Public Agenda July 28, 2016
Resident Services Committee
Contact: Ted Millward, Legal Counsel, Corporate | 416-981-4280 | [email protected] Toronto Community Housing Corporation Ground Floor Boardroom Members: Linda Jackson, Chair 931 Yonge Street Councillor Frank Di Giorgio, Vice-Chair Toronto, ON M4W 2H2 Councillor Raymond Cho Catherine Wilkinson July 28, 2016 Kevin Marshman (ex officio) 10:00 am – 12:30 pm
PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA Item Description Action Pre-read Presenter 1 Approval of Public Meeting Committee Public Meeting Chair Agenda Approval Agenda 2 Chair’s Poll re: Conflict of Declaration Public Chair Interest Meeting Agenda Conflict of Interest Policy 3 Confirmation of Public Committee Minutes Chair Meeting Minutes of Approval May 30, 2016 4 Business Arising from the Discussion Action Item List Chair Minutes and Committee Action Items Update Report from the Resident Services Committee Chair: 5 Chair’s Report and Information Verbal Report Chair Remarks Reports from Management: 6 Q1- 2016 Report on Information RSC:2016-24 VP, Facilities Installation of Security Management Cameras (CCTV) (Deferred from May 30th RSC Meeting)
Public Agenda 2 Resident Services Committee July 28, 2016
7 Youth Initiatives Information RSC:2016-31 Interim VP, Resident and Community Services 8 Scholarship Program Information RSC:2016-32 Interim VP, Update Resident & Community Services 9 Use of Sponsorship Funds Information RSC:2016-33 Interim VP, Resident & Community Services 10 Safer and More Secure Information RSC:2016-34 Interim VP, Communities, Q1 2016 Resident & Update Community Services 11 TCHC’s Referral Process Information RSC:2016-35 Interim VP, to SPIDER Situation Table Resident & Community Services 12 Update - Toronto Seniors Information RSC:2016-37 VP, Asset Strategy Update Management 13 2016 Complaints Report Information RSC:2016-38 VP, Asset Management 14 Q2-16 Clean Buildings and Information RSC:2016-40 VP, Asset Maintenance Report Management 15 Update – Designated Information RSC:2016-36 Interim VP, Buildings for On-Site Resident & Supports Community Services 16 Engagement in Information RSC:2016-39 President and Revitalization Chief Executive Communities – Regent Officer (Interim) Park Athletic Grounds and 261 Jarvis Street
TERMINATION Committee members must declare any conflict of interest which relates to an item of discussion
Public Meeting Minutes May 30, 2016
Resident Services Committee Page 1 of 11
The Resident Services Committee (“RSC”) of Toronto Community Housing Corporation (“TCHC”) held a public meeting on May 30, 2016, in the Main Floor Conference Room, 931 Yonge Street, Toronto, commencing at 9:18 a.m.
Committee Directors Present: Linda Jackson, Chair Councillor Frank Di Giorgio, Vice Chair Kevin Marshman (ex-officio) Catherine Wilkinson
Committee Directors Absent: Robert Carlo Councillor Raymond Cho
Also present: Simone Atungo, Vice President, Resident and Community Services (Interim) Andalee Adamali, Business Planner, Strategic Planning & Stakeholder Relations Ismail Ibrahim, Interim General Counsel and Corporate Secretary Hugh Lawson, Director, Strategic Planning & Stakeholder Relations Graham Leah, Vice President, Asset Management Ted Millward, Legal Counsel, Corporate Patricia Narine, Director, Program Services (Operational Initiatives), Asset Management Sheila Penny, Vice President, Facilities Management Greg Spearn, President and Chief Executive Officer (Interim) / Chief Development Officer Lindsay Viets, Business Planner, Strategic Planning & Stakeholder Relations Wayne Tuck, Chief Operating Officer
A quorum being present, Ms. Jackson, the RSC Chair, called the public meeting to order and Mr. Steven Iserhoff served as recording secretary.
ITEM 1 APPROVAL OF PUBLIC AGENDA The consent Agenda items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 18 were held for discussion.
First motion ON MOTION DULY MADE by Mr. Marshman, seconded by Ms. carried Wilkinson and carried, the RSC approved the Public Meeting Agenda as presented.
Resident Services Committee Public Meeting Minutes May 30, 2016 Page 2 of 11
Second motion ON MOTION DULY MADE by Mr. Marshman, seconded by Ms. carried Wilkinson and carried, the RSC received items 15 and 17 for information.
ITEM 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST The Chair requested members of the RSC to indicate any agenda item in which they had a conflict of interest, together with the nature of the interest. None were declared.
DEPUTATIONS The RSC Chair polled for any deputations to be heard at the meeting and explained the deputation process. The Chair noted there were no written deputations received prior to the meeting. Verbal deputations were received at the meeting with respect to the following items: Susan Gapka (Items 8, 10, 16)
ITEM 3 CONFIRMATION OF RESIDENT SERVICES COMMITTEE MINUTES MINUTES – MARCH 3, 2016 The Committee had before it the draft Committee minutes for March 3, 2016. Motion carried ON MOTION DULY MADE by Ms. Wilkinson, seconded by Ms. Jackson and carried, the RSC confirmed the March 3, 2016 minutes subject to the following amendments:
RSC:2016-05 March 3, 2016: Resident Engagement Refresh Strategy
Delete the words “To date, 900 completed surveys were collected” from the following paragraph:
1. Management reported that the Tenant Engagement System Refresh Consultation Planning Group is doing a survey which is being circulated to tenants. The survey was mailed to 900 tenant representatives and tenant leaders. Staff also used a door-to- door approach to distribute the survey. To date, 900 completed surveys were collected.
Q4-2016-06 March 3, 2016: Q4-2015 Pest Management Report
Add the words “..to tenants in high needs buildings” to the following paragraph:
1. RSC and Management discussed the report. Management
Resident Services Committee Public Meeting Minutes May 30, 2016 Page 3 of 11
advised that the Pest Management Unit successful implemented a tenant education system with regard to pest management to tenants in high needs buildings.
ITEM 4 BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES AND COMMITTEE ACTION ITEMS UPDATE The Chair noted that there are many items coming forward to this list, and a goal is to close items out instead of these items building up.
The Committee emphasised the need for items to be addressed in a timely manner. The Chair requested that the Committee look to provide clarification on the Action Items to determine if they can be satisfied by providing information offline, rather than coming back with a report where one may not be necessary. The Chair asked that Management look at forwarding any current documents between meetings that may be available, instead of waiting for when a full report is to be provided.
Regarding RSC: 2016-09, the Committee requested that management provide the current CSU deployment model that is subject to being updated.
ACTION ITEM: 1. Current CSU deployment model from RSC:2016-09 (Safer and More Secure Communities, Q4 2015 Update) to be provided offline to RSC members.
Motion carried ON MOTION DULY MADE by Ms. Wilkinson, seconded by Mr. Marshman and carried, the RSC received the report for information.
ITEM 5 CHAIR’S REPORT AND REMARKS – VERBAL
The Chair welcomed and thanked the tenants for their attendance and participation. She noted there has been a lot of tenant participation and emphasized how important it is. The Chair also congratulated Susan Gapka on the recent victories for the trans community.
The Chair also noted that there are many items for information on the agenda, which detracts the Committee’s from completing key work and helping staff focus on what is most important. The Chair acknowledged the Committee needs background information, but going forward the goal should be to reduce information items on the agenda and pinpoint
Resident Services Committee Public Meeting Minutes May 30, 2016 Page 4 of 11
those matter that are most important to residents and require the Committee’s deliberation.
ITEM 6 2016 RSC WORK PLAN, REVIEW OF 2015 RSC:2016-20 RSC WORK PLAN AND REVIEW OF RSC CHARTER The RSC had before it the above-captioned report (RSC:2016-20).
The Vice President, Resident and Community Services (Interim), spoke about the work plan, and indicated that the Committee’s request for reporting on tenant vulnerability is scheduled to come to RCS in November, and that regular updates can be provided to committee members on this and other critical items on the work plan.
The Committee noted that there are many items on the work plan for November and that consideration may need to be given to scheduling an additional meeting in the fall to address all items. It was noted by the Committee that with the implementation of the Mayor’s Task Force recommendations still uncertain, that there are many moving parts that may influence the work plan between now and year-end.
Motion carried ON MOTION DULY MADE by Ms. Marshman, seconded by Councillor Di Giorgio and carried, the RSC approved the above-captioned report (RSC:C2016-20).
ITEM 7 CUSTOMER SERVICE STRATEGY RSC:2016-27 The RSC had before it the above-captioned report (RSC: 2016-27) from the Chief Operating Officer.
Mr. Tuck went through the PowerPoint presentation with the Committee. He noted that the framework is cyclical, and that it is a continuum that staff will keep working through, involving ongoing learning and improvement.
Mr. Tuck noted that during the consultation with tenants, issues were identified related to consistency and quality of communications, follow- up times, and response to complaints. Improvements in these areas will be a focus during the strategy development.
Mr. Tuck referenced the Tenant Charter Advisory Committee that will meet weekly during June. He thanked the tenant members for their involvement and feedback which will be considered throughout the development of the strategy.
Resident Services Committee Public Meeting Minutes May 30, 2016 Page 5 of 11
Management also noted that there is customer service training happening during June and July 2016.
The Committee asked to see the models of customer service training that TCHC is using, so the Committee can align itself with the expectations of staff. Management will provide the training material most recently used, which was obtained from a vendor used by the City of Toronto. Mr. Tuck noted that training will be made more robust and will be better informed by TCHC’s Mission, Vision and Values.
The Committee commented on the lack of measurements or expectations regarding timelines for implementation. The Committee also asked how residents are informed of this new customer service strategy.
Management responded by stating that residents will continue to be engaged throughout the process of developing the strategy, including potentially new engagement strategies that emerge from the tenant engagement refresh, and through new technology. Mr. Tuck indicated that through tenant surveys the goal will be for tenant feedback on both the relational and transactional aspects of service.
ACTION ITEM: 1. Management to provide the staff training presentation to the committee offline.
Motion carried ON MOTION DULY MADE by Councillor Di Giorgio, seconded by Mr. Marshman and carried, the RSC received the report for information.
ITEM 8 MENTAL HEALTH AND SENIORS, RSC:2016-15 PARTNERSHIPS, AND COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES UPDATE RSC had before it the above-captioned report (RSC:2016-15) from the Interim Vice President, Resident and Community Services.
Ms. Gapka deputed the item. She emphasized the urgency of having a strategy related to mental health, and suggested that GCHRCC should have a process to ensure that focus on these items is not lost over time when there is organizational change.
Management noted that it is looking at a framework and will be taking lessons learned to build the strategies. Development of the strategies
Resident Services Committee Public Meeting Minutes May 30, 2016 Page 6 of 11
will include resident and stakeholder consultations.
The Committee noted that OCHE needs to be included in conversations about the development of the strategies moving forward, given the impact of the strategies on seniors, and that OCHE’s involvement should be included in the work plan for these strategies.
The Committee asked that the RCS’s Operational Plan be circulated to members offline.
The Committee noted that TCHC may not have the expertise to provide the services required by the strategies, and emphasized the need to keep this in mind when developing the strategies.
The Committee noted the importance of being able to track progress related to the strategies, and requested that management provide progress metrics in future reports on the strategies.
ACTION ITEMS: Circulate the RCS Operational Plan to the Committee.
Motion carried ON MOTION DULY MADE by Councillor Di Giorgio, seconded by Ms. Wilkinson and carried, the RSC received the report for information.
ITEM 9 REVITALIZATION ENGAGEMENT RSC:2016-16 The RSC had before it the above-captioned report (RSC:2016-16) from the Interim Vice President, Resident and Community Services.
The Committee noted that 450 residents applied for jobs at Lawrence Heights. Management advised 25 residents obtained jobs from the job fair.
The Committee asked about resident access to the new athletic grounds at Regent Park, and whether tenants have unrestricted access or if they need to register and qualify for programs through the City.
Management noted that the City and MLSE have not yet set the operating model for Regent Park athletic grounds. Management indicated that the operation of the Regent Park athletic grounds will
Resident Services Committee Public Meeting Minutes May 30, 2016 Page 7 of 11
be similar to the operation of the grounds at 261 Jarvis Street, which is to be run by MLSE and that has a focus on TCHC residents. Management will provide information on 261 Jarvis athletic grounds including the costs to TCHC residents and the programs provided to residents.
The Committee emphasized the importance of obtaining role clarity as an advocate for residents rather than having the responsibility to deliver and administer programs that are out of TCHC’s mandate.
ACTION ITEM 1. Provide information on the athletic facilities at 261 Jarvis and the new athletic grounds at Regent Park, specifically regarding access to the programs provided and the related costs to TCHC residents.
Motion carried ON MOTION DULY MADE by Ms. Wilkinson, seconded by Mr. Marshman and carried, the RSC received the report for information.
ITEM 10 RESIDENT ENGAGEMENT SYSTEM RSC:2016-17 REFRESH UPDATE The RSC had before it the above-captioned report (RSC:2016-17) from the Interim Vice President, Resident and Community Services.
Ms. Gapka deputed this item. She noted there is some confusion created from the different types of surveys conducted and the amount of information provided. She also noted that the tenant engagement processes is the means to ensure the Board is relevant to the tenants.
Management noted that work is being undertaken with Strategic Communications to post the tenant survey information on the website.
The Chair noted that there was almost too much information and it is difficult to understand what management was going to move forward with. Management noted that it will be drawing out the key themes from the surveys and what will be moved forward.
ACTION ITEM: 1. Report back on the timeline for publishing the results of the tenant survey.
Motion carried ON MOTION DULY MADE by Ms. Wilkinson, seconded by Councillor Di Giorgio and carried, the RSC received the report for information.
Resident Services Committee Public Meeting Minutes May 30, 2016 Page 8 of 11
ITEM 11 Q1-16 CLEAN BUILDING AND RSC:2016-28 MAINTENANCE REPORT The Committee had before it the above-captioned report (RSC:2016- 28) from the Vice President, Asset Management.
Mr. Leah noted that this report is a quarterly report and indicated that, subject to the Committee’s direction otherwise, that the quarterly pest management reporting will be integrated into the quarterly clean building and maintenance report, given that that these topics are related.
Management clarified that the proposed centralized dispatch is intended for superintendents, and that there is no change for residents to report issues to site staff.
The Committee asked when is there going to be a unit that integrates pests, hoarding, etc. so there is one stop for tenants to have these matters addressed. Management noted that it is looking into this.
The Committee asked if TCHC can get to the root cause of pest management issues or whether much of it is the reality of being a large landlord. Management noted complex factors such as tenant mental health that impact addressing this issue. Management noted that the need is to support people with their tenancies, and confirmed that work is being done in this area.
Motion carried ON MOTION DULY MADE by Councillor Di Giorgio, seconded by Mr. Marshman and carried, the RSC received the report for information.
ITEM 12 Q1-2016 ARREARS COLLECTION UPDATE RSC:2016-26 The RSC had before it the above-captioned report (RSC:2016-26).
The Vice President of Asset Management presented the report to the Committee.
The Committee noted that the goals for the referral of the vulnerable tenant process has been active for 12 months but the referral rates have been low. The Committee went on to ask if there is anything to be done to improve this.
Management responded by stating that referrals are being tracked to enhance reporting, and that a table has been convened with Asset
Resident Services Committee Public Meeting Minutes May 30, 2016 Page 9 of 11
Management, Resident Services and the Commissioner of Housing Equity to look at conducting a gap analysis and assess changes to managing and measuring referrals of vulnerable tenants.
The Committee asked what has driven up the number of files. Management noted that there are more files because of the increased focus on preserving tenancies, and more tenants now appear to carry a small balance. Management also noted that these same tenants are also the ones that readily enter the repayment agreements.
The Committee noted that the amount of write-offs of rent have become much lower because the focus is less on evicting tenants and more on creating repayment plans for tenants in arrears.
Motion carried ON MOTION DULY MADE by Mr. Marshman, seconded by Councillor Di Giorgio and carried, the RSC received the report for information
ITEM 13 EVICTIONS FOR CAUSE PROCEDURE RSC:2016-21 The RSC had before it the above-captioned report (RSC:2016-21) from the Vice President, Asset Management.
Mr. Leah presented the report to the Committee, and indicated that it is an update on a cross divisional project that is in progress. Mr. Leah clarified that we have an Evictions Policy in place, and that this report deals with the procedures to facilitate implementation.
The Committee asked when the procedure will be implemented. Management noted that most components will be rolled out in Q3, but that some will be delayed as a result of IT issues.
The Committee expressed confusion on the status and timing of the revisions to the policy. Management responded by saying that the policy was updated in 2015, but the revisions were not substantive.
The Committee further noted that the community standards referenced in the policy have not been rolled out, and questioned whether the policy requires updating.
Management noted that the fact the community standards were not rolled out does not change the relevance of the policy. Management will remove the reference to the community standards in the policy.
Resident Services Committee Public Meeting Minutes May 30, 2016 Page 10 of 11
The Committee questioned the lack of timelines for the process. Management indicated that the training materials have service standards attached to the steps in the process, and that the service standards could be appended to the procedure.
ACTION ITEM 1. Provide to the Committee the service standards that apply to the procedure. 2. Update the policy to remove the reference to the community standards.
Motion carried ON MOTION DULY MADE by Mr. Marshman, seconded by Ms. Wilkinson and carried, the RSC received the report for information
ITEM 14 UPDATE: CITY OF TORONTO REVIEW OF RSC:2016-25 MAYORS TASK FORCE REPORT The RSC had before it the above-captioned report (RSC:2016-25) from the Interim President and Chief Executive Officer.
The Director of Strategic Planning & Stakeholder Relations provided the report to the Committee. Mr. Lawson advised that beyond the fact that the forthcoming report from City staff will address the five major areas identified by the Task Force and request direction from Council, there is no additional substantive information that Management has to provide to the Committee at this time. The Committee’s feedback may be required subsequent to the release of the City’s report.
Motion carried ON MOTION DULY MADE by Councillor Di Giorgio, seconded by Mr. Marshman and carried, the RSC received the report for information
ITEM 16 TENANT BOARD MEMBER SELECTION PROCESS 2017 RSC:2016-22 The RSC had before it the above-captioned report (RSC:2016-22) from the Interim General Counsel and Corporate Secretary.
Ms. Gapka deputed this item. She expressed that the review of the process is past due, and that tenant engagement in establishing the framework is critical. Ms. Gapka emphasised the importance of consistency in the process and its implementation, a focus on eligibility requirements, and the need to measure outcomes.
Resident Services Committee Public Meeting Minutes May 30, 2016 Page 11 of 11
Concerns were expressed by the Committee regarding the past process being biased. The Committee also expressed the importance that tenants with the right skillsets are appointed as Board members. The Committee suggested that Management also consider a process where tenants apply directly to the City to be appointed to the Board, in a manner similar to the process utilized for other citizen Board members.
Management noted that the Shareholder Direction provides that the process needs to be tenant led, so tenant consultation is required to bring forward a change in the appointment process.
The Committee suggested that as part of the process Management conduct a targeted environmental scan and leverage existing tenant groups for consultation.
Motion carried ON MOTION DULY MADE by Ms. Wilkinson, seconded by Mr. Marshman and carried, the RSC received the report for information
ITEM 18 Q1-2016 REPORT ON INSTALLATION AND RSC:2016-24 MAINTENANCE OF SECURITY CAMERAS (CCTV) Item 18 was deferred to the RSC Meeting on July 7, 2016.
TERMINATION ON MOTION DULY MADE by Ms. Wilkinson, seconded by Mr. Marshman and carried, the RSC resolved to terminate the public meeting at 11:27 a.m.
Secretary Chair, Resident Services Committee
Toronto Community Housing Corporation Resident Services Committee 931 Yonge Street, Ground Floor Conference Room
Report on Business Arising from the Public Minutes and Action Item List
Report No. and Description Status Target Date Assigned to # Meeting Date
1 RSC: 2016-09 Safer and More Secure Refer to Action item for RSC: Nov 21st, 2016 VP, Resident and MARCH 3, 2016 Communities, Q4 2015 Update 2015-07 (March 5, 2015) on Community Services this action item list. Management to provide RSC with a report on solutions for a new deployment model. 2 RSC: 2016-09 Safer and More Secure In progress. Management Sept 23, 2016 VP, Asset MARCH 3, 2016 Communities, Q4 2015 Update assessing committee Management/ VP, recommendation for the pilot Resident and Motion passed by committee approving program and will report back at Community implementation of a pilot program to the September RSC meeting. Services(Interim) install covert surveillance cameras in high needs communities, to protect tenant safety and to detect and charge individuals who tamper with fire and/or life safety equipment on TCHC premises.
3 Presentation Mental Health and Seniors Strategy Report to be provided for the July 28, 2016 VP, Asset NOVEMBER July 28th RSC meeting. Management 12, 2015 Management to report back on the status of implementation of the 146
Page 1 of 10
Report No. and Description Status Target Date Assigned to # Meeting Date
outstanding issues identified during the safety and security audits.
4 RSC:2015-45 Resident Engagement Strategy Resident Engagement System Nov 21, 2016 VP, Resident and NOVEMBER Refresh Update report to be Community Services 12, 2015 Management to report back to the RSC provided at May 30th RSC (Interim) on the funding allocation for the new meeting. Funding allocation will Resident Engagement System. be determined following implementation of system, with a report anticipated for the November 21st, 2016 RSC Meeting. Funding estimates were developed during Budget preparation and will be provided in a verbal update at the next RSC meeting on May 30th.
5 RSC:2015-06 Q4-2014 Report on Clean Buildings Management will report back November 21, VP, Asset MARCH 5, 2015 and Maintenance Strategy Update as to RSC in November regarding 2016 Management of December 31, 2014 how the requested information can be reported. This item At its meeting on March 3, 2016, the added to the work plan for RSC requested that management November. provide follow up reports on progress and status of identified hoarded units to RSC on a regular basis.
Page 2 of 10
Report No. and Description Status Target Date Assigned to # Meeting Date
6 RSC:2015-07 Q4-2014 Report on Community In progress. A Deployment Nov 21st, 2016 VP, Resident and MARCH 5, 2015 Safety Strategy Plan Project Team has been Community Services formed. Once Deployment Management will report back to the RSC plan is finalized and approved on community safety strategy, including it will be presented to RSC. a safety deployment plan. 7 RSC:2015-07 Q4-2014 Report on Community Safety Plans have been July 28, 2016 VP, Resident and MARCH 5, 2015 Safety Strategy converted to Safety/CPTED Community Audits after the MTF Services(Interim) Management will present details with commitment to develop 10. In respect to the additional 12 Community 2016 another 10 will be Safety Plans that will be developed in developed (details will be 2015 in a follow up report at a future included in our Q1 2016 report meeting. that goes to RSC on July 28 ,2016)
8 RSC:2015-07 Q4-2014 Report on Community In progress. Management to Sept 27, 2016 VP, Resident and MARCH 5, 2015 Safety Strategy assess these and other Community Services options and report back at (Interim) Management will report back on parking September RSC meeting. enforcement, including two different scenarios: 1) The City pays park enforcement staff and collects the revenue, and 2) TCHC pays park enforcement staff and collects the revenue.
9 RSC:2015-09 Q4-2014 Report on Installation and In progress. Q1 2015 report July 28, 2016 VP Facilities MARCH 5, 2015 Maintenance of Security Cameras on CCTV was presented at the Management/ Senior (CCTV) October 20, 2015 RSC Manager, meeting, and Q2 and Q3 2015 Commercial and
Page 3 of 10
Report No. and Description Status Target Date Assigned to # Meeting Date
The RSC requested management to report was presented at the Business report back on the installation and November 12, 2015 meeting. Development maintenance of CCTV in six months, including information with respect to Staff have met with Bell and service provider contracts (Bell and Rogers and determined that Rogers) and possibilities of negotiating the lobby channel cannot be services rendered. viewed on the Bell vibe network. Any resident that has upgraded to Bell is no longer able to view the lobby channel. Bell does not offer a solution to its customers at this time. Residents who want this functionality are requested to move to Rogers. Information on this issue sent to Board members via e-mail on July 7th, 2017.
10 OCTOBER 20, Management will include in future In progress. Management will Sept 24, 2016 VP, Asset 2015 quarterly reports the scale and come back to RSC with Management emergency procedure with respect to reporting scope for this item at managing tenants who refuse pest the Sept. 24th, 2016 RSC treatments and the effect on meeting. surrounding units.
11 RSC:2015-24 2015 Resident Survey An action plan outlining explicit Completed Director, Strategic JUNE 3, 2015 next steps that staff would Planning & The RSC requested that Management undertake as a result of the Stakeholder report back with an action plan. 2015 tenant survey was Relations
Page 4 of 10
Report No. and Description Status Target Date Assigned to # Meeting Date
provided to the committee on June 3, 2015.
Regarding the next Resident Survey, Management is currently looking into the possibility of leveraging the additional funding provided by the City as part of the Getting it Done action plan to expand the Closing the Loop pilot into a more comprehensive tenant survey mechanism that would have both transactional (monthly/quarterly) and relational (annual) aspects, and a broader reach through additional mediums (mail, web, e-mail, etc.)
12 TCSC:2012-30 Internal Transfer Policy Revisions Work on the Internal Transfer September 23, VP, Asset SEPTEMBER Policy has been deferred to Q4 2016 Management 27, 2012 Management will report back to the 2015. Reviews by both the Committee with amendments to the Service Manager and Mayor’s process and policy on temporary Task Force are expected to relocation of the tenants whose houses raise related considerations will be for sale in future at a future that will need to factor into the meeting. strategic direction to the Internal Transfer Policy and procedure.
Page 5 of 10
Report No. and Description Status Target Date Assigned to # Meeting Date
Management will review the wording of the transfer policy for clarification purposes with respect to safety / at risk.
Management will consult with the Director of the Health Unit on policy matters related to medical priorities that are not legislated.
Staff will look into the non-priority and under-housed issues and will clarify the wording used.
13 RSC:2014-37 Update on the Implementation of the Item addressed in Board public July 28, 2016 VP, Community and NOVEMBER Ombudsman's Housing at Risk action item TCHC: 2016-11 Resident Services 26, 2014 Recommendations (March 24, 2016) – The RSC asked management to report Management to provide a back on the following items: report to RSC on how Recommendation 19 – guideline for vulnerability is assessed and identifying indicators of distress and how items are referred to potential vulnerability in seniors (and SPIDER and OCHE. other residents). Report addressing vulnerability assessment and referrals to OCHE schedule for the BIFAC meeting on July 21, 2016 (BIFAC:2016-106 – TCH and OCHE, Vulnerable Resident Identification and OCHE Recommendations).
Page 6 of 10
Report No. and Description Status Target Date Assigned to # Meeting Date
Report providing details on referrals to SPIDER will be provided at July 28, 2016 RCS meeting.
14 RSC:2015-17 Mental Health and Seniors Strategy Refer to item- Presentation July 28th, VP, Asset SEPTEMBER November 12, 2015 Item 6 – 2016 Management 11, 2015 Management: Mental Health and Seniors • Report back to the RSC on the Strategy- on this action item results of the safety audits in the seniors list, which contains the same buildings, including consultations with request. Report on safety residents; audits in seniors buildings will be provided for the July 28th RSC meeting.
15 MAY 30, 2016 Business Arising from the Minutes July 28th, VP, Resident and and Committee Action Items Update 2016 Community Services
Current CSU deployment model from Completed. Current RSC:2016-09 (Safer and More Secure deployment model was Communities, Q4 2015 Update) to be circulated to members via e- provided offline to RSC members. mail.
16 July 28th, VP, Asset RSC:2016-27 Customer Service Strategy 2016 Management MAY 30TH, 2016
Page 7 of 10
Report No. and Description Status Target Date Assigned to # Meeting Date
Management to provide the staff Training presentation to be training presentation to the committee circulated to the Committee offline. prior to July 28th meeting.
17 RSC:2016-15 Mental Health and Seniors, July 28th, VP, Resident and MAY 30, 2016 Partnerships, and Community 2016 Community Services Economic Development Strategies Update
Circulate the RCS Operational Plan Completed. Plan was offline to the Committee. circulated to members via e- mail.
18 RSC:2016-16 Revitalization Engagement July 28th, Senior Manager, MAY 30, 2016 2016 Commercial and Provide information on the athletic Report to be brought to the Business facilities at 261 Jarvis and the athletic September July 28th, 2016 Development grounds at Regent Park, specifically RSC meeting. regarding access to the programs provided and the related costs to TCHC residents.
19 RSC:2016-17 Resident Engagement System Completed. VP, Resident and MAY 30, 2016 Refresh Update Community Services
Survey results are now posted online at:
Page 8 of 10
Report No. and Description Status Target Date Assigned to # Meeting Date
Report back on the timeline for publishing the results of the tenant https://www.torontohousing.ca/ survey. residents/getting- involved/surveys/Pages/Take- 5-survey.aspx
20 RSC:2016-21 Evictions for Cause Procedure MAY 30, 2016 VP, Asset Management to: Management
Provide to the Committee the service To be circulated to the July 28th, 2016 standards that apply to the procedure. Committee prior to the July RSC meeting.
Update the Evictions for Cause policy to The most recent version of the Completed remove the reference to “Community policy, with updates to remove Standards”. “Community Standards” reference, was not on the website at the time of the meeting. The updated policy, which is now on the website, contains the following updates effective March 1, 2015:
-Removal of references to retired Community Standards process.
Page 9 of 10
Report No. and Description Status Target Date Assigned to # Meeting Date
-Added 'Definitions' section to provide clarity and easily accessible information to readers re: the legal definitions of the following terms: Tenant, Occupant, Guest and Visitor (definitions approved by the Board in 2013 as per the Visitor and Guest Policy)
-Updated 'Related Policies & Procedures' list.
Page 10 of 10 Page 1 of 4
Q1-2016 Report on Installation and Maintenance of Security Cameras (CCTV) Item 6 July 28, 2016 Resident Services Committee
Report: RSC:2016-24
To: Resident Services Committee (RSC)
From: Vice-President, Facilities Management
Date: May 20, 2016
Reason for Confidential Information:
Strategic Plan Vibrant Communities Priority: ñññ Neighbourhood Building and Improved Community Safety
PURPOSE:
To provide the Resident Services Committee with an update on the installation and maintenance of security cameras (CCTV systems) as of Q1-2016.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that the Resident Services Committee receive this report for information.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
CCTV systems (comprised of security cameras, digital video records (DVRs) and network cabling) are placed within TCHC communities to provide after-the-fact evidence of anti-social behaviour or building damage. Page 2 of 4
The following is a quarterly update on the installation and maintenance of security cameras (CCTV systems) as of March 31, 2016.
BACKGROUND:
Cameras are currently installed at all TCHC developments, totaling over 6,000 cameras across the portfolio. The Smart Buildings & Energy Management (SBEM) Unit within the Facilities Management Division is responsible for overall management of the CCTV systems, working closely with Asset Management, Community Safety Unit, and Information & Technology Services (ITS).
KEY HIGHLIGHTS FOR Q1-2016:
CCTV Upgrades (Capital Program): A plan is in place to replace the older, analog camera stock over a five-year period (2014-2018) with new, digital cameras that have better resolution and have clearer and more responsive features such as black and white switching under low light conditions (Table 1).
Table 1: Five-Year CCTV Upgrade Plan Planned or Completed Year No. of Cameras No. of Communities Budget 2014 366 10 $1.0M 2015 843 21 $2.0M 2016 1,500 50 $6.0M 2017 2,000 80 $7.0M 2018 2,000 80 $7.0M Total 6,709 241 $23.0M
ñññ For 2016, $6M across 50 locations (1,500 cameras) are planned for upgrades to new digital cameras. ñññ $1.2M is budgeted for demand component capital (i.e. parts replacement as needed) for building security systems (which includes CCTV, intercom systems, door access) on an as-needed basis. ñññ As of Q1, 319 cameras have been upgraded across 5 locations.
Table 2 provides a summary of the 2016 Capital Program as of March 31, 2016. Attachment 1 provides a listing of locations for capital upgrades for 2016.
Page 3 of 4
Table 2: 2016 Capital Program 2016 Capital Program 2016 Budget Spent as of Q1 Planned CCTV Upgrades $6,000,000 $503,000 Component Capital (as-needed) $1,200,000 $281,494 Total $7,200,000 $784,494
CCTV Maintenance (Operating Budget): Site staff monitor and view cameras offline, and report problems and make requests for repairs through the Client Care Unit. Service may be required due to equipment failure for a variety of reasons such as age of the camera, technical failure, water damage, vandalism, etc. Repair requests are reviewed by the Smart Buildings & Energy Management Unit and the appropriate contractor is dispatched to complete the work. Typically, once a problem is reported, a contractor is dispatched within 48-72 hours to investigate. Depending on the nature of the problem, repairs are made within 5 business days.
ñññ $500K is budgeted for demand maintenance (repairs as needed) for building security systems (which includes CCTV). ñññ $225K is budgeted for preventive maintenance for building security systems (which includes CCTV). Preventive maintenance includes staffing resources to assess conditions of various sites and provide scopes of work as required. Staff will be hired in 2016.
Table 3 provides a summary of the 2016 Operating Program as of March 31, 2016.
Table 3: 2016 Operating Program
2016 Operating Program Budget Spent as of Q1 Demand Maintenance $500,000 $164,000 Preventive Maintenance $225,000 $0 1 Total $725,000 $164,000 1 Preventive maintenance costs include staffing resources; staff will be hired in 2016.
IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS:
Status update reports are amongst the governance tools that will help Management assess progress and achievement of expected results. This report is designed to provide a clear view of the status and progress of the management and maintenance of TCHC’s CCTV systems, and the development and implementation of a proactive strategy that is aligned with TCHC’s 10-year capital repair plan, and commitments made to improve security and safety. This strategy includes standards and consistency across the portfolio, and leverages resources and technological changes within the industry to effectively and efficiently address resident safety and security needs. Page 4 of 4
SIGNATURE:
“Sheila Penny”
Sheila Penny Vice-President, Facilities Management
STAFF CONTACT: Sheila Penny, Vice-President, Facilities Management 416-981-6414 [email protected]
Boyd Dyer, Director, Smart Buildings & Energy Management 416-981-6125 [email protected] Item 6 Q1-2016 Report on Installation and Maintenance of Security Cameras (CCTV) July 28th, 2016 RSC Meeting Report RSC:2016-24 Attachment 1
Attachment 1 2016 CCTV Upgrades (Capital Program) as of March 31, 2016
No. of Location Address(es) Cameras 1 1900 Sheppard 1900 Sheppard Avenue West 35 2 250 Davenport 250 Davenport Road 25 3 291 George 291 George Street 32 4 Adanac Apartments 140 Adanac Drive 13 5 Alexandra Park 91 Augusta Avenue 9 6 Bleecker/Wellesley Wellesley Street East 32 7 Centennial Apartments 5-11 Wakunda Place 30 8 Cooper Mills Townhouses 4020 Dundas Street West 50 9 Downsview Acres 2195 Jane Street 17 10 Dundas/ Mabelle 57 Mabelle Avenue TBD 11 Empringham Mews 50-66, 90, 92, 94-126 Empringham Dr 29 12 Finch/Birchmount 2821 Birchmount Road, 85-323 73 Glendower Circuit 13 Finch/Ardwick 1-15 Ardwick Boulevard 40 14 Firgrove Crescent The Grassways TBD 15 Flemingdon Park Grenoble, Rochefort, St. Dennis, 150 Vendome, Deauville 16 Gerrard/River 220 Oak Street TBD 17 Gilder Drive 31,47,51,81-85 Gilder Drive 70 18 Islington Manor 41 Mabelle Avenue 71 19 Jane/Firgrove 2-14, 5, 22-36 Needle Firway 52 20 Jane/Yewtree 2999 Jane Street 30 21 Kennedy Road 675 Kennedy Road, 20, 30 35 Eppleworth Road 22 Kingston/Galloway 4301-4331 Kingston Road 60 23 Lawrence Heights Amaranth, Bagot, Blossomfield, 379 Bredonhill, Cather, Dorney, Edengarth, Flemington, Leila, Old Meadow, Pengarth, Replin, Varna 24 Lawrence/Galloway 4110 Lawrence Avenue East 75 25 Lawrence/Orton 3939-3947 Lawrence Avenue East 49 Item 6 Q1-2016 Report on Installation and Maintenance of Security Cameras (CCTV) July 28th, 2016 RSC Meeting Report RSC:2016-24 Attachment 1
No. of Location Address(es) Cameras 26 Leslie/Finch 1-15 Field Sparroway, 2-10 Tree 32 Sparroway 27 Mabelle Place 49 Mabelle Avenue TBD 28 Markham/Eglinton 3171 and 3181 Eglinton Avenue East 28 29 McClain Apartments 10 Glen Everest Road 32 30 McCowan Road 1 410 McCowan Road 34 31 McCowan Road 2 400 McCowan Road 32 Morningside Apartments 4205 Lawrence Avenue East 30 33 Mount Dennis Apartments 101 Humber Boulevard 47 34 Neptune Drive 135,145,155 Neptune Drive 85 35 North Regent Park Dundas, Gerrard, Parliament, River, 74 Sacvkille, Sumach 36 O'Connor Drive 15-42 Wakunda Place TBD 37 Pelham Park Garden 61 Pelham Park Gardens 40 38 Pembroke Mews 200 Sherbourne Street 25 39 Scarlettwoods Scarlettwood Court 100 40 Sheppard/Birchmount I 200-374 Bay Mills Boulevard 70 41 Sheppard/Birchmount II 365 Bay Mills Boulevard 42 Tandridge Crescent 1 44-80 Tandridge Crescent 70 43 Tandridge Crescent 2 75 Tandridge Crescent 44 Teesdale/Pharmacy 30, 40 Teesdale Place 80 45 Village Apartments 50 Tuxedo Court 13 46 West Hill Apartments 4175 Lawrence Avenue East 25 47 Weston Towers 3101 Weston Road 26 48 Willowdale Avenue 415 Willowdale Avenue 100 49 Willowridge/Richview 44 Willowridge Road 16 50 Yorkwoods Village 10-44 Driftwood Drive 92
Page 1 of 4
Youth Initiatives Item 7 July 28, 2016 Resident Services Committee
Report: RSC:2016-31
To: Resident Services Committee (RSC)
From: Vice President, Resident and Community Services (Interim)
Date: July 28, 2016
Strategic Plan Vibrant Communities: Priority: • Economic Opportunities • Strengthening Communities and Resident Leadership
PURPOSE: To provide the Resident Services Committee with a quarterly update on the Youth Initiatives activities.
RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Resident Services Committee receive this report for information.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: This report is for information only.
BACKGROUND:
Toronto Community Housing (TCH) is continuing to invest in strategies for capacity building and engaging youth in positive activities that foster personal growth and community development in four key areas: safety, leadership and engagement, active living/recreation and economic development. These four pillars offer a broad range of entry points, thereby ensuring the programs are accessible to many young people living in TCH communities.
Page 2 of 4
This report provides an update to the Resident Services Committee on programs and activities of the Youth Initiatives. In addition, this report provides an opportunity to showcase the achievements of youth who participate in the programs and bring critical feedback to the organization to support innovation and the development of strategies and policies relating to youth focused programming.
In Q1, the bulk of work was planning the initiatives to be implemented throughout the year, as well as deliver spring programming activities for youth.
ACTIVE LIVING PROGRAMS:
Midnight Madness Basketball - Spring Session
In January, planning began for the Midnight Madness Basketball program. In partnership with the University of Toronto, the six week spring session ran from April 8 th to May 20 th once a week.
Six teams of 15 youth engaged in friendly competition with other communities, focused on team building, fair play and healthy active living. Youth also took part in evening life skills and personal development workshops, with dinner provided at each session.
Program Costs: $23, 750.00
YMCA Youth Exchanges Canada
This group-reciprocal exchange program is designed for participants between the ages of 12 and 17 years. Participants are twinned with same-age groups from another province or territory, and they take turns staying in each other's communities for up to a week. This opportunity encourages all participants to meet new people, explore Canada’s cultural diversity, and develop Canadian identity and attachment to Canada among youth. This year, youth from Danzig and Glendower paired with youth from Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan, respectively.
During the week of March 10 th -16 th , 15 youth from Danzig Street hosted 15 of their counterparts from PEI. Activities included a day-trip to Niagara Falls, performing random acts of kindness throughout the week (ex. provided bagged lunches to homeless individuals) and a tour of Toronto landmarks.
In Q2, the Saskatchewan youth group will visit Toronto and the two Toronto youth groups will go and visit their exchange counterparts.
Program costs: $2,800 (local transportation and food to host group)
Page 3 of 4
LEADERSHIP AND ENGAGEMENT INITIATIVES:
Model United Nations During March Break (March 14 th – 18 th , 2016), 15 youth participated in the annual Model UN Youth Conference. Youth had the opportunity to meet and debate in a mock United Nations session. This conference was hosted in Ottawa by the United Nations Association of Canada, with delegates from 19 countries
If I Ruled T.O. Youth Summit 2015 – Post event actions After the success of the 2015 Youth Summit, the youth planning team began the development of a summary report to showcase the outcomes of the discussions and potential future action items. This report will be transformed into a booklet that will be shared with conference partners and individuals that youth planners have identified as key informants in all levels of government.
In Q1, eight meetings were held with RCS and Public Affairs teams to assist youth planners with finalising content, branding and approvals. The booklet will be printed for distribution in Q2.
Youth Initiatives – RevivifyTO The Youth Action Grant and Strengthening Communities Youth Leadership Project funds have allowed youth groups and community partners to provide more programs and youth-focused opportunities in their communities. Both streams were created as part of 2013’s Year of the Youth initiative, stemming from funding support barriers identified by youth at the inaugural If I Ruled T.O. Youth Summit in 2012. The areas of focus reflected the discussion themes of the conference.
In response to feedback from youth, community partners and staff, as well as changing strategic priorities, the grant streams have been refocused to directly link back to youth summit themes and the initiative has been rebranded as RevivifyTO. The word ‘revivify’ meaning to revive and bring new energy to; renewing the call to action to youth, to create sustainable change across the city.
RevivifyTO amalgamates the application criteria and processes of the Youth Action Grant and Strengthening Communities Leadership Project while focusing on the following key areas for 2016: - Accessible Youth Spaces - Police Relations - Civic Engagement - Social Media - Education - Violence and Safety Page 4 of 4
- Mental Health
MAYORS TASK FORCE INITIATIVES:
Gymnasiums – Community Consultations As part of the Mayor’s Task Force recommendations, the Active Living and Centralized programs team will be rolling out additional programming. One of which sees our gymnasiums open all year round. In Q1, staff held community consultations to identify the space needs as well as leadership opportunities for residents in the community. The communities identified are: - Cooper Mils - 4020 Dundas Street West - Mabelle – 49 Mabelle Avenue - Rowntree – 2765 Islington Avenue - Scarlett Manor – 1025 Scarlett Road - Trimbee – 30 Denarda Street - Gordonridge – 20 Gordonridge Place - Kingston Galloway – 4301 Kingston Road - Weston Towers – 3101 Weston Road - Queen’s Plate – 900 Queens Plate Drive Community consultations began at the end of March and will conclude late Q3, with the support of local RCS Engagement teams.
IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS: There were no implications and risks identified.
SIGNATURE:
“Simone Atungo”
Simone Atungo, Vice President, Resident and Community Services (Interim) [email protected]
STAFF CONTACT: Sherwin Modeste, Manager, Grants Development and Sponsorship 416-981- 4674 [email protected] Page 1 of 5
Scholarship Program Update Item 8 July 28, 2016 Resident Services Committee
Report: RSC:2016-32
To: Resident Services Committee (RSC)
From: Vice President, Resident and Community Services (Interim)
Date: July 28, 2016
Strategic Plan Priority: Vibrant Communities: Economic Opportunities Strengthening Communities and Resident Leadership
PURPOSE: To provide the Resident Services Committee with an update on TCHC Scholarship Initiatives.
RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Resident Services Committee receive this report for information.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: At its September 11, 2015 meeting, the RSC requested that the format of the Scholarship Report be amended to include a table that shows the number of scholarships and source of funds, to whom the funds are available, annual allocation per fund, the frequency of distribution of each scholarship and the process used to determine who receives a scholarship. This report provides this information as well as an update on scholarship activities for 2016.
Page 2 of 5
BACKGROUND
TCHC supports improving educational and occupational training opportunities for residents and believes that scholarships are an important vehicle for accomplishing these goals. Toronto Community Housing greatly values and encourages contributions from external organizations to its scholarship program funds. TCHC has been providing scholarships to residents for more than 10 years.
CURRENT SCHOLARSHIPS
Currently, TCHC offers a variety of scholarships including the Investing in Our Diversity Scholarship program and scholarships for Toronto Community Housing residents who live in revitalization communities. Details of each scholarship program are provided in the table in Attachment 1.
Investing in Our Diversity Scholarship Program
The Investing in Our Diversity Scholarship (IIOD) is geared towards young leaders across Toronto who are entering first year of post-secondary education or trade school. These scholarships are awarded to students who have shown leadership in diversity, anti-racism, and anti-oppression initiatives in their communities as well as demonstrating financial need.
Each year, funds are solicited from community partners and Scadding Court Community Centre administers the fund. Over the last 15 years, the scholarship program has awarded 372 scholarships valued at over $800,000. The program offers scholarships ranging $2,000- $4,000 and facilitates access to employment support, professional networks, and career development opportunities. In 2016, up to $120,000 is earmarked for scholarships. 40 out of 105 TCHC applicants received a scholarship in 2016. TCHC looks forward to continuing to work with the many scholarship partners (including – Mount Sinai Hospital (The Sinai Health System), Scotiabank, Blaney-McMurtry LLP, Dentons, the Toronto Police Service, Tridel Development Corporation), as well as our many academic partners, to continue to grow and expand this tremendously successful program.
Page 3 of 5
Black Business and Professional Association National Scholarship Fund
The Black Business and Professional Association (BBPA) National Scholarship Fund was established in 1996 and is dedicated to supporting and promoting the achievement of academic excellence by Black Canadian youth pursuing post-secondary education at a Canadian college or university. As the result of a use of space agreement between the BBPA and TCHC, the BBPA is required to provide scholarships specifically for TCHC youth.
The scholarships are granted to students 17 to 30 years of age who are enrolled in post-secondary education and demonstrate financial need and community involvement. Nearly 20% of the award recipients live in TCHC communities. The fund receives financial donations from corporations and from organizations and individuals who share its mission to support the education and development of Canada’s future leaders.
Building our Future: Limitless Heights Scholarship – Lawrence Heights Revitalization Community
The Building our Future: Limitless Heights Scholarship provides Lawrence Heights and Neptune residents of all ages with financial support for post-secondary education or occupational training. The scholarships are offered as part of the revitalization of the Lawrence Heights and Neptune neighbourhoods. The fund is valued at $500,000 and is being disbursed to community members over the course of 5 years. The fund was provided by Lawrence Heights Revitalization Development partners (Context Development Inc. and Metropia), and TCHC administers the funds. Recipients are recognized for their commitment to community building and academic success. The program provides up to a maximum of $3,000 per scholarship to cover tuition fees for any year of a registered post-secondary education or training institution, including apprenticeships. In 2016, the application process is underway and it is anticipated that 15 scholarships will be awarded.
Allenbury Gardens Revitalization Scholarship Program
The Allenbury Gardens Revitalization Scholarship Program provides residents with financial support for post-secondary education or training to help them gain knowledge and skills to secure a better future. The program recognizes residents who have made contributions as community leaders or have been involved in community development initiatives in Allenbury Gardens. Launched in 2013, the Scholarship program is sponsored by the FRAM Building Group, TCHC’s revitalization developer partner. Each year, $5,000 is awarded to community members in the form of bursaries or scholarships. Since 2013, nine scholarships have been awarded to TCHC residents. Page 4 of 5
This year will mark the 4th year of the program and the successful candidates will be announced in August 2016. The scholarship offers: One $4,000 scholarship award to cover tuition fees for a year of post-secondary education or training and payable directly to the institution (college, university, trade school, apprenticeship). Two $500 bursaries, payable directly to the recipient, to cover costs for education materials or services. This includes books, lab fees, transportation and childcare.
Alexandra Park
The Atkinson Housing Cooperative in Alexandra Park is a member of the Cooperative Housing Federation of Toronto (CHFT). The CHFT has a Diversity Scholarship fund that it makes available to co-op members. Since 2013, TCHC has leveraged the revitalization process to secure funds for the CHFT scholarship fund through community economic development contributions from the developers and consultants involved in the project. Scholarship values range from $1,500 to $3,000 with 15-20 scholarships presented annually.
SIGNATURE:
“Simone Atungo”
Simone Atungo, Vice - President, Resident & Community Services (Interim) [email protected]
ATTACHMENT: Attachment 1. Scholarship Report Update – RSC 2016 Q2
STAFF CONTACTS:
Gail Johnson, Director, Resident Engagement & Community Development (Interim) 416-981-4042 [email protected]
Page 5 of 5
Steve Jacques, Director, Revitalization and Renewal 416-981-4051 [email protected] Item 8 - Scholarship Report Update July 28th, 2016 RSC Meeting Report RSC:2016-32 Attachment 1
Scholarship Report Update – RSC 2016 Q2 Attachment 1.
Scholarship Annual Fund Source Amount per Qualification Criteria Applicant Name Allocation Scholarship Evaluation Body 1 Building our $100,000 Context Up to $3,000 Residents of Lawrence Heights and Adjudication Future: Development scholarship Neptune communities of any age who Committee Limitless Fund Inc. and $300 bursary have made contributions as a made up of Heights disbursed Metropia community leader or have been TCHC staff, Scholarship – once per # of involved in community building Community Lawrence annum Scholarships initiatives, AND who can answer 'yes' Partner, Context Heights disbursed to to all of the following: Development, Revitalization TCHC A current or relocated (due to and a person Community residents ongoing revitalization) resident of from the 2016: TBD Lawrence Heights or Neptune with Education (anticipated proof of residency sector. 15) Entering the first year of a post- secondary education program (college, university, career academy, apprenticeship) or currently enrolled in a post- secondary education or training program. Able to demonstrate a need for financial assistance 2 Allenbury $5000 FRAM One (1) Residents of Allenbury Gardens of Adjudication Gardens Building $4000 any age. Committee Revitalization Fund Group scholarship Preference will be given to made up of Scholarship disbursed residents who have made TCHC staff and Program once per 2 Bursaries contributions as a community residents annum leader or involved in community Item 8 - Scholarship Report Update July 28th, 2016 RSC Meeting Report RSC:2016-32 Attachment 1
Scholarship Annual Fund Source Amount per Qualification Criteria Applicant Name Allocation Scholarship Evaluation Body # of development initiatives within Scholarships Allenbury Gardens or in the disbursed to broader community TCHC Able to demonstrate financial need residents Entering into or currently enrolled 2016: To be in a postsecondary program at a determined in recognized Canadian institution August. (i.e. high school equivalency preparatory courses, college, university, career academy or trade school) 3 Investing in Up to Scadding Up to $4,000 High school students and/or recent An adjudication Our Diversity $120,000 Court high school graduates involved in committee with Scholarship Community # of antiracism, diversity and/or building representation Program Fund Centre, Scholarships healthy communities and are: from Scadding disbursed TCHC, 14 disbursed to A Canadian citizen or permanent Court once per Division, 11 TCHC resident Community annum Division and residents 25 years old or younger in May of Centre, TCHC 41 Division 2016: 30 the application year and 14 Division, Planning to attend a recognized 11 Division and Canadian post-secondary 41 Division educational or training program CPLCs. (college, university, career academy, apprenticeship) in the upcoming academic year Opportunity for second year scholarships of up to $4,000 to be applied directly to your tuition Item 8 - Scholarship Report Update July 28th, 2016 RSC Meeting Report RSC:2016-32 Attachment 1
Scholarship Annual Fund Source Amount per Qualification Criteria Applicant Name Allocation Scholarship Evaluation Body if you attend one of the following institutions: o Ryerson University o University of Toronto o York University o Humber College o George Brown College o Seneca College o Ontario College of Art and Design University Able to demonstrate a need for financial assistance Demonstrate involvement in the community 4 Black Fund 41 different Up to $5,000 A member of the Canadian Black 3 Judges most Business and disbursed Scholarship community (i.e. a Black person of of whom are Professional once per funds each # of discernible African ancestry and current or Association annum offering 1 or Scholarships you self-identify as Black/African- former National more disbursed to Canadian/African- educators from Scholarship scholarships TCHC Caribbean/African-American); post-secondary Fund with different residents A Canadian citizen or permanent institutions. areas of 2016: to be resident of Canada. Donor focus. determined A maximum 30 years of age at the participates in start of the 2016-17 academic the final year, and be enrolled as a full-time decision for their student in the academic year particular 2016-2017 at an accredited post- scholarship. secondary institution (as Item 8 - Scholarship Report Update July 28th, 2016 RSC Meeting Report RSC:2016-32 Attachment 1
Scholarship Annual Fund Source Amount per Qualification Criteria Applicant Name Allocation Scholarship Evaluation Body determined by the National Scholarship Fund). 5 Alexandra Up to Over 60 $1,500 to Different Categories of Scholarships Representatives Park $45, 000 companies $3,000 that include: from CHFT (Cooperative donate to the Graduating from high school and Housing Fund fund. # of entering college or University. Federation of disbursed Scholarships Students who are currently Toronto once per disbursed to enrolled in college or university (CHFT) annum TCHC undergraduate programs or are Diversity residents returning to college or university Scholarship 2016: to be after a break to complete an fund) determined undergraduate program later in the People who have shown summer exceptional leadership in their school and community or taken an active role in mentoring young people or demonstrated a commitment to social justice. People who are determined to succeed at the post-secondary level or in a skilled trade and who did not have the opportunity to finish their schooling due to family, financial or other circumstances including being a sole support parent
Page 1 of 3
Use of Sponsorship Funds Item 9 July 28, 2016 Resident Services Committee
Report: RSC:2016-33
To: Resident Services Committee (RSC)
From: Vice President, Resident and Community Services (Interim)
Date: July 28, 2016
Strategic Plan Vibrant Communities: Priority: • Economic Opportunities • Strengthening Communities and Resident Leadership Service Excellence: • Demonstrate Value for Money and Public Accountability
PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the cost of administering sponsorship funds and to provide the Resident Services Committee with a list of donors who support resident engagement activities in the Resident Services Division.
RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Committee receive this report for information only.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
At the October 29 2015 Board meeting, during a discussion on the Sponsorship Policy, “Management were requested to report on the cost of administration of funds and list of Donors to the Board on a regular basis through the appropriate Committee”. This report provides an overview of the in-kind support received through Sponsorships and how they are administered by TCHC.
Page 2 of 3
BACKGROUND
TCHC does not accept any cash donations as it does not have a Qualified Donee status which would enable the organization to provide charitable tax receipts. TCHC however, has entered into sponsorship agreements with several private sector organizations, who provide in-kind support for active living and other recreational programming for children and youth. TCHC does not charge any sponsorship administration fees for accepting this in-kind support and uses these donations to enhance existing programming. In September 2015, TCHC applied to the Charities Directorate at the Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”) to register as a “Qualified Donee” under the Act. The CRA issued a Notice of Refusal as a Qualified Donee to TCHC on February 26, 2016. TCHC is appealing this decision, and more detailed information about the appeal will be provided to the GHRCC at an upcoming meeting. As per TCHC’s Sponsorship Policy, TCHC differentiates between donations and sponsorships as outlined below: Donation: a voluntary transfer of cash, goods, services or property that is made without expectation of any benefit of any kind accruing to the donor or to any individual or organization designated by the donor. Donations do not constitute a Sponsorship since no reciprocal consideration is sought. Sponsorship: a mutually beneficial business arrangement wherein an external organization or individual provides a financial or in-kind contribution of goods or services to another organization in exchange for specified marketing promotion or other material or commercial benefits. Sponsorship is not a Donation, nor is it paid advertising. Bearing these definitions in mind, below is a brief summary of the types of in-kind provisions made through RCS’ sponsorship agreements. • One of the longest standing Sponsorships is the Jays Care Foundation . In 2015, they provided baseball supplies for up to 1200 children at 50 TCHC sites as well as tickets to baseball games for Rookie League participants and volunteers. • In 2016, the Nike Corporation provided apparel, shoes and t- shirts for the Midnight Basketball program. • In 2015, Under Armour provided 200 winter jackets and snow pants to the Kickstart Soccer program participants. • In 2015 the MLSE Foundation provided Kickstart participants tickets to the Toronto FC games as well as sporting equipment and coach time to the KickStart program. Page 3 of 3
• TCHC receives movie and theatre tickets on an ad hoc basis from the Kids Upfront Foundation, which staff distribute through each community in turn.
IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS:
The programs provided with the limited resources that TCHC has at its disposal would be significantly enhanced with a Qualified Donee status. These programs are instrumental in strengthening and connecting TCHC communities and also provide residents with social supports that improve their quality of life.
SIGNATURE:
“Simone Atungo”
Simone Atungo Vice President, Resident and Community Services (Interim)
STAFF CONTACT: Sherwin Modeste, Manager, Sponsorships, Grants & Development 416-981- 4674 [email protected] Page 1 of 5
Safer and More Secure Communities, Q1 2016 Update Item 10 July 28, 2016 Resident Services Committee Report: RSC:2016-34
To: Resident Services Committee (RSC)
From: Interim Vice-President, Resident & Community Services
Date: June 21, 2016
Strategic Plan Vibrant Communities: Priority • Neighbourhood Building and Improved Community Safety Service Excellence: • Provide Excellent Customer Service Demonstrate Value for Money and Public Accountability
PURPOSE: To provide the Resident Service Committee with an update on activities as of March 31, 2016.
RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Resident Services Committee receive this report for information.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
BACKGROUND: This report will provide the Committee with information on the status of the Community Safety Unit’s (CSU) reported crime and incidents, calls for service, safety audits, community outreach, partnership building and Toronto Crime Stoppers partnership.
Reported Crime and Incidents The various crimes and incidents that occur on Toronto Community Housing (TCHC) property are reported to the Community Safety Unit either by TCHC residents, staff or Page 2 of 5 external partners such as Toronto Police Service, Toronto Paramedic Services and Toronto Fire Services. Table 1 illustrates the number of reported crimes and incidents that were attended to by our Community Patrol Officers in Q1 2016.
Table 1 – Q1 2015 and 2016 Reported Crimes and Incidents Comparison Reported Crimes and Incidents Q1 2015 Q1 2016 Variance
Reported Crimes: 151 177 17.2% • Against Persons (Includes all sexual assaults, assaults, robbery, homicide, discharge firearm, uttering threats, etc.)
• Against Property (Includes theft, break and enter, 464 620 33.6% trespass, mischief, arson, etc.)
Total Reported Crimes 615 797 29.6% Reported Incidents: • Incidents Affecting Quality of Life (Includes 750 807 7.6% drug offences, fires, fire alarms, prostitution, breach of probation, suspicious persons, warrants executed, etc.)
• Disputes (Includes domestic, landlord/tenant, 2,634 1,938 -35.9% neighbour and other)
• Disturbances (cause disturbance or loitering) 1,624 1,453 -11.8%
• Parking (Information, violation, recovered auto or 1,591 2,158 35.6% towing)
• Other incidents (Includes; information, unfounded 2,254 2,517 11.7% incidents, assisting residents, law enforcement, CCTV, etc.)
Total Reported Incidents 8,853 8,873 0.2%
Total Reported Crimes & Incidents 9,468 9,670 2.1% *Data limitations: Data from contracted security services are not included above as there is a discrepancy in the statistical headings and reporting.
Classification Definitions Crimes Against Persons: Involve the application and or threat of force to a person. Crimes Against Property: Involve unlawful acts with respect to property but do not involve the use or threat of violence against a person. Incidents Affecting Quality of Life: Involve unlawful acts that are generally victimless in nature and include incidents that do not pose a direct threat to an individual but have an impact as to the perception of safety and fear of crime.
Page 3 of 5
Calls for Service
The Community Safety Unit’s Dispatch Centre operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week answering calls and ensuring that appropriate support is provided to our residents, staff and community partners when they call with safety or security concerns. Table 2 illustrates the number of calls received and attended to by our Community Patrol Officers in Q1 2016.
Table 2 – Q1 2015 and 2016 Calls for Service Comparison
Average Abandon Service Level Total Total % of Calls Total Speed Average Rate * * (80% Quarter Received Dispatched that are Abandoned Answered* Talk (Target answered Calls * Calls ** Dispatched Calls* (Target Time* < 8%) within 20 sec) < 20 sec) Q1 2015 28,220 8,696 30.8% 2,258 8% 9 sec 1 min 81% Q1 2016 23,254 7,488 32% 1,952 8% 10 sec 56 sec 80% *Data Source – Avaya Phone System **Data Source – Cora Reporting System NOTE: Data limitations, the total number of calls obtained from the Avaya phone system does not include the calls that are generated by CSU officers/3 rd party security services to report “on-site” follow up to occurrences/incidents via 2-way radio.
Safety Audits (CPTED)
In 2015 CSU completed 11 Community Safety Plans for priority communities. Several safety plans were then converted into CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) safety audits, this after CSU’s commitment to the Mayor’s Task Force to complete 10 in 2015. In 2016 there is a commitment to complete another 10 safety audits, this quarter CSU completed two; Lawrence Heights (Neptune) and Jane/Firgrove.
CPTED principles were used to guide the audits which identify improvements or modification that can be made to our properties to help deter crime such as trimming trees to improve visibility, installing high intensity lights to brighten parking garages and removing shrubs to provide more visible open spaces, to name a few. In conducting the audits there was an increase in resident participation and a stronger sense of resident ownership over the process to building safer communities.
Community Outreach
In Q1 the Community Safety Unit held 25 Community Safety Council meetings integrated with Resident and Community Services and Asset Management staff with a focus to increase youth participation.
Page 4 of 5
The Community Safety Unit organized 26 resident/community engagement activities including; senior’s health fairs, kid’s clubs and kid’s game nights.
Partnership Building
The Community Safety Unit continues to build new partnerships with other relevant external agencies and enhance existing relationships. In Q1 new partnerships were built with: • Special Olympics Ontario, helping improve quality of life • Neighbourhood info post, education and info sharing events that benefit tenants in multiple communities, specifically senior’s communities. • Toronto Fire Safety Awareness • Taylor Massey Oakridge Community Table, helping implement community programs and activities. • Partnering for Mental Health, partner with mental health agencies and Del Management. • Halton Regional Community Housing, examine best practices within social housing providers • Jane/Finch Support Networks, work with external agencies across OU’s to support TCHC communities. • Neighbourhood Action Partnerships, working with numerous agencies to bring support to TCH communities within Rexdale. • Neptune Youth Council, focused efforts for youth engagement within Neptune • Recipe for Communities – Rexdale, Access to 100K in funds to be distributed amongst TCH Rexdale communities • Breaking the Cycle, assistance with youth gang exit strategies within TCH communities. • Firgrove Learning Innovation and Community Centre, assisting with community work within Firgrove.
Other existing relationships have been strengthened particularly with Kingslet Hadaway, Moss Park Safety Group and East Resident Engagement Group.
Toronto Crime Stoppers Partnership
In 2016 Toronto Community Housing continues to work with Crime Stoppers in organizing information sessions to promote awareness of the program.
This quarter, information sessions were held at Scarletwood Court, 200 Wellesley, 145 Strathmore, 17 Brimley, Chester Le Community, and Dorsette Park Community at 7 & 8 Glamorgan.
Page 5 of 5
CSU Deployment Model
In this quarter staff and management raised some issues with the CSU deployment model which came into effect October 2015. The model is due for its scheduled post implementation review in April 2016. CSU will be reaching out to all front-line staff to get their input on what’s working and not working with the model.
A Deployment Model Project team has been assembled to further assess the current model outlining the challenges and opportunities and work towards an ideal deployment model that satisfies stakeholders. A more detailed report on the current Deployment Model was shared with Resident Services Committee members.
IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS:
With the probability that the current CSU deployment model will be modified again, management will be monitoring service delivery to ensure operational needs continue to be met.
SIGNATURE:
“Simone Atungo”
Simone Atungo Interim Vice-President, Resident & Community Services
Staff Mona Bottoni ...... 416-981-5036 Contacts: Manager, Planning & Business Support. [email protected]
Page 1 of 4
TCHC’s Referral Process to SPIDER Situation Table Item 11 July 28, 2016 Resident Services Committee
Report: RSC:2016-35
To: Resident Services Committee (RSC)
From: Vice President, Resident and Community Services (Interim)
Date: July 28, 2016
Strategic Plan Vibrant Communities: Priority: Supporting Housing Stability
PURPOSE: To provide the Resident and Community Services Committee with an overview of Toronto Community Housing’s (TCHC) internal referral process to the City of Toronto’s Specialized Program for Interdivisional Enhanced Responsiveness to Vulnerability (“SPIDER”).
RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Committee receive this report for information.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: The Board requested staff to provide an overview of how staff identify residents and refer files to the SPIDER program and to OCHE. Staff have provided a report to the BIFAC committee (BIFAC: 2016-106) on TCHC’s referral process to OCHE. This report will provide information on TCHC’s referral process to SPIDER.
BACKGROUND:
TCHC’s participation in situation and/or coordination tables Situation and/or coordination tables allow staff to consult their peers in the human services sector on highly complex files to enhance care coordination and support when all other options have been exhausted. These tables include the SPIDER Situation Page 2 of 4
Table, FOCUS Toronto (Rexdale and North Scarborough), and the LHIN-funded Health Links. TCHC’s participation in situation tables is an additional resource available to support vulnerable residents to maintain successful tenancies and does not supersede TCHC’s existing tenancy management processes. The mandate of the SPIDER Situation Table is to reduce acutely elevated health and safety risk involving vulnerable residents, their homes or property and their neighbours by: a. Coordinating front-line responses across City of Toronto divisions, boards, agencies, and corporations: b. Building effective linkages to relevant healthcare and social services; and c. Driving policy reforms related to vulnerability.
TCHC’s Referral Process to SPIDER Situation Table Currently, two TCHC managers (from RCS and AM) represent TCHC at SPIDER’s bi- weekly meetings. Staff refer a file to SPIDER as follows: 1. CSC has been working with a resident for an extended period of time, (at least three months) and exhausted all avenues to put supports in place. Resident is unwilling or unable to accept supports, and does not understand the consequences of his or her behaviour and its impact on his or her tenancy. 2. CSC consults with their Manager about file’s appropriateness for SPIDER intervention. If deemed appropriate, CSC completes and submits referral forms to TCHC’s SPIDER Lead. 3. TCHC’s SPIDER Lead reviews and assess documents against SPIDER eligibility criteria (see Attachment 1 for criteria). If approved, the Lead liaises with other TCHC units and submits referral to SPIDER. 4. TCHC’s SPIDER Lead presents the file at the following SPIDER meeting. 5. SPIDER assesses the file against the eligibility criteria. If accepted by the Table, relevant partners are identified for enhanced coordinated intervention. 6. TCHC’s SPIDER Lead reports back to the referring team with updates and facilitates connection between referring CSC and SPIDER partners. The timeline for SPIDER interventions range from two months to over a year. Please refer to Attachment2 for a process flow chart. SPIDER – like other situation and/or coordination tables – are embedded in TCHC’s business processes to support vulnerable residents in maintaining their housing.
Between the fall of 2014 and June 2016, SPIDER has coordinated responses to 73 acutely elevated risk situations. 54% (40) of these situations were introduced by TCHC. Of the files referred to the SPIDER by TCHC: Page 3 of 4
34 situations are closed. 6 situations are active. Only three (3) referrals from TCHC were declined by SPIDER. In one of the cases, TCHC had already brought in all the resources that SPIDER would have activated, and therefore nothing further could be done to support the resident. In the second, the resident was incarcerated before the case could be referred, and in the third case, the resident repeatedly breached multiple mediated agreements.
IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS:
TCHC is not funded to be a direct social service provider, and therefore works to support vulnerable residents by connecting them to existing services within the community. Within this framework, TCHC allocates resources by assigning staff to establish partnerships and connections to services, and to be the conduit for residents to these services. TCHC is dependent on all levels of government to appropriately fund the agency partners it relies upon to provide these much needed supports.
SPIDER is a promising service delivery model that aligns with and complements TCHC’s existing process to support vulnerable residents maintain successful tenancies. Based on the selection criteria for SPIDER cases, however, SPIDER cannot be the default service provider for all files involving vulnerable residents, and the success of SPIDER interventions depends on the work done by TCHC staff prior to the SPIDER intervention.
With the aging demographic of TCHC residents and the growing focus on supporting vulnerable residents, existing TCHC resources will be challenged. Public expectations may exceed TCHC’s organizational capacity.
SIGNATURE:
“Simone Atungo”
Simone Atungo, Vice President, Resident and Community Services (Interim) [email protected]
ATTACHMENT: 1. Criteria for SPIDER intervention 2. SPIDER Process flow Page 4 of 4
STAFF CONTACT: Sulekha Jama, Manager, Access and Support, 416- 981-5981 [email protected]
Item 11 - TCHC's Referral Process to SPIDER Situation Table July 28, 2016 RSC Meeting Report RSC:2016-35 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 1
TCHC’s Referral Process to SPIDER Situation Table Item 11 July 28, 2016 Resident Services Committee
SPIDER Situation Table’s Eligibility Criteria Situations must meet the following criteria in order to be adopted by the SPIDER Situation Table:
There is an identified unresolved and acutely elevated health and safety risk involving a vulnerable resident, their home or property, and/or their neighbours;
If left unresolved, the risk is likely to lead to targeted enforcement or emergency response
AND
The Division/Agency has demonstrably exhausted all normal service provisions – including efforts to co-ordinate with other participating divisions or agencies – without resolution of the solution
OR
The Division/Agency has identified an immediate need to coordinate a complex response involving multiple participating divisions or agencies and lacks the resources to mobilize the response without the advice and support of the Situation Table.
Toronto Community Housing’s Referral Process to City of Toronto’s SPIDER Situation Table June 13 DRAFT1
Resident is facing challenges with managing tenancy and other issues and is unable or unwilling to accept supports to live independently. Tenancy is at risk and/or health crisis imminent. All channels to put supports in place have been exhausted.
CSC consults with Manager about referring file to a situation and/or coordination table, including SPIDER Situation Table.
Does the file require NO YES SPIDER intervention? CSC informs resident that file is being considered for SPIDER intervention, Staff continues to work if possible and submits the two internal forms to the TCHC’s SPIDER Lead to put supports in place SPIDER TCHC Lead reviews and asses file against SPIDER eligibility criteria and connects with other TCHC units about referral to SPIDER
Does file meet SPIDER eligibility criteria?
File does not meet TCHC SPIDER Lead submits referral online and presents the referral at the SPIDER eligibility SPIDER Situation Table meeting threshold. Referral is declined
NO Does the file meet SPIDER eligibility criteria?
SPIDER Situation Table Eligibility Criteria: There is an identified unresolved and acutely elevated health and safety risk involving a vulnerable resident, their home or property, and/or their neighbours; If left unresolved, the risk is likely to lead to targeted enforcement or Identify appropriate partners and coordinate intervention. TCHC SPIDER emergency response AND Lead notifies and connects SPIDER Team with TCHC referring team The Division/Agency has demonstrably exhausted all normal service provisions – including efforts to co-ordinate with other participating divisions or agencies – without resolution of the solution OR The Division/Agency has identified an immediate need to coordinate a complex response involving multiple participating divisions or agencies and lacks the resources to mobilize the response without the advice and support Attachment 2 Item 11 - TCHC's Referal Process to SPIDER Situation Table of the Situation Table. July 28th, 2016 RSC Meeting Report RSC:2016-35 Page 1 of 2
Update - Toronto Seniors Strategy Update Item 12 July 28, 2016 Resident Services Committee
Report: RSC:2016-37
To: Resident Services Committee (RSC)
From: Vice President, Asset Management
Date: July 28, 2016
Corporate Vibrant Communities: Goals: • Safer and more secure communities
PURPOSE: To provide the Resident Services Committee with an update on recommendations outlined in the City of Toronto Senior’s Strategy.
RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Resident Services Committee (RSC) receive this report for information.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: At the November 12, 2015 meeting of the RSC a request was made to provide the Committee with an update on the status of items identified in the 2014 safety audit of Toronto Community Housing Seniors buildings. The safety audit is recommended action #22C of the Toronto Senior’s Strategy. This report is a response to this request.
Toronto Seniors Strategy
Recommended Action #22C (long-term): TCHC will complete safety and security audits in all its seniors buildings, e.g. new/upgraded security cameras, elevator maintenance/repair, secure entrances/exits, etc.
STATUS UPDATE: Safety and security audits were completed in all of Toronto Community Housing’s senior’s buildings in Q3 of 2014. A “crime prevention through environmental design” Page 2 of 2
(“CPTED”) approach was utilized to identify measures that would improve security and promote healthy community standards. The exercise identified several opportunities in areas such as lighting, tree pruning, CCTV work, repairs and appearance. Results of the Safety Audit: • 70 Buildings audited • 56 Buildings had measures identified • 40 Buildings have all recommended measures implemented • 16 Buildings have recommended measures that are yet to be fully implemented Buildings with Recommendations Pending: • 4 Buildings have CCTV related recommendations pending • 3 Buildings have CCTV and other general items recommended as part to of the audit pending • 9 Buildings have “general” recommendations pending (i.e. improved signage, tree pruning, walkway and lighting upgrades) The remaining CCTV recommendations have been included in the 2016 capital plan and are scheduled to be completed no later than the end of Q1-17. The balance of the items identified did not have funding sources within the capital plan and have been recorded among the broader capital needs of the portfolio. These measures will be considered, with priority, as part of the 2017 capital plan.
IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS: Measures identified as part of the CPTED audit represent opportunities to ensure that buildings consistently maintain healthy community standards. Resources to address the majority of measures have been identified but the prioritization of the balance of items is critical to ensuring all buildings audited are brought to optimal standards.
SIGNATURE:
“Graham Leah ”
Graham Leah Vice President Asset Management Division
STAFF CONTACT: Patricia Narine, Director, Program Services Operational Initiatives 416-981-4167 [email protected] Page 1 of 5
2016 Complaints Report Item 13 July 28, 2016 Resident Services Committee
Report: RSC:2016-38
To: Resident Services Committee (RSC)
From: Vice President, Asset Management Division
Date: July 28, 2016
Corporate Service Excellence: Goals: • A culture of customer services to residents • Services that meet residents’ expectations
PURPOSE: To provide the Resident Services Committee with an update on the volume, type and trend of complaints received by Toronto Community Housing for the period of January 2016 to May of 2016.
RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Resident Services Committee receive the report for information. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: The information contained within the following report provides the Committee with the requisite details necessary to meet its responsibilities as set out in its terms of reference.
Page 2 of 5
BACKGROUND:
Toronto Community Housing’s Tenant Complaint Process defines the supporting principles, process and service standard for complaints handling. The current complaints process defines a service standard for responding to complaints within 10 business days. If a resolution cannot be achieved within 10 business days, staff are to advise the tenant of the anticipated time it will take to resolve the issue.
The Tenant Compliant Process is presently being reviewed for the purpose of updating it. The review and update process is being integrated with both the development of the Resident Charter and the implementation of the organization’s Customer Service Strategy. The root objective to strengthening the Tenant Complaint process is to more clearly establish standards, build consistency into the handling procedure and further develop a connection with continuous improvement initiatives that emerge from complaint trends. Additionally, there is the need to develop more robust tracking and reporting of complaints in order to demonstrate transparency and foster confidence in the organization’s accountability.
Management expects to have the requisite resident consultation, subsequent process enhancements and operational procedure updated and fully implemented by the end of 2016.
Page 3 of 5
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINTS RECEIVED (JANUARY – JUNE 2016):
Jun-16 May-16 Apr-16 Mar-16 Feb-16 Jan-16 # of Complaints Created This Month 827 768 750 733 693 582 % Complaints Closed in 10 Days* 76% 64% 70% 70% 72% 71% Service Level Target: 90% Closed in 10 Days # of Anti-Social Behavior Complaints Created This Month 322 335 306 294 289 281
No Trend 375 on closed 409 in 10 days 380 329 341 290 Yes 452 359 370 404 352 292 1,000 800 Anti-Social Behaviour 322 335 306 #REF! #REF! #N/A Yes 452 Yes 359 600 Building Condition, Staff, TenantsYes 370505 433Yes 404 444 #REF!Yes 352 #REF! #N/A Yes 292 400 No 375 No 409 No 380 No 329 No 341 No 290 200 - Jun-16 May-16 Apr-16 Mar-16 Feb-16 Jan-16
Total Created in Outstanding Jan-Jun as of June Compllaint Category 2016 30, 2016 Jun-16 May-16 Apr-16 Mar-16 Feb-16 Jan-16 Anti-Social Behaviour 3,297 818 626 574 564 563 531 439 Building 649 282 112 120 127 101 99 90 Staff 402 163 87 72 59 69 63 52 Relocation Issue 5 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 Grand Total 4,353 1,264 827 768 750 733 693 582
Status of Complaints Created in June 2016
Closed Outstanding Total Average Age Complaint Category # of Complaints # of Complaints Total # (days) Anti-Social Behaviour 394 232 626 5 Building 33 79 112 8 Staff 37 50 87 8 Relocation Issue 2 0 2 1 Grand Total 466 361 827 6
Complaints have been categorized into those pertaining to: • Anti-Social Behaviour (tenant disputes and behavioural issues) o Volumes are split evenly between the two categories
Page 4 of 5
• Building Condition (Maintenance, Cleaning, Service interruption, etc.) o Volumes are split predominantly between Maintenance issues and the interrupted service with cleaning complaints being very small.
• TCHC Staff o Volumes are primarily among staff groups who directly interface with Residents (Building and OU staff).
• Relocation Issues
Complaints are recorded in Easytrac and can be tracked by building, operating unit and at some measure of subcategory. There has been an increase in complaints over the past 6 months primarily concentrated in the areas related to neighbour disputes and the occurrence of anti-social behavior. Work related to the Mayor’s Task Force recommendations (i.e. implementing an Evictions for Cause procedure) has put increased focus on tracking of tenancy management actions related to Evictions for Cause.
IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS: The occurrence of complaints, the demonstrated ability to effectively respond and our transparency in reporting on both are a critical factor in maintaining the reputation of the organization as a responsive and accountable landlord. Resident satisfaction with services and the related customer experience define the organization’s value. Moreover, the capacity to learn from service failures identified through complaints is a lever to continuous improvement.
The aggregate objectives of our revised Complaint Management process relies on IT systems that presently have limited capacity to support the enhanced requirements. This issue has been identified for planning consideration as part of the IT strategy going forward.
Page 5 of 5
SIGNATURE:
“Graham Leah”
Graham Leah Vice President Asset Management Division
STAFF CONTACT: Patricia Narine, Director, Program Services Operational Initiatives 416-981-4167 [email protected]
Page 1 of 8
Q2-16 Clean Buildings and Maintenance Report Item 14 July 28, 2016 Resident Services Committee
Report: RSC:2016-40
To: Resident Services Committee (RSC)
From: Vice President, Asset Management
Date: July 28, 2016
Strategic Quality Homes: Plan Improve Building Conditions Priority: Maintain the Condition and Quality of New and Repaired Buildings
PURPOSE: To provide the Resident Services Committee with an update on the development and implementation of the Clean Buildings and Maintenance Strategy for Toronto Community Housing. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Resident Services Committee receive the report for information and discussion. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: The information contained within the following report provides the Committee with the requisite details necessary to meet its responsibilities as set out in its terms of reference.
Page 2 of 8
BACKGROUND: The intent of the Clean Buildings and Maintenance Strategy is to establish achievable service standards, sustainable service models and appropriate management tools to enable consistent and cost effective delivery of service with which residents report satisfaction. As part of the existing strategic plan and action plans related to the Mayor’s Taskforce, management will concentrate on developing service standards, delivering staff training, and strengthening capacity among specific staff groups to be more flexible to the variety of cleaning and maintenance demands in our various communities.
UPDATE ON STRATEGY: Cleaning Services In 2015, the organization finalized formal Cleaning Routines (by building type) to guide staff on a service standard. The routines document all cleaning activity including the frequency, sequence and period of the day it should be conducted. Following the completion of staff training, the routines were publically posted in each building to support communicating a service expectation to residents. Additional training occurred in Q1 and consisted of a “practical” training day. The practical training was in-building and comprised of a hands-on application of the classroom learning. A Quality Assurance audit has been developed to enable Community Housing Supervisors to conduct inspections within each building. The audit tool is accessible by smartphone and allows the CHS to rate compliance with the routines, quality of workmanship as well as to document any deficiencies encountered specifically. The results will be used for performance reporting and to inform staff development. With training and deployment of the audit tool to staff in May, the first full quarter of results will be published in Q3-16.
Page 3 of 8
Maintenance Services
Maintenance Service Levels Target = 80%
Maintenance Work Q1-15 Q2-15 Q3-15 Q4-15 Q1-16 Q2-16 Orders Maintenance Work 106,840 110,313 117,405 120,164 110,681 113,638 Order Requests opened % Closed within 5 72% 74% 75% 65% 68% 68% Business Day target
The volume of maintenance requests in Q2 increased in volume by about 3% (3474 work orders) more than that experienced in Q2 2015. As part of the Customer Service strategy, the service levels are being reviewed in lieu of the consistent performance at the mid-70% range.
The centralized maintenance dispatch was soft-launched in November. Dispatch staff were recruited from the Superintendent base, with funding from a previously centralized maintenance program. We fully launched and implemented the Maintenance Dispatch process on June 20th after training to the Superintendent staff was completed. The Maintenance Dispatch team will assume responsibility to dispatch and track vendor work so that site staff can focus on completing demand semi-skilled maintenance work. Residents will be able to obtain updates on maintenance work through the Client Care Centre which will improve the service experience in general. As completed with Cleaning Services, work will begin to document Maintenance standards towards calibrating service delivery among Superintendents, facilitating maintenance training and communicating service commitments to residents. Data collected from Maintenance Dispatch also presents the opportunity to assess a more suitable service level target based on capacity and analysis of workload.
Closing the Loop Closing the Loop is an initiative designed to provide Residents with a voice via a tenant feedback/survey mechanism to assess satisfaction with service Page 4 of 8 and quality of repairs completed by both staff and TCH vendors. The program has been operating since Q2-15 within the Firgrove community. The expanded pilot was launched in December and included 4 Operating Units (1 West, 2 Central and 1 East) along with the other 2 Re-Set Pilot sites (Lawrence-Orton and Queensway-Windermere). Results from the initial wave of calls were compiled under two key categories: Completion rate for repairs and maintenance Satisfaction with repairs and maintenance With respect to completion of work, 67% of those surveyed reported that their repairs were completed at the time of the survey (7-10 days following the work order). 77% reported satisfaction with the experience. Eight in ten were satisfied with the individual who completed the repair. Eight in ten or more were satisfied that the individual who completed the repair was respectful (86%), competent (83%), and courteous (81%). Nearly as many indicate that the person listened to their concerns (78%) and was able to answer their questions (76%). With the success of the expanded pilot we are looking at expanding this initiative portfolio wide by Q3 2016.
Pest Management: Thus far in 2016, Toronto Community Housing staff have fielded 23,456 Work Order (WO) requests related to pest management issues.
Demand Cost Avg. # of Period Treatments Cost per Treatments per Completed Treatment Units Treated 2011 30,062 $2,403,567.00 $79.95 6 2012 35,761 $1,765,920.70 $49.40 5 Page 5 of 8
2013 39,865 $2,014,810.40 $50.54 4.5
2014 69,756 $2,297,047.00 $32.92 4.0 2015 57,734 $1,811,964.67 $31.38 3.5 2016 to date 22,495 $718,457.45 $31.93 3.5
Bed Common Q # Cockroaches Bugs Mice Other Spaces Total Treatments Q1 4,923 4,097 1,253 488 1,318 12,079 Q2 5,142 4,518 1,395 679 1,318 13,052 Total 10,065 8,615 2,648 1167 2636 25,131
*Represents both demand and preventative treatments completed. Over 10% of all units (1,157) visited by the Integrated Pest Management Unit are identified as having the requirement for additional supports including access to resources to support, de-cluttering, preparation for treatment or extreme cleaning services. To date, our networking has effectively reduced costs by supporting Residents in accessing approximately $102k of additional supportive funding/services.
High Needs Building Approach The “High Needs Building” program was piloted in 2015 and continues in 2016 with the focus of engaging communities where there is historical data to support unique challenges or there is evidence of growing /repetitive service requests. The timelines for each project ranges from 3-5 months in duration and includes: Resident information sessions
Resident Feedback Survey
Completion of a full building Audit
Identification of units that may require additional support(s) Page 6 of 8
Referrals, access funding, scheduling and completion of preparation support where required
Completion of full building treatment activities
Preventative treatments in all units and common spaces
Education sessions to Residents, Staff and Social Agencies
Satisfaction Survey
Ongoing Monitoring and Support
The program focuses on managing unit conditions that include pests, sanitation, clutter and any other environmental issue that may be identified through this activity. Thus far in 2016:
Total Total Units Total units Treatment Costs # Requiring additional # Resolved Buildings Engaged Identified Supports 9 1,789 647 406 $36,550.50 277
There are currently 7 projects in process that include treatments of identified units, referrals to supports and ongoing follow up. The High Needs approach relies on accessing funding to support Residents to improve their unit conditions. Funding is achieved through Toronto Employment and Social Services (HSF) and Toronto Public Health. They are in some cases able to cover costs related to preparation/extreme cleaning services where no other resources are available to the affected Resident. The Resident and Community Services Division plays a vital role in linking Residents where applicable and having them consent to long-term support programs to assist them in sustaining their improved conditions. Supports, including funding for preparation/extreme cleaning, furniture replacement and clutter supports, continue to be strained and limited. These limitations in some cases have a direct impact on TCH’s ability to seek timely resolution to cases. TCHC staff continue to advocate towards increased Page 7 of 8 funding and the development new partnerships to better support our community needs.
IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS: Our residents’ experience with the delivery of maintenance and cleaning services is a defining factor in resident satisfaction and directly impacts the organization’s reputation. Issues related to poor planning, failed service levels, incomplete or substandard maintenance work potentially lead to increases in organizational costs to preserve our building assets and compromise our ability to meet optimal service levels. Moreover, poor responsiveness, maintenance deficiencies and/or negligence potentially create liability for the organization. Pest problems within TCH buildings can significantly disrupt the comfort of our residents and limit the enjoyment of their homes. Without a strong and sustainable Pest Management Program, the organization potentially faces orders/costs related to any perceived mismanagement including potential awards of rent abatement at the Landlord and Tenant board, MLS orders for failure to maintain the premises “pest free”, and Health Protection orders from Toronto Public Health.
SIGNATURE “Graham Leah”
Graham Leah Vice President, Asset Management
Staff Graham Leah ...... 416-981-4458 Contact: Vice-President, Asset Management [email protected]
Page 8 of 8
Sheila Penny ...... 416-981-6414 Vice-President, Facilities Management [email protected]
Andrew McKenzie ...... 416-981-6696 Director, Client Care and Vendor Management [email protected]
Richard Grotsch ...... 416-981-4054 Manager, Integrated Pest Management [email protected]
Page 1 of 3
Update – Designated Buildings for On-Site Supports Item 15 July 28, 2016 Resident Services Committee
Report: RSC:2016-36
To: Resident Services Committee (RSC)
From: Vice President, Resident and Community Services (Interim)
Date: July 28, 2016
Strategic Plan Vibrant Communities: Priority: Supporting Housing Stability
PURPOSE: To provide the Resident Services Committee with an overview on how the Resident and Community Services Division (RCS) identifies and prioritizes mixed buildings for dedicated, on-site supports.
RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Resident Services Committee (RSC) receive this report for information only.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: At the April 27th 2012 Board meeting, the Board of Directors requested that staff provide an update on how staff identify and designate mixed buildings for dedicated on-site services.
BACKGROUND: Identified as a key strategic priority in 2012, TCHC establishes partnerships with community agencies to deliver targeted interventions in buildings that house a concentration of vulnerable adults with complex health and social service needs. These buildings typically have a high proportion of bachelor and one-bedroom units, and have a mixed tenure of seniors and residents who have a history of chronic homelessness and/or mental health issues or addictions, housed through the 1-in-7 priority from the waitlist directly from shelters. Many come with supports, but the supports are not always Page 2 of 3 sustainable or long-term. Without the proper supports, some residents can risk losing their housing. TCHC is not funded to provide supportive housing nor can we access health funding directly to provide the type of service delivery that supportive housing provides. Over the years, TCHC has formally or informally partnered with supportive housing providers to deliver services in some of our buildings in exchange for a reserved number of units for their clients. This has seen varying degrees of success and does not meet all the needs of other vulnerable residents in the building. The Mental Health Framework of 2009 identified highneeds buildings as an area of focus; and in the aftermath of the 200 Wellesley fire in 2010, TCHC started conversations with the Toronto Central Local Health Integrated Network (TC LHIN) to see how we could better coordinate and address gaps in service delivery for people with complex health needs. Their objectives are: to reduce emergency department visits; increase the number of residents receiving appropriate care; and to reduce avoidable hospital admissions. To inform the discussions, the TC LHIN used emergency room admissions data to help them identify parts of the city where a different model of service intervention would be required to reduce disproportionately high emergency room visits for complex health care needs. TCHC had also been using its own criteria as a housing provider to determine which buildings would need to be prioritized as buildings needing a different service intervention model. Several TCHC buildings were identified as needing a different level of service provision. The following indicators were used by TCHC to determine which buildings to select for enhanced service interventions:
Indicators Examples 1. Demographic and building profile Single person household High percentage of Seniors living alone (and or former seniors building) Unit Size (> 50% bachelor units) Average income <$20,000 per year 2. Property management indicators Concentration of pest management issues High numbers of excessive clutter cases Higher than average unit turnover, arrears, loss of subsidy rates, unit turnover 3. Safety indicators Higher than average calls for service (CSU) Page 3 of 3
4. Health indicators Higher proportion of ODSP recipients Higher than average EMS calls
To date, nine (9) TCHC buildings have dedicated on-site supports, provided by a cross- section of organizations and partnerships and funded by the Toronto Central and Central East LHINs. An evaluation of this pilot program is being conducted by the Centre for Research in Inner City Health, which is part of St. Michael’s Hospital.
NEXT STEPS The indicators outlined above were used to develop an understanding of buildings to meet the needs of a particular intervention. Different divisions within TCHC have identified high-needs buildings to prioritize work and there is a need to update these indicators used to select and prioritize buildings for intervention with the latest evidence available.
IMPLICATIONS AND RISKS: TCHC is not funded to be a social service provider, and thus works to connect residents with existing services within the community. Even within this context, TCHC allocates resources by assigning staff to establish partnerships and connections to services, and to be the conduit for residents to link them to those services.
TCHC is dependent on all levels of government to appropriately fund the agency partners it relies upon to provide these much needed community supports. With the aging demographic of TCHC residents and the growing focus on supporting vulnerable residents, existing TCHC resources will be challenged and reliance on innovative partnership models will increase. To achieve population level outcomes, broader collective action will be required.
SIGNATURE:
“Simone Atungo”
Simone Atungo, Vice-President, Resident & Community Services Division (Interim) [email protected]
STAFF CONTACT: Ahila Poologaindran, Mental Health Liaison, 416 981-6985 [email protected] Page 1 of 7
Engagement in Revitalization Communities - Regent Park Athletic Grounds and 261 Jarvis Street Item 16 July 28, 2016 Resident Services Committee
Report: RSC:2016-39
To: Resident Services Committee (RSC)
From: President and Chief Executive Officer (Interim)
Date: July 21, 2016
Strategic Plan Quality Homes: Priority: Improve Building Conditions Maintain the Condition and Quality of New and Repaired Buildings Vibrant Communities: Neighbourhood Building and Improved Community Safety Economic Opportunities Strengthening Communities and Resident Leadership Supporting Housing Stability Service Excellence: Provide Excellent Customer Service Demonstrate Value for Money and Public Accountability
PURPOSE:
To provide the Resident Services Committee (‘RSC’) with additional details on recreational programming at the Regent Park Athletic Grounds and the 261 Jarvis Street MLSE LaunchPad sports facility, to the extent that information is available at this time.
Page 2 of 7
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that the Committee receive this report for information purposes.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:
RCS Request At the May 30, 2016 meeting (RSC: 2016-16), management presented the Committee with a report on resident engagement in revitalization communities. The RSC received the report for information and requested a supplemental report with details specific to the programs intended to be provided at the Regent Park Athletic Grounds and MLSE LaunchPad at 261 Jarvis Street, plus the associated costs for TCHC residents.
BACKGROUND:
Regent Park Athletic Grounds
Context The Regent Park Athletic Grounds officially opened on June 29, 2016. The facility was built out at a cost of roughly $4 million and contains a basketball court, soccer/cricket pitch, running track, hockey rink and field house. The capital funding for this project came from the MLSE Foundation and City of Toronto, with additional support from The Daniels Corporation and Toronto Community Housing Corporation (‘TCHC’). The 2.8-acre Regent Park Athletic Grounds are a key highlight of the third phase of the Regent Park revitalization and this state-of-the-art facility is quickly becoming a sports destination for TCHC residents and the larger community.
Programs Offered
The Regent Park Athletic Grounds Grants, launched in November 2015 by the MLSE Foundation and the Regent Park Granting Consortium, is a $1 million grant program focused on sport development in the Regent Park community. This program helps ensure the availability of quality programming at the facility, particularly in the 3pm-7pm weekday time slots after kids are out of school.
Page 3 of 7
The Regent Park Granting Consortium awards grants to a maximum of five organizations in Regent Park and surrounding areas per year, with an annual investment totaling $250,000.
In spring 2016, Regent Park Athletic Grounds Grants were awarded to the five youth sports and recreational-based organizations listed below:
1) Toronto Youth Development (sports and recreational learning program); 2) Neighbourhood Women Striving in Sports and Athleticism (soccer); 3) Peoples Basketball; 4) Lay-Up Youth Basketball; and 5) Toronto Council Fire Native Cultural Centre (afterschool multi-recreational program).
In addition to the above, the City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division (‘City Recreation’) currently offers the following types of programming at Regent Park Athletic Grounds: dance, soccer, cricket, tetherball tennis, basketball, ball hockey, lacrosse, ultimate frisbee. These programs are offered throughout the week from Sunday to Saturday.
All recreation programming offered by the City Recreation in Regent Park are free of charge. TCHC residents, and any other resident of Toronto, can use the field, courts, etc. for drop-in play without paying for a permit. However for exclusive use, everyone must pay for a permit including TCHC residents.
Currently, programs at Regent Park Athletic Grounds are attended mostly by Regent Park residents (90% of addresses provided by participants are in Regent Park) and will ultimately be open and accessible to all residents of Toronto.
Specific school year programs and timing for the fall are yet to be set; however the focus will be on the 3-7pm time window, which is the period after school and before parents come home.
Resident Engagement
In February 2014, a community advisory group comprised of youth from Regent Park was formed to engage and to seek input from the neighbourhood to design the athletic grounds. Over 300 individuals contributed to the design of the athletic grounds through community meetings and school workshops with children, youth, and adults.
On a go forward basis, a community advisory group will continue to participate in the Regent Park Athletic Grounds Grants selection process to ensure that programs reflect community needs.
Page 4 of 7
261 Jarvis Street
Context The 261 Jarvis Street recreational facility is part of the Terrace Residential and Recreational Development at 257-261 Jarvis Street and consists of a large indoor space of about 43,000 square feet of space. The space was constructed as a massive empty shell with rough-ins for electrical and mechanical systems only and was originally intended to operate as a roller rink, which never happened. Due to the high cost to build out the space and other factors, the facility sat underutilized for about 20 years. In early 2015, TCHC and MLSE Foundation entered into a long-term partnership for the space which will be home to MLSE’s LaunchPad, the first facility in North America developed specifically to combine sport for development programming with the assets of professional sports teams. Under this arrangement, MLSE will build out the facility at a cost of roughly $6 million and, with its partners, will provide over $2.5 million in programming per year for TCHC residents and the wider community, at little or no cost to TCHC. The space will include the following: Multipurpose Gymnasium o Three multisport courts to serve as the “active classrooms” for sport for development programming Classrooms & Learning Centre Demonstration Kitchen & Cafeteria Office Space Meeting rooms Communications Centre
Programs MLSE LaunchPad will operate an integrated services model providing much needed space and support resources to non-profit organizations that are offering either Sport For Development programing or programming that contributes to the following youth development areas: 1) Healthy Body
Promoting healthy choices including understanding the importance of and participating in regular physical activity. Establishing a baseline of physically literate youth. Ensuring a quality sport experience through intentionally designed coach training and sport/ physical activity.
Page 5 of 7
2) Healthy Mind
Self- Regulation and resilience; helping youth to identify factors and circumstances that put them at risk. Adaptive emotional regulation strategies and exercises. Positive peer to peer interactions and supportive adult mentors. Intervention - recognizing the early warning signs and having support services available to prevent further risk. Awareness and stigma reduction.
3) Ready for School
Addressing unique needs and additional early education support in foundation learning; reading, writing and math. Re-engaging at risk youth through engagement programs which motivate, tutor and challenge youth. Harnessing technology to provide new and varied ways to increase learning.
4) Ready for Work Opportunities for hands on employment training in skill oriented jobs. Soft skills development and continued coaching and mentorship.
It is anticipated that community programming will be provided seven days per week with occasional closures to facilitate fundraising events and training workshops. Also, as the facility evolves, programs for adults and seniors will be incorporated into the delivery model. The focus of the facility is on measurable results for all participants – true progress measuring a child’s development and progress through sport activities. In terms of cost to TCHC residents, most programs will be provided free of charge.
Resident Engagement To date, MLSE and TCHC staff have performed needs assessments in communities in the East, West and Central areas of the city with specific focus on the following three groups: 1) Parents/ Guardians 2) Youth 6-12 3) Youth 13- 24
The materials from these sessions have not yet been fully aggregated and analyzed but from the raw data collected thus far, the following were identified as focus areas/concerns to consider during program development: Page 6 of 7
Transportation issues Employment opportunities Low participation in sports/ physical activity for females 13 years of age and over Need for quality long term programming Youth led /support program design is essential for participation Measurable results
MLSE Foundation, in collaboration with TCHC, will continue to engage the local community prior to the January 2017 official opening. Furthermore, community and partner consultations will continue on an ongoing basis post-opening to help guide program content and assess impact.
More information on specific programming will be available in the fall.
Construction Construction of the facility began in early spring and as of today, timelines are on track for substantial completion by September 30, 2016. Between completion and the official opening of the facility to the public, MLSE LaunchPad and its partners, including TCHC, will focus on streamlining operations, programming detail, training and capacity building to effectively serve participants.
CONCLUSION:
The development of the Regent Park Athletic Grounds and MLSE LaunchPad will greatly enhance the availability and quality of sports-based programming across the city and for our residents. Without the assistance of the MLSE Foundation and its partners, including the City of Toronto and other levels of government, these projects would not be possible. TCHC has benefitted from a longstanding partnership with the MLSE Foundation. MLSE Foundation has facilitated regular, recurring programming for hundreds of TCHC children and youth through programs such as KickStart which operates in 12 different communities across the GTA, focusing on using sport as a tool to engage with youth and their families. The full impact of this partnership will only be felt after the opening of both the Regent Park Athletic Grounds and MLSE LaunchPad, both world-class facilities aimed at improving the lives of TCHC residents and the wider community through sport and education. Apart from physical enhancement to public assets at nominal cost to TCHC, these two innovative projects are shining examples of the organization’s strategic leveraging of Page 7 of 7 public-private partnerships to help build strong, healthy and engaged communities across the TCHC portfolio. There may be some merit in having MLSE make a presentation in the fall to the Resident Services Committee on the specific plans for LaunchPad and projected impacts and involvement of TCHC residents. Management would be happy to make such arrangements should the committee so wish.
SIGNATURE:
“Greg Spearn”
Greg Spearn President and Chief Executive Officer (Interim)
ATTACHMENT: 1. Appendix I – Photos of Regent Park Athletic Grounds 2. Appendix II – Photos of MLSE LaunchPad at 261 Jarvis Street
STAFF CONTACT: Valesa Faria, Senior Manager, Commercial & Business Development 416-981-4317 [email protected]
Appendix ‘I’ – Photos of Regent Park Athletic Grounds
Item 16 - Attachment 1 July 28th, 2016 RSC Meeting Report RSC:2016-39
Appendix ‘I’ – Photos of Regent Park Athletic Grounds
Item 16 - Attachment 1 July 28th, 2016 RSC Meeting Report RSC:2016-39
Appendix ‘I’ – Photos of Regent Park Athletic Grounds
Item 16 - Attachment 1 July 28th, 2016 RSC Meeting Report RSC:2016-39
Appendix ‘II’ - MLSE LaunchPad at 261 Jarvis Street
Item 16 - Attachment 2 July 28th, 2016 RSC Meeting Report RSC:2016-39
Appendix ‘II’ - MLSE LaunchPad at 261 Jarvis Street
Item 16 - Attachment 2 July 28th, 2016 RSC Meeting Report RSC:2016-39
Appendix ‘II’ - MLSE LaunchPad at 261 Jarvis Street
Item 16 - Attachment 2 July 28th, 2016 RSC Meeting Report RSC:2016-39