housing ontario

ONPHAS REPORT ON WAITING LISTS STATISTICS FOR ONTARIO

WAITING LISTS SURVEY 2013OCTOBER 2013

2ONPHA | Waiting Lists Survey 2013

Thank you to the service manager staff that completed this years survey and responded to follow-up inquiries. We sincerely appreciate your time and effort.

Thanks also to Kerry Hobbs of York Region, Ishbel Solvason-Wiebe of The Social Housing Registry of Ottawa, Shelly Upton and Denis Desmeules of the City of Greater Sudbury, Carol Barber of the Cochrane District Social Service Administration Board, and Peter Altobelli of YARDI for their input into the revision of the questionnaire, the data collection process, and the content of the report.

This years Waiting Lists Survey was conducted by SHS Consulting on behalf of ONPHA.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Executive SummaryIntroductionSurvey ResultsConclusion

APPENDIX A: MethodologyAPPENDIX B: Glossary of TermsAPPENDIX C: Service Manager Level DataAPPENDIX D: Response Matrix

456

16

17192030

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES FIGURE 1: Number of households on Ontario waiting lists, 2003-2012

FIGURE 2: Percentage change in active households on waiting lists year-over-year, 2003-2012

FIGURE 3: Percentage of Ontario households on waiting lists for RGI housing, 2003-2012

FIGURE 4: Number of active households on waiting lists and Ontario unemployment rate, 2003-2012

FIGURE 5: Percentage of total active households on waiting lists by senior versus non-senior status, 2003-2012

FIGURE 6: Percentage of total active households on waiting lists by applicant status, 2012

FIGURE 7: Weighted average Ontario wait times in years, overall and by applicant status, 2012

FIGURE 8: Percentage of total households housed by seniorversus non-senior status, 2012

FIGURE 9: Percentage of total households housed by applicant status, 2012

FIGURE 10: Percentage of total applications received by senior versus non-senior status, 2012

FIGURE 11: Percentage of total new applications received by applicant status, 2012

FIGURE 12: Percentage of total cancelled applications by senior versus non-senior status, 2012

FIGURE 13: Percentage of total cancelled applications by applicant status, 2012


TABLE 1: Local priority categories and the number of service managers offering priorities in each, 2011 and 2012

667789

1112121313141415

10


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Access to most rent-geared-to-income (RGI) housing1 in Ontario is managed by 47 provincially-designated municipal service managers2, each of which operates its own waiting list. Since 2004, ONPHA has conducted an annual survey of service managers to document the number of households waiting for RGI housing. By drawing attention to the number of households waiting for RGI housing, our goal is to educate and empower governments and communities to work together to address Ontarios growing affordable housing crisis.

158,445 households were waiting for RGI housing as of December 31, 2012. Thats 3.05 per cent of households in Ontario. The number and percentage of Ontario households on waiting lists are the highest they have been since 2004. It is encouraging, however, that 2011 to 2012 saw the lowest year-over-year growth in waiting households since the 2008-09 recession (1.3 per cent).

18,378 households moved into RGI housing in 2012. Just over 11 per cent of households on the waiting lists were housed.

For every household housed, more than two households exited waiting lists in 2012. Across Ontario, 40,074 applications for RGI housing were cancelled.

For every household housed, more than three new applications were received in 2012. 62,094 new households applied for RGI housing in communities across the province.

Households housed in 2012 waited an average 3.2 yearsActual wait times vary significantly depending on location, household type, and priority status. Some households were housed in a month, while others waited close to 10 years. Average wait times were far shorter for applicants with Special Priority Policy (SPP) designation or a local priority status.3

As the population ages, the demand for RGI seniors housing is growing. The number of seniors waiting for RGI housing has grown steadily and reached 45,385 households (29 per cent of waiting households) in 2012.

Service managers are offering more local priorities. Service managers have been encouraged by the Province to designate local priorities, conditions under which households could gain access to RGI housing more quickly. As a result, the RGI housing system is increasingly focused on housing sub-populations in need and not low-and-moderate income Ontarians.

Housing is not being built to meet the need. Federal-provincial social housing production programs ended in 1995. Modest investments by Federal and Provincial governments since then have created some affordable housing units in Ontario. This investment has taken some pressure off waiting lists but has not stemmed their growth. Not enough new affordable housing is being built and, in most cases, rents for these new units are unaffordable for households waiting for RGI housing. Ontario communities cannot address the crisis alone. Across Ontario, demand for affordable housing far exceeds supply. Service managers are now responsible for planning and delivering affordable housing in their communities, and local commitment to affordable housing is important. But, service managers do not have the resources they need to meet the challenge alone. The success of local design and delivery will depend on robust provincial and federal funding.

1 Rent-geared-to-income (RGI) assistance refers to the financial assistance received by households which enables them to pay rent based on 30 per cent of their gross income. RGI housing is provided by non-profit housing providers, local housing corporations and co-operative housing corporations, and through rent supplements which subsidize market rents in non-profits, co-ops, and private rentals.

2 Service manager refers to both Consolidated Municipal Service Managers and District Social Services Administration Boards (DSSABs). See Appendix B for a full definition.

3 SPP is a Provincial policy which grants priority status to individuals who have experienced domestic violence.


The Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association (ONPHA) has conducted its Waiting Lists Survey annually since 2004. The survey enables us to report on the number of households on waiting lists for rent-geared-to-income (RGI) housing4 in Ontario and the duration of their wait for housing. This report summarizes activity on waiting lists in 2012.

Under provincial legislation, each service manager5 in Ontario must maintain a waiting list for RGI housing. Waiting lists are administered locally through co-ordinated access systems. Centralized waiting lists capture those households that have applied for RGI housing in each service manager area.

Waiting lists for RGI housing provide one measure of the need for affordable housing in Ontario. Waiting lists include only those households that know about RGI housing, have chosen to apply, and have kept their application current by responding to service manager requests to update information. As a result, waiting list numbers substantially underestimate the total number of households in need of affordable housing in Ontario.

4 Rent-geared-to-income (RGI) assistance refers to the financial assistance received by households which allows them to pay rent based on 30 per cent of their gross income. RGI housing is provided by non-profit housing providers, local housing corporations and co-operative housing corporations, and through rent supplements which subsidize market rents in non-profits, co-ops, and the private rental market.

5 Service manager refers to both municipal service managers and District Social Services Administration Boards (DSSABs). See Appendix B for a full definition.

INTRODUCTION


HOW MANY HOUSEHOLDS ARE WAITING?

There were 158,445 households on waiting lists for RGI housing in Ontario as of December 31, 2012.7 In comparison, there are approximately 186,000 RGI units in Ontario.

Figure 1 includes households that either submitted new applications in 2012, or maintained their existing application by keeping in contact with the local coordinated access system during that time. These waiting households are commonly referred to as active households.

Change in the number of active households on waiting listsThe waiting lists total increased by 2,067 households, or 1.3 per cent, between 2011 and 2012. Local waiting lists grew in 26 of the 47 service manager areas in 2012, compared to 33 of 47 in 2011 and 30 of 47 in 2010.

From 2003 to 2006, the number of waiting households decreased gradually. Since then, the total number of waiting households has increased annually. There were large increases in 2009 and 2010, reflecting the impact of the 2008-09 recession. The number of households on waiting lists has not returned to pre-recession levels, but it is encouraging that 2012 saw the smallest year-over-year increase since the recession.

Percentage of Ontario households on waiting listsThe percentage of Ontario households on a waiting list for RGI housing increased from 2006 to 2012 and 2012 saw the largest increase to date (3.05 per cent). The need for affordable housing continues to grow faster than the rate of household formation and population growth.

SURVEY RESULTS

7 This number represents applicants recorded in a service managers database as eligible, active or on offer. 2012 data is based on responses from 45 of the 47 service managers, with substitutions used for the remaining two service managers (their 2011 figures were inflated based on the province-wide rate of waiting list growth between 2011 and 2012: 1.3 per cent). Post-inflation, these two service managers waiting list totals cumulatively account for only one per cent of the total provincial figure of 158,445. See Appendix D for further details and response rates by survey question. Seven service managers reported that their data represented May of 2013, when it was pulled, instead of December 31, 2012, as their systems were not capable of retrieving data from the earlier requested date of December 31, 2012.

FIGURE 1: Number of households on Ontario waiting lists, 2003-2012

FIGURE 2: Percentage change in active households on waiting lists year-over-year, 2003-2012

ONPHA WAITING LISTS SURVEY REPORTS 2004-2013.


Before the 2008-09 recession, 2.6 per cent of Ontario households were waiting for RGI housing. That figure is now consistently higher. The increased demand can be attributed to an aging population, as well as low vacancy rates and high market rents in much of the province.

The affordability gap what low-income tenants can afford versus what they actually pay has deepened over the last decade. One in five Ontario tenants is now in Persistent Core Housing Need, the highest proportion in Canada.8

Unemployment and the waiting listsEmployment growth weakened in 2012 as fewer jobs were created compared to 2011 and the economy slowed considerably in the second half of the year.9 The unemployment rate remained steady between 2011 and 2012 at 7.8 per cent. Though down from the 2009 recessionary peak of 9.0 per cent, the unemployment rate remains higher than in the five years prior to the recession. Change in the number of active households on waiting lists for RGI housing tends to track the unemployment rate, as shown in Figure 4.

However, a declining and then moderating unemployment rate from 2010 to 2012 has not caused a drop-off in households waiting for RGI housing. This may be in part because of a discouraged worker phenomenon. A discouraged worker is one who stops looking for work and, as a result, is no longer considered unemployed because they are no longer counted as part of the labour force.10 But, many of these workers could still experience the economic challenges that drove them to apply for RGI housing, resulting in their remaining active on waiting lists.

The possible disconnect between the unemployment rate and change in the number of households waiting for RGI housing may also be driven by population aging. Population aging is causing an increase in demand for RGI housing that is not as clearly linked to economic conditions.

8 ONPHA. (2013). Wheres Home 2013: Looking Back and Looking Forward at the Need for Affordable Housing in Ontario. Page 46.

9 Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. (2013). Labour Market Bulletin: Ontario, Annual Edition 2012.

10 Goar, Carol. (August 16 2013). Canadas job numbers dont tell the real story. The Star. Accessed September 5th from http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/08/16/canadas_job_numbers_dont_tell_the_real_story_goar.html

FIGURE 3: Percentage of Ontario households on waiting lists for RGI housing, 2003-2012

FIGURE 4: Number of active households on waiting lists and Ontario unemployment rate, 2003-2012

ONPHA WAITING LISTS SURVEY REPORTS 2004-2013, STATISTICS CANADA POPULATION ESTIMATES, 2013, AND STATISTICS CANADA CENSUSES 2001, 2006, AND 2011

ONPHA WAITING LISTS SURVEY REPORTS 2004-2013 AND STATISTICS CANADA, LABOUR FORCE ESTIMATES, 2013


The waiting list totals are not just numbers. They represent peopleour neighbours, family, and friends. This section looks at who is waiting and their status on the lists.

Seniors versus non-seniorsIt is common for waiting list administrators to differentiate applicants based on their age, specifically whether or not they are seniors. The minimum age for senior designation ranges from 50 to 65 years of age. The age criterion varies between service manager areas and can also vary between buildings within a service managers portfolio. Sometimes there are cascading age policies, where first consideration goes to those aged 65 years and over, then to younger age cohorts. The number of non-senior households on waiting lists has fluctuated in recent years. It rose between 2009 and 2011, likely due to the recession, and then decreased by three per cent in 2012. Last year there were 111,806 non-senior households on waiting lists, representing 71 per cent of the total number of households waiting.

In contrast, the number of senior households on waiting lists has steadily increased over time. In 2012, there were 45,385 senior households on waiting lists, comprising 29 per cent of the total.

In 2012, the number of seniors on local waiting lists increased by 15 per cent. It is important to note, however, that this years survey asked respondents to identify all applicants that had been designated as seniors. In the past, our survey had asked for the number of applicants waiting for units in seniors-only buildings. This change likely contributed to the pronounced change the ratio of senior to non-senior applicants seen in 2012. And, while the change makes this years survey results less comparable to the results of past surveys, it does provide a more accurate picture of the age profile of waiting households.

Still, Figure 5 shows a clear trend. Since 2003, the proportion of senior households on waiting lists has steadily increased as Ontarios population ages. For seniors with lower incomes who do not own their homes or cannot afford to keep them, RGI housing is an important

housing option. Demand is likely to continue to grow as baby boomers transition to retirement and supply is further constrained by reduced unit turnover, as current RGI tenants remain in their RGI housing longer.

As the population ages, demand for RGI housing will continue to grow. Additionally, population growth and challenges resulting from changes in the economy will add their own demand pressure unless a comprehensive and robust supply program is initiated.

WHO IS WAITING?

FIGURE 5: Percentage of total active households on waiting lists by senior versus non-senior status, 2003-2012

ONPHA WAITING LISTS SURVEY REPORTS 2004-2013. NOTE: 2012 DATA IS BASED ON RESPONSES FROM 45 SERVICE MANAGERS ACCOUNTING FOR 157,191 HOUSEHOLDS, 99%

OF TOTAL WAITING HOUSEHOLDS.


Status on the listAll applicants fit into one or more of the following categories:

Chronological: Applicants are ranked by their date of application for housing and qualify solely based on their income

Special Priority Policy (SPP): Applicants are experiencing domestic violence and are given high priority access to housing.

Local priority: Applicants qualify for locally-identified priority statuses, such as homelessness. Service managers may create local priorities and can include rules that limit local priority applicants to a proportion of openings (e.g. one in 10 openings).

Figure 6 shows the percentage of total waiting households in each category in 2012.

The vast majority of households waiting for RGI housing are chronological applicants. Senior and non-senior households may fit into any of these categories. A household in any of these categories may also be waiting for a modified unit,11 which puts them in a separate, additional category on the waiting list.

11 Following the Housing Services Act definition, a modified unit is, a unit that has been modified so as to be accessible to an individual with a physical disability or so as to allow an individual with a physical disability to live independently. There were 1,534 active households waiting for a modified unit in 2012 in the 29 service manager areas that reported this data.

12 The other category includes critical priority applicants with extraordinary and unusual costs that make the payment of market rent unreasonable, special needs, ground floor for medical reasons, severe economic hardship, and tenants of supportive housing.

FIGURE 6: Percentage of total active households on waiting lists by applicant status, 2012

Note: Figure is based on responses from 41 service managers accounting for 152,770 households, 96% of total waiting households. Includes responses from service managers that provided data for all three categories (SPP, local priority, and

chronological) or that did not have local priority active households.

10

ONPHA | Waiting Lists Survey 2013

Local prioritiesThirty-two service managers had one or more local priorities in 2012, up from 26 in 2011. Table 1 outlines local priority categories and the number of service managers that implemented local priorities in these categories in 2011 and 2012.

The Housing Services Act increased service manager flexibility and was part of a series of changes that further empowered service managers to create local housing solutions. In this context, service managers have increasingly chosen to implement local priorities. In total, 76 individual local priorities were offered by service managers in 2012, compared to 59 in 2011. More than half of service managers that have set local priorities include a

homeless or urgent priority for households who need housing immediately to avoid homelessness13 or who are currently homeless. The number of service managers offering urgent or homeless priorities increased in 2012, in line with the Provincial mandate to adopt a housing first approach to ending and preventing homelessness. It is anticipated that, with the implementation of local housing and homelessness plans, the number of local priorities offered will continue to increase.14

Creating local priority categories is an approach for best utilizing scarce housing resources. In the absence of a sufficient supply of affordable housing, service managers are doing their best to direct housing to those most in need in their communities.

13 For more information on housing first in Ontario see: ONPHA. 2013. focusON Housing First

14 Each service manager is required by the Province to implement a local housing and homelessness plan by January, 2014.

LOCAL PRIORITY CATEGORIES Number of service managers in 2011Number of service managers in 2012

Homeless 13 15

Medical (including terminally ill and release from facility) 14 12

In-situ market tenants 7 8

Health and safety (including substandard/condemned/uninhabitable or destroyed housing) 4 7

In-situ tenants (example: market rent to RGI) 3 7

Urgent 5 6

Families that have been, or may be, separated due to lack of housing 0 5

Newcomer 3 4

Youth 3 4

Victims of violence in need of supportive housing 2 2Other 5 6

Total number of local priorities 59 76

Table 1: Local priority categories and the number of service managers offering priorities in each, 2011 and 2012

ONPHA 2012 WAITING LISTS REPORT AND CURRENT

11


While the number of waiting households continues to grow each year, many Ontario households opened a door to a new affordable home in 2012. This section looks at how long households waited to be housed, who was housed, who applied for housing, how many applications were cancelled, and what impact this movement has overall.

Wait times Wait times for housing varied from one month to nearly ten years in 2012.15 Average wait times were calculated by service managers, who were asked to average the amount of time that all households housed in 2012 had waited between the date they applied housing and the date they were housed.

The wait times reported are averages. Within service manager areas, wait times can vary widely between properties. While averages provide a clear overview, they cannot show the nuances that exist within service manager areas in which very long and much shorter wait times can exist simultaneously for different applicants.

The average wait time for all households housed in Ontario in 2012 was 3.2 years.16 Figure 7 shows average wait times by applicant status and overall. Appendix C presents service manager level data. Overall, long wait times are driven by the lack of RGI housing. Service managers reported that applicants refusing the first unit they were offered, seniors waiting for seniors-only housing, and low unit turnover also contributed to wait times. Applicants requiring housing located close to family members, needed services or employment often face far longer than average wait times.

SPP and local priority applicants had shorter wait times than waiting households overall. Together, local priorities and SPP are programs

designed to rapidly house those most in need of housing. All waiting households are in need housing and it is the lack of supply of RGI housing that necessitates the development of strategies for allocating housing resources to those deemed to be most in the greatest need.

At 3.37 years, the average wait time for seniors is up 34.8 per cent from 2011, when it was 2.5 years. As the population ages and the proportion of seniors on waiting lists grow, it is likely that seniors wait times will continue to grow as well.

15 Wait times for households newly housed is one approach to gauging the performance of access systems for RGI housing. Different results would be obtained if we examined the length of time from date of application to the current date for households still waiting, or if we considered theoretical wait times, which calculate how long it would take to house all the active households on the waiting lists at current rates.

16 This is a weighted average, as are the averages presented in figure 7.

MOVEMENT ON THE WAITING LIST

FIGURE 7: Weighted average Ontario wait times in years, overall and by applicant status, 2012

Note: Provincial weighted averages were calculated by weighing each service managers average wait times - by applicant category - by their proportion of total Ontario households housed in these

applicant categories: overall, SPP, and local priority.

12


Households housed In 2012, 18,378 households were housed in RGI housing. This number is driven by turnover in RGI units and, to a lesser extent, by changes in the total number of RGI units in Ontario.

Figure 8 shows the percentage of households housed by senior versus non-senior status in 2012.

The proportion of seniors versus non-seniors housed roughly reflects their proportions of total active households waiting for RGI housing (71 for non-seniors versus 29 per cent for seniors).

Figure 9 shows the proportion of households housed by applicant status.

SPP and local priority applicants were far more likely to be housed than chronological applicants:

SPP applicants made up three per cent of the active households on waiting lists, but were 26 per cent of households housed.

Local priority applicants made up three per cent of active households on waiting lists, but were 16 per cent of households housed.

Chronological applicants made up 94 per cent of active households on the waiting lists, but only 58 per cent of households housed.

While the priorities system drives this outcome, the underlying flaw in the system is the lack of a sufficient quantity of RGI housing and a realistic Provincial plan to serve waiting households.

New applicantsThere were 62,094 new applications for RGI housing in 2012. In nine service manager areas, the number of new applications received in 2012 was greater than the number of active applicants on the waiting lists at the end of 2011, signaling drastic growth in the need for RGI housing and an additional source of pressure on service managers already struggling to meet community needs.

FIGURE 8: Percentage of total households housed by senior versus non-senior status, 2012

FIGURE 9: Percentage of total households housed by applicant status, 2012

Note: Figure based on responses from 41 service managers accounting for 17,083 households, 93% of total households housed in 2012. Seven service managers did not provide data for chronological applicants, but figures were imputed for five based on

their total, local priority and SPP figures.

Note: Figure is based on responses from 45 service managers accounting for 17,924 households housed, 98% of total households housed in 2012.

13


Figure 10 shows the proportion of total applications by household type (senior versus non-senior).

The proportion of total new applications by senior versus non-senior status roughly aligns with the senior versus non-senior proportion of total households waiting for housing (29 per cent versus 71 per cent) and the proportion of senior versus non-senior households housed (26 per cent versus 74 per cent).

Figure 11 shows the proportion of new applications received by applicant status.

The proportion of new applications received by applicant status shows that the vast majority of applicants for RGI housing fall in the chronological category. As discussed above, the same is not reflected in households housed. SPP and local priority applicants are housed in greater proportion and far more quickly.

Cancelled applicationsApplications can be cancelled for a number of reasons. A household may ask to be removed from the list. Service managers may also cancel applications for any one of the following reasons:

applicant deemed ineligible (e.g. no status in Canada, not meeting income or asset limits)

applicant submitted incomplete application and did not respond to requests for missing information

applicant did not respond to service managers annual or bi-annual update request

applicant refused three offers of housing

In total, 40,074 applications were cancelled in 2012.

FIGURE 10: Percentage of total applications received by senior versus non-senior status, 2012

FIGURE 11: Percentage of total new applications received by applicant status, 2012

Note: Figure based on responses from 41 service managers accounting for 56,032 households, 90% of total new applications in 2012.

Note: Figure based on responses from 39 service managers accounting for 55,029 households, 89% of total new applications in 2012. Ten service managers did not provide data for chronological

applicants, but figures were imputed for six based on their total, local priority and SPP figures.

14


Figure 12 shows the proportion of cancelled applications by household type (senior versus non-senior).

The senior versus non-senior proportion of total cancelled applications roughly aligns with senior versus non-senior proportions of total active households (29 per cent versus 71 per cent), total housed households (74 per cent versus 26 per cent), and total new applications (77 per cent versus 23 per cent). Seniors applicants do not appear to be cancelled in greater proportion than what would be expected.

Figure 13 shows the proportion of total cancelled applications by applicant status.

The proportion of total cancelled applications by applicant status roughly aligns with the proportion of total active households and total new applications by applicant status. As noted, total housed households by applicant status is the outlier in this regard.

FIGURE 12: Percentage of total cancelled applications by senior versus non-senior status, 2012


Note: Figure based on responses from 41 service managers accounting for 37,568 households, 94% of total cancelled applications in 2012.

Note: Figure based on responses from 41 service managers accounting for 37,568 households, 94% of total cancelled applications in 2012.

15


The waiting lists at a glanceFor every one household housed, two applications were cancelled and three new applications were received. Figure 14 shows this 1:2:3 ratio.

18,378 households were housed in 2012 compared to 40,074 applications cancelled and 62,094 new applications received.

Sadly, the most likely outcome for the 158,445 households on Ontarios waiting lists is not ultimately accessing RGI housing. Rather, it is exiting the waiting list, likely without an alternative affordable home.

For every household housed, two have their applications cancelled.

Applications are often cancelled when applicants fall out of touch with service managers during lengthy waiting periods. Applicants may give up and cease to supply requested information, or may change addresses and lose track of their application process. People struggling with unaffordable housing and housing insecurity often move frequently.

The need for affordable housing is acute. While far fewer households on the waiting lists will ultimately be housed than will have their applications cancelled, growing numbers of new applicants continue to flock to the system in search of affordable housing. Ontario does not have a plan to address this crisis.


HOUSED CANCELLED APPLIED

16


The total number of households on Ontarios waiting lists continues to grow. As of December 31, 2012, 158,445 households, or 3.05 per cent of all of Ontario households, were waiting for a home they could afford.

While rate of growth of waiting lists slowed in 2012, the number of waiting households continues to grow and has not returned to pre-recession levels, even as economic conditions have moderately improved. This is due, in part, to population aging, which will continue to place increased pressure on Ontarios finite RGI housing stock. Future growth will also be driven by changes in the economy and the growth of Ontarios population.

Behind the numbers is a quiet crisis: the ongoing struggle of low income Ontarians to find affordable housing.

Housing opens doors. Affordable housing plays a vital role in the success of every Ontario community. It helps low-income Ontarians be healthier, better educated and enables them to find and maintain employment. Its an investment that saves money, reduces poverty, creates jobs, and helps to ensure the long-term success and prosperity of our province. The expenditures required to ensure a sufficient supply of adequate, secure, affordable housing for Ontarians should be view as investments, not as costs.

Ontarios service managers have been directed by the Provincial government to manage local housing systems and develop local housing and homelessness solutions. But, they have not been given resources commensurate with their substantial responsibilities and the level of need in their communities. Service managers need committed, on-going assistance from their senior government partners to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing in their communities. They cant address the crisis alone. Ontarios non-profit housing sector stands ready to work with service managers and senior levels of government to address Ontarios increasing affordable housing shortage.

CONCLUSION

17


METHODThe waiting lists survey was conducted on behalf of ONPHA by SHS Consulting. Prior to sending out the survey, consultations were conducted with select key informant service managers involved in RGI housing waiting list administration and policy to gather input on possible improvements to the survey, data collection process, and report and how the waiting lists survey could better reflect key data and trends related to rent-geared-to-income housing waiting lists across the province.

Interviews were held in March and April 2013 with Kerry Hobbs of York Region, Ishbel Solvason-Wiebe of the Ottawa Housing Registry, Shelly Upton and Denis Desmeules of the City of Greater Sudbury, and Carol Barber of the Cochrane District Social Services Administration Board. Peter Altobelli of Yardi17 was also consulted on the feasibility of developing a tool to automate statistical report generation. The survey questionnaire was then revised to incorporate the suggestions provided by those consulted.

The revised questionnaire asked service managers questions about the active applicants on their local waiting lists for RGI housing as of December 31, 2012, including number of active households, household type and applicant status for eligible applicants on the waiting lists, new applications received, applicants housed, and applications cancelled in 2012. This year, we also added requests for waiting list and wait time data by unit size for non-senior households, as well as reasons for the cancellation of applications and why current rent-geared-to-income housing residents are on the waiting list, as this was highlighted as important data that should be collected by those consulted.

Other additional questions added as a result of the consultations included asking service managers how often applicants on their waiting list are contacted to update their information and status; whether they are considering incorporating Choice Based Letting into their waiting list;

whether they plan to conduct research on how applicants are coping while waiting for RGI housing and/or how their situation has improved since being housed; whether their area has implemented new policies that may affect the waiting list; and whether they would be willing to give permission to YARDI to run de-identified aggregate statistical reports for the ONPHA Waiting Lists Survey in the future. These questions help us to explore changes to the waiting lists beyond tracking the total.

Not all information collected through the survey process is contained in this report. Some information is reported in the data tables in Appendix C which contains service manager level information, but not in the body of this report.

Survey questionnaires were sent out by e-mail in early May, 2013 to the 47 service manager areas in Ontario. We received completed surveys from 45 service managers during the period from May to July 2013. Responses were not received from the City of Cornwall and the County of Oxford due to changes to their waiting list system and database this year that prevented data reporting. Their data for total number of new applications received, total number of households housed, and total number of applications cancelled from the 2012 survey was used in the data analysis. For the purpose of calculating the total provincial waiting lists number, the provincial increase in 2012 of 1.3 per cent was applied to their 2011 numbers.

This year we also provided updated guidelines for both YARDI and non-YARDI users to extract the requested data from their statistical reports in Excel, in order to address issues in data collection and consistency highlighted by those consulted. In previous years, some service managers had used different definitions of an eligible applicant or a cancelled application for example, or different processes for calculating wait times, resulting in data from service managers that varied in what it represented. The guidelines attempt to help all service managers provide

17 Yardi is the most commonly used property management database system by service managers to manage all aspects of their rent-geared-to-income housing database.

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY

18


the same sets of data. A few service managers provided a range for some wait times this year; for the purpose of aggregating the data we calculated the midpoint of the range.

This year, service managers were also asked to verify any data set that showed a significant change from the previous year. The purpose of this process was to ensure that no mistakes were made in data collection, as well as to gain insight into changes in the waiting list and the effect the data collection guidelines had.

Additionally, in order to address the absence of reported data in some cases, figures were imputed, when possible, from other reported data.

LIMITATIONSService managers central waiting lists provide an indication of the need for affordable housing in Ontario. However, waiting lists do not capture all households that need affordable housing across the province. Centralized waiting lists capture those households that have applied for RGI housing in each service manager area. Waiting lists do not include applicants for all affordable housing options, such as affordable home ownership or affordable units built under the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program, unless those units have RGI rent supplements attached to them.

Waiting lists include only those households that know about RGI housing, have chosen to apply, and keep their application current by responding to service manager requests and updating information. Thus the waiting lists survey does not capture people who need affordable housing, but do not know about RGI housing or how to apply. It also does not capture those in need who choose not to apply or do not keep their application current, due to long wait times, location of housing, moves due to housing instability, or other reasons.

Given these limitations, the waiting lists survey results may be viewed as one indicator of affordable housing need in Ontario, alongside other indicators, such as low-income data and Core housing Need.

DATA LIMITATIONSThere are some limitations regarding how representative the data presented in this report are of waiting lists in Ontario. Considering the different database management systems used by service managers

throughout the province, as well as varying approaches to pulling data from these systems, the same method of data collection could not be used by every service manager. Furthermore, some service managers underwent changes that affected their data collection process. Therefore, while we have done our best to verify and clarify the data provided, in the absence of a unifying data system for social housing in Ontario, there will inevitably be comparability challenges between service managers.

We have encountered the following specific data limitations:

Seven service managers reported that their data represented when it was pulled (May of 2013) as their systems were incapable of retrieving the waiting list totals requested from December 31, 2012.

Some service managers expressed concerns that outliers in their data could affect calculations and result in inaccurate representation, in particular for wait times. We have emphasized that as averages, the wait times reported can cover-over substantial differences within service manager areas.

Some service managers experienced large increases/decreases in their data this year or last year due to moves, either physical or database-related, that affected their data collection and update process, or undertook large waiting list clean ups in 2011 or 2012 that resulted in a large change in numbers, such as a large number of cancellations.

Across service manager areas, the precise meaning of the statuses of transfer, pending, cancelled, housed or hold are often different and these differences can impact the ways in which service managers responded to survey questions.

In previous surveys ONPHA asked service managers to report as seniors only households waiting for designated seniors buildings. This year, service managers were asked to apply their local age criteria. This likely had the effect of inflating this years count of senior households relative to the past.

Wait times may not include households that have been waiting for years, as calculations only include wait times for those housed.

19


Active households: Households on the waiting lists which have been deemed eligible for rent- geared-to-income (RGI) housing, including those currently on offer for a unit. Active households include households that have submitted new applications between January 1 and December 31, 2012, and households that have maintained their application by responding to any service manager requests for information.

Applicant: A household, consisting of one individual living alone or two or more individuals living together, that has applied for RGI housing.

Applicant Category/Status: Applicant status refers to categories used to rank applicants on centralized waiting lists. There are three main categories:

Special Priority Policy (SPP) Legislated first under the Social Housing Reform Act and now under the Housing Services Act, the Special Priority Policy gives priority status to households with a member who has been a victim of domestic violence.

Local Priority Service managers are allowed to create Local Priority categories for RGI housing. These priority categories are based on identified local needs households that are homeless, newcomers, or youth, or require medical transfer). Applicants with Local Priority status are housed after Special Priority Policy applicants, but before Chronological applicants. In some cases, service managers may create additional rules, reserving every one in 10 openings for households with Local Priority.

Chronological Applicants who are ranked on the centralized waiting list based on their date of application.

Average Wait Times: For the purposes of this survey, wait times are calculated as the average length of time between the date of application and the date housed for those households housed in 2012.

Cancelled applications: Household applications that have been cancelled in 2012, even if they may be later re-instated. Applications may be cancelled by the applicant, or may be cancelled or made inactive by the service manager.

Centralized Waiting List: The combined waiting lists for all housing providers of RGI housing that are required to participate in centralized waiting lists. This list may not include alternative housing providers (those who house the hard-to-house and homeless) or supportive housing providers.

Consolidated Municipal Service Manager / District Social Services Administration Board (DSSAB): A Consolidated Municipal Service Manager, generally referred to as a service manager, is a designated municipality that is the service delivery agent for affordable and social housing and certain other programs within its area. CMSMs may be upper-tier governments (regional or county) or may be cities. In the north (other than Greater Sudbury), District Social Services Administration Boards (DSSABs), bodies created through Provincial legislation, carry out service manager duties. Both are referred to in this report as service managers.

Eligible Applicants: Those applicants that are recorded in a service managers database as eligible, active or on offer.

Household: An individual who lives alone or two or more persons who live together.

Household Type: Households are grouped into three types:

Senior The criterion for senior households varies by service manager area and, in some cases, may also vary depending on the mandate of local seniors housing providers. While some areas or providers define seniors as 55 and over, most areas define senior households as 60 or 65 years and over. Households may be allowed to apply earlier (e.g. in their 59th year where criterion is 60) given wait times of over one year.

Non-Senior Households consisting of an individual or a couple eligible for a bachelor or one bedroom unit that do not yet meet the criterion for seniors housing.

Housed Households: Households that were housed in social or RGI housing during 2012.

New applications: New applications received in 2012, which are deemed eligible.

Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) Housing: Rent-geared-to-income (RGI) assistance refers to the financial assistance received by households which allows them to pay rent based on 30 per cent of their gross income. RGI housing is provided by non-profit housing providers, local housing corporations and co-operative housing corporations, and through rent supplements which subsidize market rents in non-profits, co-ops, and private rentals.

APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

20


APPENDIX C: SERVICE MANAGER LEVEL DATA

18 Due to changes to their waiting list system, the City of Cornwall was unable to provide data this year. In order to show a comprehensive list of active households on waiting lists in Ontario, Cornwalls number of active households from last years report was included here

Service Manager

ActiveHH 2012

Active HH 2011

ActiveHH 2010

ActiveHH 2009

ActiveHH 2008

ActiveHH 2007

ActiveHH 2006

ActiveHH 2005

ActiveHH 2004

ActiveHH 2003

Algoma 695 700 310 291 247 255 209 240 248 260Brantford 947 899 877 907 1,233 1,257 1,022 1,232 971 1,415

Bruce 264 311 203 180 140 166 189 137 119 137

Chatham Kent 304 371 321 305 308 235 277 216 150 228

Cochrane 1,458 1,720 1,944 1,772 1,840 1,615 1,717 1,225 1,020 727

Cornwall 86018 860 792 764 792 755 667 588 519 472

Dufferin 462 427 511 387 433 467 516 470 440 454

Durham 4,751 4,348 4,260 3,926 3,922 3,650 3,644 4,543 4,188 3,775

Grey County 653 795 679 741 713 630 652 652 656 588

Halton 3,398 3,153 2,140 1,931 1,888 1,906 2,054 1,606 1,702 2,333

Hamilton 4,762 6,062 5,364 5,045 4,166 3,904 3,817 4,375 4,863 4,362

Hastings 1,315 1,359 1,519 1,366 1,235 946 855 855 1,065 855

Huron 214 342 226 237 172 183 309 190 143 145

Kawartha Lakes 579 531 531 444 546 498 600 683 560 604

Kenora 358 451 382 546 452 621 494 499 640 712

Kingston 1,176 1,156 1,169 1,070 1,090 1,012 1,062 956 952 1,001

Lambton 466 537 508 529 453 483 434 403 378 265

Lanark 414 237 472 411 510 345 276 304 319 302

Leeds and Grenville 461 527 483 424 679 480 435 468 464 469

Lennox & Addington 373 304 407 224 427 572 731 644 489 439

London 2,172 3,090 4,037 4,265 3,852 3,377 3,440 3,963 3,735 4,451

Manitoulin-Sudbury 619 274 310 214 180 226 174 161 142 91

Muskoka 620 599 523 463 430 361 313 281 263 248

TABLE 1: ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS ON RGI WAITING LISTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2004 TO 2012

Service manager level data reported in this appendix includes some information, such as breakdowns by unit type for non-seniors, which is not reported at the Provincial level in the body of this report.

21


Service Manager

ActiveHH 2012

ActiveHH 2011

ActiveHH 2010

ActiveHH 2009

ActiveHH 2008

ActiveHH 2007

ActiveHH 2006

ActiveHH 2005

ActiveHH 2004

ActiveHH 2003

Niagara 5,831 5,567 5,543 4,611 4,247 4,264 4,743 4,201 4,049 3,870Nipissing 1,032 1,028 980 1,057 987 923 900 1,114 1,088 992

Norfolk 266 271 280 277 279 186 297 272 304 405

Northumberland 353 285 202 212 230 251 279 238 248 277

Ottawa 9,717 10,097 10,502 10,235 9,692 9,370 10,055 9,922 10,516 11,461

Oxford 67019 670 297 241 160 171 140 215 237 197

Parry Sound 387 374 374 430 382 417 385 331 341 335

Peel 12,850 12,853 15,341 14,436 13,328 13,564 12,389 14,101 14,361 13,457

Peterborough 1,550 1,697 1,589 1,468 1,142 1,495 1,488 1,502 1,502 1,539

Prescott and Russell 511 1,055 430 388 407 324 403 365 244 318

Rainy River 113 110 29 37 24 44 52 52 76 71

Renfrew 911 877 699 680 560 552 619 569 551 620

Sault Ste. Marie 1,168 1,103 1,049 1,063 983 597 473 459 374 374

Simcoe 2,725 2,482 2,665 3,245 3,224 3,317 3,048 2,479 2,160 2,489

Stratford 149 123 147 182 155 133 188 185 189 267

St. Thomas 218 300 267 272 245 222 185 254 287 231

Sudbury 1,476 1,885 1,941 1,396 2,154 1,878 1,634 1,357 1,312 1,230Thunder Bay 1,790 1,420 1,226 1,127 610 446 640 620 813 441Timiskaming 526 459 565 314 457 266 276 310 182 170

Toronto 72,696 69,342 66,460 60,197 52,257 49,468 47,930 48,041 49,329 50,218Waterloo 3,162 3,280 2,737 3,015 3,100 3,235 3,448 2,529 3,238 3,454

Wellington 1,147 1,320 1,261 1,531 1,280 1,370 896 989 1,584 2,018Windsor 2,360 2,019 1,899 2,094 1,809 2,031 2,031 2,168 2,007 1,747

York 9,496 8,688 7,626 6,685 5,833 5,564 5,340 5,462 5,767 5,589

Totals 158,44520 156,358 152,077 141,635 129,253 124,032 121,726 122,426 124,785 126,103

Change from Previous Year 1.3% 2.8% 7.4% 9.6% 4.2% 1.9% -0.6% -1.9% -1.0%

TABLE 1 (CONT.) : ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS ON RGI WAITING LISTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2004 TO 2012

19 Due to changes to their database this year that no longer allows the type of data collection requested for this survey, the County of Oxford was unable to provide data this year. In order to show a comprehensive list of active households on waiting lists in Ontario, Oxfords number of active households from last years report was included here.

20 Since the City of Cornwall and County of Oxford were unable to provide data this year, for the purpose of calculating the Ontario total, the total number of households on their waiting lists for 2012 was estimated by applying the provincial increase in households on waiting lists in 2012 (1.3%) to their 2011 total number of households. This inflation is not shown for Cornwall and Oxfords individual 2012 active household counts, which are simply carried forward from 2011.

22


TABLE 2: ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS ON RGI WAITING LISTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, PROPORTION OF TOTAL ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS, AND PER CENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR, 2012 & 2011

Service Manager Active HH 2012 % of Total Active HH% Change

2011 to 2012 Active HH 2011% of Total Active HH

% Change 2010 to 2011

Algoma 695 0.4% 0.7% 700 0.4% 125.8%

Brantford 947 0.6% 5.3% 899 0.6% 2.5%

Bruce 264 0.2% -15.1% 311 0.2% 53.2%

Chatham Kent 304 0.2% -18.1% 371 0.2% 15.6%

Cochrane 1,458 0.9% -15.2% 1,720 1.1% -11.5%

Cornwall 860 0.5% n/a 860 0.6% 8.6%

Dufferin 462 0.3% 8.2% 427 0.3% -16.4%

Durham 4,751 3.0% 9.3% 4,348 2.8% 2.1%

Grey County 653 0.4% -17.9% 795 0.5% 17.1%

Halton 3,398 2.1% 7.8% 3,153 2.0% 47.3%

Hamilton 4,762 3.0% -21.4% 6,062 3.9% 13.0%

Hastings 1,315 0.8% -3.2% 1,359 0.9% -10.5%

Huron 214 0.1% -37.4% 342 0.2% 51.3%

Kawartha Lakes 579 0.4% 9.0% 531 0.3% 0.0%

Kenora 358 0.2% -20.6% 451 0.3% 18.1%

Kingston 1,176 0.7% 1.7% 1,156 0.7% -1.1%

Lambton 466 0.3% -13.2% 537 0.3% 5.7%

Lanark 414 0.3% 74.7% 237 0.2% -49.8%

Leeds and Grenville 461 0.3% -12.5% 527 0.3% 9.1%

Lennox and Addington 373 0.2% 22.7% 304 0.2% -25.3%

London 2,172 1.4% -29.7% 3,090 2.0% -23.5%

Manitoulin-Sudbury 619 0.4% 125.9% 274 0.2% -11.6%

Muskoka 620 0.4% 3.5% 599 0.4% 14.5%

Niagara 5,831 3.7% 4.7% 5,567 3.6% 0.4%

Nipissing 1,032 0.7% 0.4% 1,028 0.7% 4.9%

Norfolk 266 0.2% -1.8% 271 0.2% -3.2%

Northumberland 353 0.2% 23.9% 285 0.2% 41.1%

Ottawa 9,717 6.1% -3.8% 10,097 6.5% -3.9%

Oxford 670 0.4% n/a 670 0.4% 125.6%

Parry Sound 387 0.2% 3.5% 374 0.2% 0.0%

Peel 12,850 8.1% 0.0% 12,853 8.2% -16.2%

23


Service Manager Active HH 2012 % of Total Active HH% Change

2011 to 2012 Active HH 2011% of Total Active HH

% Change 2010 to 2011

Peterborough 1,550 1.0% -8.7% 1,697 1.1% 6.8%

Prescott and Russell 511 0.3% -51.6% 1,055 0.7% 145.3%

Rainy River 113 0.1% 2.7% 110 0.1% 279.3%

Renfrew 911 0.6% 3.9% 877 0.6% 25.5%

Sault Ste. Marie 1,168 0.7% 5.9% 1,103 0.7% 5.1%

Simcoe 2,725 1.7% 9.8% 2,482 1.6% -6.9%

Stratford 149 0.1% 21.1% 123 0.1% -16.3%

St. Thomas 218 0.1% -27.3% 300 0.2% 12.4%

Sudbury 1,476 0.9% -21.7% 1,885 1.2% -2.9%

Thunder Bay 1,790 1.1% 26.1% 1,420 0.9% 15.8%

Timiskaming 526 0.3% 14.6% 459 0.3% -18.8%

Toronto 72,696 45.9% 4.8% 69,342 44.3% 4.3%

Waterloo 3,162 2.0% -3.6% 3,280 2.1% 19.8%

Wellington 1,147 0.7% -13.1% 1,320 0.8% 4.7%

Windsor 2,360 1.5% 16.9% 2,019 1.3% 6.3%

York 9,496 6.0% 9.3% 8,688 5.6% 13.9%

Totals 158,445 100.0% 1.3% 156,358 100.0% 2.8%

TABLE 2 (CONT.) : ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS ON RGI WAITING LISTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, PROPORTION OF TOTAL ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS, AND PER CENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR, 2012 & 2011

24


TABLE 3: APPLICANT STATUS OF ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2012

Active Households by Applicant Status Average Wait Time in Years

Service Manager Special Priority Policy (SPP) Local Priority Modified ChronologicalSpecial Priority

Policy (SPP) Local Priority

Algoma 5 n/r n/r 690 1.0-0.5 1.0-2.0Brantford 36 84 31 791 0.083-1 1.0-5.0

Bruce 5 n/r n/r 259 0.24 n/rChatham Kent 9 28 8 259 0.20 0.58

Cochrane 11 45 n/r 1,402 0.87 1.08Cornwall n/r n/r n/r n/r n/rDufferin 19 n/r 2 441 1.07 n/rDurham 276 4 59 4,412 0.97 n/r

Grey County 11 0 6 636 0.21 n/rHalton 126 352 48 2,872 0.60 1.80

Hamilton 146 155 n/r 4,762 0.70 1.00Hastings 33 31 n/r 1,176 0.50 1.00Huron 4 6 n/r 204 0.25 1.00

Kawartha Lakes 18 52 16 493 0.25 0.48Kenora 42 30 1 285 0.28 1.24

Kingston 61 102 16 997 0.69 1.25Lambton 9 n/r 12 445 n/r n/rLanark 30 n/r 43 341 0.29 n/r

Leeds and Grenville 14 n/r n/r 447 0.21 n/rLennox and Addington 10 n/r 3 360 0.38 n/r

London 31 599 25 1,517 0.60 1.34Manitoulin-Sudbury 3 4 n/r 616 0.33 1.42

Muskoka 11 79 6 524 0.51 1.73Niagara 146 735 n/r 4,427 0.50 n/r

Nipissing 31 55 n/r 946 0.63 0.61Norfolk 16 n/r 1 250 0.25 n/r

Northumberland 15 0 10 338 0.30 n/rOttawa 130 1,115 190 8,282 0.30 0.70Oxford n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

25


TABLE 3 (CONT.) : APPLICANT STATUS OF ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2012

Active Households by Applicant Status Average Wait Time in Years

Service Manager Special Priority Policy (SPP) Local Priority Modified ChronologicalSpecial Priority

Policy (SPP) Local Priority

Peel 845 135 161 11,870 1.28 2.90Peterborough 33 n/r 85 1,432 0.60 n/r

Prescott and Russell 22 9 16 480 0.34 1.59Rainy River 5 0 2 106 0.14 n/r

Renfrew 32 n/r n/r 879 0.50 n/rSault Ste. Marie 161 n/r 32 975 0.25 1.00

Simcoe 161 n/r n/r 2,564 0.46 n/rStratford 9 16 0 124 0.17 0.50

St. Thomas 7 2 0 209 0.25 0.00Sudbury 3 0 51 1,422 0.10 0.04

Thunder Bay 57 303 64 1,366 0.57 1.29Timiskaming 1 0 5 520 0.17 n/r

Toronto 1,784 6,678 551 63,683 0.70 0.70Waterloo 27 160 68 2,975 0.22 0.54

Wellington 25 10 n/r 1,112 0.31 0.76Windsor 67 186 21 2,086 0.20 0.89

York 133 12 n/r 9,351 1.58 1.37

Totals 4,625 10,987 1,534 139,713

26


TABLE 4: HOUSEHOLD AND BEDROOM TYPE OF ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2012

Active Households by Household and Bedroom Type Average Wait Time in Years

Service ManagerSeniors

(All Bedroom Sizes)

Non-Seniors 1 Bedroom

Non-Seniors 2-3 Bedroom

Non-Seniors 4+ Bedroom

Seniors (All Bedroom

Sizes)




Algoma 57 388 238 12 1.0-2.0 1.0-3.0 1.0-2.0 1.0-3.0Brantford 222 431 294 inc. in 2-3 1.5-2.5 5.0-9.0 2.0-5.0 3.0-5.0

Bruce 108 104 50 2 1.00 0.36 0.74 0.47Chatham Kent 129 99 71 5 0.60 0.56 0.40 0.77

Cochrane 651 363 398 46 2.70 2.67 1.49 1.19Cornwall n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/rDufferin 206 141 92 23 2.43 6.00 1.53 1.13Durham 993 1,623 1,628 507 3.73 4.74 4.31 5.31

Grey County 209 316 128 inc. in 2-3 2.00 2.20 2.50 1.75Halton 977 976 1,016 431 2.50 4.40 3.20 2.30

Hamilton 692 1,699 1,662 709 2.20 2.70 3.50 4.80Hastings 564 341 353 57 1.50 1.30 2.30 1.50Huron 30 130 52 2 0.75 1.50 1.00 2.00

Kawartha Lakes 206 266 98 9 1.27 2.25 1.50 2.35Kenora 71 134 115 38 1.41 3.00 1.09 1.85

Kingston 80 724 326 46 2.05 2.02 1.87 1.74Lambton 80 268 91 27 n/r 1.50 1.17 0.67Lanark 74 216 112 25 2.46 1.08 1.01 0.67

Leeds and Grenville 171 166 121 3 1.05 1.32 0.92 0.79Lennox and Addington 27 270 71 5 1.70 4.20 1.50 n/r

London 230 1,131 232 579 2.08 2.02 2.05 2.51Manitoulin-Sudbury 194 268 143 14 1.52 0.77 0.92 1.00

Muskoka 131 319 161 9 2.28 3.85 1.61 2.35Niagara 2,116 1,675 2,040 inc. in 2-3 3.70 7.40 4.00 5.00

Nipissing 303 479 250 inc. in 2-3 1.34 2.83 1.66 n/rNorfolk 75 124 59 8 0.75 5.00 0.50 0.25

Northumberland 78 191 66 15 1.40 1.85 0.66 0.00

27


TABLE 4 (CONT.) : HOUSEHOLD AND BEDROOM TYPE OF ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2012

Active Households by Household and Bedroom Type Average Wait Time in Years

Service ManagerSeniors

(All Bedroom Sizes)




Seniors (All Bedroom

Sizes)




Ottawa 1,939 3,516 2,753 1,509 3.70 4.50 4.60 6.30Oxford n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r n/r

Parry Sound 86 216 85 inc. in 2-3 2.90 2.20 2.30 n/rPeel 3,044 3,345 5,486 975 7.20 9.80 8.50 11.10

Peterborough 501 681 279 89 3.24 2.13 1.64 1.91Prescott and Russell 189 131 181 10 1.66 2.25 1.59 0.77

Rainy River 68 13 30 2 0.55 0.53 0.22 n/rRenfrew 209 412 370 42 1.70 1.90 1.40 0.70

Sault Ste. Marie 225 792 349 27 1.00 1.00 1.50 2.00Simcoe 557 1,467 686 15 4.20 2.30 2.70 n/r

Stratford 13 92 26 18 1.50 1.50 1.75 1.50St. Thomas 32 67 107 12 0.73 1.02 0.51 0.29

Sudbury 308 818 298 77 2.08 2.37 0.78 0.83Thunder Bay 390 790 514 96 0.96 0.58 1.10 0.66Timiskaming 323 131 59 13 5.00 2.50 1.50 5.75

Toronto 22,709 25,234 22,218 2,447 5.00 8.00 6.00 6.00Waterloo 320 1,332 1,331 179 1.94 5.60 2.57 3.11

Wellington 417 355 287 88 2.40 1.67 1.71 3.01Windsor 447 1,031 749 133 0.57 1.00 0.96 2.78

York 4,934 1,791 2,130 641 4.95 7.79 6.69 2.59

Totals 45,385 55,056 47,805 8,945

28


21 Due to changes to their waiting list system, the City of Cornwall was unable to provide data this year. In order to show a comprehensive list of households housed, new applications, and cancelled applications in Ontario, Cornwalls numbers for these categories from last years report were included.

22 Due to changes to their database this year that no longer allows the type of data collection requested for this survey, the County of Oxford was unable to provide data this year. In order to show a comprehensive list of households housed, new applications, and cancelled applications in Ontario, Oxfords numbers for these categories from last years report were included.

TABLE 5: HOUSEHOLDS HOUSED, NEW AND CANCELLED APPLICATIONS, JANUARY 1 DECEMBER 31, 2012

Number of Households

Service Manager Housed New ApplicationsCancelled

Applications

Algoma 107 335 186 Brantford 240 892 338

Bruce 171 368 255 Chatham Kent 244 785 389

Cochrane 278 432 880 Cornwall21 304 895 482

Dufferin 50 190 206 Durham 358 1,575 1,152

Grey County 188 549 605 Halton 430 1,622 1,963

Hamilton 782 2,795 125 Hastings 378 523 596 Huron 79 260 134

Kawartha Lakes 122 224 195 Kenora 167 190 230

Kingston 230 456 399 Lambton 280 726 327 Lanark 100 287 322

Leeds and Grenville 142 207 395 Lennox and Addington 87 54 38

London 849 722 1,666 Manitoulin-Sudbury 68 225 53

Muskoka 62 188 140 Niagara 616 2,243 1,413

Nipissing 169 757 678

Number of Households

Service Manager Housed New ApplicationsCancelled

Applications

Norfolk 169 291 142 Northumberland 65 143 28

Ottawa 1,831 4,610 2,093 Oxford22 160 785 240

Parry Sound 32 159 113 Peel 870 5,376 5,128

Peterborough 260 712 942 Prescott and Russell 133 171 256

Rainy River 69 38 47 Renfrew 191 453 197

Sault Ste. Marie 414 1,000 532 Simcoe 287 1,454 924

Stratford 142 385 128 St. Thomas 138 110 118

Sudbury 619 2,030 1,115 Thunder Bay 377 503 105 Timiskaming 139 308 87

Toronto 3,890 19,935 10,284 Waterloo 726 2,039 1,363

Wellington 288 430 706 Windsor 746 925 778

York 331 2,737 1,581

Totals 18,378 62,094 40,074

29


TABLE 6: WEIGHTED OVERALL WAIT TIMES, AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2012

Weighted averages by service manager area were calculated by weighing average wait times in each applicant category by the total number of households housed in that category within the service manager areas. The categories included were: seniors, and non-seniors by 1, 2-3, and 4+ bedroom units. Local priority and SPP housed households are included within these categories.

Service ManagerWeighted

Overall Wait Time (years)

Algoma 1.67Brantford 5.44

Bruce 0.69Chatham Kent 0.50

Cochrane 2.14Cornwall n/rDufferin 2.80Durham 4.20

Grey County 2.29Halton 3.04

Hamilton 3.08Hastings 1.77Huron 1.27

Kawartha Lakes 1.73Kenora 1.52

Kingston 1.92Lambton 1.30Lanark 1.22

Leeds and Grenville 1.14Lennox and Addington 2.33

London 2.09Manitoulin-Sudbury 1.01

Muskoka 2.65Niagara 4.27

Nipissing 1.84

Service ManagerWeighted

Overall Wait Time (years)

Norfolk 2.58Northumberland 1.13

Ottawa 4.52Oxford n/r

Parry Sound 2.50Peel 8.45

Peterborough 2.23Prescott and Russell 1.69

Rainy River 0.46Renfrew 1.52

Sault Ste. Marie 1.29Simcoe 3.00

Stratford 1.58St. Thomas 0.69

Sudbury 1.33Thunder Bay 0.90Timiskaming 3.46

Toronto 5.00Waterloo 3.69

Wellington 2.04Windsor 0.91

York 5.79

30


The following table contains the number of responses received by question for 2012 and 2011. Notes are also included to explain when substitutions were used for missing data.

APPENDIX D: RESPONSE MATRIX

Question Number of Responses in 2012Number of

Responses in 2011

Presence of Local Priorities 32 26

Active HouseholdsTotal Eligible Active Households 45* 47

Senior Active Households 45 47

Non-Senior Active Households for 1 Bedroom Units 45 n/a

Non-Senior Active Households for 2-3 Bedroom Units 45 n/a

Non-Senior Active Households for 4+ Bedroom Units 45 n/a

SPP Active Households 45 44

Local Priority Active Households 27 23

Modified Active Households 29 n/a

Chronological Active Households 41*** 44

New Applicants

Total New Applicants 45** 44

New Senior Applicants 41 41

New Non-Senior Applicants for 1 Bedroom Units 38 n/a

New Non-Senior Applicants for 2-3 Bedroom Units 39 n/a

New Non-Senior Applicants for 4+ Bedroom Units 37 n/a

New SPP Applicants 43 41

New Local Priority Applicants 26 20

New Modified Applicants 24 n/a

New Chronological Applicants 37*** 38

* The City of Cornwall and County of Oxford were unable to provide data this year, and therefore, for the purposes of reaching a provincial total, the total number of households on their waiting lists for 2012 was estimated for the report by applying the provincial increase in households on waiting lists in 2012 (1.3%) to Cornwall and Oxfords 2011 numbers.

** The City of Cornwall and County of Oxford were unable to provide data this year, and therefore, for the purposes of reaching a provincial total for each category, their total number new applications, households housed, and cancelled applications from 2011 were included in the report.

*** Not all service managers provided data on the total number of chronological applicants. Therefore, for those service managers that did not provide data on the total number of chronological applicants but did provide the numbers of SPP, local priority, and modified applicants on their waiting list, chronological figures were imputed based on this information and their waiting list totals.

31


Question Number of Responses in 2012Number of

Responses in 2011

Applicants HousedTotal Applicants Housed 45** 46

Housed Senior Applicants 45 44

Housed Non-Senior Applicants for 1 Bedroom Units 44 n/a

Housed Non-Senior Applicants for 2-3 Bedroom Units 44 n/a

Housed Non-Senior Applicants for 4+ Bedroom Units 39 n/a

Housed SPP Applicants 45 45

Housed Local Priority Applicants 28 25

Housed Modified Applicants 24 n/a

Housed Chronological Applicants 40*** 44

Cancelled Applications

Total Cancelled Applications 45** 46

Cancelled Senior Applications 41 38

Cancelled Non-Senior Applications for 1 Bedroom Units 40 n/a

Cancelled Non-Senior Applications for 2-3 Bedroom Units 40 n/a

Cancelled Non-Senior Applications for 4+ Bedroom Units 38 n/a

Cancelled SPP Applications 36 36

Cancelled Local Priority Applications 22 20

Cancelled Modified Applications 18 n/a

Cancelled Chronological Applications 35*** 36

Wait TimesAll Housed Applicants 36 45

SPP 44 40

Local Priority 28 22

Seniors 44 38

Non-Seniors for 1 Bedroom Units 45 n/a

Non-Seniors for 2-3 Bedroom Units 45 n/a

Non-Seniors for 4+ Bedroom Units 40 n/a

* The City of Cornwall and County of Oxford were unable to provide data this year, and therefore, for the purposes of reaching a provincial total, the total number of households on their waiting lists for 2012 was estimated for the report by applying the provincial increase in households on waiting lists in 2012 (1.3%) to Cornwall and Oxfords 2011 numbers.

** The City of Cornwall and County of Oxford were unable to provide data this year, and therefore, for the purposes of reaching a provincial total for each category, their total number new applications, households housed, and cancelled applications from 2011 were included in the report.

*** Not all service managers provided data on the total number of chronological applicants. Therefore, for those service managers that did not provide data on the total number of chronological applicants but did provide the numbers of SPP, local priority, and modified applicants on their waiting list, chronological figures were imputed based on this information and their waiting list totals.

housing ontario

Documents