12 Figure 3. Social Services Reason for Issuances Figure 4. HRC Reason for Issuance Figure 5. Who applied for HSF by residency, age, family and income 15 Figure 6. For those that received HSF, did it help? 16 Figure 7. For those denied HSF, what was the? 16 Figure 8. Impact of HSF on debt 16 Figure 9. Impact of HSF on mental health 17 Figure 10. Impact of HSF on food availability 17 Figure 11. Impact of HSF on physical health 17 Figure 12. Impact of HSF on family relations 18 Figure 13. Impact of HSF on employment 18 Figure 14. Impact of HSF on recreation opportunities 18 Figure 15 Impact of HSF on education 18 Figure 16. Frequency of comments by theme 19 Figure 17. Outstanding needs and concerns by theme 21 Figure 18. Time of Housing Retention Number of months that housing was retained 22 Page 4

5 Executive Summary There have been many changes to the funding and program delivery of homelessness prevention services over the last few years. This evaluation took a collaborative community-based approach to assess the outcomes and effectiveness of the Housing Stability Fund and to provide evidence for service and policy changes. The Steering Committee included city staff representatives as well as representatives from the Housing Resource Centre (HRC) and Peterborough Poverty Reduction Network (PPRN). The Steering committee s objective was to gather and analyze the data related to the outcomes and effectiveness of the Housing Stability Fund. There was no intention that this report would include policy recommendations, but rather a common understanding and interpretation of the evaluation data. Each agency represented on the Steering committee may have their own recommendations for the future direction of the HSF but they will all be based on the same understanding of the evaluation results. It is challenging to gather data related to homelessness. To maximize the data quality a number of components were incorporated for this evaluation including: a review of existing program documentation a client survey (hard copy and electronic) with follow up reminders and support focus groups and individual interviews and client file reviews The evaluation has provided key findings in 5 main areas: 1. Differences between the programs delivered by Social Services (for social assistance clients) and HRC (for other low income households) There are minor differences between the types of benefits offered, dependant on the program delivery, and significant differences in the level of assistance and the average amount issued. The benefits issued by Social Services were most frequently used to establish new residences; whereas, those issued by HRC were most frequently used to maintain an existing address. 2. Housing outcomes For those households that were granted HSF, 98% reported that they were able to keep housing, establish new housing or maintain their heat and hydro. Of the households denied at least one request under HSF, 50% reported experiencing negative housing s. Page 5

6 3. Other outcomes The survey also asked about how the HSF ed other areas of the clients life and provided a comparison between those granted and denied assistance. The study shows that the HSF s the following aspects of a household from greatest to least: debt, mental health, food availability, physical health, family relations and employment. 4. Importance of links to other parts of the housing and social services system Clients often indicated that homelessness was not only a result of a lack of housing stability funds but also a lack of safe, suitable and affordable housing. Mental health and addictions played a role for many respondents and they are asking for support in those areas. The focus groups and the qualitative data from the survey highlighted the importance of a systems approach to solving homelessness. HSF alone will not support clients to retain housing if the other needs are not also addressed. 5. Opportunities for process improvements Finally, the evaluation provided many insights into potential process improvements that could enhance client outcomes. Clients provided suggestions for improvements, such as better marketing of the program and increased focus on benefits in the winter. Given the collaborative nature of the evaluation it also served to bring together the agencies that can implement these process changes. Next steps: Based on the findings in this report, the Steering Committee will meet with the respective City Managers to continue to develop process improvements within the systems that manage the Housing Stability Fund. The Committee will also review the lessons learned from this community based approach to program evaluation with the hope that some of the best practices may be applied to future Social Services and Housing program evaluations. Finally, the results of this evaluation will be used to inform policy and funding recommendations related to the Housing Stability Fund. In addition to this evaluation, the province has pulled together a committee to review the CHPI funding framework. It is anticipated that the results will be available in early 2015 and this review may change the funding framework and amounts. Page 6

7 History of the funding At the end of 2012, the Community Start-up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB), a mandatory social assistance benefit that provided homelessness prevention supports was eliminated. At the same time, funds available for help with rent and utility arrears (Rent Bank and Emergency Energy Fund) were consolidated into a new provincial fund for housing and homelessness: the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI), through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). In Peterborough, part of the CHPI funding was allocated to a new Housing Stability Fund to help offset the loss of CSUMB. In 2013 the Province topped up homelessness funding with one time transition money of $1.5 million. In early October 2014, the Province confirmed and announced making the transition funding part of the ongoing CHPI funding. For Peterborough this means an additional $1.5 million, bringing the total CHPI funding to $3.3 million for This amount is still less than the 2012 amount. The following chart represents the housing stability funding in Peterborough over the last 5 years. Figure 1. Housing stability funding in Peterborough $3,000,000 $2,500,000 End of CSUMB & start of Housing Stability Fund includes onetime funding Includes new funding announced Oct $2,000, $1,500, $1,000, $500, $ Expenditures Number of payments Page 7

8 Community context Peterborough has a high need for housing stability benefits because of: Low incomes - the average individual income in Peterborough from the 2011 National Household Survey was $37,288, lower than the average for Ontario at $42, High unemployment - Peterborough s rate was 9.7% compared to a provincial average of 7.4% in June 2014; the second highest rate among CMAs 2. High dependency on social assistance % of the residents of Peterborough rely on social assistance compared to an average of 6.8% across the province 3. The dependency on social assistance across the province has been dropping but the dependency in Peterborough is increasing. High rental costs - 48% of renters in Peterborough spend more than 30% of household income on shelter costs compared to 42% provincially 4. Core housing need % of renters and 6.3% of owners in the Peterborough census metropolitan area are in core housing need which equates to 6,055 households 6 High rate of child poverty - Our children are not fairing as well as older residents. Only 6.5% of people over 65 in Peterborough live below the low income measure 7 ; however, 20% of our children under 6 years of age live in low income households. 1 Statistics Canada Peterborough, CTY, Ontario (Code 3515) (table). National Household Survey (NHS) Profile National Household Survey. Statistics Canada Catalogue no XWE. Ottawa. Released September 11, (accessed August 14, 2014). 2 Statistics Canada. Table Labour force survey estimates (LFS), by census metropolitan area based on 2006 census boundaries, 3-month moving average, seasonally adjusted and unadjusted, monthly (persons unless otherwise noted), CANSIM (database). (accessed: ) 3 Dependency is calculated with the total number of beneficiaries on OW and ODSP in December 2011 compared to the 2011 census population. 4 National Housing Survey data tables Statistics Canada, 2011 National Household Survey, Statistics Canada Catalogue no X Peterborough GNR =38.1% &PRID=0&PTYPE=105277&S=0&SHOWALL=0&SUB=0&Temporal=2013&THEME=98&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF (accessed Aug 14, 2014) 5 defined as having unaffordable(30% or more of income), unsuitable or inadequate housing 6 Households in Core Housing Need, Canada, Provinces, Territories and Metropolitan Areas 2001,2006, 2011 CMHC (accessed ) 7 Low Income measure (LIM) income falls below 50 percent of the median household income, after taxes Page 8

9 Purpose of the Study The Housing Stability Fund (HSF) was established in January 2013 as one of the strategies developed through the provincial Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI). The goal of the Housing Stability Fund is to provide onetime (once in a calendar year) financial assistance to help households reduce their debts related to their housing costs or to help re-establish secure housing when necessary. The fund has been monitored on an ongoing basis but after a year of operation it was determined that a more comprehensive evaluation was needed. This evaluation was designed to provide decision-makers with additional information to make evidencebased decisions related to program policies. A Steering Committee was developed consisting of City staff and community and agency representatives. The purpose of the evaluation was developed by the Steering Committee to: 1. Assess the effectiveness of the Housing Stability Fund 2. Assess the outcomes of people approved for the Housing Stability Fund and those denied 3. Assess client perceptions of the Housing Stability Fund 4. Gauge efficacy of types of payment (for example rent arrears, hydro arrears and/or rent deposits) 5. Inform policy changes based on results of the evaluation The intention was to obtain proportional representation of Ontario Works, ODSP and Housing Resource clients, in addition to conducting qualitative research through focus groups and interviews at Brock Mission and Youth Emergency Shelter. Target: 10% response rate or approx. 125 responses In addition to this evaluation, the Province has pulled together a committee to review the CHPI funding framework. This review is expected to be complete by December 31, 2014 and notice of allocations for will go out to Service Managers in early The amount of CHPI funding for Peterborough may change through this funding framework review. Page 9

10 Method A Steering Committee was established to guide the development of the evaluation plan, the survey, focus group questions and writing of the final report. The Steering Committee included: Dorothy Olver Rebecca Morgan-Quinn Rosemary O Donnell Christine Post Tara-Lyn Prindiville Staff support: Nancy Fischer Laura Warne Hayley Yorke Shradha Gaikwad Homelessness Program Manager, City of Peterborough Housing Program Officer, City of Peterborough Manager, Housing Resource Centre (HRC) Income Security Work Group, PPRN Research Coordinator, PPRN and HRC Sr. Program Analyst, City of Peterborough Administrative Assistant, City of Peterborough Program Payment Clerk, City of Peterborough Trent University Intern There are 4 components to the evaluation. 1. Review of existing documentation operational practices, service contracts etc. as well as program statistics and financial records. 2. Client Survey Client surveys were designed to assess the of the HSF on those granted or denied HSF, and to gather suggestions for improvement. The full survey is included as Appendix A of this report. The 1,513 surveys were mailed out in early July 2014 to Ontario Works (OW) and Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) clients who applied for the HSF (both granted and denied cases) between November 1 st, 2013 and May 31 st, This period was chosen in order to minimize policy changes implemented at both organizations. The surveys targeted towards Housing Resource Centre (HRC) clients were delivered to the HRC in June. They were handed to clients by HRC staff as clients consented to complete the surveys. Surveys were also available online at The survey closed on August 1st. There were no incentives associated with the surveys as incentives would have required personal identifiers (even if they are removed later). Though incentives may have increased the response rate it was decided that it was more important to maintain anonymity than increase response rate with incentives. An exception was made for the focus groups, where $5 Tim Horton s cards were offered to participants. Staff also attempted to make telephone contact with Social Services survey recipients to remind them to complete the survey. Approximately 75% of survey recipients were called to remind them to complete the survey but direct contact was only made with approximately 10% of the clients. Page 10

11 3. Focus Groups/ Individual Interviews The formal survey only captured input for people who had applied for HSF support. The Steering Committee also wanted to gather input from those that experienced homelessness despite receiving HSF or who may have never applied for HSF. To gather information from this population, focus groups at local shelters were designed. During the initial test focus groups it was determined that it would be more effective to complete individual interviews at Brock Mission and continue the focus group format at the Youth Emergency Shelter (YES). Two focus groups were held at YES and 18 interviews at Brock Mission. 4. File review In addition to the other components of the evaluation, a review of 130 OW and ODSP files (100 cases approved and 30 cases denied) was completed to assess how long accommodations were retained after applying for HSF. Page 11

12 Results 1. Summary of existing guidelines The HSF is delivered by both the Social Services Division (for social assistance recipients) and the Housing Resource Centre (HRC) (for low income households that are not receiving social assistance but have other sources of income such as Old Age Security, employment, pensions, child support, EI, WSIB). The following table outlines some of the key components of the program as delivered by each agency. Figure 2. Key components of HSF at each delivery site Section Social Services Housing Resource Centre Items covered by HSF Last month s rent deposits Arrears for hydro, heat, or rent Bed and/or fridge and/or stove Cost of mattress cover for bed bugs Moving expenses Last month s rent deposits Arrears for hydro, heat, or rent Bed and/or fridge and/or stove Cost of mattress cover for bed bugs Moving expenses Mortgage arrears Tax arrears Storage costs Level of Assistance: Households without children Singles and couples without children are eligible for up to $700 in a year Singles and couples without children are eligible for up to $1200 in a year Level of Assistance: Family with children Sole support parents or families with dependent children are eligible for $1300 in a calendar year Sole support parents or families with dependent children are eligible for $2000 in a calendar year Income Eligibility requirements Affordability Eligibility requirements Funding mechanism Clients who are eligible for OW, ODSP, or emergency assistance Affordability is assessed using the guideline of not more than 80% of total income being used for shelter. Exceptional situations are reviewed with a supervisor. Determined by annual municipal budget process, considering provincial funding. Can be amended by Council. Social Services Division draws on fund until depleted. Clients must not be a recipient of social assistance, rent support or rent supplement. Household income must not exceed low income cut off +15% Proportion of income used for housing cost must be more than 30% and housing must be sustainable Determined by annual municipal budget process and service contract. Funds are flowed on a quarterly basis. Total HSF Issued in 2013 $1,236,729 $159,112 The criteria at each delivery site were developed considering the population served and in keeping with the financial constraints. Page 12

13 2. Summary of the spending in 2013 in each program by type of benefit. In 2013 approximately 11% of the HSF ($159,112) was allocated for low income residents that are not in receipt of social assistance (HRC) and the balance was issued through the Social Services Division to social assistance recipients ($1,236,729). Figure 3. Social Services Reason for Issuances 2013 Furniture, Repairs 18% Moving 14% Utility Arrears 20% Social Services Rent Deposits 38% Rent Arrears 10% The benefits issued by Social Services were used most frequently to establish residence, with items such as rent deposits and moving expenses. The average amount issued per request in 2013= $406 9% of requests were denied Figure 4. HRC Reason for Issuance 2013 Alternative Heating 4% Moving/ Storage, Furniture 2% Rent Deposits 12% HRC The benefits issued by HRC were most frequently used to maintain an address or reduce housing related debt. Costs are most frequently associated with items such as utility and rent arrears. Rent Arrears 32% The average amount issued per request in 2013 = $741 Utility Arrears 48% Mortgage Arrears 2% 76% of requests were denied. These cases may have been denied based on failure to meet eligibility criteria or lack of funds. Page 13

14 3. Survey results Impact of HSF a. Cautions about the data The Steering Committee and staff made every effort to develop an evaluation plan that would provide the most useful results with the available resources and the given timeline. The population involved with the Housing Stability Fund tended to move during the evaluation time period and those that were denied benefits may have been harder to engage with the survey. Therefore, it is anticipated that there was a bias towards those who received funding. Every attempt was made to balance this bias with the focus groups and interviews at the shelters but that data was largely qualitative. There was no mechanism to gather information from residents who were not served, unless they resided in the emergency shelters. Some bias may have also been introduced because staff at HRC provided the survey and staff at Social Services called to remind clients to complete the survey and occasionally supported the clients to complete the survey online. The response rate for the survey was just over 10% (130 surveys) which met the target but is still a relatively small sample, particularly related to those denied and those clients served by HRC. There was some confusion by clients related to the survey, because they often did not know that the money they received came from the HSF. The application process is not formalized and is interwoven with other services and so some clients were unsure about which services related to the survey. Other clients were denied for one component of HSF (for example last month s rent) but approved for another (for example hydro arrears). This led to some confusing responses in the survey such as individuals identifying as being denied benefits but still being pleased with some outcomes. Some respondents also submitted surveys for time periods beyond the study period. Overall the evaluation design tried to balance the shortcomings of a challenging population to survey and a relatively small sample set with multiple information gathering mechanisms (a document review, a survey, focus groups, interviews and a client file review). The result is a combination of quantitative and qualitative data that will be useful in the evaluation of the HSF but that must be interpreted in keeping with the identified cautions. Page 14

15 b. Who applied for HSF benefits? Figure 5. Who applied for HSF by residency, age, family and income By residency: By age: 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% City of Peterborough County of Peterbrough 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% By family composition: By primary income source: 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Single Couple One parent with kids 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Couple 10% with kids 0% OW ODSP Other The distribution of applicants for HSF by geography (City or County) is representative of the distribution of social assistance cases between the City and the County. The family composition of applicants is also close to the family composition of cases on social assistance. Page 15

16 c. What are the differences between those granted or denied? Figure 6. For those that received HSF, did it help? 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% For 98% of respondents who received HSF it helped them keep housing, establish new housing or maintain their heat and hydro. 0% No it didn t help Kept housing Got new housing Maintained heat / hydro Figure 7. For those denied HSF, what was the? 60% 50% 40% 30% Half of the cases denied HSF indicated that they were not ed compared to the other 3 options. 20% 10% 0% No Lost housing Could not secure new housing Heat/ hydro disconnect The other half of the cases that were denied did have negative housing s with the most frequent being that they could not secure new housing. Each respondent was asked to indicate if the decision to grant or deny HSF ed a number of factors in their life. The following charts show the differences between responses for those granted assistance and those denied. The charts are in order from the greatest to the least. Clients comments are included next to each chart. Figure 8. Impact of HSF on debt 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% negative Negative No Positive Granted Denied positive Participants expressed that the HSF helped keep them from debt or going into further debt. Two clients asked for further help with their debts. Some expressed that debt was an issue for them, so paying for housing was difficult. Page 16

17 Figure 9. Impact of HSF on mental health 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% negative Negative No Positive Granted Denied positive Many participants explained that having precarious housing was damaging to their mental health. Some expressed that the HSF helped improve their mental health by lowering stress levels, and helped them sleep better at night; knowing they had a place to live/a bed to sleep on lifted a weight from their shoulders. Figure 10. Impact of HSF on food availability 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% negative Negative No Positive Granted Denied positive Participants either requested that food be included as part of the HSF, or explained that food was closely linked with housing as they often cannot afford both housing and food. For example, one client was approved for rent but not moving costs, so they had to go without food. Another participant was not approved and could not afford food. Figure 11. Impact of HSF on physical health 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% negative Negative No Positive Granted Denied positive Participants expressed that knowing they have a place to stay and that they can pay their bills positively affects their physical health. Clients said that not being approved for a bed and losing sleep because of it damaged their physical health; another client was approved for a bed and said her physical health is better off because of it. Other clients explained that not being able to move would mean staying in an abusive relationship. A different client explained that because the OW allowance is so low, the places s/he can afford are unclean and unsafe. One client expressed that being ill and in the hospital meant not being able to pay bills. Additionally, when a client had physical health issues, being accepted for the HSF helped immensely. Page 17

18 Figure 12. Impact of HSF on family relations 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% negative Negative No Positive Granted Denied positive Three people said they needed a new place to live because they were fleeing from mentally/ physically abusive situations. One expressed that his/her health was improving in part because s/he had a roof over her/his head. One explained that s/he is having a tougher time recovering because s/he was only partially approved. Figure 13. Impact of HSF on employment 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% negative Negative No Positive Granted Denied positive Some participants specified they wanted jobs to pay for their housing needs, but there were no jobs or no suitable jobs because of issues with type of work/ enough hours/ precarious work. One said that losing housing had a negative on his/her employment. Others said that having stable housing helped them to keep or gain a job. Figure 14. Impact of HSF on recreation opportunities 80% 60% 40% 20% Granted Denied 40% of clients denied funding stated that it had a negative on recreation opportunities. 0% negative Negative No Positive positive Figure 15 Impact of HSF on education 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% negative Negative No Positive Granted Denied positive In most cases the HSF had a minimal on recipients education, either positive or negative. One respondent reported that she quit college when denied HSF to get a job. Page 18

19 d. Qualitative information from the survey The survey provided two opportunities for respondents to provide qualitative information, one related to the s of the funding and the other related to suggestions for improvement. The responses related to outcomes have been included in Section C above, but all comments have been combined for analysis. Comments were categorized based on themes. The following chart reflects the frequency of comments by theme. The themes that were not included in the section above are further explained below with some examples of the comments. Specific suggestions for improvement are at the end of the section. Figure 16. Frequency of comments by theme 30 Frequency of comments HSF helped (26 comments) Many clients mentioned that the HSF had a positive on their lives, helped them keep or find new housing, and they were thankful for the assistance HSF gave them. Some clients mentioned that the process of applying to the HSF was effortless and well done, that the fund came through when they needed it, and that even if their housing situation was not ideal, the HSF was as effective as it could have been with the funding given. Some wished to say the HSF was great the way it was. One client said every time they came into the HRC they felt respected. Several clients explained that the HSF helped them either find new housing or maintain the housing they had, and that it improved their lives in some way. Many clients were either thankful for the HSF or the opportunity to give feedback. One client was thankful for the dignity to survive. Page 19

20 Unclear about Application for HSF/Confusion with Survey (10) Several participants were unaware they applied for the HSF, did not know what the HSF was, or the types of costs covered by the HSF. Others were not sure what the survey was asking about. Need more HSF funding (11) Clients asked for more HSF funding in general, and for items such as new beds, last month s rent, utilities, and rent. One wanted the amount raised to $1000 (for singles and couples without children), and some suggested the HSF be given more frequently for circumstances out of the applicant s control, especially in the winter. Two expressed that being denied funding led to homelessness, or that they will lose their housing if they do not receive the HSF. One client mentioned that being partially approved has made finding housing far more difficult than if s/he had been approved for all requests. Dignity (5) Many express that the only housing they can afford, on OW or otherwise, is an unsuitable and undignified place to live. One client felt the HSF gave him/her dignity to survive. One expressed that s/he felt degraded having to ask for food and shelter. OW/ODSP needs to increase the allowance for Housing (5) Participants said that OW/ODSP does not supply enough money for a place to live, and when they do it is not suitable. Many explained that their current living situations are deplorable because it s all they can afford on OW. One expressed that, just because someone is on OSAP does not mean they have the money to live. Travel (2) Two clients mentioned that either moving or making it to housing related appointments was difficult as one did not have a vehicle, and another had difficulty paying for gas. Miscellaneous (2) One person was not aware they qualified for the HSF until informed by Social Services. Focus on getting homes and shelter for clients so people are not forced to do things they don t want to do to get by. Many clients provided suggestions to improve the program as follows: Place individuals in homes based on age and compatibility. Social Services should arrange meetings for people who cannot afford to pay rent by themselves. Accept those who have moved within the past month and evaluate requests based on need. Make people feel more comfortable about applying Market the HSF better (x2) Regarding the survey, one should be able to select more than one source of income, some are on OW but have seasonal or part time jobs. Provide money for security items like locks, doors, and alarms. Help with storage costs Page 20

21 4. Focus group/ interview results Two focus groups were held at YES and 18 individual interviews at Brock. Many people were not clear about the purpose of the HSF and over 25% had not heard of the HSF. Only 50% had ever applied for HSF, though everyone in the focus group was living in an emergency shelter. Of the participants that applied for HSF, all were at least partially approved. When asked if HSF solved their housing problem, all of them indicated that it solved the immediate problem, at least temporarily. This is what they said: Used for first month s rent and got housing (x3) Solved sleeping problem, got a bed Solved problem temporarily. Had fights with Landlord and place not suitable. Helped get pots, pans, and other things - 25 months later relapsed back to crack and lost job and housing (Note: Eligibility for pots and pans was only available under Community Start up Benefit) Of the three cases that were only partially approved, all were denied last month s rent and ended up in the shelter. Focus group and interview participants were asked about their outstanding needs. The following chart demonstrates the frequency of certain comments based on general themes or needs. Figure 17. Outstanding needs and concerns by theme Outstanding needs/ concerns Some specific examples of financial support included last month s rent (10), unspecified/general (6), OW increase shelter allowance (5), bed/furniture/household items (5), rent subsidy (3), physical health (2), moving costs (1). Page 21

22 It was not just financial factors that led to homelessness. Participants identified a number of non-financial factors that contributed to their homelessness including: roommates (4), landlord (3), jail (3), mental health (3), addiction (3), safety (3), property damage (2), physical health (2), miscellaneous (2), neighbors (1). The support that clients requested aligned closely with the factors that they felt led to their homelessness and included: o better housing (decent, away from drugs, close to transportation, out of a rooming house) (16) o help finding a place (12) o affordable housing (11) o addiction (11) o mental health/ counselling (9) o dealing with landlords (4) o finding employment (7) o access to food (5) o physical disability (4) 5. File review results The final component of the evaluation was a review of Social Services files to explore how long people granted HSF retained their housing compared to those that were not granted HSF. There were 130 files reviewed with 100 granted assistance and 30 files denied funding. The review looked at the date HSF was issued and if there was an accommodation change during the study period. The chart below reflects how long clients are known to have maintained their housing. If a client maintained housing for 1-2 months, it does not mean that they moved in month 3. The study period was not long enough to know what happened in month 3. Some clients may have moved in month 3 but in other cases the third month was the end of the study period. Figure 18. Time of Housing Retention Number of months that housing was retained 60% 50% 40% Social Services cases only 30% 20% 10% Grants % Denials % 0% less than 1 month at least 1-2 months at least 3-5 months at least 6-9 months no note 59% of those granted HSF did not move during the study period 40% of those denied HSF did not move during the study period Page 22

23 Conclusions There were some considerable strengths as well as limitations to this evaluation. This evaluation was broad in that it was guided by a community Steering Committee and involved a number of different data-gathering mechanisms from a document review, client survey, focus groups and then an additional client file review to clarify some key questions. The evaluation assessed the outcomes achieved by HSF based on the client perspective and address history rather than just the distribution of funds. Though there were strengths, there were also limitations with the data, particularly related to the survey. The survey sample was just over 130 clients and may have been biased towards those that received funding as they were the easiest to locate for the survey. Finally, the survey was distributed by the agencies that delivered the program which could also lead to some biases; this was mitigated by engaging PPRN on the Steering Committee and obtaining research support through Trent University interns. Though there were limitations of the study and the data, there are still many evidence-based conclusions that can be drawn from the information. The areas of greatest demand depended on the agency delivering the program. For social assistance clients who received funding from Social Services the areas of greatest demand were rent deposits (38%), utility arrears (20%) and furniture (18%). For low income clients, not receiving social assistance who received funding through HRC, the areas of greatest demand were utility arrears (48%), rent arrears (32%) and rent deposits (12%). The key difference between the two programs is that Social Services primarily assisted clients to re-establish a residence and HRC supported clients to retain their residence. Over the entire program (both agencies), the outcomes of the program were fairly consistent. The Social Services file review demonstrates that the funding significantly ed the length of time that housing was retained. Almost 60% of those granted assistance retained their housing compared to only 40% who were denied support. The funding does more than support housing stability. It also s many other components of a person s life. The comparison between the s for those granted vs. those denied assistance indicates that housing stability had a positive when granted and a significantly negative when denied. HSF s the following aspects of a household (from greatest to least ) debt mental health food availability physical health family relations employment. The survey also asked clients to provide some suggestions for improvement. Clients requested additional funding for HSF, specifically for an increase in the maximum for single people, a greater focus on benefits in the winter and help with specific items such as storage costs, locks, doors and alarms. Though clients did suggest that funding be Page 23

24 increased, many of the suggestions were not funding related but involved either the process or a broader system approach. On a process level, clients wanted to understand the program better, feel more comfortable applying and they felt that the program could be marketed better. At the systems level, clients often indicated that homelessness was not only a result of a lack of housing stability funds but also a lack of safe, suitable and affordable housing. The level of social assistance rates, especially the shelter allowance was too low to afford reasonable housing. Mental health and addictions played a role for many respondents and they are asking for support in those areas. The focus groups, interviews and qualitative data from the survey highlighted the importance of a systems approach to solving homelessness. HSF alone will not support clients to retain housing if the other needs are not also addressed. Page 24

25 Appendix A You may complete this survey online at or complete the attached hardcopy. This survey is for people who applied for the Housing Stability Fund between November 1 st, 2013 and May 31, You can help us by completing this survey. The survey will take about 10 minutes to complete. It is designed to assess the of the Housing Stability Fund (HSF). The Housing Stability Fund assists with Getting a place to live, stopping an eviction, moving costs or a disconnection Paying for essential housing items like fridges or stoves The results from this survey help us make choices around policy and funding changes. Please do not provide any information that might personally identify you. The survey is voluntary and you can skip any questions you do not want to answer. The survey answers are confidential. Your comments will not be shared with your worker. If you have any questions or would like help filling out the survey, please contact: Nancy Fischer, Sr. Program Analyst Social Services x 3814 The survey can be returned in the postage paid self addressed envelope. Please submit the survey by August 1 st, 2014 Page 25

26 Please use a blue or black pen and do not make any marks outside of the boxes Please tell us a little about yourself. 1. Where do you live? City of Peterborough County of Peterborough 2. How old are you? What is your source of income? ODSP Ontario Works Other 4. Which of the following best describes your family? Single Couple One-parent, with kids Couple, with kids 5. Do you share your accommodation costs (rent, utilities, hydro, mortgage arrears) with anyone outside your immediate family? Yes No 6. How did you find out about the Housing Stability Fund? City of Peterborough Website Housing Resource Centre Social Assistance Staff Other, please specify Page 26

27 When did you first apply? (Month/Year) 7. Where was your Housing Stability Fund request approved or denied? Housing Resource Centre Social Services Division 8. Did you need to go to more than one agency to apply for the help you needed? Yes No 9. The process to apply for the Housing Stability Fund was: clear, I have no questions Clear, but I still have some questions Not clear, I do not understand it well enough, and have several questions I don t understand it at all 10. Your understanding of the types of costs covered by the Housing Stability Fund is clear, I have no questions Clear, but I still have some questions Not clear, I do not understand it well enough, and have several questions I don t understand it at all 11. How many times did you apply in the last 12 months? Once Twice Three times More than three times 12. How did you make your first request to apply for the Housing Stability Fund? During a scheduled interview Drop in Phone in Other, please explain: Page 27

28 The following questions apply to your first application for help since November 1 st, What did you ask for help with? Check all that apply. Beds Fridge/Appliance costs House Repairs Hydro arrears Last month s rent Mattress Covers Mortgage arrears Moving costs Oil/Gas Other heating sources (wood, propane etc) Property tax arrears Rent arrears Storage costs Other 14. If you received Housing Stability Fund, how much money did you receive? (Please put $0 if you did not receive Housing Stability Fund.) ($) 15. Did the Housing Stability Fund keep you from losing your housing, help get new housing, or maintain your heat and hydro? (Tick all that apply) No it didn t help Kept housing Got new housing Maintained heat and/or hydro 16. How long did you keep your place after applying to the Housing Stability Fund? Less than 1 month 1-2 months 3-5 months 6-9 months 12+ months Page 28

29 17. If you did not receive the Housing Stability Fund, did this contribute to you losing your housing, a lack of heat or hydro, or being unable to secure new housing? (Tick all that apply) No Lost housing Could not secure new housing Heat and/or hydro disconnect 18. How did the outcome of your Housing Stability Fund request affect the following areas of your life? Negative No Positive negative positive Education Physical Health Mental Health Family/Relationship Food Availability Debt Recreation Opportunities Employment Please explain: Page 29

30 19. Did you access a food bank or meal program within a month of receiving or being denied Housing Stability Fund assistance? Yes No 20. Did the amount of money you were making change in relation to any changes in your housing situation? Earnings remained the same Earnings went up Earnings went down N/A 21. Overall do you feel that the funds you received from the Housing Stability Fund allowed you to adequately deal with any housing related issues? Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 22. If any changes to the Housing Stability Fund are considered in the future, which three areas are the most important to you? Beds Fridge/Appliance costs House Repairs Hydro arrears Last month s rent Mattress Covers Mortgage arrears Moving costs Oil/Gas Other heating sources (wood, propane etc) Property tax arrears Rent arrears Storage costs Other Page 30

31 Please provide any suggestions or comments that you think could improve the Housing Stability Fund: Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. A report will be produced based on the survey results but it will not identify any individuals. See the you have made by taking this survey! You can pick up a copy of the final report in the fall from the Social Services Office at 178 Charlotte Street or from the web site at Page 31

32