Neighbourhood Action Strategy (NAS) - Annual Update (CM11007(C)) (City Wide)

TO: Mayor and Members WARD(S) AFFECTED: CITY WIDE General Issues Committee

COMMITTEE DATE: October 2, 2013

SUBJECT/REPORT NO: Neighbourhood Action Strategy (NAS) - Annual Update (CM11007(c)) (City Wide)

SUBMITTED BY: PREPARED BY: Joe-Anne Priel Paul Johnson 905-546-2424 ext. 5598 General Manager Suzanne Brown 905-546-2424 ext. 4711 Community & Emergency Services Colin McMullan 905-546-2424 ext. 3538 Department Lisa Zinkewich 905-546-2424 ext. 2297

SIGNATURE:

Council Direction: Not applicable

Information: As a result of the Neighbourhood Action Strategy (NAS), the community has presented for endorsement to the General Issues Committee, Neighbourhood Action Plans (NAPs) for 8 of the 11 priority neighbourhoods that were identified by Council on June 15, 2011 as part of the City’s Neighbourhood Action Strategy (Report CM11007). The three remaining NAPs will be completed by the end of 2014. Included in the eight endorsed NAPs are 315 Actions. Since the endorsement of the first NAPs in September of 2012, the neighbourhoods have reported that:  137 of the Actions are underway (43%);  9 are complete (3%); and  24 (8%) are completed, but reoccurring.

Implementation of many of the actions identified as priorities by each of the neighbourhoods is well underway and momentum continues to grow, with various partnerships between residents, city staff and other service providers continuing to expand. A key objective for the NAS is the “horizontal integration” of existing and new city services and supports to neighbourhoods across City departments and to date, from the City, approximately, 160 City staff have been involved, representing all City Departments, in the planning stages and through to action implementation. The significance of the number of City staff involved in the NAS is not only the number (which has grown by 40% over the past year), but rather how staff are collaborating and

OUR Vision: To be the best place in Canada to raise a child, promote innovation, engage citizens and provide diverse economic opportunities. OUR Mission: WE provide quality public service that contribute to a healthy, safe and prosperous community, in a sustainable manner. OUR Values: Accountability, Cost Consciousness, Equity, Excellence, Honesty, Innovation, Leadership, Respect and Teamwork.

SUBJECT: Neighbourhood Action Strategy (NAS) - Annual Update (CM11007(c)) (City Wide) - Page 2 of 5

integrating their work within the priority neighbourhoods and with other partners to achieve success and leverage resources. The framework of the NAS promotes the effective and efficient delivery of service at a neighbourhood level, in addition to creating stronger working relationships with residents and key stakeholders in the neighbourhoods. Broader policy and cross-neighbourhood initiatives have also been developed to address key social determinants of health like income, education, housing and job skills training in the neighbourhoods and the NAS continues to be strongly supported and funded by the Hamilton Community Foundation (HCF) and Hamilton Best Start through their continued support of the Community Development Workers.

The City of Hamilton’s Neighbourhood Action Strategy Office (NASO) provides the organizational oversight and coordination support to all of the components of the Neighbourhood Action Strategy; from planning through to implementation, to the community development work, partnership initiatives and evaluation. The NASO also oversees the $2M earmarked to support the City’s Neighbourhood Action Strategy (October 2010). To date, the City has committed $360,000 from this fund, which has leveraged $2.6 million in direct investments from external sources, a 7:1 return on City investment.

The majority of the City’s investment (70%) has been directed to projects identified through the Neighbourhood Action Plans. A total of $250,000 has been allocated to projects to date. Projects that have been funded include (but are not limited to):  Capital improvements to the Eva Rothwell Resource Centre (Keith)  Summer Camp programming (Stinson)  Start-up Soccer program (Beasley)  Community Networker Project (McQuesten)  Neighbourhood Home Improvement Project (all neighbourhoods)  Urban Agriculture Environmental Scan (all neighbourhoods)  Development of a community garden (Keith)  McLaren Park Outreach to Diverse Communities (Beasley)  Community Development and planning support to diverse communities (Riverdale)

The City also invested:  $24,000 toward the development of the neighbourhood action plans; and,  $86,000 to partner with McMaster University for a longitudinal study to be carried out in all neighbourhoods.

The initial investment into the longitudinal study has leveraged significant new evaluation funding ($1.1 million from McMaster University and University of Toronto) and has allowed a comprehensive evaluation framework to be implemented.

In addition to the direct leveraging that the City has achieved to date (7:1), significant community investments have also occurred in support of the neighbourhood action

plans and City Departments have aligned investments to support neighbourhood action plans where appropriate. Significant investments through Ward Capital Reserves have also occurred. Community agencies have sought funding to support action items in the neighbourhood plans and other major institutions have aligned some of their activities to support neighbourhoods.

It is important to note that as the Neighbourhood Action Strategy develops there are emerging policy discussions occurring that will further engage Council in supporting neighbourhoods. A cross-departmental staff group is exploring ways to decrease barriers to resident engagement and community building by eliminating or covering some of the cost associated with neighbourhood events on city owned land. In partnership with residents, a University of Toronto professor and her students and city staff, an urban agriculture environmental scan was written and presented to senior management, resulting in an agreement to include urban agriculture as a permitted use within the Official Plan, during the next review process, and to support a pilot project in the McQuesten neighbourhood. The urban agriculture policy discussion grew out of the desire of residents to increase the availability of nutritious food, create opportunities for neighbourhood engagement as well as educational opportunities for children and youth, and to build job-ready skill-sets. These changes to policies and procedures at the City showcase the City’s commitment to working differently to help neighbourhoods reach their full potential.

The evaluation of the NAS, a priority since its inception, is also well underway with the development of a comprehensive, multi-level strategy to monitor progress, help us learn from our successes and challenges and ultimately, assess the impacts on residents living in our neighbourhoods. The Social Planning Research Council (SPRC), McMaster University and the University of Toronto lead the main components of the evaluation, which include:

1) A survey that asks residents (at two-year intervals) about the health and well-being of themselves and the neighbourhoods in which they live;

2) On-going monitoring of neighbourhood level indicators to assess changes over time;

3) An in-depth study to assess the impacts of community development workers supporting the neighbourhoods in their work; and

4) An evaluation to assess the implementation of the neighbourhood plans.

Much of this work is being funded through grants obtained from outside agencies (i.e., Ministry of Health and Long-term Care, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, The Hamilton Community Foundation and the United Way) and is not being paid for directly by the City itself. Appendix A to report CM11007(c) provides a more detailed summary of the evaluation component of the Neighbourhood Action Strategy, while Appendix B &

Appendix C to report CM11007(c) illustrate the preliminary baseline information from two of the priority neighbourhoods Stinson and Stipley (a neighbourhood in the Stadium Precinct which is also part of the South Sherman neighbourhood).

As the many actions within the neighbourhood plans begin to unfold, communication plays an increasing important role in the on-going success of the Neighbourhood Action Strategy. To facilitate greater communication between the neighbourhoods and the City, the NASO has developed a quarterly newsletter which provides information on Neighbourhood Action Plan planning and implementation efforts, funding & investments, partner initiatives, neighbourhood stories, upcoming neighbourhood events and other news. As well, an Annual Report (attached as Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) will be presented to Hamilton City Council and distributed across the neighbourhoods, highlighting progress made throughout the year as part of the overall Neighbourhood Action Strategy. The Neighbourhood Action Strategy Office will continue to support and assist all neighbourhoods in finding funding for their own neighbourhood newsletters, in addition to the Neighbourhood Action Strategy newsletter.

Moving forward, in 2014 the Neighbourhood Action Strategy will be focussing on the following key areas:  Continued integration of action items in City of Hamilton business and work plans  Accelerating investments in action items identified in the Neighbourhood Action Plans  Sustaining and creating new partnerships with key stakeholders and residents to address broader neighbourhood actions and policy issues  Completing the remaining three Neighbourhood Action Plans, seeking endorsement and beginning implementation of the actions  In partnership with the Hamilton Community Foundation, supporting a structural re-organization of the community development work  Developing recommendations for a sustainable funding model for Neighbourhood Development at the City of Hamilton  Supporting neighbourhood action planning teams in the on-going development of resident-led neighbourhood action

APPENDICES / SCHEDULES

Appendix A to Report CM11007(c): Evaluating the City of Hamilton’s Neighbourhood Action Strategy

Appendix B to Report CM11007(c): Preliminary baseline information from Stipley Neighbourhood (a neighbourhood in the Stadium precinct which is also part of the South Sherman neighbourhood)

Appendix C to Report CM11007(c): Preliminary baseline information from Stinson Neighbourhood

Appendix D to Report CM11007(c): Neighbourhood Action Strategy Annual Report

Evaluating the City of Hamilton’s Neighbourhood Action Strategy

The City of Hamilton’s Neighbourhood Action Strategy is intended to create change in neighbourhoods that will improve the lives of Hamilton residents. It represents an innovative and holistic approach to community development and neighbourhood planning, and it is being attempted at a scale not often seen before. As such, the need for rigorous and systematic evaluation and monitoring of the initiative is key.

The Neighbourhood Action Strategy is what researchers and policy analysts often refer to as a Comprehensive Community Initiative (CCI). The Caledon Institute for Social Policy suggests that CCI’s are characterized by the fact that they are:

1) Comprehensive – they are broad in scope and seek to intervene at a variety of different levels; 2) Multi-sectoral – they encourage partnering and collaboration across a number of different sectors; 3) Long-term – there is an understanding that complex issues take time to solve; 4) Developmental – they tend to focus on assets and capacity building; 5) Concerned with both process and outcome - we require a strong understanding of how and why things did/did not happen in order to be able to understand why outcomes were/were not achieved; 6) Inclusive – in terms of those involved and the issues addressed.

All of these characteristics are consistent with the Neighbourhood Action Strategy. They also present many challenges for evaluation: things may change and evolve during implementation; it is hard to track changes across many different levels (systems, neighbourhoods, individuals, etc.); it is difficult to say with any great certainty that an intervention to change “A” caused “B” to happen; and changes are likely to happen slowly and subtly over the long term.

The fact that the evaluation of such initiatives is complex and challenging is not meant to imply that evaluation is somehow “impossible”. In fact, the evaluation of the initiative has been a priority from the start and a comprehensive, multi-level strategy has been developed to monitor our progress, help the City and partner organizations learn from the successes and challenges and ultimately (and perhaps most importantly), assess the impacts on residents living in the neighbourhoods.

In order to conduct this evaluation, the City has partnered with university and community researchers to comprehensively evaluate the strategy as it moves forward. External partners involved in the evaluation of the Neighbourhood Action Strategy include the Hamilton Community Foundation, McMaster University, the University of Toronto, the Social Planning and Research Council (SPRC), and the Hamilton Centre Appendix A to Report CM11007(c) Page 2 of 5

for Civic Inclusion (HCCI). Partners from these organizations come together to collaborate on a regular basis to discuss the key aspects of the evaluation, update each other on progress to date and to strategize for future evaluative efforts.

The evaluation framework of the Neighbourhood Action Strategy characterizes outcomes in terms of those that are “place-based” and those that are “people-based”. Placed-based outcomes refer to those that are attributes of the neighbourhood itself (amount of park space per ward, the number of by-law complaints per ward, etc.) while people-based outcomes are those that pertain to the people themselves (e.g., poverty rates, education levels, etc.). It is recognized that place-based indicators are likely to be the first to change, and the importance of changes to the physical environments of neighbourhoods is highlighted in all of the neighbourhood plans (e.g., neighbourhood beautification, cleanliness, safety and security, etc.). These place-based priorities are key to residential satisfaction and attempts by residents to gain a stronger sense of control over their neighbourhoods.

The evaluation includes: 1) a longitudinal survey (the Hamilton Neighbourhoods Study) that asks residents (at two-year intervals) about the health and well-being of themselves and the neighbourhoods in which they live; 2) the on-going monitoring of quantitative, neighbourhood level indicators to assess neighbourhood change over time; 3) an in- depth qualitative study to assess the impacts of community development workers supporting the neighbourhoods in their work, and; 4) an assessment of neighbourhood plan implementation (see figure 1).

1. The Hamilton Neighbourhoods Study (HNS) The aim of the Hamilton Neighbourhoods Study is to monitor change over time in the priority neighbourhoods through the collection of survey data from residents. The survey is being administered by McMaster University through the leadership of Dr. James Dunn. The City of Hamilton contributed $86,000 to this study, which subsequently matched by McMaster University and further augmented through the in- kind contributions of Dr. Dunn and his research team. The survey is being delivered in person at the homes of randomly selected residents by trained research staff from McMaster University and asks residents a variety of questions related to the neighbourhood in which they live, the residents’ health and quality of life and their use of services and supports.

Data collection commenced in November of 2011 with baseline data collection commencing in the Stinson, Keith and Stipley (a neighbourhood in the Stadium precinct which is also part of the South Sherman neighbourhood) neighbourhoods. Preliminary Appendix A to Report CM11007(c) Page 3 of 5

baseline information from two of the priority neighbourhoods Stinson and Stipley is attached as Appendix B and Appendix C to Report CM11007(c). Baseline surveying in the McQuesten, Beasley and Rolston neighbourhoods was initiated this past summer and is ongoing. The McMaster research team has secured further funding in the form of a 3-year grant ($1.8 million) from the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, $750,000 of which will provide direct support to the HNS and ensure continued monitoring in the priority neighbourhoods.

2. Neighbourhood Indicators Led by Jeff Wingard of Structure Consulting and Coordinator of the McMaster- Community Poverty Initiative, data on sixteen place-based and people-based indicators of neighbourhood well-being across eight domains (housing and the physical environment, safety and security, sense of community, economic development, education, health, employment and income, and civic engagement) will be analysed for trends over time. Specific indicators include the percentage of the population receiving social assistance, housing starts by neighbourhood, open space/parks, high school graduation rates, poverty rates, total number of by-law complaints, etc. This data will be collected a monitored every 2-3 years (depending on data availability) and together with the other data being collected, will help to provide a picture of the quality of life for residents living in the priority neighbourhoods.

3. Evaluation of the Community Development Approach The efforts of the Community Development Workers are also being evaluated as the process develops. Led by Dr. Sarah Wakefield of the University of Toronto, this component of the evaluation seeks to understand the value of the community development team by collecting information about CD worker activities, challenges and supports. Interviews with planning team members will also be conducted to assess perceptions of the community mobilization process. This component of the evaluation will not only provide important information to Council about how the team has sought to create change in the neighbourhoods, but is building knowledge about the process as it is implemented, to help CD workers, partners, and the City to reflect on progress and make improvements on an on-going basis. Initially funded by the Hamilton Community Foundation ($31,500), this research will continue over the next two years as a result of funding ($198,744) from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research - the primary federal agency responsible for funding research related to the health system and the social determinants of health.

Appendix A to Report CM11007(c) Page 4 of 5

4. Evaluation of Plan Implementation This component of the evaluation will be supported primarily by the Social Planning and Research Council, using funds provided by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (see above) and the United Way. A progress tracking tool (to be completed by resident members of the planning teams), interviews, and focus groups with resident members, of the planning teams, will provide information about the process of implementing the neighbourhood plans. It will assess the extent to which the specific activities of the neighbourhood plans are being accomplished, and will identify factors that impede or enable action towards achieving the plans. By answering these questions, this component of the evaluation will identify the extent to which the intervention is actually achieving its goals. Without this information, it would be difficult to understand whether outcomes seen (or not seen) result from problems implementing the plans.

At present, Neighbourhood Action Plans have been completed and endorsed by Council in 8 of the 11 Priority Neighbourhoods. There are a total of 315 actions across the 8 approved Neighbourhood Action Plans, with an additional 15+ activities being led by the Neighbourhood Action Strategy Office that have various levels of impact across all 11 Priority Neighbourhoods. Of the 315 actions, in August 2013, each neighbourhood reported that: • 137 of the Actions are underway (43%); • 9 are complete (3%); and • 24 (8%) are completed, but reoccurring.

Conclusion

Neighbourhood development is a challenging and long-term endeavour. However, the nature of complex community initiatives is such that it is likely that substantive changes to the health and well-being of neighbourhood residents will take time to occur. However, the strategies and tools will be in place to be able to monitor change over time when and if it occurs.

Further, the developmental work being undertaken (e.g., the work of the community development workers, the creation of the resident-led neighbourhood plans, the formation of multi-sectoral planning teams, and the inclusion of City staff and resources to support the planning teams and neighbourhood actions) is critical to set the path towards the future success of the initiative and can, in and of itself, have impacts on the health and well-being of participants. This new way of working together builds everyone’s capacity to address issues at the neighbourhood level and make the priority neighbourhoods healthier and more vibrant places for people to live, work and play. Appendix A to Report CM11007(c) Page 5 of 5

Figure 1: Main Components of the Neighbourhood Action Strategy Evaluation

h Appendix B to Report CM11007(c)

a Page 1 of 12

m 2013 interim report i l ABOUT THE STUDY t o The City of Hamilton’s new Neighbourhood Action Strat- n STIPLEY egy is working towards improving social, economic and neighbourhood health outcomes in targeted neighbourhoods in the city. n The City is working with community partners, neighbour- e hood groups and residents to develop neighbourhood action ig plans – these action plans lay out a vision for the future of each h neighbourhood, and the specific, concrete projects to be under- b taken to get there. ou dy rho stu Another important ods part of this work is research and evaluation – finding out more about residents’ views and priorities, about how well the planning and neighbourhood projects are going and what might need to be changed along the way, and about what kind of impact the strategy has on residents in the neighbourhoods overall. Our research team at McMaster, led by Dr. Jim Dunn, has undertaken the Hamilton Neighbourhoods Study to help answer these questions. In 2012, we did surveys with residents in Keith, Stinson and Stipley neighbourhoods. This report presents results from the 386 people who completed a survey with us in Stipley in 2012, the neighbourhood surrounding the stadium, from Sherman to Gage and Main to the CN tracks.

In this report, we’ve focused in particular on the questions we asked residents about how they feel about their neighbourhood now and their priorities and concerns. We talk about what we found in our survey in comparison to Stipley’s neighbourhood plan. We also present results on other areas that our survey asks about – housing, safety and security and civic engagement. Appendix B to Report CM11007(c) Page 2 of 12

WHO WE TALKED TO IN STIPLEY Stipley residents over the age of 18 were eligible to take part in our study, and we selected residents at random in the neighbourhood by knocking on their door and asking if they’d like to complete a survey. We talked to a total of 386 residents in Stipley. The following table describes our survey respondents with respect to certain We characteristics of the neighbourhood as a whole, as taken from the surveyed most recent census. more female respondents and slightly more Canadian- SURVEY STIPLEY AS A born respondents than RESPONDENTS WHOLE is found in the Stipley genderS 40% male; 60% female 47% male; 53% female neighbourhood as a average age 44 years 45 years* whole. Canadian-born 84% 79% * excludes residents under 18

The average length of time respondents had been living in the neighbourhood was 10 years, and 8 years in their current dwelling. Most people (80%) had not moved residences during the past year, and almost half (47%) had been in the same dwelling for over 5 There is years. SURVEY STIPLEY AS a high TYPE OF DWELLING degree of RESPONDENTS A WHOLE* residential detached houseS 60% 51% stability in semi-detached house 3% 2% row house 0% 0% Stipley. duplex apartment 11% 16% apartment less than 26% 29% 5 storeys apartment 5 or more 0% 0% stories We * these percentages do not total 100 because of the way Statistics Canada ensures data surveyed anonymization more respon- STIPLEY AS A dents who rent their SURVEY RESPONDENTS homes than is found WHOLE in the Stipley renters 53% 41% neighbourhood owners 47% 59% overall. Note that our renter category includes individuals who reported that they lived rent-free in a dwelling they did not own or pay rent for (7%). 2 Appendix B to Report CM11007(c) Page 3 of 12

DWELLING AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SATISFACTION

VERY VERY SATISFIED DISSATISFIED SATISFIED DISSATISFIED satisfaction with 32% 54% 9% 4% residence overall satisfaction with the 18% 55% 23% 5% neighbourhood overall

Survey participants in Stipley felt positive about both their residence and neighbourhood overall (see red -num bers in the table above). However, participants felt somewhat less positive about their neighbourhood as a place to bring up children. All respondents were asked this question, whether or not they had children of their own. There was no appreciable difference in how men and women responded to this question.

VERY EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR GOOD feelings about the neighbourhood 9% 16% 32% 24% 19% as a place to bring up children* * asked of all respondents, whether they had children of their own or not 86% Participants reported that their most important reason for reported that moving into the neighbourhood was: they were either ‘very satisified’ or affordable 35% ‘satisfied’ with their knew people in the neighbourhood 8% residence overall, and convenient - close to downtown <2%** 73% with the neighbourhood over- convenient - close to transit 2% all. convenient - close to work 6% convenient - close to good schools 9% convenient - close to services/amenities 3% 53% safety 2% of respondents reported that investment property 3% they did not want to neighbourhood had character 4% move from their current dwelling, and 39% said liked the residence 10% they did not think they ethnic/cultural draw <2% would move within the next 2 years. other 17.4% ** figure not reported due to small number of responses to protect participant anonymity 3 Appendix B to Report CM11007(c) Page 4 of 12

SAFETY AND SECURITY

STRONGLY STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE AGREE DISAGREE Overall, I feel safe when I am outside in 46% 48% 5% <2% my neighbourhood during the day Overall, I feel safe when I am outside in 14% 45% 26% 15% my neighbourhood at night

Most respondents felt very safe in the neighbourhood 94% of during the day – only 6% told us that they did not feel safe respondents felt during the day. At night, respondents felt less safe in the neighbourhood. safe in the neighbourhood during the Residents who had children in school (kindergarten to day. At night, respon- grade 12) were asked if they felt it was safe for their chil- dents felt less safe dren to walk to and from school; the results of that ques- in the neighbour- tion reflect only those respondents who had children in hood. that age category. MY CHILDREN NEVER STRONGLY DISAGREE WALK HOME FROM AGREE SCHOOL Overall, I feel that my child children are safe / 50% 33% 18% walking to and from school* * asked only of respondents with children in school, K-12

NEIGHBOURHOOD AMENITIES Approximately 1 in 4 people felt that places to buy healthy food, About half meet people, and have a meet- About of the respondents ing were lacking. 1 in 12 people felt that indicated that ser- Around 2 in 5 people felt that family doctors, vices for youth, banks childcare, public libraries, and and family doctors banks and services places to be physically ac- or walk-in clinics for youth were tive were lacking. were lacking. inaccessible.

4 Appendix B to Report CM11007(c) Page 5 of 12

Our survey asked people about what kinds of services and amenities they felt were important to have in the neighbourhood, whether those services currently existed in their neighbourhood, and whether existing services were accessible. Highlights are on the previous page. The table below gives the details.

SERVICE IS IMPORTANT BUT SERVICE EXISTS,

IS LACKING IN NEIGHBOURHOOD BUT IS INACCESSIBLE family doctors or walk-in clinics 48% 8% childcare 38% 5% places to buy healthy food 25% 3% public libraries 39% 2% places for worship (e.g. churches, 2% 2% mosques etc.) parks 7% 2% banks 49% 7% public schools 3% 2% public transportation (e.g. buses) 0% 2% services for youth (employment services, 51% 7% counselling or recreation programs) places to get together with people you 28% <2% know (cafés, community centres etc.) places to have a meeting (café, library, 28% 2% community centre etc.) a place to exercise or be physically active 40% 4% (outside of the home)

NEIGHBOURHOOD PROBLEMS TOP One prob- 5 ‘SERIOUS lem, SEX WORK, PROBLEMS’ IN STIPLEY:

was considered a ‘serious 1. Sex work (47%) problem’ by just under half 2. Drug dealing or use (39%) (47%) of respondents. 3. Vandalism, graffiti or other deliber- More than half of the issues ate damage to property (36%) (11 of 18) were seen as ‘not 4. Traffic and road safety (34%) a problem’ by over half of respondents. 5. Poor air quality (32%)

5 Appendix B to Report CM11007(c) Page 6 of 12

We asked respondents to rate a list of common issues in terms of how much of a problem they felt these things were in Stipley. The highlights are on the previous page, while details (including notable results in red) are in the table below. NOT A SOMEWHAT OF A SERIOUS

PROBLEM A PROBLEM PROBLEM litter in the streets 27% 43% 30% poor air quality 25% 43% 32% problems with dogs 67% 20% 13% noise from traffic 57% 24% 19% lack of entertainment (cafés, cinemas, pubs etc.) 43% 34% 23% traffic and road safety (including speed of traffic) 34% 33% 34% lack of places to shop 56% 27% 17% vandalism, graffiti or other deliberate 33% 31% 36% damage to property problems with neighbours 66% 22% 12% run-down or boarded-up properties 61% 25% 14% racial harassment or discrimination 87% 8% 5% people being attacked or harassed 63% 25% 12% household burglary 59% 24% 17% drug dealing or use 35% 26% 39% sex work 32% 21% 47% teenagers or youth handing around on the streets 60% 24% 16% disturbance from gangs or crowds 79% 14% 7% lack of police protection 67% 18% 15%

NEIGHBOURHOOD PRIORITIES

RESPONSES UNIQUE TO STIPLEY: Generally, our survey showed that Stipley residents are concerned about traffic safety issues, in particular speeding vehicles, cars running through stop signs, generally high-traffic roads, and dangerous conditions for children playing in the streets.

There was some concern about the lack of garbage cans, particularly along main streets, and the accumulation of litter. Because many of the larger homes have been sub-divided into multi-unit dwellings, when waste collectors enforce a two-bag limit, many garbage bags end up being left behind. The resulting debris contributes to residents’ litter (as opposed to formal, municipal waste removal) and beautification concerns.

A number of respondents link some more dominant themes with Ivor Wynne stadium, in particular, lots of litter and debris after football games, speeding cars and congestion around game time. The cleanup after games is not immediate, but instead at the next regular garbage pickup day, increasing the concerns about litter.

6 Appendix B to Report CM11007(c) Page 7 of 12

Participants were asked: “What do you think are the TWO most important things that would make your neighbourhood a better place to live?” Responses could be assigned to more than one theme. The table below shows the broad categories of responses, and, for the top categories, the most frequent specific themes included in that category.

Address sex work and sex workers 59 Non-specific e.g. “Too much crime; unsafe neighbourhood” 10 Crime and safety Address drug use and drug dealing 58 Other e.g. particular criminals/offenders in neighbourhood 9 TOTAL: 190 Greater police presence needed 42 Prevent/prosecute physical assaults that occur on the streets <5 Address break-ins, burglaries, theft of personal property 11 Community/recreation centre needed 30 More and/or better grocery stores needed 6 More parks and green space needed; take better care of existing parks and trees on public property 26 More elementary schools within walking distance needed 6 Amenities More cafés, restaurants, places to meet friends needed 15 Dog park or leash-free zones needed <5 needed More neighbourhood activities and events needed so we can Walk-in clinic, doctor’s offices and other health care TOTAL: 139 know our neighbours better 15 services needed <5 Other amenities needed e.g. banks, post office, dollar store, beer/liquor store 15 More services for seniors needed <5 More shopping options needed 8 Library needed <5 More social services needed in neighbourhood 7 Clean up derelict and abandoned residential properties 29 Clean up graffiti and vandalism 14 Beautification Improve garbage pickup services/increase bag limit 21 Clean up dirty-looking industrial/commercial properties 5 TOTAL: 103 Clean up litter on the streets 17 Plant more flowers and trees <5 General/non-specific e.g. “make the neighbourhood prettier” 14 Sense of General e.g. “people should be kinder to each other; increase the sense of community” 23 Neighbourhood association needed 16 community More/better communication among neighbour- TOTAL: 67 Neighbourhood Watch needed 16 hoods and neighbourhood institutions needed 12

Traffic/road safety Traffic calming measures needed e.g. stop signs and traffic lights 31 Other e.g. fix potholes, improve roads 16 TOTAL: 64 Too many speeding cars and trucks that go through neighbourhood 17 <5 Improve roads, street lights and other infrastructure 20 Increase public transit 5 Address problems with driving, parking and speeding Parking: decrease on-street parking, increase on-street parking 16 around Ivor Wynne during football games <5 Other Address pollution, air quality and environmental concerns 11 Address problems with industrial neighbours <5 Address problems with institutional homes in area 8 All other, with single responses 24 Address problems with stray animals 7 E.g. too many renters, too many houses divided into multiple rental units, landlords need to Housing and tenancy TOTAL : 49 maintain their properties better Economic Development TOTAL : 29 E.g.more jobs are needed, more businesses are needed in the area E.g. address problems caused by children and youth hanging out on the streets, more resources Children and youth TOTAL : 27 needed for children and youth Neighbours, Neighbourliness TOTAL : 22 E.g. neighbours should be kinder to each other, problems with specific neighbours

Among the top 5 specific themes we found PRIORITY TOTAL MALE FEMALE that there was very little difference in sex work 59 32% 68% results based on respondents’ gender and drugs 58 36% 64% age, with the exceptions highlighted in the policing 42 45% 55% table to the right. traffic calming 31 42% 58% community/rec centre 30 47% 53% 7 Appendix B to Report CM11007(c) Page 8 of 12

SOCIAL COHESION AND TRUST

Respondents 94% agreed the neighbour- of respon- hood has ways of sharing in- Most respondents formation and opportunities for dents described the people in their felt that people in celebration and fun. Respondents the neighbourhood weren’t convinced the neighbour- neighbourhood as share the same hood has ways of working to- ‘friendly’ or ‘very values, want the gether to solve problems, or that friendly’ same things for the they have influence over what neighbourhood, can be their neighbourhood is trusted, and look out for each other’s properties. like. STRONGLY DIS- STRONGLY DON’T AGREE AGREE AGREE DISAGREE KNOW My neighbourhood continually looks for solutions to local problems rather than 5% 37% 40% 11% 8% being satisfied with the way things are My neighbourhood has good leaders who look out for the best interests of our neigh- 7% 41% 35% 10% 7% bourhood I know about a local neighbourhood or business association or group that 4% 25% 54% 17% <2% meets regularly in my neighbourhood Our neighbourhood has ways of sharing information (talking to neighbours, 11% 55% 26% 8% <2% newsletters etc.) I have influence over what this 5% 35% 44% 15% <2% neighbourhood is like There are opportunities for celebration 14% 53% 24% 8% <2% and fun in my neighbourhood If there is a problem around here, 7% 46% 35% 12% n/a neighbours get together to deal with it In my neighbourhood, neighbours watch 25% 58% 12% 5% n/a over each other’s property People in this neighbourhood can be 11% 57% 27% 5% n/a trusted People in this neighbourhood share the 7% 52% 33% 8% n/a same values My neighbours and I want the same 13% 65% 19% 3% n/a things for the neighbourhood

8 Appendix B to Report CM11007(c) Page 9 of 12

COMMUNITY ATTACHMENT 64% AND PRIDE of respondents Residents in Stipley generally have a strong level of would like to stay attachment to their neighbourhood. The majority felt in their neighbour- that living in Stipley gave them a sense of pride, and that their neighbourhood had a distinctive character. hood for years to come. STRONGLY STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE AGREE DISAGREE I would like to stay in my neighbourhood 22% 42% 21% 15% for many years to come Living in this neighbourhood gives me a sense 12% 48% 30% 9% of pride It is very important to me to live in this 9% 37% 42% 13% particular neighbourhood My neighbourhood has a distinct character — 17% 50% 26% 7% it is a special place

CIVIC AWARENESS, ENGAGEMENT AND INVOLVEMENT

Results around civic engagement, awareness and involvement are generally neutral. 61% of respondents either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that information about their neighbourhood’s services and activities was available to them. However, only 49% stated that they were invited to be a part of decision-making activities and 55% agreed or strongly agreed that the City was responsive to their queries and requests.

STRONGLY STRONGLY DON’T AGREE DISAGREE AGREE DISAGREE KNOW Information is readily available to the public on City services and 9% 52% 31% 6% 2% activities that take place in my neighbourhood The City is responsive to residents ’ 6% 49% 30% 9% 7% inquiries, input and/or requests Residents are invited to be involved in decision-making in my 5% 40% 40% 7% 8% neighbourhood

9 Appendix B to Report CM11007(c) Page 10 of 12

MORE ON CIVIC AWARENESS, ENGAGEMENT AND INVOLVEMENT

Close to 39% 80% of respon- of respondents dents said they received information on the said they know local area through LEAFLETS who the City coun- or FLYERS in the mailbox. cillor for their Close to 60% said they ward is. get that information through FAMILY and FRIENDS.

We also asked respondents to tell us more about how they got information about the local area, (for example information about events and meetings happening in the neighbourhood, or information on issues of concern in the neighbourhood).

YES NO through friends or family 59% 41% through work or colleagues 27% 73% leaflets or flyers in the mailbox 78% 22% posters on telephone poles, in shops or community buildings 56% 44% free newspapers or community language newspapers 55% 45% radio stations 49% 51% television stations 58% 42% websites or email 45% 55% on buses 43% 56% at public meetings 16% 83% through volunteer or community organizations 21% 79% other ways 9% 91%

10 Appendix B to Report CM11007(c) Page 11 of 12

BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION When asked if there was anything that made it difficult to participate in community events and organizations, respondents were invited to state up to two barriers. The results are grouped into categories below.

TOTAL COUNT Busy with... Work 42 Children 24 Other family 12 Other reasons <5 Barriers Health reasons/mobility concerns 33 Transit/access/distance 12 Financial 16 Feels excluded/marginalized 6 Language <5 Lack of... Time 104 Interest 56 Awareness: don’t know what’s available 27 Opportunity: nothing is available 8 Childcare 5 Other reasons No barriers/nothing 42 Other 29 Anxiety/shy/other people/ mental health 13 Age 8 Lazy <5

The table below lists the top five barriers in Stipley (with a tie for 3rd place), and the proportion of respondents by gender and age range. Notable age and gender patterns have been highlighted in red:

AGE TOTAL MALE FEMALE 19-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+ lack of time 104 37% 63% 17% 22% 25% 26% 9% 1% 0% lack of interest 56 55% 45% 30% 13% 18% 21% 16% 2% 0% busy with work 42 33% 67% 17% 24% 31% 21% 7% 0% 0% no barriers / 42 36% 64% 21% 14% 21% 17% 7% 12% 7% nothing health reasons / 33 39% 61% 3% 15% 15% 45% 12% 6% 3% mobility concerns 11 Appendix B to Report CM11007(c) Page 12 of 12

CONCLUSIONS— ALIGNMENT WITH THE SOUTH SHERMAN NEIGHBOURHOOD ACTION PLAN ( NAP)

The South Sherman NAP, which includes Stipley, identifies five goals with nine objectives. Sex work and drugs are the A. Create a Community Where Everyone Can Feel Safe top concerns of re- 1. Provide Viable Opportunities for Youth and Expose Them to Positive Alternatives spondents. These con- 2. Increase Resources to Ensure Safety 3. Enhance Traffic Safety cerns are not as central to the neighbourhood B. Equal Access to Services our Neighbours Need to Live a Healthy Life action plan. 1. Invite Additional Health and Wellbeing Services to Relocate Into Neighbourhood 2. Create More Social and Recreational Opportunities for Our Neighbours Both CC. . CreateCreate aa CleanClean, , SafeSafe andand ComfortableComfortable Environment for PeoplePeople toto LiveLive,, the neigh- WorkWork andand PlayPlay inin ourour NeighbourhoodNeighbourhood bourhood action 1. Improve Neighbourhood Appearance plan and our survey respondents endorse D. Advocate for All Neighbours to Have Access to Safe, Affordable and Dignified Housing beautification of the 1. Support Property Repairs and Maintenance neighbourhood.

E. A Community that Supports a Liveable Wage that Allows All to Live a Healthy Life Road 1. Increase Access to Living Wage Employment Opportunities and traffic 2. Promote Post Secondary, Continuing Ed and Training for Youth and Adults Within the Neighbourhood safety is a priority for both re- There is strong coherence on the issue of road and traffic safety, (Goal A: Ob- spondents and the jective 3), which was the #4 most prioritized item by survey respondents in our neighbourhood ‘neighbourhood priorities’ question. Some examples of traffic calming concerns action plan. included: • Four-way stop signs in intersections in the neighbourhood which would ensure safety for the kids • Reduce traffic on Sherman, Main, King Streets HOW CAN I LEARN MORE? • Controlling the noise from traffic on Cannon Street • Reducing speeding in the neighbourhood (i.e. eliminat- Dr. James Dunn and his staff at McMas- ing drag racing in the area) ter University are doing this research project. If you have any questions, call There was also strong awareness and concern regarding the study hotline or email us. inequality and social problems. While the NAP uses productively phrased objectives (e.g. “Provide viable opportunities for youth”), survey respondents tended to identify problems in 905-525-9140 ext. 23375 more immediate ways, as problems to “clean up.” Notably, sex work and drugs were the top first and second concern of [email protected] survey respondents. These concerns are not as central to the NAP. Some survey respondents connected drug use and sex This research was funded in part by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The views expressed are those work activity with the presence of back alleys in the neighbourhood, of the researchers, not the Government of Ontario, or the which is a feature of Action A.2.1, the “Alley safety program.” Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

12 h Appendix C to Report CM11007(c)

a Page 1 of 12

m 2013 interim report i l ABOUT THE STUDY t o The City of Hamilton’s new Neighbourhood Action Strat- n STINSON egy is working towards improving social, economic and neighbourhood health outcomes in targeted neighbourhoods in the city. n The City is working with community partners, neighbour- e hood groups, and residents to develop neighbourhood ig action plans – these action plans lay out a vision for the h future of each neighbourhood and the specific, concrete bo y projects to be undertaken to get there. urh tud Another important part of this work is research oods s and evaluation – finding out more about residents’ views and priorities, about how well the planning and neighbourhood projects are going and what might need to be changed along the way, and about what kind of impact the strategy has on residents in the neighbourhoods overall. Our research team at McMaster, led by Dr. Jim Dunn, has undertaken the Hamilton Neighbourhoods Study to help answer these questions. In 2012, we did surveys with residents in Keith, Stinson and Sti- pley neighbourhoods. This report presents results from the 310 people who completed a survey with us in Stinson in 2012, a neighbourhood located between Main and the Mountain and Wellington and Wentworth.

In this report, we’ve focused in particular on the questions we asked residents about how they feel about their neighbourhood now and their priorities and concerns. We talk about what we found in our survey in comparison to Stinson’s neighbourhood plan. We also present results on other areas that our survey asks about – housing, safety and security, and civic engagement. Appendix C to Report CM11007(c) Page 2 of 12

WHO WE TALKED TO IN STINSON Stinson residents over the age of 18 were eligible to take part in our study, and we selected residents at random in the neighbourhood by We knocking on their door and asking if they’d like to complete a survey. surveyed Interpretation assistance was available for respondents who required it. slightly more We talked to a total of 310 residents in Stinson. The following table describes our survey respondents with respect to certain characteristics of female and Canadian- the neighbourhood as a whole, as taken from the most recent census. born respondents than is found in the Stinson neigh- SURVEY STINSON AS A bourhood as a RESPONDENTS WHOLE whole. genderS 47% male; 53% female 51% male; 49% female average age 44 years 45 years* Canadian-born 83% 71% * excludes residents under 18

On average, survey respondents in Stinson had been living in the There is neighbourhood for 6.8 years, and living in their current dwelling for 5.3 years. Most people (74%) had not moved residences during the past a moderate year. One-third (33%) had been in the same dwelling for over 5 years. degree of SURVEY STINSON AS residential TYPE OF DWELLING stability in RESPONDENTS A WHOLE* Stinson. detached houseS 22% 15% semi-detached house 4% 2% row house <2%** 1% duplex apartment 12% 9% While we aimed to align our sample apartment less than with census distributions for residence 29% 53% types, this was difficult in Stinson in 5 storeys the case of low-rise apartment buildings apartment 5 or more 32% 21% in particular, due to the challenges of stories contacting low-rise apartment residents. * these percentages do not total 100 because of the way Statistics Canada ensures data Although our survey respondents anonymization represent a smaller proportion of low- ** figure not reported due to small number of responses to protect participant anonymity rise apartment dwellers than is the case for the neighbourhood overall, the STINSON AS A SURVEY RESPONDENTS proportion of our survey respondents WHOLE who are renters vs. home owners is very close to proportions in the neigh- renters 75% 72% bourhood overall. Our “renter” category owners 25% 28% includes individuals who reported that they lived rent-free in a dwelling they did not own or pay rent for (4%).

2 Appendix C to Report CM11007(c) Page 3 of 12

DWELLING AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SATISFACTION

VERY VERY SATISFIED DISSATISFIED SATISFIED DISSATISFIED satisfaction with 34% 52% 9% 5% residence overall satisfaction with the 13% 59% 23% 5% neighbourhood overall

Survey participants in Stinson felt positive about both their residence and neighbourhood overall (see red numbers in the table above). However, participants felt somewhat less positive about their neighbourhood as a place to bring up children. All respondents were asked this question, whether or not they had children of their own. There is no appreciable difference in how men and women responded to this question.

VERY EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR GOOD feelings about the neighbourhood 7% 13% 30% 24% 26% as a place to bring up children* * asked of all respondents, whether they had children of their own or not

Participants reported that their most important reason for moving into the neighbourhood was: 86% affordable 37% reported that knew people in the neighbourhood 13% they were either convenient - close to downtown 6% ‘very satisified’ or ‘sat- convenient - close to work 4% isfied’ with their resi- convenient - close to good schools 9% dence overall, and 72% with the neighbour- convenient - close to services/amenities 3% hood overall. investment property 5% neighbourhood had character 2% liked the residence 2% other 3%

3 Appendix C to Report CM11007(c) Page 4 of 12

SAFETY AND SECURITY

STRONGLY STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE AGREE DISAGREE Overall, I feel safe when I am outside in 44% 49% 5% 2% my neighbourhood during the day Overall, I feel safe when I am outside in 16% 40% 30% 14% my neighbourhood at night

At 93%, respondents overwhelming agree or strongly 93% of agree that they feel safe outside during the day in Stinson, respondents felt while only 54% claim the same positive feelings for being outside at night. safe in the neighbourhood during the Residents who had children in school (kindergarten to day. At night, respon- grade 12) were asked if they felt it was safe for their chil- dents felt less safe dren to walk to and from school. Respondents tended to in the neighbour- feel that it was not safe for their children to walk to and hood. from school. MY CHILDREN NEVER STRONGLY DISAGREE WALK HOME FROM AGREE SCHOOL Overall, I feel that my child children are safe / 35% 46% 19% walking to and from school* * asked only of respondents with children in school, K-12

NEIGHBOURHOOD AMENITIES Overall, for services and amenities that do 50% of Close respondents exist in the neighbour- to 2 out of 5 hood, respondents people felt that felt that a pub- family doctors/ lic library was felt they were walk-in clinics and lacking. accessible. childcare were lacking.

4 Appendix C to Report CM11007(c) Page 5 of 12

SERVICE IS IMPORTANT BUT SERVICE EXISTS,

IS LACKING IN NEIGHBOURHOOD BUT IS INACCESSIBLE family doctors or walk-in clinics 39% 7% childcare 39% 3% places to buy healthy food 23% 3% public libraries 50% 5% places for worship (e.g. churches, 9% 3% mosques etc.) parks 4% 3% banks 19% 9% public schools 22% 6% public transportation (e.g. buses) 0% <2% services for youth (employment services, 20% 2% counselling or recreation programs) places to get together with people you 36% 2% know (cafés, community centres etc.) places to have a meeting (café, library, 29% 5% community centre etc.) a place to exercise or be physically active 18% 3% (outside of the home)

NEIGHBOURHOOD PROBLEMS TOP No issue 5 ‘SERIOUS was deemed a PROBLEMS’ IN STINSON:

‘serious problem’ by 1. Drug dealing or use (40%) more than 50% of respondents. 2. Sex work (32%) More than half of the issues 3. Vandalism, graffiti or other deliber- (11 of 18) were seen as ‘not a ate damage to property (27%) problem’ in Stinson by over 4. Litter in the streets (24%) 50% of respondents. 5. Poor air quality (22%)

5 Appendix C to Report CM11007(c) Page 6 of 12

We asked respondents to rate a list of common issues in terms of how much of a problem they felt these things were in Stinson.The highlights are on the previous page, while details (including notable results in red) are in the table below. NOT A SOMEWHAT OF A SERIOUS

PROBLEM A PROBLEM PROBLEM litter in the streets 28% 48% 24% poor air quality 38% 40% 22% problems with dogs 63% 25% 12% noise from traffic 57% 28% 15% lack of entertainment (cafés, cinemas, pubs etc.) 49% 30% 21% traffic and road safety (including speed of traffic) 46% 33% 21% lack of places to shop 54% 28% 18% vandalism, graffiti or other deliberate 34% 39% 27% damage to property problems with neighbours 66% 24% 10% run-down or boarded-up properties 54% 30% 17% racial harassment or discrimination 80% 13% 7% people being attacked or harassed 55% 29% 17% household burglary 65% 25% 10% drug dealing or use 34% 26% 40% sex work 46% 22% 32% teenagers or youth hanging around on the streets 60% 24% 16% disturbance from gangs or crowds 82% 12% 7% lack of police protection 71% 21% 9%

NEIGHBOURHOOD PRIORITIES

RESPONSES UNIQUE TO STINSON: Concerns unique to Stinson included the concentration of institutional homes, the noise and debris associated with the construction of the Stinson Lofts, and train noise, particularly at night. There was also concern about the inadequacy of garbage pick-up. Because many of the larger homes have been sub-divided into multi-unit dwellings, when waste collectors enforce a two-bag limit, many garbage bags end up being left behind. The resulting debris contributes to residents’ litter (as opposed to formal, municipal waste removal) and beautification concerns.

6 Appendix C to Report CM11007(c) Page 7 of 12

Crime and Address drug use and drug dealing 53 Non-specific e.g. “Too much crime; unsafe neighbourhood” 12 safety Greater police presence needed 30 Other 10 TOTAL: 135 Address sex work and sex workers 26 Address break-ins, burglaries, theft of personal property <5 More parks and green space needed; take better care of existing parks and trees on public property 18 More social services needed in neighbourhood 7 More neighbourhood activities and events needed so we can know our neighbours better 17 Library needed <5 Amenities needed Community/recreation centre needed 14 More elementary schools within walking distance needed <5 TOTAL: 102 More cafés, restaurants, places to meet friends needed 11 Dog park or leash-free zones needed <5 More shopping options needed 8 More services for seniors needed <5 Other amenities needed e.g. banks, post office, dollar store, Walk-in clinic, doctor’s offices and other health care beer/liquor store 8 services needed <5 More and/or better grocery stores needed 7 Beautification Clean up litter on the streets 25 Improve garbage pickup services/increase bag limit 12 TOTAL: 98 General/non-specific e.g. “make the neighbourhood prettier” 23 Clean up graffiti and vandalism 10 General e.g. “people should be kinder to each other; increase Sense of the sense of community” 32 Neighbourhood Watch needed 6 community More/better communication needed among neighbourhoods TOTAL: 58 and neighbourhood institutions 17 Neighbourhood association needed <5 Housing and Deal with derelict properties 11 Too many houses converted to multi-unit rentals <5 tenancy Too many renters/tenants in the neighbourhood 9 Increase the affordability of housing <5 TOTAL: 37 Landlords need to maintain their properties better 9 Other <5 Stinson Lofts: construction is loud, messy and has taken too long 6 Increase public transit <5 Improve roads, lights and other infrastructure 5 Too many trains/too much train noise, especially at night <5 Other Address lack of on-street parking <5 All other, with single responses 16 Address pollution, air quality and environmental concerns <5 Traffic and road safety TOTAL : 30 E.g. traffic calming measures needed, address high-speed traffic through neighbourhood streets E.g. address problems caused by children and youth hanging out on the streets, more resources Children and youth TOTAL : 26 needed for children and youth

Neighbours, Neighbourliness TOTAL : 26 E.g. neighbours should be kinder to each other, problems with specific neighbours E.g. there is too high a concentration of institutional homes, get rid of institutional homes, Institutional homes TOTAL : 25 tenants in the homes need more to do and more services Problems with animals TOTAL: 7

The top 10 specific themes in Stinson were PRIORITY TOTAL MALE FEMALE equally important to men and to women, drugs 53 38% 62% and across age categories. The very mod- general sense of community 32 47% 53% est differences in responses by gender are highlighted in red in the table to the right. policing 30 47% 53% sex work 26 50% 50% litter 25 32% 68% 7 Appendix C to Report CM11007(c) Page 8 of 12

SOCIAL COHESION AND TRUST

Our results indicate Over that respondents felt 50% of respon- 87% positively overall that of respondents indicated that their neighbour- dents described hood had ways of they don’t know about the people in their working together local neighbourhood or busi- to solve problems, neighbourhood as that people in the ness associations, and that ‘friendly’ or ‘very neighbourhood they don’t feel that they friendly’ were friendly towards have influence over their each other, and shared common goals for the neighbourhood. neighbourhood.

STRONGLY DIS- STRONGLY DON’T AGREE AGREE AGREE DISAGREE KNOW My neighbourhood continually looks for solutions to local problems rather than 10% 41% 35% 8% 7% being satisfied with the way things are My neighbourhood has good leaders who look out for the best interests of our neigh- 9% 50% 26% 8% 7% bourhood I know about a local neighbourhood or business association or group that 12% 32% 46% 10% <2% meets regularly in my neighbourhood Our neighbourhood has ways of sharing information (talking to neighbours, 17% 53% 24% 6% <2% newsletters etc.) I have influence over what this 6% 39% 40% 16% <2% neighbourhood is like There are opportunities for celebration 9% 50% 34% 6% <2% and fun in my neighbourhood If there is a problem around here, 9% 33% 41% 13% 5% neighbours get together to deal with it In my neighbourhood, neighbours watch 15% 55% 21% 8% <2% over each other’s property People in this neighbourhood can be 7% 50% 29% 11% <2% trusted People in this neighbourhood share the 4% 42% 40% 10% 5% same values My neighbours and I want the same 7% 63% 23% 4% 3% things for the neighbourhood

8 Appendix C to Report CM11007(c) Page 9 of 12

COMMUNITY ATTACHMENT 60% AND PRIDE of respondents Residents in Stinson generally have a moderate level of would like to stay attachment to their neighbourhood. 60% would like to in their neighbour- stay in their neighbourhood for years to come, and 52% felt that living in Stinson gave them a sense of pride, hood for years while 66% felt that their neighbourhood had a to come. distinctive character. STRONGLY STRONGLY AGREE DISAGREE AGREE DISAGREE I would like to stay in my neighbourhood 21% 39% 23% 17% for many years to come Living in this neighbourhood gives me a sense 11% 41% 34% 14% of pride It is very important to me to live in this 13% 30% 41% 15% particular neighbourhood My neighbourhood has a distinct character — 18% 48% 26% 15% it is a special place

CIVIC AWARENESS, ENGAGEMENT AND INVOLVEMENT

Results indicate a moderate level of civic engagement, awareness and involvement. 68% of Stinson respondents either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that information about their neighbourhood’s services and activities was available to them, and 47% stated that they were invited to be a part of decision-making activities. Only 54% similarly agreed or strongly agreed that the City was responsive to their queries and requests.

STRONGLY STRONGLY DON’T AGREE DISAGREE AGREE DISAGREE KNOW Information is readily available to the public on City services and 14% 54% 27% 5% <2% activities that take place in my neighbourhood The City is responsive to residents ’ 8% 46% 29% 8% 9% inquiries, input and/or requests Residents are invited to be involved in decision-making in 7% 40% 37% 7% 8% my neighbourhood

9 Appendix C to Report CM11007(c) Page 10 of 12

MORE ON CIVIC AWARENESS, ENGAGEMENT AND INVOLVEMENT

LEAFLETS 66% or FLYERS in the of respondents mailbox and POST- say they know who ERS in public areas were the City councillor reported as the top two for their ward ways respondents got is. information about the local area.

We also asked respondents to tell us more about how they get information about the local area, (for example information about events and meetings happening in the neighbourhood, or information on issues of concern in the neighbourhood).

YES NO through friends or family 57% 44% through work or colleagues 26% 74% leaflets or flyers in the mailbox 80% 20% posters on telephone poles, in shops or community buildings 66% 44% free newspapers or community language newspapers 48% 52% radio stations 40% 60% television stations 49% 51% websites or email 49% 51% on buses 45% 55% at public meetings 22% 78% through volunteer or community organizations 28% 72% other ways 11% 89%

10 Appendix C to Report CM11007(c) Page 11 of 12

TOTAL COUNT Busy with... Work 43 Children 20 Other family 7 Other reasons 7 School 5 Barriers Health reasons/mobility concerns 32 Financial 13 Feels excluded/marginalized 9 Transit/access/distance 7 Language <5 Lack of... Time 55 Interest 33 Awareness: don’t know what’s available 21 Opportunity: nothing is available 11 Childcare <5 Other reasons No barriers/nothing 28 Other 25 Anxiety/shy/other people/ mental health 21 Age 5 Lazy <5

The table below lists the top four barriers in Stinson, and the proportion of respondents by gender.

TOTAL MALE FEMALE

lack of time 55 38% 62% busy with work 43 53% 47% lack of interest 33 58% 42% health reasons/mobility concerns 32 44% 56%

11 Appendix C to Report CM11007(c) Page 12 of 12

CONCLUSIONS— COMPARING OUR RESULTS TO THE STINSON NEIGHBOURHOOD ACTION PLAN

The Stinson Neighbourhood Action Plan (NAP) identified eight broad goals:

A. Create a Space where Neighbours Can Connect with Each Other, Residents Be Safe and Engage in Physical and Social Activities want specific amenities, festivals/ B. Enhance Pride and Ownership of the Neighbourhood through events and resources Beautification and History for children and youth. C. Enhance Livable and Walkable Communities These responses align D. Improve Social and Health Outcomes through Building Connections closely with Goals A and Relationships and D. E. Strengthen Education and Skills Training F. Address Poverty and Housing Issues Many themes re- G. Engaging RCFs (Residential Care Facilities) as Neighbours lated to beau- H. Connecting with Businesses tification, care for derelict properties The NAP has a productive phrasing of “engaging RCFs as neighbours”; the and enforcement of more common response in the survey was concern about the large number property standards of such facilities that are concentrated in the neighbourhood, and that some speak to Goal B. of the residents disturb the peace and need more support or services than they currently receive, especially when they are out in public. The desire for Respondents in the survey unambiguously expressed concerns related to drug traffic calm- use and dealing, the presence of sex work, and a desire for increased policing ing measures and a general lowering of the crime rate. These themes are not as well rep- aligns with resented in the NAP. (While Goal A includes the phrase “be safe,” its specific Goal C. objectives are focused on the creation of community spaces, rather than overall crime or safety.)

HOW CAN I LEARN MORE? Residents Dr. James Dunn and his staff at McMaster Uni- were concerned versity are doing the research study this about drugs and sex report is based on. If you have any questions, work and wanted to see call the study hotline or email us. more policing and a lower crime rate. These themes 905-525-9140 ext. 23375 are not as well represent- ed in the neighbour- [email protected] hood action plan. This research was funded in part by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The views expressed are those of the researchers, not the Government of Ontario, or the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. 12 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Page 1 of 36

Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Page 2 of 36

“Hamilton is unique among Canadian ci es because our Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy engages residents beyond just cas ng a ballot on elec on day. I’m very proud as Mayor to see the residents provide sensible sustainable ideas within their neighbourhood context that staﬀ can actually implement within a reasonable meline. The key word is ‘Ac on’ which makes us diﬀ erent from other engagement strategies.”

- Mayor Bob Bra na, City of Hamilton

Right: Community Development Workers and Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy Oﬃ ce staﬀ with McQuesten resident Pat Reid and Jim Diers, Tamarack Conference, June 2013 i Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Page 3 of 36 Message from the City Manager, City of Hamilton

Over the last three years, the City of Hamilton has spent considerable me and energy crea ng a Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy. This program or be er put, this new way of thinking and ac ng has been transforma onal for us as an organiza on, but also for the community and our ins tu onal partners.

Since its ini a on in 2010, in partnership with the Hamilton Community Founda on, we have engaged residents within 11 City neighbourhoods. The Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy has provided the frame work for the “horizontal integra on” of neighbourhood work that not only ensures the eﬀ ec ve and eﬃ cient delivery of service at a neighbourhood level, but assists us, the City, in crea ng a stronger working rela onship with residents and key stakeholders within those neighbourhoods.

In September 2012, our ﬁ rst four Neighbourhood Ac on Plans completed by the residents of the Keith, S nson, McQuesten and Beasley Neighbourhoods were presented and endorsed by Hamilton City Council. At that mee ng I can truly say that I was overwhelmed with what I saw. The energy in the room was inspira onal. Residents presented their plans, spoke passionately about their hopes and wishes for their community and their neighbourhoods, and in the end there was unanimous support and a strong desire to keep moving forward by all. Four addi onal plans for the Riverdale, Davis Creek (formerly Quigley Road) South Sherman and Jamesville Neighbourhoods have also been completed and presented to City Council for endorsement in 2013, shi ing the primary focus from the planning phase into implementa on across eight of the 11 priority neighbourhoods. It is an cipated that the remaining three plans will be completed by the end of 2014.

These Neighbourhood Ac on Plans are truly community plans, reﬂ ec ng the issues that are most relevant and pressing to the residents that live in each neighbourhood, highligh ng what the residents themselves hope can be achieved.

The Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy has played a large role in helping to strengthen rela onships with key ins tu ons and encourage new community involvement and investments from both the private and public sectors, as evident in the pages of this ﬁ rst Annual Report. As I look forward to the con nued work between residents, community partners and the City of Hamilton, it is important to take stock of the great work and signiﬁ cant results that have already been achieved.

Thank-you to all par cipants in this very important ini a ve and I look forward to our con nued progress together.

Chris Murray, City Manager

ii Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Page 4 of 36 Message from Hamilton Community Foundation

When Hamilton Community Founda on launched its neighbourhood focus back in 2002, our goal was to have a signiﬁ cant impact on quality of life for residents. Li le did we imagine that eight years later the City of Hamilton would adopt that focus and expand its scope into the strategy that exists today.

Over the last decade, the Founda on has invested close to $10 million into the communi es showcased in this report. Beginning with our “Growing Roots… Strengthening Neighbourhoods” ini a ve where we piloted the neighbourhood community development worker approach, leading to our mul -year poverty grantmaking focus, through to the new Neighbourhood Leadership Ins tute, Hamilton Community Founda on has held fast to two principles:

• We believe that every neighbourhood has assets: people with ideas and strengths and “These are truly skills to oﬀ er. Our job is to help them build on those assets. remarkable people who exemplify the • We believe that residents know best what their neighbourhoods need. Our job is to listen, to be responsive, and to help their voices be heard. no on of smart and caring communi es… One of our proudest yet most humbling moments took place last year when we watched their collabora on ci zens present their neighbourhood ac on plans to City Council. It felt like a culmina on with residents and of our approach and a celebra on of Hamilton’s vibrancy. These great teams, backed by other community hundreds of their neighbours and energized with vision, courage and hope, are the ul mate organiza ons is inspiring” return on our investment. Their dedica on is transforming their communi es block by block with great resident leadership, be er safety, more ci zens engaged, blossoming Governor General David local pride, and many visible improvements to services, facili es and streetscapes. Johnston, commen ng on mee ng the McQuesten Of course there is more to be done and more to learn about how best to do it – building Planning Team, April 2012 communi es is ongong, never sta c – but our neighbourhoods have shown that, with commi ed support from responsive partners in the public, private and voluntary sectors, they are more than up to the challenge.

Terry Cooke President & CEO Hamilton Community Founda on

iii Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Page 5 of 36 Table of Contents i | Members of Council and Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy Team

ii | Message from Chris Murray (COH) iii | Message from Terry Cooke (HCF) iv | Message from Paul Johnson v | Neighbourhood Boundary Map

1 | Hamilton’s Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy 3 | Neighbourhood Home Renova on Program 4 | Monitoring Our Progress: Evalua ng Hamilton’s Neighbourhood Development Strategy 5 | Neighbourhood Leadership Ins tute It was only a year ago that I had the privilege of introducing residents from the fi rst four Neighbourhoods (Beasley, Keith, McQuesten & 6 | Beasley Neighbourhood (Ward 2) S nson) that were presen ng THEIR Neighbourhood Ac on Plans (NAPs) to Hamilton City Council for endorsement. Since then, we 8 | Crown Point Neighbourhood (Wards 3 & 4) have seen a total of 8 NAP’s completed. Contained within these 8 NAP’s are 315 Ac ons. Implementa on of the many ac ons 10 | Davis Creek Neighbourhood (Ward 5) iden fi ed as priori es by each of the neighbourhoods is well underway (137 of the Ac ons are underway (43%), 9 are complete (3%) 12 | Neighbourhoods Timeline and 24 (8%) are completed, but reoccurring) and momentum con nues to grow, with partnerships between residents, city 14 | Gibson Landsdale Neighbourhood (Ward 3) staff and other service providers con nuing to expand. To date, the Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy has seen investments from 16 | Jamesville Neighbourhood (Ward 2) community and ins tu onal partners in the amount of nearly $3M ($360,000 of City funds leveraging $2.6 million in direct investments 18 | Keith Neighbourhood (Ward 3) from external sources). 20 | McQuesten Neighbourhood (Ward 4) We are working diff erently under the Neighbourhood Ac on 22 Riverdale Neighbourhood (Ward 5) Strategy. Our work is driven by community priori es. Our model | is strength based and focuses on assets. We are working as “one 24 | Rolston Neighbourhood (Ward 8) City” and truly collabora ng across departments. The result is a momentum that is undeniable. More and more residents are 26 | S nson Neighbourhood (Ward 2) ge ng involved in their neighbourhood and are doing the “heavy li ing” required to implement many of the ac on items. New 28 | South Sherman Neighbourhood (Ward 3) partnerships are being formed with businesses, organiza ons and key ins tu ons to access the resources necessary to move the Ac on Plans forward.

This is the ﬁ rst annual report and highlights some of the accomplishments to date. It is impressive to see what has been achieved but we all know there is s ll much more work to be done. With our community development approach and the shared commitment to ACTION I know we will con nue to make our neighbourhoods healthier places to live, work, play and learn.

Enjoy this year’s annual report and please keep up to date on our work by going to our website at: www.hamilton.ca/neighbourhoods

Paul Johnson, Director, Neighbourhood Action Strategies iv Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Page 6 of 36

v Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Page 7 of 36

Hamilton’s NEIGHBOURHOOD ACTION STRATEGY Suzanne Brown, Manager, Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy

Hamilton has a long history of people and organiza ons working together to make posi ve changes in our community. The City’s Neighbourhood Ac on Strategies Oﬃ ce was established to work with residents and local leaders to make neighbourhoods be er and healthier places for all residents to live, work, learn, and play. Through funding from the Hamilton Community Founda on, Best Start Network, and with the help of many partners, the Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy engages residents to improve condi ons for everyone in the neighbourhoods through an asset based, community development supported neighbourhood planning process.

People in all neighbourhoods deserve to be as healthy as they can be and deserve to live in vibrant places. By engaging residents to iden fy, plan, and lead the changes “Some mes, all the well meaning inten ons and hard they want to see, residents can build on their strengths to eﬀ ort in the community just won’t create the full address neighbourhood problems. To date, eight of the success needed; the community development worker 11 iden ﬁ ed neighbourhoods (refer to map on previous and the city planner help to establish the strong page) have developed neighbourhood ac on plans (NAPs) planning founda on needed to achieve success” and are taking ac on based on their lived experiences. The City of Hamilton is commi ed to neighbourhoods and Steve Rowe, Vice-chair, Keith Ac on Planning Team their plans by focusing on integra ng and coordina ng city services within targeted neighbourhoods.

Neighbourhood Planning Process Transforming good neighbourhoods into great ones begins with a plan, and a great ac on plan is developed by residents. Our neighbourhood planning process brings community development and secondary planning together into one process. This combina on of people and place- based planning creates ac on plans to make Hamilton’s neighbourhoods healthy, vibrant places for everyone. We have found, over the last year that energy around ac on in a neighbourhood can build un l it creates its own momentum; some mes it’s because of a speciﬁ c event, or a large number of people being involved; but o en it is the cumula ve “buzz” that good things are star ng to happen. It’s not really about the numbers of people involved; it’s about the chemistry that happens when people who really care about their neighbourhoods and their neighbours get together to make change.

cont’d on next page

1 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Page 8 of 36 Hamilton’s Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy

“A resident-led planning team is fundamental to a grass-root movement where residents’ voices are heard and where they can put their plans into concrete ac ons. A Community Development Worker who is commi ed to helping neighbours ﬁ nd their voice, cul vate their dreams and assist them in pu ng their words into deeds is important. When the neighbours ﬁ nd their voice and develop skills to ar culate ideas into ac on they give life to a community.”

- Pat Reid, past Chair, McQuesten Local Planning Team

Asset-based, Resident-led Neighbourhood Planning Our planning process uses an asset-based community development approach, which builds on the skills, strengths, and supports of residents, groups, and ins tu ons to build stronger communi es. This approach, blended with a land use planning process, results in unique neighbourhood plans that celebrate the strengths and address the weaknesses of Hamilton neighbourhoods. Each completed Neighbourhood Ac on Plan will lay out Asset-based community development “starts with what is a clear vision for the future of the neighbourhood and present in the community, the capaci es of its residents describe specifi c projects that can be implemented, are and workers, the associa onal and ins tu onal base of the achievable, and have widespread community support. area--not with what is absent, or with what is problema c, or with what the community needs.”i Each Neighbourhood Ac on Plan details meaningful and measurable ac on items that can reasonably be The development of asset-based, resident-led implemented within the fi ve year meframe of the plan. neighbourhood ac on plans depends on the rela onships Most importantly, each plan iden fi es a resident lead, and between residents, staff , and other neighbourhood if applicable a city staff or agency lead, who is responsible stakeholders. The community development worker plays for each ac on item. Ac ons are funded through a variety an essen al role in building the rela onships with residents of ways; the Hamilton Community Founda on small grants on the Local Planning Team and the wider neighbourhood. process, the Neighbourhood Development grants budget, other city departmental budgets, provincial ministries, federal departments, founda ons and other funding bodies have also provided resources to support the many ac ons.

The Neighbourhood Ac on Strategies Oﬃ ce has developed a new resource; the Neighbourhood Ac on Planning Toolkit that can guide community groups through the planning process. The Toolkit has many useful ps, tools, and checklists and can be found at the website below.

Drive change in your neighbourhood! For informa on on how you can begin an Ac on Planning Process in your neighbourhood please contact:

Suzanne Brown Program Manager - Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy Tel: 905-546-2424 ext. 4711 E-mail: [email protected]

i John P. Kretzmann and John L. McKnight, pp. 1-11, Building Communi es from the Inside Out: A Path To download the toolkit, visit www.hamilton.ca/neighbourhoods 2 Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community’s Assets, Evanston, IL: Ins tute for Policy Research (1993). Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Page 9 of 36 Neighbourhood Home Improvement Program Irene Heﬀ ernan, Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy Project Co-ordinator, City of Hamilton

When residents came together to develop Neighbourhood Ac on Plans, there was much op mism that the ideas in the plans would generate new investments of me, talent, and funding. With Ac on Plans completed in eight neighbourhoods, those new investments are coming to frui on. In some cases, there were common themes and ac ons across Ac on Plans and out of these common themes, new and exci ng investments were developed and directed across many neighbourhoods.

The Neighbourhood Home Improvement Program has been a great example of “cross-neighbourhood” investment. Many of the Ac on Plans emphasized beau fi ca on in neighbourhoods. The Ac on Plans also emphasized the need for resident skill-building ini a ves, and real training that could lead to successful employment. When the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universi es read the plans, they put two and two together and developed the Home Improvement Program, a training ini a ve that also improved and beau fi ed homes in Neighbourhood Strategy neighbourhoods. In partnership with the City of Hamilton and Hamilton Community Founda on, the Threshold School of Building was the perfect agency to deliver the job-training component of this ini a ve. The City helped match residents who were currently unemployed with this training opportunity and coordinated a commi ee of staff and residents to review applica ons for exterior home renova on projects. 20 men and women applied to be the trainees and are currently working in the program to gain valuable job-ready skills while accomplishing much needed renova ons to Hamilton’s priority neighbourhood homes.

The Neighbourhood Home Improvement Project focuses on exterior improvements to homes and hopes to complete “The two best parts of this project are seeing the relief 90 home improvements by the end of the October. The and apprecia on of the resident home owners who are benefi ts of this pilot project to the neighbourhood and receiving renova ons that make their homes safe and its residents were quickly seen. In the words of one crew healthy; and the dedica on and pride of workmanship member, “My favourite part of the job is learning skills from the crew. That ‘pay it forward’ a tude is what that I never had before and being part of a great crew.” is making this project such a great success.” Another crew member stated that, aside from obtaining work experience, “being part of a posi ve change for - John Grant, Execu ve Director of Hamilton” is what is most important. Threshold School of Building Residents have received many types of exterior renova ons including repair to sheds, porches, back decks, walk ways, and fences. Many of these renova ons addressed health When the training component ends in mid-October, these and safety concerns of homeowners, who did not have the men and women will be assisted by Employment Services resources to make the repairs on their own. in Hamilton in fi nding them sustainable work. One resident sent a thank you sta ng, “Who says good things don’t happen in this neighbourhood? Words can’t thank you enough for the extensive work the crew did on my front porch. I am more than grateful. THANK YOU!” Another resident wrote 20 separate thank you notes to all the crew and staff at Threshold. She pronounced the crew, “an army of hardhat angels that came to my rescue”.

This project exempliﬁ es the fundamental tenant of the Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy:, that all neighbourhoods and residents have assets and when these assets come together, we truly make our neighbourhood’s be er places to live, work, play and learn.

3 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Page 10 of 36 Monitoring Our PROGRESS: Evaluating Hamilton’s Neighbourhood Action Strategy Colin McMullan, Manager, Social Development, City of Hamilton

The Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy is intended to create United Way) and is not being paid for by the City itself. change in neighbourhoods that will improve the lives of Hamilton residents. It is an innova ve and holis c approach While the evalua on is s ll in its early stages, some interes ng to community development, and is being a empted at a fi ndings have begun to emerge from the neighbourhoods scale not o en seen before. It is therefore important that we surveyed to-date, including: are able to say with confi dence whether or not the strategy is working. In order to do this, we [the City] have partnered • 72% of residents surveyed said that they were “sa sfi ed” with university researchers, the Hamilton Community or “very sa sfi ed” with their neighbourhood Founda on and the Social Planning and Research Council • 91% of residents surveyed described the people in their to comprehensively evaluate the strategy as neighbourhood as being “friendly” or “very friendly” it moves forward. The evalua on of the • 94% of residents surveyed said that they “agree” or ini a ve has been a priority from the “strongly agree” that they feel safe when they are start and a comprehensive, mul - outside during the day level strategy has been developed to monitor our progress, help us learn • 54% of residents surveyed said that their neighbourhood from our successes and challenges was a “good”, “very good”, or “excellent” place to raise and ul mately, assess the impacts on children residents living in our neighbourhoods. While there is a rela vely high level of neighbourhood The components of the sa sfac on and people generally feel safe, the fact that evalua on include: 1) residents feel less posi ve about their neighbourhoods a survey that asks as places to raise children (at the heart of the City’s long residents (at 2-year term Vision) suggests that there is work to be done. To this intervals) about end, residents were also asked about their priori es for the health and well- improving their neighbourhoods in the survey. In general, being of themselves the priori es iden fi ed through the survey align closely and the neighbourhoods to those iden fi ed through the neighbourhood planning in which they live; 2) on-going processes (e.g., neighbourhood beau fi ca on, safety and monitoring of neighbourhood security, parks and green space, etc.). level indicators to assess changes over me; 3) an in-depth study to Neighbourhood development is a complex and long-term assess the impacts of community endeavour. While we would all like to be able to see drama c development workers suppor ng and immediate changes to the health and wellbeing of our the neighbourhoods in their work, residents living in the priority neighbourhoods, the nature of and; 4) an evalua on to assess the the work is such that we are not likely to see major changes implementa on of the neighbourhood to the health and well-being of neighbourhood residents plans. It is important to note that much for some me. We feel that we have the strategy and tools of this evalua on work is being funded in place to be able to monitor this type of change when it through grants obtained from outside occurs. Further, the evalua on process is cri cal to set the agencies (i.e., Ministry of Health and path for the future success of the ini a ve. By providing Long-term Care, the Canadian rapid and ongoing feedback to the CD workers and others Ins tutes of Health Research, involved in planning and implementa on, this evalua on The Hamilton Community can also help address emerging challenges and improve Founda on and the prac ce as the strategy evolves. cont’d on next page

4 Monitoring our Progress: Evalua ng Hamilton’s Neighbourhood Ac on StrategyAppendix D to Report CM11007(c) Page 11 of 36 Main Components of the Neighbourhood AcƟ on Strategy EvaluaƟ on PROCESS OUTCOME How well is the Neighbourhood How is the Neighbourhood Strategy Strategy working? affecting people’s lives?

Evaluation of the Community Development Hamilton Neighbourhoods Study Approach During Intervention Planning (P.I. James R. Dunn, McMaster University) (P.I. Sarah Wakeﬁ eld, University of Toronto) • Longitudinal study of interven on • Forma ve process evalua on outcomes • Qualita ve interviews with community • Door-to-door surveys to be conducted Developers and resident-led Planning Teams, with randomly selected residents in six examining the process of the community neighbourhoods (S pley, Rolston, Keith, development, including 1) how CDs and McQuesten, S nson, and Beasley) before planning team members developed and worked and a er implementa on towards goals; and 2) barriers and facilitators to community engagement and implementa on Timeline: Fall 2011 - Winter 2014, with Timeline: January 2012 - June 2015 ongoing follow-up at two year intervals.

Evaluation of Plan Implementation Neighbourhood-Level Indicators (S. Wakeﬁ eld and SPRC) (P.I. Jeﬀ Wingard, Structure Consul ng)

• Process evalua on of plan implementa on • Draws on secondary data to report on 8 • Process tracking surveys, interviews and domains and 16 indicators of community focus groups with key actors and residents well-being with neighbourhood-level data Timeline: Baseline report completed in Timeline: January 2013 - April 2015; longer- April 2012. Repeated as needed, likely term evaluation (2015-2017) possible. after 3 years.

Neighbourhood Leadership Institute In May 2013, through support from the Hamilton Community Founda on and the Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy Oﬃ ce, a ceremony was held for the ﬁ rst gradua ng class of the Neighbourhood Leadership Ins tute (NLI). Mee ng once a month since October 2012, the program, created around an asset based approach to learning, built on and enhanced the exis ng strengths and skills of our resident leaders. The NLI allowed the resident leaders to learn together to gain a be er understanding of how to work with their neighbours and facilitate change.

CONGRATULATIONS to the Class of 2013, which included 19 neighbours, from 9 city neighbourhoods.

5 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) WARD 2 Page 12 of 36 BEASLEY Neighbourhood Update Brandon Braithwaite, Community Development Worker

Since 2005, the Beasley Neighbourhood Associa on (BNA) and Charter Team (Charter signed June 2011) have been very involved in improving their downtown neighbourhood. This year started oﬀ with the presenta on of the neighbourhood plan, the pain ng of the Badger Mural in McLaren Park, the McLaren Soccer Tournament, Beasley Arize (a breakdancing compe on), the Beasley Winter Carnival with ice ska ng and other fun ac vi es for kids, and the Beasley Fair. More recently, the BNA held their annual BBQ and were joined by the Downtown Mosque. Over 1000 hotdogs were served to area residents on a beau ful summer a ernoon. The Hamilton Youth Steel Drum Orchestra entertained the crowd with an excellent performance and among other ac vi es, the NGEN Breakdancing Team showed oﬀ their skills, while teaching kids and youth some exci ng dance moves.

The Beasley Neighbourhood banners were raised over the summer. With over 40 colourful banners it’s hard not to feel a sense of pride throughout the neighbourhood. We would like to thank Cogeco and Councilor Farr for their support and Paul Elia for his wonderful designs. In addi on to the Neighbourhood banners, the Beasley Community Mural will be going up on the side of the old Beasley Community Centre. It will be a colourful mural that will bring a smile to the whole community, but especially to the children who helped design it. Summer 2013 also brought the ﬁ rst annual Soccer Summerfest (a week long camp for kids) which closed out with the second annual McLaren Cup. The long-term Beasley Park Redevelopment Planning Team also met in June and September 2013. ‘It’s very exci ng to imagine what can happen in this already wonderful park’.

The Beasley Neighbourhood Ac on Plan iden ﬁ ed minor improvements for McLaren Park and it is great to see neighbourhood engagement with the City of Hamilton around this issue. We would like to thank Councilor Farr and the Neighbourhood Ac on Planning Team as they highlighted this as a much needed ac on.

Get Involved With Beasley! Contact: Brandon Braithwaite, Community Development Worker E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 905-746-2382

MeeƟ ng Dates: 2nd and 4th Wednesday of the Month: 7pm – 9pm

MeeƟ ng LocaƟ on: Beasley Community Centre 145 Wilson Street, Hamilton

To get more informa on on the Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy and the Beasley Neighbourhood Ac on Plan, visit www.hamilton.ca/neighbourhoods 6 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) PageBeasley 13 Neighbourhoodof 36

The BNA is one of the only Neighbourhoods in Canada to have dra ed its own community charter, a public agreement to work together to tackle neighbourhood issues.

7 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Crown Point Neighbourhood Page 14 of 36

“I was so impressed by how much the walk leaders took on. They gave so much of themselves. Their passion for their community came through. And then all the people who came out and learned new perspec ves about an area or found like-minded people. Ge ng people to get out, walk through the neighbourhood, talk to their neighbours and talk about their neighbourhood. That was the important thing and that’s exactly what happened.” –Mary Bowness Crown Point resident and coordinator of Hamilton’s Jane’s Walks

8 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) PageWARDS 15 of 36 3 & 4 CROWN POINT Neighbourhood Update Rebecca Doll, Community Development Worker

Jane’s Walk, now a global phenomenon, was pioneered in Toronto to bring a en on not only to urban neighbourhoods, but also to the walkability (or unwalkability, as the case may be) of them. Named a er urban planner Jane Jacobs, the walks are an annual event, on the same weekend in every country. In Hamilton, two City Councillors, entrepreneurs, residents, historians and storytellers led walks to talk about their passion for Hamilton and for their community. The point of the Neighbourhood Ac on Plans is to move the talking into ac on and with the 2013 Jane’s Walk, Crown Point got a whole lot of people talking, and walking.

Dozens of people joined each of the walks across the city in May, to walk and talk about history, culture, nature, development, economics and of course, walking. This was a step in the progress of Crown Point’s Goal B ac on area which focuses on walking, cycling, gardens and more. A er years of partnering with McMaster’s Health in the Hubs ini a ve to focus on the walkability of the area, the team observed that, “all the research has been done, the plans are in place – how do we make it happen?” and the answer that came up was simple. Get people walking. So they signed up to coordinate Jane’s Walks in Crown Point and it quickly spread across the city.

Get Involved With Crown Point! Contact: Rebecca Doll, Community Development Worker E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 289-489-3942

MeeƟ ng Dates: 3rd Monday of the Month: 6:30pm – 8:30pm

MeeƟ ng LocaƟ on: Compass Point Church - 80 Ellis Ave, Hamilton

To get more informa on on the Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy, visit www.hamilton.ca/neighbourhoods

9 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) WARD 5 Page 16 of 36 DAVIS CREEK Neighbourhood Update Judy Kloosterman, Community Development Worker

David Creek Community Planning Team (DCCPT) had a very busy year. One of our goals was to connect with the local community, including area schools. We did this by talking to people throughout the neighbourhood and when we were riding the bus. Flyers were delivered to homes and apartments, but we feel word of mouth is the best way to connect. Planning team members love to talk about what we are doing and what the future holds for our community, which is surrounded by busy streets and nestled under the escarpment in east end Hamilton. One of the many events for the DCCPT was with a business, Coconut Cove Community Event. This event raised awareness for the Community Planning Team.

Other events we have run include community clean ups at 4 sites (Greenhill and Quigley, Tindale, Sir Wilfrid Laurier School, Pine Grove), and Easter Egg Hunts at 2 loca ons (350 Quigley and Pine Grove) where the children had smiles on their faces a mile wide and the parents were having a great me too.

Get Involved With Davis Creek! Contact: Judy Kloosterman, Community Development Worker E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 905-516-6383

MeeƟ ng Dates: 2nd Tuesday of the Month: 6pm – 8pm

MeeƟ ng LocaƟ on: Sir Wilfrid Laurier Recrea on Centre - 60 Albright Rd, Hamilton

To get more informa on on the Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy and the Davis Creek Neighbourhood Ac on Plan, visit www.hamilton.ca/neighbourhoods 10 Appendix D to ReportDavis Creek CM11007(c) Neighbourhood Page 17 of 36

“The neighbourhood has always been a diverse and engaged neighbourhood, but the formaliza on of the Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy has allowed the various groups within Davis Creek to come together and achieve many early successes, par cularly around our schools.”

- David Deslandes A member of the DCCPT a ends other community events hosted by the schools to educate parents in the community about the work of the planning team.

When we fi rst began the neighbourhood planning process in 2012, we met at diff erent loca ons around the community, hoping this would bring more community members to the table from diff erent areas of Davis Creek. Unfortunately, this confused community members so star ng in September 2013, we will now meet at Sir Wilfrid Laurier Recrea on Centre on the second Tuesday of the month.

One of the many ac ons iden fi ed in our neighbourhood plan is traffi c. We have begun to work on these issues on the Mt. Albion, Quigley Road, and Greenhill streets. We have worked with the traffi c division to put up school zone signs and 40km/h speed limit signs around the school.

Through a grant administered by the Hamilton Community Founda on, DDCPT in partnership with the Hamilton Public Library held a Summer Literacy Day Camp to assist over 80 children with their reading and wri ng skills. Our future plans include working with Green Venture to create a safe streets plan. We would like to see improvements at bus stops with more garbage cans, emergency phones on Quigley and Greenhill by King street, arms at the 3 major railroad crossings in the community, and benches on the streets for pedestrians to sit.

The Pine Grove tenants organized a trip to the Royal Botanical Gardens for Davis Creek residents, we ﬁ lled a bus and everyone had great fun.

11 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Page 18 of 36

APRIL FEBRUARY JUNE JUNE SEPTEMBER JUNE JUNE JULY OCTO 2002 2004 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011 2011 20 Hamilton Community ,&ďŽĂƌĚƚĂŬĞƐ ,&ĞǀŽůǀĞƐƉŽǀĞƌƚǇ dĂĐŬůŝŶŐWŽǀĞƌƚǇ ƌĞĂƟŽŶŽĨ ƉƉƌŽǀĂůŽĨ ^ŝŐŶŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞ ^ĞůĞĐƟŽŶŽĨϭϭ EĞŝŐŚďŽ &ŽƵŶĚĂƟŽŶůĂƵŶĐŚĞƐ ƵŶƉƌĞĐĞĚĞŶƚĞĚƐƚĞƉ ƌĞĚƵĐƟŽŶĨŽĐƵƐƚŽĂ dŽŐĞƚŚĞƌ//ĞǆƉĂŶĚĞĚ EĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌŚŽŽĚ EĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌŚŽŽĚ ĞĂƐůĞǇ EĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌŚŽŽĚƐĨŽƌ ĐƟŽŶW Growing Roots.. ŽĨĚŝƌĞĐƟŶŐ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌŚŽŽĚ ƚŽZŝǀĞƌĚĂůĞĂŶĚ ĐƟŽŶ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐǇ ĐƟŽŶ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐǇ EĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌŚŽŽĚ EĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌŚŽŽĚ ďĞŐŝ Strengthening ƵŶƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚĞĚĨƵŶĚƐƚŽ ĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚdWd ƌŽǁŶWŽŝŶƚ /ŶŝƟ/ŶŝƟĂƟǀĞ͘ĂƟǀĞ͘ ŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚƐ͘ ŚĂƌƚĞƌ ĐƟŽŶWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͘ <ĞŝƚŚΘ Neighbourhoods ƉŽǀĞƌƚǇƉƌĞǀĞŶƟŽŶ͕ //ʹƵŝůĚŝŶŐ^ƚƌŽŶŐ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌŚŽŽĚƐ͘ EĞŝŐŚďŽ ƉƌŽŐĂŵ͕ƉŝůŽƟŶŐƚŚĞ ĂůůĞǀŝĂƟŽŶ͕ƌĞĚƵĐƟŽŶ EĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌŚŽŽĚƐ͕Ă ƵƐĞŽĨĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚdĂĐŬůŝŶŐ ΨϱŵŝůůŝŽŶŝŶŝƟĂƟǀĞ͘ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŽƌŬĞƌƐ WŽǀĞƌƚǇdŽŐĞƚŚĞƌ ƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞƐůŽĐĂů ĂŶĚƐŵĂůůŐƌĂŶƚƐŝŶ ;dWdͿ͕ĂΨϯŵŝůůŝŽŶ ƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐƚĞĂŵƐŝŶƐŝǆ :ĂŵĞƐǀŝůůĞ͕ĞĂƐůĞǇ ŝŶŝƟĂƟǀĞ͘ ĨŽĐƵƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ͗ ĂŶĚDĐYƵĞƐƚĞŶ :ĂŵĞƐǀŝůůĞ͕ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌŚŽŽĚƐ͘ DĐYƵĞƐƚĞŶ͕<ĞŝƚŚ͕ tĞǀĞƌ͕^ŽƵƚŚ^ŚĞƌŵĂŶ ĂŶĚ͞d,͘͟

TIMELINE 12 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Page 19 of 36

OBER MARCH APRIL SEPTEMBER JANUARY MARCH MAY JUNE OCTOBER 011 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 ŽƵƌŚŽŽĚ EĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌŚŽŽĚ ,&ŝŶǀŝƚĞƐ'ŽǀĞƌŶŽƌ EĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌŚŽŽĚ EĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌŚŽŽĚ EĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌŚŽŽĚ EĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌŚŽŽĚ EĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌŚŽŽĚ &ŝƌƐƚŶŶƵĂůhƉĚĂƚĞ WůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ĐƟŽŶWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ 'ĞŶĞƌĂůĂǀŝĚ ĐƟŽŶWůĂŶƐ ĐƟŽŶWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ĐƟŽŶWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ >ĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉ/ŶƐƟƚƵƚĞ ĐƟŽŶWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ŶƐŝŶ ĨŽƌŵĂůŝǌĞĚŝŶ :ŽŚŶƐƚŽŶƚŽŵĞĞƚ ĞŶĚŽƌƐĞĚďǇ ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚŝŶ ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚŝŶ ŐƌĂĚƵĂƚĞƐĮƌƐƚĐůĂƐƐ͘ ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚŝŶ ^ƟŶƐŽŶ DĐYƵĞƐƚĞŶ͘ ǁŝƚŚDĐYƵĞƐƚĞŶ ,ĂŵŝůƚŽŶŝƚǇŽƵŶĐŝů ZŝǀĞƌĚĂůĞĂŶĚ ^ŽƵƚŚ^ŚĞƌŵĂŶ͘ :ĂŵĞƐǀŝůůĞ͘ ƵƌŚŽŽĚƐ͘ Community Planning ĨŽƌƚŚĞĞĂƐůĞǇ͕ ĂǀŝƐƌĞĞŬ͘ ZŽůƐƚŽŶWŚŽƚŽǀŽŝĐĞʹ ƚĞĂŵ͘ <ĞŝƚŚ͕DĐYƵĞƐƚĞŶ EĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌŚŽŽĚ ĂŶĚ^ƟŶƐŽŶ ĂƐƐĞƚƐĚĞĮŶĞĚ EĞŝŐŚďŽƵƌŚŽŽĚƐ͘ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŝůůƵƐƚƌĂƟŽŶ ďǇƚŚĞĐŚŝůĚƌĞŶŽĨ ZŽůƐƚŽŶ͘

13 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Gibson Landsdale Neighbourhood Page 20 of 36

“I was really moved by all the people who showed up and by the posi ve impact the event has had on the neighbourhood since then,” says Brenda Duke, one of the three organizers along with Lise Graham and Sonya Mills. “People are talking to each other, sharing things, helping each other out. We’ve showed each other that we can make changes and keep things going. It is inspiring.”

14 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Page 21 ofWARD 36 3 GIBSON LANDSDALE Neighbourhood Update Rebecca Doll, Community Development Worker

The idea of building on the strengths of the community was never so tangibly evident as at the clean-up of the Birch Avenue Green Space this spring. The Gibson Landsdale Community Planning Team ini ated a clean-up and partnered with the City’s Public Works department for training, tools and supplies. The “park” in ques on was a gravel parking area under the hydro lines that had been cleaned-up only a year ago, but this second phase of eff ort focused on remedial cleaning and then landscaping. To achieve this, the organizers planned to spread mulch in the previously cleared beds and plant fl owers that had been donated by neighbours. Having no budget for this event, they relied on their own resources and brought cookies and lemonade for refreshments. People came early to help and started pitching in with the work, but also the fun; prizes, including new bikes and fl ower boxes were donated by community partners; pizza and subs were ordered by the Barton Street BIA; and paint and tools were supplied by a local business to refresh the fences and graffi -tagged garage doors; live music performance; croquet and more. People in the neighbourhood saw the work that was happening and the fl owers being planted and brought more from their own homes. Nearby neighbours came over to water the plants and off ered to do so regularly. Collec vely, residents built on the strengths of the community for a lovely day, and for a sustainable green-space in their midst.

Get Involved With Gibson Landsdale! Contact: Rebecca Doll, Community Development Worker E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 289-489-3942

MeeƟ ng Dates: 1st Saturday of the Month: 10:30am – 12:30pm

MeeƟ ng LocaƟ on: Barton Library - 571 Barton St E, Hamilton

To get more informa on on the Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy, visit www.hamilton.ca/neighbourhoods

15 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Page 22 of 36

“It is very important for our team and our community to be able to share our ideas and needs while building on the many neighbourhood strengths (assets) of the Jamesville area.” - Liliana Figueredo

16 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Page 23 ofWARD 36 2 JAMESVILLE Neighbourhood Update Brandon Braithwaite, Community Development Worker

It’s been a busy year for the Jamesville Hub. From fi nalizing our Neighbourhood Ac on plan, building a stronger brand and hos ng our fi rst events, it’s been a fun ride and we’re only ge ng started! In December the Hub and some of its friends hosted the Jamesville Fun Fair at Sir John A Macdonald. There was informa on and ac vi es provided by several diff erent agencies in the neighbourhood, prizes, and co on candy. Many youth from a neighbouring youth program helped fi ll the gym and the Chinese Seniors Dance Team and Tai Chi team both put on presenta ons.

The Jamesville Hub chairs Liilana Figueredo and David Stephens presented the Neighbourhood Ac on Plan to Hamilton City Council in June 2013. It was received with great excitement and lots of ques ons. A er the plan was presented Councilor Farr assigned resources to one of our biggest projects; exploring the possibility of ﬁ nding a permanent central neighbourhood Community Centre, a space where neighbours and groups can gather to get to know one another and run a variety of ac vi es and programs. We will work with the City and other interested par es to complete a Feasibility Study in the fall.

This summer we held movie nights in the Jamesville City housing complex. The evenings were ﬁ lled with popcorn and entertainment. What a fantas c way to spend a warm summer evening...with your neighbours!

Get Involved With Jamesville! Contact: Brandon Braithwaite, Community Development Worker E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 905-746-2382

MeeƟ ng Dates: Last Thursday of every month: 6:30pm – 8pm

MeeƟ ng LocaƟ on: Hamilton Central Library - 55 York Blvd, Hamilton

To get more informa on on the Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy and the Jamesville Neighbourhood Ac on Plan, visit www.hamilton.ca/neighbourhoods 17 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Keith Neighbourhood Page 24 of 36

“Change does not happen un l someone decides to make a diﬀ erence. Well, change is here.” –Barb Teichmann

18 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Page 25 ofWARD 36 3 KEITH Neighbourhood Update Laura Ryan, Community Development Worker

You have read about the Neighbourhood Home Improvement Program on page 3 of this report. This project idea came from a resident of the Keith Neighbourhood. Barb Teichmann is a part me volunteer, full me parent to 2 very ac ve grandsons, resident and reless promoter of the Keith Neighbourhood. In October 2011, at the fi rst mee ng of the Keith Hub planning team, Barb asked us what we thought we could do for her neighbourhood this me that was diff erent than every other me the city or researchers or well inten oned service folks came calling. That same night she also challenged the group to fi nd a way to help homeowners earning a modest income repair their century homes.

In Keith Neighbourhood 70% of residents own their own home and their houses are on average 96 years old. These residents are also among the most modest income earners in the city. Keith neighbours know how to save a buck, but repairs to these houses are periodically more than even the thri iest among us can manage.

Barb has a history of bringing honesty and dignity to problems like these, so it’s no surprise that this idea came from her. Barb and others helped lead the 10 year (!) fund raising eﬀ ort to reﬁ t their neighbourhood park with splash-pad and playground equipment. She volunteered at Robert Land School for years and with the help of a team of moms, checked and rechecked the heads of students to take a school head lice epidemic down to zero cases. Instead of shaming children or their parents, this group provided treatments, new combs for every kid unlucky enough to catch lice, and educa on to help those kids avoid re-exposing themselves.

Barb now has quite a few legacies. We all have that park. Each one of those former Robert Land students who received help from this group of moms received new combs and some dignity in an otherwise frustra ng and embarrassing situa on. Now upwards of 80 homeowners and their families, and 21 newly trained construc on workers are respec vely house-proud and skills-proud because of Barb’s innova ve, common sense idea, and compassionate heart.

Get Involved With Keith! Contact: Laura Ryan, Community Development Worker E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 905-317-1791

MeeƟ ng Dates: 1st Thursday of every month: 6pm – 8pm

MeeƟ ng LocaƟ on: Eva Rothwell Centre - 460 Wentworth St N, Hamilton

To get more informa on on the Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy and the Keith Neighbourhood Ac on Plan, visit www.hamilton.ca/neighbourhoods 19 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) WARD 4 Page 26 of 36 McQUESTEN Neighbourhood Update David Derbyshire, Community Development Worker

Where does the me go? It seems like just last week we were gathering a small but commi ed group of neighbours from across McQuesten to help us develop an Ac on Plan for our neighbourhood. Here we are one year later celebra ng some of the outstanding work done by the McQuesten Community Planning Team, together with our partners at the City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Community Founda on.

The success that we have enjoyed here in McQuesten over the last number of years can be directly a ributed to the outstanding resident leadership that has become the cornerstone of the work we do. This year several members of our local planning team a ended the Neighbourhood Leadership Ins tute to build their capacity including Monika Ciolek, who in January of this year was elected to the role of Chair, replacing Pat Reid who ﬁ lled that role during the previous term and was instrumental in guiding this community through the planning process.

Some of the highlights of this year’s work have been:

• One of the fi rst Ac on Teams to mobilize has become known as the Party Planners. Responding to the somewhat nega ve stereotype painted of the neighbourhood they planned two events that would prove to be instrumental in enlightening the broader community of the “New McQuesten”. The fi rst was an “Evening with the Chief” held at the East Kiwanis Community Centre. Hamilton Police Chief Glenn De Caire was invited to speak to our neighbours about the changing role of Hamilton Police Services within the neighbourhood and the posi ve eff ect that has had.

• The second was the 5th annual CRAWL, a neighbourhood BBQ and social that invites residents and service providers to mingle, get to know what programs are being oﬀ ered during the coming summer months, sign up for those programs and just relax and welcome the an cipated summer months that will bring our community out and get them involved.

Get Involved With McQuesten! Contact: David Derbyshire, Community Development Worker E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 905-975-0980

MeeƟ ng Dates: 2nd Monday of every month: 6:30pm – 8:30pm

MeeƟ ng LocaƟ on: East Kiwanis Community Centre - 785 Britannia Ave, Hamilton

To get more informa on on the Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy and the McQuesten Neighbourhood Ac on Plan, visit www.hamilton.ca/neighbourhoods 20 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) McQuestenPage 27 Neighbourhoodof 36

“11 years ago a group of seniors concerned about the lack of safety in the neighbourhood formed a group called the Martha Movers. These folks were the ones who started the conversa on about how to make our neighbourhood a safe place. The Chief and Sgt. Tracey our local Crime Manager conﬁ rmed today a signiﬁ cant decrease in crime in our neighbourhood, they acknowledged that the hard worked ini ated by the Movers and carried on by the McQuesten Community Planning Team has had a posi ve impact on our neighbourhood.”

- Rose Laws, McQuesten Neighbour

• Strengthened rela onships with the McMaster School of Nursing, the CASTLE Project, the Juravinski Cancer Centre and the Ministry of Health have led to the introduc on of a mobile cancer screening coach to educate neighbours of the importance of early tes ng for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer, while making that tes ng available in the neighbourhood.

• Work is ongoing along a food security con nuum that will address the food desert that exists within McQuesten with the ul mate goal of a robust Food Centre. We are in the early stages of the crea on of a pilot for an urban farm in McQuesten Increased programming for seniors, adults, youth and children has been mobilized through resident leadership and strong collabora on with our service provider partners.

These and many more rela onships are being built and more and more neighbours and service provider partners are stepping up and as Pat Reid invited all to do when the plans were ﬁ rst developed, “Get on Board” and join us on our journey.

Thanks to Suzanne Brown and the Neighbourhood Strategy oﬃ ce at the City of Hamilton as well as Councillor Merulla for their support in the work we do. Also to the Hamilton Community Founda on, Ma Goodman and Sharon Charters for your support and guidance over the many years we have had the pleasure of working together. All our service provider partners but most importantly to all of the neighbours without whom this work would be impossible. You are too many to name but are so vitally important to everything we do. We have said it before and I will say it again we are “Be er Together.”

21 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) WARD 5 Page 28 of 36 RIVERDALE Neighbourhood Update Judy Kloosterman, Community Development Worker

The Riverdale Community Planning Team (RCPT) is made up of diverse residents that live in the Riverdale community. There are many diﬀ erent languages spoken in this very unique community of apartment buildings, bounded by 4 very busy streets. At our RCPT mee ngs, we have translators and make sure our mee ngs are understood by all who a end.

One new and exci ng program at the Riverdale Community Centre is the Punjabi Thursday Tea. This is for seniors from the Riverdale neighbourhood to get together to build trust and friendship while making and serving each other Chai tea. A er a while, as their comfort grew, the seniors started to play cards together and are talking to each other (through a translator). Some of the issues they have brought up are: health issues and socializa on/isola on. Over the next couple of months the RCPT will look into helping in these areas.

Based on conversa ons at the planning team table, new programs were created at the community centre, for example a free Mother and Daughter Only Swim. Councilor Collins has used the Riverdale Community Centre and Laurier Recrea on Centre as pilots for community WIFI, Wii, and a big screen TV. The community has embraced these new changes. There have been more conversa ons on the objec ves and ac ons in the community plans with recrea on staﬀ . With the help of the Recrea on Development Business Consultant, St. Charles space has been booked to help Riverdale increase programming.

The priority goal in Riverdale is aﬀ ordable, clean rental units. The Tenant Housing Collabora ve (THC) has been established to work on this goal. The THC is comprised of community residents and service providers who have come together to improve the quality of tenant housing in Riverdale.

Get Involved With Riverdale! Contact: Judy Kloosterman, Community Development Worker E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 905-516-6383

MeeƟ ng Dates: Last Saturday of the month: 10:30am -12:30pm

MeeƟ ng LocaƟ on: Dominic Agos no Riverdale Community Centre - 150 Violet Dr, Stoney Creek

To get more informa on on the Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy and the Riverdale Neighbourhood Ac on Plan, visit www.hamilton.ca/neighbourhoods 22 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) PageRiverdale 29 Neighbourhoodof 36

“We have a very good group of community residents, from all diﬀ erent backgrounds and we are very proud of our work together in developing the Plan. We have been able to bring the voice of the people forward” - Rukhsana Amer

Through a Hamilton Community Founda on grant given to the RCPT, and in partnership with the Hamilton Public Library, Riverdale will have a Summer Literacy Camp this year. Books will be given to the children at the end of the camp and healthy snacks are provided. The parents love it and over 80 children registered. A small projects grant also supported a free children’s soccer league run by resident volunteers.

The second goal in Riverdale is food security. Riverdale has the highest concentra on of poverty in the city. It also has the most residents, over 7500 people, living in an area less than one square mile. Riverdale resident conversa ons around poverty and food security issues grew into formal mee ngs involving residents of both the Riverdale and Davis Creek neighbourhoods, Community Development Worker Judy Kloosterman and Ward 5 Councillor Chad Collins. Two years later, the East Hamilton Food Bank Working Group is nearly 40 residents strong, and close to reaching their goal of opening a new food bank in the area between the Red Hill Valley Parkway and Grays Road. The new food back will be an achievement for both Riverdale and Davis Creek residents, as both neighbourhoods have come together to support this ini a ve.

In order to engage the broader community, the community developer met with 73 teachers at Glendale High School. The feedback was very posi ve. As a result of this mee ng, one of the teachers has become an ac ve member of the Riverdale Community Planning Team. The Riverdale Community Planning Team and the Davis Creek Community Planning Team are exploring to set up youth commi ees and have youth si ng on the planning teams as strong voice for youth issues in the community, because of this connec on with Glendale.

23 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) WARD 8 Page 30 of 36 ROLSTON Neighbourhood Update Laura Ryan, Community Development Worker

The 11th neighbourhood to begin the neighbourhood ac on planning process is Rolston. You can ﬁ nd Rolston in Ward 8, on the central/west mountain. Because this neighbourhood is the last to start the planning process, it will beneﬁ t from the knowledge and many lessons learned from the 10 neighbourhoods that have gone before.

We learned that children and youth see and understand the very same things that adults do, just in their own youthful way. It is incredibly powerful and inspiring when children and adults share the same hopes for change. So in Rolston, we started our work with children at Annuncia on of Our Lord Roman Catholic Elementary School and children from the a er school ac vi es program at the Montcalm Community House to ﬁ nd out what living in Rolston is like. Coordinated by the community development worker, the photovoice project was supported by our Public Health department’s nurse, Sharon MacKinnon and 4 nursing students from McMaster University.

The project is called photovoice and it works excep onally well with children. Although children can see and understand complex things, they o en struggle to explain in words what they see, feel or want to change. Instead of just asking them to tell us what is good and what they like about their neighbourhood, or what they want to see changed- we ask them to show us by taking pictures. We ask them the routes they walk and the places they go or play in their neighbourhood. We also ask them where they don’t or can’t go, and they love to tell us why they do what they do! Walking routes are then designed by adult facilitators and the children ‘lead’ a small group for a tour along that route. They bring cameras, maps and note paper to capture what they see. The pictures that they take start the conversa on about change.

The children, 4-14 years old, showed the adults historical buildings and old growth bush lots, graﬃ and bus stops. They knew where caregivers struggle to jump a tall curb with a buggy or a wheel chair, and the

Get Involved With Rolston! Contact: Laura Ryan, Community Development Worker E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 905-317-1791

MeeƟ ng Dates: TBD

MeeƟ ng LocaƟ on: TBD

To get more informa on on the Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy, visit www.hamilton.ca/neighbourhoods

24 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) PageRolston 31 Neighbourhoodof 36

Photovoice Output

short cuts that “everyone” uses but that have some safety issues that could be addressed. They know their neighbourhood; the good, the great, the disappoin ng, and the dangerous. They asked for tree houses and play grounds, but also stop signs, Mosques, less smoking and swearing, and more friendly people.

What they created is a fantas c cache of photos along with a list of assets and needs that will be handed directly to our adult planning team. They voted on 6 priority ideas for change that will be brought to our ﬁ nal planning report. There will be an art show that they will present in the neighbourhood and at their school to residents, friends, teachers, and caregivers; and you saw it at Supercrawl 2013 and will be able to see it at the Winter Artcrawl on James Street North!

25 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Screenshot of S nson Community Associa on Website Page 32 of 36

“Going ‘live’ had a big impact on me,” says Natasha Murphy. “The response wasn’t just enthusias c, it was overwhelming. It validated all the work. Seeing how many people were encouraged to sign up on the website was great. Our commi ee worked really well together, including Dawn McIllmoyle, Lee McIllmoyle, Mike Montreuil and Ralph Myers, and now we are refocusing on our next tasks.”

26 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Page 33 ofWARD 36 2 STINSON Neighbourhood Update Authored by: Rebecca Doll, Community Development Worker

The S nson Community Associa on approached the City of Hamilton in 2011, and requested to be a part of the newly minted Neighbourhood Development Strategy. Based on neighbourhood sta s cs and the enthusiasm of the SCA, S nson became the second neighbourhood to begin the neighbourhood ac on planning process in the fall of 2011. A er many long months of mee ngs, discussions, consulta ons, and revisions, Lucio Barcaroli, the chair of the planning commi ee presented the S nson Neighbourhood Ac on Plan to City Council in the fall of 2012.

One of the priori es in the S nson Neighbourhood Plan was resident engagement and rela onship building. Communica on is key to engagement and a good and reliable way of connec ng residents together was envisioned. When the S nson Community set about improving their communica ons infrastructure, they had some very asset-based values in mind; inclusivity, accessibility, shared responsibility. First out of the gate was the new website, set up on a user-friendly Wordpress pla orm. It is free, easy to teach, easy to use, and makes it possible to have a team of people upda ng the site. It also has world-class tools and appearance.

The site now manages the email list through its blogging component so that anyone who wants to can get regular updates from the associa on by adding their own email address. Minutes and agenda of the monthly mee ngs are posted and archived on the site, events are promoted, and a community calendar gathers all the ac vi es into one place. The site showcases the results of the Team’s branding ini a ve (one of the S nson Neighbourhood Ac on Plan items), and is a one-stop shop for everything S nson.

The re-development of Carter Park and the outdoor space of Central Memorial Recrea on Centre is another key priority for the S nson neighbourhood. Work began with a park make-over in the fall of 2012 and planning for major improvements and the crea on of a “civic square” are underway.

Get Involved With Stinson! Contact: Rebecca Doll, Community Development Worker E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 289-489-3942

MeeƟ ng Dates: 2nd Thursday of every month: 7pm – 9pm

MeeƟ ng LocaƟ on: Central Memorial Recrea on Centre - 93 West Ave S, Hamilton

To get more informa on on the Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy and the S nson Neighbourhood Ac on Plan, visit www.hamilton.ca/neighbourhoods 27 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) WARD 3 Page 34 of 36

Note: The South Sherman Neighbourhood have changed their name to The Sherman SOUTH Neighbourhood eﬀ ec ve August 2013. SHERMAN Neighbourhood Update David Derbyshire, Community Development Worker

Some say a picture is worth a thousand words and in the case of the South Sherman Community Planning Team (SSCPT) nothing could be closer to the truth. Over the past year a growing number of neighbours have stepped up to bring their talents to the table and mobilize those gi s to help implement the South Sherman Plan. Under the commi ed leadership of Steve Calverley, the group has embraced the Ac on Plan and has divided into teams to address the iden ﬁ ed priori es of the plan. Each team func ons separately using the Mission, Vision and Values of the SSCPT as their guide and are busy developing and implemen ng a strategy to address a neighbourhood issue. Mee ng in homes and cafes across the neighbourhood all Ac on Teams come together on a monthly basis at the South Sherman Community Planning Team mee ngs to review progress to date, recruit addi onal assets to the cause and see how their work ﬁ ts in the overall picture of the South Sherman neighbourhood.

The South Sherman “Spokes” is one such team. Lead by Pa y Clydesdale, they are developing a network of community connectors or Spokes who get to know the people on their street or their block and serve as a conduit of informa on between the SSCPT. Most importantly they build and foster rela onships within their part of the neighbourhood. They also build the bonds of friendship that will help make the South Sherman community strong and vibrant for years to come.

In a related ac vity we have the o en imitated but never duplicated “South Sherman Hub News,” another important vehicle in building rela onships and connec ons across the neighbourhood. Championed

Get Involved With South Sherman! Contact: David Derbyshire, Community Development Worker E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 905-975-0980

MeeƟ ng Dates: 1st Monday of the month: 7pm – 9 pm

MeeƟ ng LocaƟ on: St. Giles Church - 85 Holton Ave, Hamilton

To get more informa on on the Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy and the South Sherman Neighbourhood Ac on Plan, visit www.hamilton.ca/neighbourhoods 28 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) South Page Sherman 35 Neighbourhoodof 36

“Though I have lived in Hamilton for thirteen years, I have never felt as great about this City as I do now and a large part of that stems from being part of this special community. Looking back at late 2012 when I became a Resident in South Sherman, I would have certainly not imagined my life to change as it has. I a ended my ﬁ rst South Sherman Community Planning Team mee ng in early 2013 a er reading about it in the Hub News... and haven’t looked back since! (By the way, I thought that the local newspaper was the absolute best thing ever when I received it for this ﬁ rst me).” - Breanna Ehman Member, Sherman Hub Community Planning Team

by that community connector extraordinaire Rebecca Doll, the SSHN’s is currently entering its 3rd year of print and a er some ini al ﬁ nancial support from the SSCPT, the Hamilton Community Founda on and the City of Hamilton, it is rapidly approaching ﬁ nancial sustainability. This incredible bi-monthly publica on is produced and delivered by a dedicated team of volunteers symptoma c of the ‘can do’ spirit that is overcoming our neighbourhood.

These are but two of the outstanding examples of how the South Sherman community is pu ng their shoulders to the wheel and pushing the Neighbourhood Ac on Plan forward.

The task ahead will not be easy and we are realis c enough to recognize their will be some huge hurdles to overcome.

We are grateful to our many partners in this work we have chosen. The support of the City of Hamilton through the Neighbourhood Ac on Strategy, our Councillor Bernie Morelli and his assistant Nick Westoll, have been pivotal in the development and implementa on of our Plan. The Hamilton Community Founda on for 5 years of providing us with among many other things the support of a Community Development worker to help us recognize and build on our assets. To our service provider partners, who successfully applied for grants from the Hamilton Community Founda on to support the implementa on of our Ac on Plan; The Elizabeth Fry Society, The Downstairs Kitchen, the YMCA, HARRRP and to the too numerous to men on service provider partners who a end and share their assets at our monthly mee ngs as well as on our Ac on Teams.

Thank you to St. Giles and Dan Peace who have been our charitable partner and home base of the SSCPT. Dan’s commitment to this neighbourhood was the star ng point for our journey 5 years ago and con nues unabated to this day.

Finally, a most sincere thank you to all of the neighbours of our South Sherman community who have shared their talents, me, knowledge and spirit to help us work together to make South Sherman a be er place to live, work and raise our families.

29 Appendix D to Report CM11007(c) Page 36 of 36