The Housing Services Act (HSA) is coming into force on January 1, 2012. Repealing the earlier Social Housing Reform Act (SHRA), the HSA, its regulations and the Housing Policy Statement involve some key changes that affect the social housing business in Ontario.

Notable Changes

Many of the provisions in SHRA are reiterated in the HSA with little or no change. However it does include some key changes:

• The time line for tenants to submit information on changes to income for Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) has been extended to 30 days
• Housing providers are required to make training opportunities available for staff, volunteers and Board members for succession
• Service Managers will develop 10-year housing and homelessness plans which will be submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

There are still gaps in the legislation which the Province will continue to work on in the future with sector stakeholders. These include possible future changes to utility scales, social assistance scales, performance measures and to how RGI is calculated.

Broader Focus and Changed Roles

Unlike the SHRA, which focused just on social housing, the HSA takes into account the broader housing continuum. It encompasses homeless shelters, street homeless, private rental housing and affordable ownership.

The Act also involves changes to how housing is framed in public policy. Under HSA, the Province will focus on oversight and policy direction, rather than planning and service delivery. Service Managers will have greater decision-making powers and flexibility to meet unique community needs. It also recognizes the role of non-profit housing providers in the housing and homelessness system.

In addition, the Act changes the name of the Social Housing Services Corporation (SHSC) to the Housing Services Corporation (HSC). HSC will continue to offer the same insurance, investment, energy management and renovation and retrofits services that help providers manage and protect their building assets while reducing risk through investment, and lowering operating costs. They will also continue to help with training, research and best practices. The Act also calls on HSC to address quality of life issues for tenants. HSC partnership programs, like its financial literacy pilot in Windsor, North Bay and Ottawa with Social and Enterprise Development Innovations, are under development with the goal of supporting greater resident engagement and self-sufficiency.

Recognizing that the new legislation will involve changes for housing providers, and that some of its services have been in operation for close to 10 years, HSC is making time over the next year for feedback on the programs it offers. Consultations on its insurance program will take place in multiple cities across the province in late-January to February 2012. Click here for consultation dates and registration information.

Online Resources

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has a webpage that offers the legislation, the Housing Policy Statement and the long term strategy.

The Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association has a webpage dedicated to HSA, including a detailed guide on the legislation and its regulations

The Cooperative Housing Federation of Canada – Ontario Region is developing HSA-related tools for co-ops, such as by-law amendments, and training. Details are available on its (members only) online Resource Centre

The eviction and death of social housing tenant Al Gosling made national headlines. Gosling died in October 2009 after having lived for 21 years at a Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) building. At age 81, Gosling was evicted for failure to pay rent. He subsequently became homeless and died of an infection five months later.

The case spurred a close examination and overhaul of TCHC’s internal, eviction and mental health policies:

• Mental Health Framework
• Eviction Prevention Policy for Non-payment of Rent (Arrears)
• Report on the Eviction of Al Gosling and the Eviction Prevention Policy of Toronto Community Housing Corporation.

The recommendations in the report highlighted a troubled relationship between the role of social housing landlord and tenants with mental health issues. And the events themselves have left housing providers wondering about the right way to go. While these policies have been implemented within TCHC they illustrate the complicated dynamic faced sector-wide by social housing landlords.

Social+Housing: The Extra Responsibility of the Social Housing Provider

The first recommendation made in the Report on the Eviction of Al Gosling is that “TCHC must better communicate its mandate. It is a landlord, not a direct provider of social work services.”

While this may seem straightforward, it is often not the case for two key reasons.

First, social housing is home to a high percentage of vulnerable residents, many having mental health issues. In housing this population, the role between being strictly a landlord and providing a support service becomes, at times, difficult to navigate.

Second, the responsibility of the social housing landlord is not restricted to providing housing. The same recommendation also notes that TCHC “must assist tenants to identify, locate and contact appropriate support services.”

The result is that social housing landlords do not play the same role as a commercial landlord, nor are they support workers; instead in addition to their building-related responsibilities, they are responsible for identifying those with mental illness and connecting them with the appropriate service.

Challenges and Possibilities

The current system depends heavily on the social housing landlord’s ability to initiate connections with existing services and organizations while juggling their day to day responsibilities. There are also other challenges:

• Support services are often funded by a different level of government, adding complexity to the landlord’s connecting job
• Residents may not accept the services provided by an outside agency
• Outside services may simply not exist within the area

For any of the policies or recommendations to be successful, the disconnect between support services and the population living in social housing must be remedied. Rather than relying exclusively on the social housing landlord to initiate the connection, it seems logical that support services should also initiate interactions with social housing landlords.  The differing needs of residents require a policy approach that is multifaceted and versatile, one that promotes relationships with relevant supportive agencies and clarifies the role confusion that social housing landlords often face.

It is important to note that out of the recent influx of mental health and eviction prevention policies and recommendations there is no singular benchmark for success. However what is apparent within these policies and recommendations is that by expanding what it is to be a landlord, while continuing to function as a landlord, tenants with mental health issues can receive both the help they may need and a stable place to live.

The release of the Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy (LTAHS) brings with it winds for big change in the affordable housing sector. Likely to pass in the spring, the Housing Services Act has yet to write the regulations that it will bring. The regulations, which won’t be known for at least another year, will have an effect on Service Managers and housing providers.

Among the changes outlined in the LTAHS, is the potential for more flexibility and decision-making for municipalities when it comes to delivering affordable housing. A way in which authorities will be able to exercise this newfound flexibility is in how they use provincial resources.

Margie Carlson, Director of Policy, Research and Networks at SHSC, explains that the LTAHS states that it will consolidate 20 provincial housing and homelessness programs. The structure of this program has yet to be determined, but presumably the idea is that people can pick and choose which program they want.

Read the full article in Social Housing Times newsletter.

Bill 122 the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act was recently fast tracked through Queen’s Park and has reached royal assent. While this Bill appears to be directed at hospitals and local health integration networks, it casts a broader net that may impact some housing providers in Ontario’s social housing sector.

Expanded Definition of ‘Broader Public Sector Organization’

Introduced by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the aim of Bill 122 is to ensure financial accountability within the broader public sector concerning the use of lobbyists, consultants, expense claims and procurement standards. What may cause issues for social housing is Bill 122’s definition of a “Broader Public Sector Organization” which includes any non-profit organization receiving funding from the Government of Ontario.

The expanded definition means that any organization that receives more than $10 million from the Province is considered a “broader public sector organization”. This Act requires that these organizations to be subject to the government’s own complex procurement policies. Organizations must also report on use of lobbyists, consultants and expense claims.

Organizations that receive under $10 million are less impacted but still would need to follow yet to be determined provincial guidelines.

Potential Impacts

The majority of housing providers in Ontario likely receive $0 or less than $10 million from the Province. Some providers however, receive funding from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care or the Ministry of Community and Social Services and are caught under this Act.

What has not yet been clarified is whether all types of provincial funding are included. For example, some providers receive funding from the Ontario Power Authority. Sector organizations are in the process of getting clarification about this funding to determine if this constitutes “public funding” under this new Act.

Bill 122 may ultimately be not particularly relevant to most housing providers in Ontario, which are typically one building operations of less than 100 units. The conditions surrounding procurement intended for large government organizations might result in administrative complexities that exceed staff capacity. Furthermore, while larger housing providers may have the capacity to follow government processes they usually have their own set of best practices and procurement guidelines, thus making transitioning to a different set of practices challenging.

Regardless of whether Bill 122 impacts housing providers right now, what it does indicate is a further movement within the current trend of fulfilling the public’s expectation of corporate and government transparency and responsibility. If this trend continues the social housing sector may be subject to similar bills in the future.

Bill 122 reached royal assent on December 8th. For the current version of the Bill, visit Broader Public Sector Accountability Act.

For more information on the many ways Bill 122 will affect not-for-profit corporations, check out the Ontario Non-profit Network website.