1 Eviction Prevention Strategies

2 City Role in Delivering the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program

3 Toward a Neighbourhood-Based Termite Program

4 Squeegee Diversion Strategy for Street-Involved Homeless Youth

5 Ontario Works Demonstration Projects

6 Client Identification and Benefits System Update

7 Delegation of Signing Authority to the General Manager of Children's Services

8 Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the following motions be referred to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services for report thereon to the Community Services Committee:

Moved by Councillor Bossons:

'That the motion by Councillor Chong be amended to provide that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services include in her report an evaluation of the services rendered to tenants by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.'

Moved by Councillor Chong:

'That the Clause be amended by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to include in her service review, an evaluation of any potential duplication of services performed by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal and the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations." '

Moved by Councillor McConnell:

'That the Clause be amended by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to include in her report, anecdotal information on whether or not there is duplication of services and by what means Council can ensure that the decisions that come forward from the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal do not adversely affect tenants." ' ")

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated May 4, 1999, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, subject to amending Recommendation No. (1)(d) to read as follows:

"(1)(d) $97,510.00 to the Federation of Metro Toronto Tenants' Associations, such funds to be distributed on a quarterly basis, to continue to operate the Tenant Hotline in 1999, subject to a service review by City staff during 1999 within the context of an overall strategy to reduce evictions and a report back to the Community Services Committee this fall on the results of this review, and recommendations for 2000;".

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to:

(a) provide the Community Services Committee with:

(i) data on whether the growth in the rate of Writs of Possession is negative or positive under the Tenant Protection Act, compared to the six previous years under the Landlord and Tenant Act;

(ii) a report on the rates of growth in rental housing accommodation, including apartments in houses and rental accommodation in condominium buildings, for Toronto in the years 1992-1999 inclusive;

(iii) a report on the percentage of eviction applications and Writs of Possession which are for affordable housing units; and

(iv) a report on the eviction prevention measures for the Toronto Housing Company Inc. and the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority properties, including an assessment of their effectiveness; and further that the appropriate staff consult with existing tenant associations in the preparation of this report;

such reports and data to be included with the service review report to the Committee;

(b) contact City Councillors and their staff to see whether there is a need to organize a briefing session on tenant issues, which would outline current tenant law and focus on municipal issues impacting on tenants;

(c) review the feasibility of City-sponsored information sessions for tenants in buildings approved for funding under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program;

(d) develop a protocol with respect to the relocation of tenants from either private or public housing because of concerns for safety; and

(e) forward a memorandum to all housing staff advising that if any staff experience problems in their dealings with members of the Federation of Metro Toronto Tenants' Associations, or by anyone on the Federation's behalf, such actions are to be reported to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services submits the following (May 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

To report back on results of 1998 eviction prevention programs, and to make recommendations for 1999 programs.

Funding Sources and Financial Implications:

The 1999 Operating Budget, Shelter Housing and Support Division, which was approved by Council April 26, 1999, includes $55,000.00 for eviction prevention projects and $97,510.00 for purchase of tenant hotline services from the Federation of Metro Toronto Tenants' Associations.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be authorized to disburse funding in the approved Shelter, Housing and Support Operating Budget for eviction prevention as follows:

(a) $20,000.00 for development and distribution of an Eviction Prevention Kit, to a group selected by the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services through a request for proposals process, which will comprise a package of eviction prevention information tools and implementation of a communication and outreach program to community agencies about the kit and how it they can use it to help prevent evictions and maintain tenancies for their clients;

(b) $25,000.00 to the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation to operate a three-month pilot project to test the effectiveness of an early intervention program which would use application data from the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal to pro-actively provide information to tenants most in need of assistance;

(c) $10,000.00 to the Federation of Metro Toronto Tenants' Associations to update, print and distribute their 1998 "The Tenant's Survival Manual" which addresses a broad range of tenant issues, and to develop, print, translate and distribute two "checklists" as shorter companion pieces to the Manual; and

(d) $97,510.00 to the Federation of Metro Toronto Tenants' Associations to continue to operate the Tenant Hotline in 1999, subject to a service review by City staff during 1999 within the context of an overall strategy to reduce evictions and a report back to the Community Services Committee this fall on the results of this review, and recommendations for 2000;

(2) with respect to actions the Province can take to prevent evictions, it is recommended that Council write to:

(a) the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to request that Section 177(1) 5(2) of the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, be amended so that a tenant wishing to dispute an application to terminate a tenancy would have fourteen calendar days after the notice of hearing to file that dispute, rather than five days as at present;

(b) the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal to request that the Notice of Hearing form for a landlord's application to terminate a tenancy be redesigned in consultation with tenant organizations to make it clearer to tenants how they may dispute the application and the implications of not doing so, and to request that fees be waived for all landlord and tenant applications related to rent regulation; and

(c) the Ministry of the Attorney General to request that additional funding be provided to the community legal aid clinics through the Legal Aid Fund to:

- provide more representation to tenants at Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal hearings and mediations in response to the need for service;

- undertake additional community education and outreach about eviction prevention; and

- request that stable and permanent funding be provided for Tenant Duty Counsel for the three offices of the Tribunal in Toronto.

Executive Summary:

Evictions are costly to the individual and families who lose their home, to the landlords who lose revenues, and to the public because evictions add pressure to the already overburdened emergency hostel system.

The Tenant Protection Act (TPA), which became law June 1998, has made a number of significant changes to rules around the eviction process and rent setting. There is widespread concern among tenant organizations that the TPA is causing an increase in evictions by:

(1) complex process and shorter timelines to evict tenants make enforcement of rights difficult;

(2) vacancy decontrol of rents which may have created an incentive to enforcing eviction orders;

(3) loosening-up of rent setting rules may make units less affordable; and

(4) repeal of legislation which protected units from conversions and demolitions (Rental Housing Protection Act) which may further drive up rents as vacancy rates continue to remain low.

Early indicators suggest the concerns are grounded in fact. CMHC's October 1998 survey, less than three months after the new law came into effect, revealed that average market rents in Toronto had increased by 7 percent over 1997 levels. About 15 percent of the City's private rental housing stock is subject to applications for above guideline rent increases of up to 7 percent to 9 percent, and tenant organizations are reporting that when tenants move into a new unit, the rent is 20 percent to 30 percent higher than the rent paid by the previous tenant (vacancy decontrol). Eviction applications have been increasing steadily at a rate of about 9 percent annually since 1993. Less than 50 percent of tenants dispute eviction applications, resulting in default eviction orders. Only about 25 percent of tenants who have a hearing date can be assisted by Tenant Duty Counsel, primarily because of insufficient resources.

In the City's effort to shift away from emergency responses to homelessness to preventative approaches, eviction prevention is emerging as a key area for funding and program support. In 1998, Council approved an eviction prevention strategy which included a series of eviction prevention activities. Primary among these were $55,000.00 allocated through a competitive process for eviction prevention projects, $97,510.00 allocated through a purchase of service to operate a tenant hotline, and $50,000.00 allocated through a competitive process for a rent bank pilot project. In March, Council approved giving consideration to increasing the rent bank funding by $200,000.00, using the Provincial Homeless Initiatives Fund, subject to the results of a program evaluation. The program evaluation is underway, and results will be reported this summer or fall.

An interim report on the 1998 eviction prevention projects was provided to Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in September 1998. This report outlines the final results of those projects, and makes recommendations for 1999 projects:

- a pilot project whereby tenants who have had applications for eviction filed against them who are most in need of assistance would be pro-actively contacted and offered information and assistance;

- development and distribution of an Eviction Prevention Kit to community organizations which they can use as part of their programs working with their clients;

- funding the tenant hotline service for 1999; and

- developing, updating, translating and reprinting of informational materials.

This report also addresses three recommendations of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force which relate specifically to evictions.

This report relies upon the comprehensive work presented in a detailed background paper about eviction prevention by Linda Lapointe¹ prepared for the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force. (¹ Background Report to the Mayor's Action Task Force on Homelessness, Options for Eviction Prevention, Lapointe Consulting Inc., November 1998). Additional assistance was provided by the organizations who delivered the 1998 eviction prevention projects, and by representatives of Community Legal Services, Tenant Duty Council project, Housing Help Centres, Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Community Partners Unit and Enforcement Unit).

1.0 Introduction:

Evictions are costly to the individuals and families who lose their homes, to the landlords who incur lost revenue and costs, and to the public because they add pressure to the already overloaded emergency shelter system and undermine the stability of the lives of individuals and families. The Mayor's Action Task Force on Homelessness (Task Force) viewed preventing evictions as a key part of a strategy to prevent homelessness.

The City incurs costs when evictions occur. Background research for the Mayor's Action Task Force on Homelessness found that some 12 percent of shelter users identified eviction as the reason for moving to a hostel². (² Background Report to the Mayors' Action Task Force on Homelessness, "A Profile of the Toronto Homeless Population", Springer, Mars, Dennision, November 1998, p.14) More recent statistics from the City's shelter family intake unit show that almost 40 percent of households requesting shelter space do so for reasons related to eviction. With the cost of a shelter bed ranging from $43.61 per night to $1,200.00 per month, and growing need (12 percent increase projected for 1999), it is clear that eviction prevention programs are not only compassionate, they can save money.

Eviction activity tells us a lot about the health of the City's rental housing market because evictions can be related to just about every aspect of rental housing - rent levels, supply, vacancy, demand for shelter space, etc. In Toronto, the number of evictions has increased steadily since 1993. Between 1992 and 1997, when evictions were regulated under the Landlord and Tenant Act (LTA) through the court system, there was a dramatic 78 percent increase in the number of evictions enforced (writs of possession executed by Sheriff's office - from 1,770 in 1992 to 3,157 in 1997)³. (³ Lapointe, p.i.) In 1998, applications for eviction under the LTA (January to June) and under the TPA (June to December) totalled 26,712, an increase of 13 percent over 1996.

Since the vast majority of evictions are due to arrears (approximately 75 to 85 percent), evictions reflect income trends, such as labour market and social benefit program changes. The Task Force has made a number of recommendations about increasing the amount of money tenants have available to pay their rent. Further information about income strategies are provided in the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services report, entitled "The Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force Final Report: Policy Directions related to Community and Neighbourhood Services", submitted to the joint meeting of the Community and Neighbourhood Services and Urban Environment and Development Committees on May 3, 1999.

Evictions also reflect changes in the cost of rental housing, and preventing evictions can help to maintain the affordability of rental housing stock. The TPA permits the rent to be increased when a new tenant moves into a unit, even if the amount is higher that what the previous tenant paid (vacancy decontrol). Given the low vacancy rate (on average just 10 units for every 1,000 since 1994), and ongoing increases in demand (Task Force predicts additional 3,800 to 4,800 households per year from 1996 to 2001, with about one-half needing below market rents) there is significant pressure to increase rents. According to CMHC's market survey, October 1998 rents were already, on average, 7 percent higher than market rents from the previous year. The October 1999 survey may show an even higher percentage as the full impacts of the TPA begin to be revealed⁴. (⁴ Impacts primarily include vacancy de-control and OHRT ordered increases above the guideline for capital expenditures completed since June 25, 1996, and subject of an application by the landlord.) Task Force research found that for each year between 1991 and 1996, about 11,000 low-cost rental units in the private sector shifted into middle range rents because rents are rising faster than inflation.^{5 (5} Mayor's Action Task Force on Homelessness, "Taking Responsibility for Homelessness: An Action Plan for Toronto", 1999, p.138.) This "rent creep" will likely be even more pronounced in the future as the TPA has less restrictive rent setting rules than legislation in place during 1991 to 1996.

At the same time that rents are increasing, the City is losing rental housing. The TPA, which replaced the Rental Housing Protection Act (RHPA), reduces municipal authority over changes to rental units. Although municipalities still have some authority under the Planning Act to restrict demolition of units or conversion to condominium, the City no longer has the authority to regulate conversions to other uses or renovations, which has severely constrained the City's ability to restrict losses to rental housing stock. Indeed, since the TPA became law, the City is already aware of 1,483 rental units which, if the applications are approved, may be demolished through condominium redevelopment proposals where additional height and/or density is being sought (13 projects). This total excludes demolitions where no height and/or density is being sought.

At its meeting on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, Council approved a policy which will enable staff to seek replacement of rental units for properties that require Council's approval for increases in density and/or height. Council also requested authority from the Province for special legislation on demolition control which would extend the special legislation of the former City of Toronto to all of the new City.

The private sector cannot respond to demand as long at the cost of building and operating rental property is not economically feasible at mid- and low-rent levels (although the drop in mortgage financing costs and reduced municipal property taxes if building registered as condominium have improved the situation for high-rent units - over $1,300.00 per month; recently announced provincial sales tax waiver on construction materials for rental may also impact). According to CMHC, in 1998 private rental construction starts totalled just 159 units.

Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force:

The Report of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force outlined the importance of eviction prevention as a strategy to avoid homelessness. There are three recommendations which relate to specifically to evictions and eviction prevention:

No. 43 The Provincial legal aid plan and its successor should ensure adequate funding for community legal clinics for tenant assistance, and maintain its funding for tenant duty counsels.

This recommendation is about the importance of adequate funding for community legal clinics not only to provide representation and advice, but also so that they can undertake community outreach and support, on a permanent basis, tenant duty counsel operating out of Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal offices. One of the 1998 eviction prevention projects provided City funding to a legal clinic to undertake this work along with mediation. This report recommends supporting the Task Force recommendation that the Province provide adequate funding to legal clinics.

No. 44 The City should ensure sufficient funding for the FMTA Tenant Hot Line to ensure that callers can get through to receive information.

This recommendation is the subject of a motion passed by Council at its meeting March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, requesting the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to submit a report to the Municipal Grants Review Committee on the implications of Recommendation No. (44) of the Mayor's Homelessness Task Force. This report recommends that the City purchase tenant hotline services in 1999 at the same cost as in 1998 ($97,510.00), undertake a review of the hotline service, and report back on the results of that review and recommendations for 2000. A separate report will be made to Municipal Grants Review Committee regarding the need for additional funding to improve the level of service.

No. 101 In conjunction with legalization of second suites, a "fast-track" eviction procedure should be established at the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, applied to tenants renting suites in owner-occupied properties with only one rented unit.

This recommendation is the subject of a motion made at the February 17, 1999, meeting of the Strategic Polices and Priorities Committee based on Report No. 5, Clause No. 2, "Response to the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force Final Report":

"The Task Force's Recommendation No. 101 concerning evictions, as it pertains to high-rise and multi-residential buildings, be referred to the Council Strategy Committee for People without Homes with a request that the Committee work with staff and the public to review the City's eviction prevention strategy and the impact of the new provincial legislation concerning evictions."

The Task Force recommendation applies to tenants renting suites in owner-occupied properties with only one rented unit. The TPA has already significantly shortened the length of time it would take to process an eviction application, and this should be sufficient for landlords with single units. For example, the length of time to dispute an application to terminate a tenancy has been reduced from fourteen days to just five days. Therefore, this report does not endorse the concept of establishing a faster eviction process for tenants as recommended by the Task Force.

2.0 Legal Context:

The TPA was proclaimed June 17, 1998. It replaces and combines prior legislation which addressed the landlord and tenant relationship (the Landlord and Tenant Act) and legislation which established rent setting rules (the Rent Control Act). The TPA repealed the Rental Housing Protection Act, which gave municipalities power to make decisions about loss of rental housing. It consolidates provisions of the prior Residents Rights Act (care homes), land lease legislation (mobile home parks) and the Municipal Amendment Act (vital services).

Until the TPA became law, rules about evictions were set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act (LTA), and administration was carried out through the court system. Now applications formerly made under the LTA and rent control applications are decided by a quasi-judicial agency of the Province, and the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal (the Tribunal). The TPA includes many of the same rules as the LTA, and has added rules to clarify some elements of the LTA based on case law (such as what to do with tenant possessions, and pets in units). Among the most important changes are those which relate to procedures, timelines and administration. Another change is the loosening up of rent setting rules, meaning that rents can be higher than under prior legislation, possibly contributing to an increase in evictions due to rent arrears.

Under the TPA, the eviction process is very similar to the LTA process, however, a key difference is that timelines are significantly shorter. Tenants now have only five calendar days after being served notice of an application to terminate their tenancy to file a dispute, in comparison with fourteen days under the LTA. In addition, the dispute must be filed in writing whereas under LTA it could be verbal. If the tenant does not file the written dispute there is no hearing, and a default order evicting the tenant will be issued (in some circumstances, the default order can be "set aside").

Reasons for evictions under the TPA have not changed significantly from reasons under the LTA. The reason determines whether or not the tenant has the option of voiding the notice of termination by taking certain action called "remedy". For arrears of rents, tenants who pay rent monthly have fourteen days to pay the arrears, otherwise the landlord can file an application to terminate the tenancy. The remedy period is seven days for damage, interfering with reasonable enjoyment, and overcrowding. Tenant organizations report that tenants will often ask friends or family members to move out when the ground is overcrowding, even if the number of people in the unit is below municipal occupancy standards.

Even tenants who do not owe arrears can be evicted if they persistently pay their rent late, and there is no remedy period. Other grounds without remedies include personal use by landlord or family, illegal act, impaired safety and misrepresentation of income. Although remedy is not possible, tenants can dispute the termination application.

Appendix A outlines the various grounds for eviction applications and the timelines for serving notices, hearings, and remedies.

A positive change under the TPA is that the range of matters addressed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's Enforcement Unit now include former landlord and tenant matters, in addition to rent regulation issues. Tenants and landlords can file complaints, the unit can investigate, and if there is merit, the complaint can proceed through review, mediation and, ultimately, legal action by the Ministry. Between June 17, 1998 to February 19, 1999, 1,297 complaints were made in Ontario by tenants against their landlords, and 99 by landlords against their tenants. Of the 899 complaints filed for which we have information about disposition, more than 60 percent proceeded to some form of review or action.

2.1 Improving the Legal Framework:

Currently the tenant has just five calendar days in which to file a dispute if they want to have a hearing. This is generally not enough time to get legal assistance. Between June and February, 52 percent of applications for arrears were decided through default orders (tenant did not dispute) and 23 percent of applications for other reasons were decided through default orders (Tribunal workload data June-February). It is likely that many more tenants did not wait for an application for eviction to be filed, and responded to the notice of termination or eviction application by simply vacating the unit. Tenant organizations report that notices are not always understood and tenants may agree to very onerous terms during the mediation process which later result in eviction.

This report recommends that Council write to the Province to request that Section 177(1) 5(2) of the TPA be amended so that a tenant wishing to dispute an application to terminate a tenancy would have fourteen calendar days after the notice of hearing to file that dispute. This report also recommends that Council write to the Tribunal requesting that the Notice of Hearing form for a landlord's application to terminate a tenancy be redesigned to make it clearer to tenants how they may dispute the application and the implications of not doing so.

In addition to changes in timelines and forms, another change made under the TPA is that tenants and landlords must now pay a fee to enforce the Province's rent rules. Presently, if a tenant believes the landlord is breaking the law and charging an illegal rent, for example, the tenant must pay a $45.00 application fee (the adjudicator can order that the landlord or other party repay the fee). The result is that tenants may not be filing applications because of the cost. This report recommends that Council write to the Tribunal requesting that fees be waived for all landlord and tenant applications related to rent regulation.

Legal Information and Support:

Legal assistance helps to reduce evictions. It puts tenants and their landlords on a more equal footing, and can prevent situations whereby tenants are evicted because they did not know how to participate in the hearing or mediation process.

Legal information and assistance is available through 17 community legal services clinics and by Tenant Duty Council. Community legal clinics in Toronto provide legal assistance on a range of matters to people who meet income eligibility requirements. The greatest demand is for assistance to tenants around evictions and other tenant/landlord matters and assistance around income maintenance programs⁶. (⁶ Lapointe, p. 24, based on Oct. 1998 survey of 10 clinics.) Legal Clinics directly prevent evictions by providing legal advice and representation, but do not have sufficient staff resources to meet demand. Tenant Duty Counsel statistics for July to December 1998 show that for tenants who do get to a hearing for their eviction application, just 25 percent receive assistance from Tenant Duty Counsel, primarily because need outstrips resources.

The Ontario Legal Aid program provided funding for four Tenant Duty Counsels to work out of the three Toronto Tribunal Offices for a nine-month pilot project. The initial funding ended March 31, 1999, although funding has been extended on a monthly basis. Tenant Duty Counsel are lawyers located on site at Tribunal offices to provide on-the-spot advice and, when time permits, provide emergency representation of tenants at hearings. They are often a "last resort" source of assistance for tenants facing eviction. The functions of the tenant duty council complement the more in-depth services provided by legal clinics.

This report recommends that Council write to the Ministry of the Attorney General to request that additional funding be provided to the community legal aid clinics through the legal aid fund to:

- provide more representation to tenants at Tribunal hearings and mediations in response to the need for service;

- to undertake additional community education and outreach; and

- to request that stable and permanent funding be provided for Tenant Duty counsel for the three offices of the Tribunal in Toronto.

3.0 1998 City of Toronto Eviction Prevention Projects:

As part of the 1998 eviction prevention strategy, the City allocated $55,000.00 through a request for proposals process for eviction prevention projects and selected three organizations to receive support. The City also provided $50,000.00 for a rent bank pilot project through a request for proposals process, and purchased tenant hotline services to provide general information about landlord and tenant matters, including evictions. This section reviews the 1998 eviction prevention projects. Copies of the final reports for each of the three organizations are on file with the City Clerk's Division.

With respect to the rent bank pilot project, the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services will report back this summer/fall on the rent bank pilot project, including consideration of providing an additional $200,000.00 to this project from the Provincial Homelessness Initiative Fund as requested by Council in March 1999.

3.1 West Toronto Community Legal Services (WTCL) and Three Partner Agencies:

This eviction prevention program involved training community peer advocates to undertake outreach to tenants and landlords with the goal of resolving landlord/tenant relationship issues and reducing abrupt termination of tenancies which may lead to homelessness. The most important feature of this program was that it was directed at serving the specific needs of a community (e.g., language accessibility, peer support model). Major activities included:

- organizing/participating in seven information forums for tenants in three languages (Italian, Somali, Turkish) attended by nearly 200 people;

- focus group discussions for landlords to brainstorm eviction prevention from a landlord's perspective;

- mediation between landlords and tenants which, over a period of five months, assisted 36 individuals/households; and

- articles about eviction prevention in a newsletter with 10,000 circulation.

As a result of the landlord forums, a WTCL lawyer now sits on a working group with a social housing provider to develop strategies to assist tenants who have rent arrears and provide legal advice.

We have learned that tenants are not likely to attend general information forums unless they have a specific issue at the time, however, "piggy-backing" the information onto other forums or tenant activities to improve general awareness is very effective. It is useful to educate the various community agencies who work with tenants about eviction prevention (referrals, distribute information, etc.). We also learned that there is a great need for multi-language information.

Working directly with landlords to prevent evictions can be effective, especially around exploring and communicating alternative solutions, and we need to find ways to more effectively work with private sector landlords in particular. Staff will be reporting to Municipal Grants Review Committee to request that the annual $5,000.00 community grant provided to the Landlord Self-Help Clinic be continued as one way of ensuring landlords, especially those with few units, can learn more about their rights and obligations.

Mediation can be more effective if it occurs early in the process and if combined with a rent bank type of program⁷. (⁷ Lapointe, p. 26-27.) The WTCL project will continue to operate during 1999 with funding from the Provincial Homeless Initiatives Fund.

3.2 Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA):

The eviction prevention program run by CERA recognized that, in some cases, the best option is for the tenant to find alternate accommodation because their incomes were so low they would always be at risk of eviction. Therefore, part of the program was targeted at tenants who encountered discrimination in searching for more affordable and appropriate accommodation, as well as those who wanted to remain in their unit, through the following activities:

- production of a detailed plain language pamphlet concerned eviction and tenants' rights in English and five other languages;

- promotion of CERA's activities through advertising in print media and via Internet;

- mediation and representation services to 117 tenant households over a period of five months with 58 percent resulting in the tenant securing the desired accommodation or maintaining current accommodation, 15 percent securing other appropriate accommodation and about 12 percent pursuing a formal human rights complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission with the assistance of CERA staff; and

- provided summary advice and assistance to 500 tenants over a period of five months, with 55 percent related to human rights and housing matters, 41 percent related to eviction and the TPA, and 5 percent being referred to housing help centres.

Tenants sometimes will leave a unit even though the basis for the eviction is not valid or legal, and having left the unit, barriers to finding a new home are not just economic. Informing both landlords and tenants about rights and responsibilities can help avoid these "voluntary evictions". This report recommends development and implementation of an eviction prevention kit.

Sometimes helping tenants find another place to live is the best solution, especially where the disparity between income and rent is so large that eviction is likely in the future. Some tenants need help to attain new housing, and direct mediation/representation can make a difference.

3.3 Telephone Hotline Services by the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations (FMTA):

During 1998, FMTA was involved with two separate but related initiatives, (1) regular daily tenant hotline service, and (2) eviction hotline service.

The daily tenant hotline service operated from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays to provide information to tenants about rights and responsibilities. FMTA has operated this service since 1976. The service is funded through a purchase of service from the Shelter Housing and Support Divisional operating budget ($97,510.00 in 1998). In 1998, staff responded to almost 7,500 calls. About 25 percent of calls to the hotline are related to evictions (not including calls to the separately funded eviction hotline), and another 19 percent are related to maintenance (which can sometimes result in evictions either through demolition/renovation, or because tenants withhold rent and are terminated for arrears).

FMTA's eviction hotline service provided a dedicated telephone hotline during weekday evenings from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. to answer inquiries from tenants facing eviction. The eviction hotline hours were in addition to the regular tenant hotline hours. Over a four-month period, the hotline recorded a total of 650 calls. At the same time, the daytime hotline service received a significant number of calls, most of which were concerned with evictions. Of the total calls to the eviction hotline, about one-third were concerned mainly with eviction issues while one-quarter were related to building maintenance and repair issues, but inquiries often involved inter-related issues.

FMTA was also involved with the other projects: participating in all community forums/workshops given as part of WTCL's project and shared a workshop with CERA on the effects of the TPA to a conference of Housing Help Centres.

The results of the regular tenant hotline and eviction hotline speak to the need for more phones/staff to handle the calls, and the value of providing extended hours of service. The Task Force has also recognized the value of the hotline service as a means to prevent evictions, and recommended that the City provide additional funding to ensure callers could get through to receive information (Recommendation No. 44). This report recommends continuing the purchase of service for the regular tenant hotline service for 1999. The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services will be reporting to Budget Committee on the implications of Task Force Recommendation No. 44.

4.0 1999 Proposals for Eviction Prevention Projects:

Eviction prevention is complex, and a multi-faceted, co-ordinated approach is the most effective way of responding. Staff of the Shelter, Housing and Support Division have begun work to review the role of the City in providing supports to tenants, and to understand how the City can work with the already considerable supports which exist in the community. For example, examining how the City's homelessness initiatives program, the City-administered Provincial Homelessness Initiatives grant, and City Community Grants which relate to eviction prevention, can be better integrated along with other eviction prevention initiatives. The 1999 Proposals recommended by this report are intended to contribute towards the development of a much more comprehensive program of tenant services, while addressing the immediate need to prevent evictions. An outline of each proposal is provided in Appendix B.

The proposal outlined in this report are focused on City funding for eviction prevention which is currently available. In March, the Province announced an additional $3.7 million for City administered Provincial Homeless Initiative Funding. Although details about how the funding can be used are not yet available, we anticipate that some portion may be used to fund additional eviction prevention activities. When details become available, the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services will report back to the Community Services Committee with recommendations for how the fund may be used.

Information to Landlords and Tenants:

A basic component of the strategy is information and education for both landlords and tenants about eviction matters, and rights and responsibilities in general. The TPA is new, the process is complex, and tenant organizations report that evictions occur in some cases simply because of lack of knowledge. Given the very short timelines in the process, it is critical that information and assistance be available immediately.

There is already a well established network of organizations in Toronto which provide information to both tenants and landlords (see section 4.2 Lapointe for further information), however, funding cuts have impacted on their ability to do community education and outreach.

Eviction Prevention Kit:

A key element proposed for the 1999 is development and distribution of an Eviction Prevention Kit. It is recommended that $20,000.00 be provided through a request for proposals process to develop a package of eviction prevention information tools and to implement a communication/outreach program to community agencies about the kit and how they can use it to help prevent evictions and maintain tenancies. The Kit and implementation strategy would be developed and administered with the co-operation of Community Legal Clinics and Tenant Duty Council, FMTA, Housing Help Centres and other landlord and tenant organizations. The kit would provide information in a number of languages and formats, and would include information about referrals including key contacts. The implementation strategy would include ensuring community agencies in contact with tenants can use the kit as part of their current or new outreach activities, refer tenants, and provide basic information about eviction prevention.

Tenant Hotline:

This report recommends that the City continue to provide funding in 1999 to FMTA for the regular Tenant Hotline Service through a purchase of service, at the same level of funding as for 1998 ($97,510.00). The service has been helpful in providing information to tenants about evictions and the TPA in general. This report also recommends that during 1999, staff undertake a review of the tenant hotline service, within the context of an overall strategy to reduce evictions. The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services will report back this fall with the results of this review, and recommendations for 2000.

The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services has been requested to submit a report to the Municipal Grants Review Committee on the implications of Task Force Recommendation No. 44, ensuring sufficient funding to ensure callers to the tenant hotline can get through. A separate report will be made to the Municipal Grants Review Committee, reflecting the approach outlined in this report.

Early Intervention Program:

As part of their 1998 project CERA undertook research to determine whether or not Tribunal data could be used to support an early intervention project, and found that the project is feasible.

The early intervention project is a proactive project targeted at helping tenants in areas where there may be a higher than average need for assistance (due to income, for example). Using data provided by the Tribunal about applications for termination of tenancy, CERA would contact the tenants subject to eviction applications to offer assistance and information. The advantage of the proactive approach over other general information approaches is that tenants are not always aware of what information is available and what services are available to help them. In some cases they do not understand the notices/forms which have been served on them and what they are supposed to do next because of language or other barriers. With only five days to dispute the eviction application, this proactive approach can help get information and assistance to tenants before they lose their option to respond to the eviction application, should they wish to do so.

The project would also be used to gather additional information about causes of eviction applications, to inform future eviction prevention initiatives.

This report recommends providing $25,000.00 to CERA to operate a three-month pilot project to test the effectiveness of this approach. The pilot would operate during one of the traditional peak eviction application periods, September to November 1999, with results and recommendations to be reported to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee early in 2000.

Landlord Assistance:

According to both tenant and landlord organizations, often problems arise and could be avoided if both parties, landlord and tenant, better understood and respected the rights and responsibilities of the other. The Eviction Prevention Kit will provide information for tenants. Working with landlord organizations is equally important.

One source of information for landlords is the Landlord Self-Help Clinic, an organization funded under the legal aid plan. Landlord Self-Help provides general information to all landlords using a variety of programs (workshops, fact sheets, web site, manual), and provides legal services to landlords who meet income eligibility criteria. A large number of their clients are landlords with three or fewer units. In 1998, Landlord Self-Help Clinic is undertaking a project partnering with the Police Service in 13 Division to educate landlords and would-be landlords.

Municipal Grants of $5,000.00 annually have been provided to the Landlord Self-Help Clinic to supplement their operating budget. Staff will be reporting to Municipal Grants Review Committee to request an allocation of $5,000.00 Community Grant to the Landlord Self- Help Clinic in 1999 to continue the work they do to ensure that landlords are aware of their rights and obligations, and understand the "business" of being a landlord (same level as 1998 grant). This grant would be reviewed by staff in 1999, and recommendations for funding in 2000 will be made this fall about funding for landlord services within the context of an eviction prevention strategy.

Other Education/Information:

The need remains for more general information about the TPA, in addition to information about evictions, especially as it relates to rent-setting, preservation of stock, and enforcement.

In 1998, FMTA released The Tenant's Survival Manual to address a broad range of tenant issues. It is a large booklet (over 40 pages), and is especially useful for tenant associations, and other organizations responding to inquiries. This report recommends allocating $5,000.00 to FMTA for updating, printing and distributing the manual. This report recommends providing a contribution of $5,000.00 towards development, translation and printing of at least two "checklists". The checklists are short, plain language materials which act as companion pieces to the Manual. Key topic areas are rules for door locks and understanding leases.

Other Interventions:

The City administers CMHC's Residential Rehabilitation Improvement Program which provides financial assistance to landlords to improve the condition of buildings, while maintaining affordable rent. With the recent increase in funding for this program, it has been expanded to include more rental properties and also rooming houses. In some situations, the work required may be so extensive as to require vacant occupancy of the unit(s) to ensure the tenant's safety. City staff will be working with CMHC to develop a protocol around RRAP funding where vacant occupancy is a necessity. The purpose of the protocol is to ensure that for buildings where RRAP funding is provided, the tenants receive proper legal notice and compensation, and that they are able to return to their unit at the same rent level when the work is complete.

Conclusion:

To be effective, an eviction prevention strategy must be multi-faceted and comprehensive. The 1998 Eviction Prevention Strategy demonstrated a variety of approaches, ranging from provision of general information to direct mediation, and in some cases financial assistance.

The 1999 proposed strategy builds upon what we have learned from the 1998 strategy, and the findings of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force. One project proposed is preparing an Eviction Prevention Kit, and training organizations which normally come into contact with tenants about how it can be used to supplement their existing activities. Another, the Early Intervention Project, will test a pro-active approach to educating and helping tenants subject to an eviction application who may be most in need of assistance. The need for general information about landlord and tenant rights and obligations continues to be important, and it is proposed that support continue to be provided for FMTA's tenant hotline and written materials, and the Landlord Self Help Clinic. This support is to be reviewed by City staff during 1999, within the context of an overall strategy to reduce evictions.

The Province announced a number of homelessness initiatives in March 1999, one of which is providing an additional $3.7 million to Toronto which can be used to provide front-line services to people at risk of homelessness, including eviction prevention. The Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services will be reporting back to Committee with recommendations for how this funding may be used to support homelessness initiatives, including allocating funds to programs which prevent evictions.

Appendices:

A: Summary of Key Reasons for Termination of Tenancy, Tenant Protection Act

B: Summary of proposed 1999 Eviction Prevention Projects

On File with Clerk:

1998 City of Toronto Eviction Prevention Projects:

(1) West Toronto Community Legal Services and Partners

(2) Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation

(3) Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations

Contact Person:

Joanne Campbell

Phone: 392-7885/Fax: 392-0548

(A copy of each of the appendices referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee for its meeting on May 19, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter communications from the following:

- (April 30, 1999) from Mr. Robert De Bartolo;

- (May 17, 1999) from Ms. Carolyn Da Silva; and

- (February 1999) from the Family Service Association, Seniors and Caregivers Support Services, respecting its Tenant Eviction Survey Final Report.

The following persons appeared before the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Ms. Margaret Gittens, Interclinic MTHA Work Group;

- Ms. Elinor Mahony, Tenant Advocacy Group; and submitted a brief in regard thereto;

- Ms. Jenny Gonsalves, 22 McCaul Street Tenants Association; and submitted a brief in regard thereto;

- Mr. Howard Tessler, Executive Director, Federation of Metro Toronto Tenants' Associations;

- Mr. Luis Mayorga, East Toronto Community Legal Services; and submitted a brief in regard thereto;

- Mr. John Fraser, Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation;

- Mr. Cliff Martin, The Public Housing Fightback Campaign;

- Mr. Bob Olsen; and submitted handwritten comments in regard thereto;

- Mr. Kenneth Hale, South Etobicoke Community Legal Services;

- Mr. Robert B. Levitt, representative of the Parkdale Tenants' Association; and submitted a brief in regard thereto; and

- Mr. Vance Latchford.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 5, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends directions for the City role in delivering the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) based on a recent program review.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No variance from the approved 1999 budget will result from these recommendations.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council approve a City role in delivery of the federal Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) in all areas of the City, as part of a housing supply strategy within the mandate of the Shelter, Housing and Support Division;

(2) staff write to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation communicating this position;

(3) subject to acceptance by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) of such a City role, the City enter into a new agreement with CMHC in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor, for delivery of RRAP across all former municipalities;

(4) CMHC be urged to commit to a clear multi-year RRAP funding level for the new City of Toronto with expanded and flexible timelines and deadlines for project commitment; and

(5) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Chief Administrative Officer this year approved the organization structure for the Shelter, Housing and Support Division. This includes staffing for the housing repair program function (also referred to as housing rehabilitation or improvement). The approval called for a review of delivery of these programs. A review was needed for several reasons: service harmonization, the context of an emerging City housing supply strategy, the new mandate of the Shelter Housing and Support Division, and the housing policy environment including recommendations of the Homelessness Action Task Force and the possibility of new federal initiatives. This report is based on that review.

The principal housing repair program is the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) funded by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and in existence since the 1970's. RRAP originated as an alternative to large-scale "urban renewal", and as a strategy for affordable housing and ensuring the quality of low-income neighbourhoods. It provides forgivable loans for necessary repairs to housing, while maintaining affordability for low- and moderate-income homeowners and tenants. The role in RRAP delivery varies among the former municipalities.

RRAP funding covers essential repairs to main structural elements, roofs, walls, and windows, plumbing and wiring, and improvements to meet Ontario Building Code and Fire Code requirements, plus disability needs. Eligible RRAP costs are up to $18,000.00 per homeowner or self-contained rental unit, and up to $12,000.00 per rooming house unit. Recipients must be below certain income limits or, in the case of rental housing, must maintain it as a rental property with rents below median market levels in Toronto. Each loan is gradually "forgiven" over a period of years as long as the owner or tenants continue to meet these criteria.

RRAP funding levels across the City in recent years have been $0.5 to $1.0 million annually for homeowners and disabled in the new City, and a similar amount for rental and rooming houses. This year saw a special 1998/99 allocation of $6.5 million for rental and rooming house RRAP.

The Homelessness Task Force identified preserving existing housing as the biggest factor in overall supply of affordable housing. Maintaining existing housing is usually far cheaper than replacing it. Housing repair assistance can help maintain neighbourhood quality and supply of affordable housing.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Existing City Role in RRAP:

RRAP is delivered in different ways in different former municipalities, under delivery agreements with CMHC. RRAP is provided in several streams: low- and moderate-income homeowners, home modifications for disabled people, and repairs to rental housing and rooming houses.

"Delivering" RRAP involves receiving proposals and inquiries, determining eligibility and priority, reviewing applicants' financial situation vis-a-vis loan criteria, determining scope of work and costs for each property, reviewing contractors' quotations, recommending proposals to CMHC for approval, inspecting the work, authorizing advances of CMHC funds, and communicating with applicants as necessary. (Less than a full range of functions is provided in some cases.)

RRAP has generally been more needed in older neighbourhoods. Homeowner and disabled RRAP is directly delivered by the City in the former municipalities of Toronto, Scarborough, and York. In Scarborough and York, it is delivered by the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division staff (about two-three FTE combined). In North York, Etobicoke and East York, CMHC has contracted with a private delivery agent rather than with the municipality. In the former City of Toronto, the new Shelter, Housing and Support Division has responsibility for delivering the RRAP program. There are four FTE program officers and one FTE support staff, reporting to a manager to deliver RRAP together with termite control (see accompanying report) and other minor programs.

CMHC retains the final decision on allocation of funds. Loan funds flow directly from CMHC to property owners, not through the City budget. The City receives an administrative fee (see below).

The rental and rooming house portion of RRAP has generally been delivered directly by CMHC through proposal calls; although once selected, the projects were administered by the City or other delivery agents. A significant departure from this was the 1998/99 special allocation, which was delivered City-wide by the Shelter, Housing and Support Division (report to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, March 1999).

RRAP is virtually the only housing program (apart from housing on reserves) to which new federal funds are now being committed. RRAP is popular across the country, and the Federal Government has committed to funding RRAP through fiscal 2002/03. The future of rental and rooming house RRAP has been uncertain at several point in the 1990's, but the government has now used it as the way to respond quickly to concerns about homelessness, through the 1998/99 special allocation.

The City has experience in delivering other rental repair programs over the years, notably the former provincial Low Rise Rehabilitation Program, the special rooming house funding made available under that Program in 1991-93, and Contract After Care (CAP) loans for upgrading of boarding homes funded through Habitat Services to house psychiatrically disabled residents.

Potential Future Need for Repair Assistance:

While most landlords and homeowners maintain their properties well, exceptions occur. Some older homeowners and others have fixed incomes and cannot afford major repairs required on their homes; some develop mobility problems that require adaptations to their home to permit them to stay there. Some older apartment buildings (see accompanying report on high-rise condition survey) present a choice between ongoing deterioration that will in due course reach unacceptable levels, and repairs that will lead to rent increases making the housing unaffordable to low-income tenants.

RRAP is one tool in preserving neighbourhood quality and also housing affordability. Large-scale disrepair can spill over to affect neighbourhood quality, values of nearby property, and ultimately the tax base. Toronto in the 1990s has far more low-income tenants than at any time in its history, and one of the market responses likely to be seen, over time and in certain neighbourhoods, is landlords supplying - and tenants renting - lower-quality housing as a way of achieving lower rents. Such neighbourhoods are under pressures they did not experience in the 1970s and 1980s, and repair assistance is likely to be a valuable tool.

If the City moves toward recognizing second suites (such as basement apartments) as a necessary part of an affordable housing strategy, there will be issues of standards and upgrading. While most middle-income homeowners with second suites can upgrade their own homes, lower-income owners cannot always afford that. The City received numerous proposals for creating or upgrading basement apartments in response to the special 1998/99 RRAP proposal call. Repair assistance is a potential tool in ensuring standards in such housing.

The steady aging of the overall profile of Toronto homeowners is likely to mean rising need for adaptations such as ramps and door widenings to permit people with disabilities and limited income to stay in their homes.

The 1998/99 special rental and rooming house allocation demonstrated the potential demand, and the ability to target RRAP to housing for people who are homeless and at risk. Proposals totalling $30 million were received in a very short application period for $6.5 million of funds available. The funding is supporting the rehabilitation of 629 rooms in rooming and boarding houses, City-funded long-term shelters and transitional housing, and rehabilitation of 273 self-contained apartment units including an abandoned apartment property.

Directions for Municipal Delivery of RRAP:

The following principles are suggested to apply to the future of the City role in RRAP delivery:

(1) harmonization City-wide, with one delivery approach and equitable access;

(2) cost-recovery of delivery costs to the extent possible;

(3) a scale of activity suited to the scale of needs; and

(4) integration with related City activities.

Housing repair assistance should be seen as a useful part of the housing supply strategy, initiated by the City in response to the growing shortage of low-cost housing and to the report of the Homelessness Action Task Force. The strategy emphasizes concrete City involvement on a manageable scale, with the aim of levering contributions from other governments and the private and community-based sectors. RRAP is the one program area (apart from occasional research) where the City currently has an ongoing relation with CMHC.

CMHC officials, in the City's housing repair program review, stated a general preference for a municipal role in RRAP delivery. The reasons were that in policy terms, municipalities tend to share CMHC's broad program goals, and can bring to bear knowledge of the issues and housing situation; administratively, municipalities have pertinent property information, and can respond readily to funding changes. From the City point of view, it will be important to co-ordinate RRAP priority-setting with other policy on neighbourhoods and affordable housing.

To withdraw from program delivery might be seen as an odd signal to the Federal Government at a time when the City is seeking an enhanced housing partnership. RRAP, as noted here, has shown itself useful as a partial response to housing for homeless people and those at risk.

The preferred direction is consolidation of RRAP delivery activity in the Shelter, Housing and Support Division. This is where the majority of RRAP activity in the new City now resides, and RRAP is more a matter of incentives and support than of enforcement. Revamping of the Termite Control Program as recommended in the accompanying report will enable the current staff complement in the division to carry the delivery function across all areas of the City.

The Municipal Licensing and Standards Division is in agreement with the transfer out of the RRAP delivery function in Scarborough and York. The Director of Municipal Standards participated in the review of housing improvement programs leading to this recommendation. The accompanying report on Termite Programs suggests a countervailing transfer into the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division of those elements of the termite inspection function retained by the City.

In North York, Etobicoke and East York, harmonization within the Shelter, Housing and Support Division will mean assuming the function now carried out by CMHC's private agent.

Under the delivery agreement, CMHC pays the City an administrative fee for each project ($833.00 for a homeowner loan, varying for rental). Total fees across the new City have varied each year, with a projected annual average of approximately $125,000.00 over fiscal 1997/98 through 1999/2000. Assuming City-wide municipal delivery, such fees will cover approximately two FTE program officers, or most of the City's direct program delivery costs for RRAP (this excludes FTE costs of other housing improvement programs, mainly Termite Control). Costs of management and support staff will remain a municipal cost, reflecting the City's interest in RRAP as part of a supply strategy.

Implementation and Transition Issues:

CMHC's multi-year agreements with the City for program delivery now require renewal. Assumption of RRAP delivery by the City in all former municipalities will involve negotiating a new agreement with CMHC which would replace CMHC's various agreements with former municipalities and the private agent. Transitional implementation issues can be worked out among the two City departments, CMHC, and the private contractor.

It will be important to have some measure of certainty about the scale and timing of CMHC funding. While the Federal Government has committed to $50 million nation-wide annually through 2002/03, the Toronto allocation is typically announced after the start of each federal fiscal year yet must be committed by the fall. This tight time frame has made it difficult to do the more complex projects. It is to be hoped that the flexibility demonstrated by CMHC in its special 1998/99 rental and rooming house allocation will set a pattern for the future. A multi-year commitment would enable the City to plan its staffing and to fund more complex projects that require more lead time.

Conclusion:

A review of the City role in the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) has been undertaken for reasons of service harmonization, and in the context of an emerging City housing supply strategy, new divisional mandate, and changing housing policy environment. RRAP is delivered differently in different areas, with City delivery in the former cities of Toronto, Scarborough and York, and direct delivery by a private agent on behalf of CMHC in the other areas.

Housing repair assistance can help maintain the quality of neighbourhoods and the supply of affordable housing. Preserving existing housing is usually far cheaper than replacing it, and was identified by the Homelessness Task Force as the biggest factor in overall affordable housing supply.

Housing repair assistance is a useful part of a City housing supply strategy. City involvement in RRAP is supported by CMHC officials, and would send the right signal at a time the City is seeking an enhanced housing partnership with senior governments. The special 1998/99 RRAP allocation has shown the program's value as a partial response to housing for homeless people and those at risk.

The preferred direction is consolidation of RRAP delivery activity in the Shelter, Housing and Support Division, with an agreed minor transfer of functions from the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division. CMHC fees will cover most of the City's direct costs for RRAP delivery. A new City-wide agreement with CMHC will be required. An effective City strategy will also benefit from more certainty about the scale and timing of annual CMHC funding.

Contact Name:

Joanne Campbell

Tel: 392-7885/Fax: 392-0548

E-mail: jcampbell@toronto.ca

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, subject to amending Recommendation No. (5) to read as follows:

"(5) staff work with the University of Toronto to develop a plan for commercialization of the Trap-Treat-Release method of termite control and to determine how to extend and expedite the program City-wide; and report on implications for existing agreements between the City and University of Toronto and future year funding implications;":

Purpose:

(1) To address the growing problem of termite infestation in the City of Toronto.

(2) To revise the termite control program to make better use of City resources.

(3) To validate use of the Trap-Treat-Release method developed by the University of Toronto on a neighbourhood basis.

Financial Implications:

The changes in this report can be accommodated within existing approved funding for termite control.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council endorse the new direction for the Termite Program as proposed in this report;

(2) staff work with the University of Toronto, local residents and the ward councillors, to undertake a neighbourhood-based termite eradication program in the Mogul/Mentor neighbourhood using the Trap-Treat-Release method;

(3) staff report on the progress of this pilot program and final results, and the potential for expanding the program City-wide, including alternative funding sources;

(4) the existing program of grants to property owners for chemical termite treatments be phased out in 1999, subject to outstanding commitments, and funds remaining in 1999 be disbursed to the University of Toronto to offset costs of the pilot program; and further that any funds held in reserve by former municipalities for termite control grants be applied to the pilot program;

(5) staff work with the University of Toronto to develop a plan for commercialization of the Trap-Treat-Release method of termite control, and report on implications for existing agreements between the City and University of Toronto, and future year funding implications, if any;

(6) Council write to the Federal Minister of Health to request that the research permit issued to the University of Toronto for testing of Trap-Treat-Release be renewed for three years in order to facilitate the pilot program;

(7) Municipal Licensing and Standards staff report on the potential to require Pest Control Operators to report all chemical termite treatments of individual properties, in order to assist the City in monitoring the spread of termites; and

(8) staff be authorized to enter into the appropriate agreements with the University of Toronto, in consultation with the City Solicitor, and to take any other action necessary to give effect to these recommendations.

Background:

Following amalgamation, the termite control by-laws and programs of former municipalities have been continued on a status quo basis. Over the last several months, an external consultant has reviewed the City's role in termite control and recommended changes to deal with the termite problem more effectively and make better use of City resources.

This report addresses pro-active action that the City can take to help reduce termite damage in the short term and perhaps eliminate the problem over the long term. At this time, a process is underway to harmonize the termite control by-laws of the former municipalities. When the new by-law is brought forward, Municipal Licensing and Standards staff will report on ways in which the new by-law and related enforcement measures can also address the termite issue.

Comments:

Termite Control Programs of the Former Municipalities:

All of the former municipalities had taken some steps in the past to protect property from termite infestation and reduce the spread of termites. These included termite control by-laws and in some cases grants to property owners to encourage them to chemically treat their properties if there was evidence of termite infestation. It is estimated that 18 percent of former City blocks have had properties treated for termites, and termite activity is known to exist in other parts of the new City. Staff have been working on a harmonized Termite Control by-law. The plan is to eliminate as many differences as possible among the existing by-laws and bring forward a unified by-law for the City of Toronto.

The former municipalities generally offered termite control grants to property owners through a provincially funded program that was active from 1978 to 1990. When this program was cancelled, municipalities continued to enforce their by-laws but only a few continued to offer grants, until such time as the provincial funds ran out or using municipal funds on a limited basis.

At the time of amalgamation, the former City of Toronto had a municipally funded termite control program. As noted below, the City of York also provided some funds annually to support termite research at the University of Toronto. The mandate of the former City's program was to actively promote termite control as part of a broader housing rehabilitation function within the Housing Department. As termites have been concentrated in older and more affordable neighbourhoods, termite control was considered a significant housing conservation issue for low and moderate-income homeowners. The enforcement of termite by-laws was, and continues to be, the responsibility of Municipal Standards staff.

Components of the Current Termite Control Program:

The following are components of former termite programs that have been carried forward:

(1) Monitoring and Promotion - documenting the spread of subterranean termites across the City, and informing property owners, the general public, and the real estate industry of the need to control this threat to the building stock. The "Termite Monitor" report that mapped the distribution of termites was published semi-annually until 1993 when the Province stopped requiring pest control operators to report treatment activity. The results of this monitoring is used in routine replies to solicitors who inquire on behalf of their future purchasers regarding the status of termites or treatments at a particular address.

(2) Termite Inspection/Advisory Service - housing program staff have developed an expertise in termite inspections and provide "third-party" advice to property owners on the presence of termites and proper control methods. Housing program staff and property standards officers have worked collaboratively to encourage and, where necessary, require owners to control active termite infestations. Housing program staff are pro-active in providing advice to property owners; Municipal Standards staff are responsible for enforcing termite by-laws to require treatment when voluntary co-operation is not forthcoming.

(3) Termite Control Grants - traditional termite control methods involve the chemical treatment of soil and elimination of wood-soil contact around a property. The current technology for termite control focuses on the use of a termiticide in conjunction with wood-soil separation to protect individual properties from underground termite colonies. Housing program staff can recommend grants of up to $500.00, as an incentive primarily for reluctant property owners to undertake the treatment and wood-soil separation, which can cost $2,000.00 or more. To date, given limited program funding ($24,000.00 per year) these grants are available only in the former City of Toronto.

(4) Trap-Treat-Release Trials - From 1987, the former municipalities supported research at the University of Toronto into termite biology as well as more pro-active, environmentally friendly methods of termite control. For several years, with funding support from former municipalities and others, the Urban Entomology Program of the University of Toronto has been pioneering a new method of termite control. Traditional control methods use significant amounts of chemical to protect properties but do not address the source of infestation. The new method, called "Trap-Treat-Release" utilizes only small amounts of chemical and relies on the social behaviour of termites to disperse the chemical throughout the termite colony, thereby suppressing or eliminating the colony. Under funding agreements with some of the former municipalities, the U. of T. has been testing this new method across areas of the new City. While the results to date are very encouraging, the method must still undergo regulatory review, approval and then product development before it can become commercially available. In 1998, the U. of T. received funding of $75,000.00 from the City, representing the commitments made in multi-year agreements with the former Cities of Toronto and Scarborough. In 1999 this funding supports continuing field tests at sites across the City.

The existing agreements entitle the City to share in future royalties from commercialization, which could be used to expand the program in Toronto at some point in the future. The University of Toronto has recently requested the City's assistance in developing a plan to expedite commercialization.

Recommended Changes to the Termite Control Program:

As part of the process of creating an organizational design for the City's Shelter, Housing and Support Division, a review was undertaken of the City's role in housing rehabilitation. As the pro-active elements of termite control are part of this function, the future of the termite control program was part of this overall review. This included an examination of the relationship between the Division's role and that of the Municipal Standards group of Urban Planning and Development Services vis a vis program delivery. This study has made a number of suggestions regarding future delivery of the termite control program.

With regard to termite control, the consultant has recommended significant change to the City's approach. Over the past 25 years, the City and other levels of government have been treating the impacts of termite infestation rather than the cause. Most aspects of termite bylaws and enforcement, and grants for chemical treatment of properties, have related to the protection of individual buildings from termite damage. Despite this approach, and millions of dollars invested, the termite problem in Toronto has grown, not diminished. The City's small grant program, which disburses 40-50 grants to homeowners each year of $500.00 each, has virtually no impact on the spread of termites in the City. To expand the existing grant program, by increasing the funding and extending it across the whole City, would require a major investment of new funding and would have no effect on the underground termite colonies that are the source of the problem.

As a result of the review, the consultant has specifically recommended the following:

(1) Phase out the existing homeowner grant program, given the limited impact of this program in assisting homeowners (only 40-50 assisted per year), and the fact that it does not make sense to expand a program that has no impact on the source of the problem.

(2) The Shelter, Housing and Support Division undertake a pilot program, to determine the effectiveness of Trap-Treat-Release in eliminating termites on a neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood basis in Toronto. Similar initiatives are being currently being launched in Guelph and Pickering, and comparisons can be made through the course of the three-year pilot program.

(3) City staff work with the University of Toronto on a business plan for commercialization of Trap-Treat-Release and report on the implications for existing royalty-sharing agreements between former municipalities and the University of Toronto.

(4) The termite inspection function be carried out by the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division, as a function related to enforcement of a harmonized termite control by-law. Staff will report on this issue at the time that the harmonized by-law is brought forward to Committee.

(5) The City undertake to map the extent of termite infestation and treatment across the new City using existing data and GIS technology, and explore the potential to gather information on ongoing termite treatments by pest control operators using the City's business licensing authority (this review should be undertaken in consultation with the local pest control industry).

(6) The City work with the University of Toronto to develop and undertake a public education strategy to inform people of issues related to termite control and treatment methods.

Based on consultations with the University of Toronto to date, we are proposing that the pilot program be undertaken in an area of Toronto where termite infestation was recently discovered in 1998. This area includes portions of the following streets: Mogul Drive, Mentor Boulevard, Picola Court and Rollingwood Drive. This area has been selected, for the following reasons: it is reasonably self-contained in terms of termite activity; there is significant homeowner interest and willingness to participate in a community-based approach; and no field tests of Trap-Treat-Release have been carried out yet in this area.

Contact Name:

Joanne Campbell

Tel: 392-7885/Fax: 392-0548

The following persons appeared before the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Dr. Tim Myles, Chair, Urban Entomology Program, University of Toronto; and

- Councillor David Shiner, Seneca Heights.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, amended this Clause by inserting the words "and Vice Chair", after the word "Chair" in Recommendation (a) of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, so that the recommendations of the Committee shall now read as follows:

"The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, subject to:

(a) adding the following new Recommendation No. (4):

'(4) discussions be initiated with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Toronto Police Services Board and the Chief of Police to look at innovative ideas to deal with the squeegee diversion strategy that would include, but not be limited to, the use of the auxiliary police wherever possible;' and

(b) renumbering the original Recommendation No. (4) accordingly:".)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, subject to:

(a) adding the following new Recommendation No. (4):

"(4) discussions be initiated with the Chair of the Toronto Police Services Board and the Chief of Police to look at innovative ideas to deal with the squeegee diversion strategy that would include, but not be limited to, the use of the auxiliary police wherever possible;" and

(b) renumbering the original Recommendation No. (4) accordingly:

Purpose:

To inform Council of the progress in implementing the integrated service model for homeless street-involved youth, and to recommend that Council approve the Department entering into contracts with Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) for federal funding and with the consortium of agencies implementing the service model. The report also summarizes what other cities across Canada have done to respond to the squeegee issue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

In November, Council pre-approved funding of $250,000.00 to begin implementing the service model proposed in the October 22, 1998, report to the joint Community and Neighbourhood Services and Emergency and Protective Services Committee meeting. Council also requested the Federal and Provincial Governments to provide $250,000.00 each toward the model. The Federal Government, through HRDC, has agreed to flow $395,000.00 for one year to develop and pilot the service model. This report seeks Council's approval to enter into the contract with HRDC for $395,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council continue to urge the Provincial Government to immediately introduce enforcement legislation which will effectively deter squeegeeing;

(2) Council approve the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department entering into contracts with HRDC for federal funding of $395,000.00 to be applied to the service model for homeless street-involved youth;

(3) Council approve the City entering into a contract with the consortium of community-based agencies led by Youthlink to implement the service delivery model for homeless street-involved youth, including the HRDC contribution, beginning June 1999 for a one-year period; and

(4) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At the City Council meeting held on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, Council considered Clause No. 2 of Report No. 7 of The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, headed "Diversion Strategies for Youth Involved in the Squeegee Trade," together with Clause No. 1 of Report No. 8 of The Emergency and Protective Services Committee, headed "Proposed By-laws to Regulate Panhandling and Squeegee Activities".

Council was advised that the municipality was limited in its ability to regulate panhandling or squeegeeing using municipal by-laws and ran the risk of the municipality facing court challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both the Federal and Provincial Governments announced publicly that they would be willing to act on this issue and provide the necessary enforcement tools to ban squeegeeing. It was suggested at that time that a possible enforcement solution was banning squeegeeing under the Highways Traffic Act.

On the basis of this information, Council requested a report be brought forward to a joint meeting of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee and the Emergency and Protective Services Committee outlining any Federal and Provincial Government responses to the request for legislation and describing any specific diversion strategies the municipality should consider to target street-involved homeless youth.

At the time of the Council meeting on November 25, 26, and 27, 1998, the Provincial Government had not introduced the anticipated changes to the Highways Traffic Act that would ban squeegeeing. In the absence of any changes to provincial legislation, the only enforcement tools available continue to be the police curtailing any inappropriate behaviours.

Recognizing that enforcement is only one part of the solution, Toronto Council pre-approved $250,000.00 in funding to develop and support an integrated service model for homeless street-involved youth not currently served by the existing system. Council directed the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to identify, through a request for proposals, a consortium of community-based agencies that had the capacity to develop a service model that builds on existing programs, fill service gaps, and combines stabilization, transitional pre-employment training, and specialized training initiatives in one program. Council also requested the Federal and Provincial Governments to provide $250,000.00 each to develop a service delivery model for youth that squeegee. Finally, the Chief Administrative Officer was requested to report back to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee outlining initiatives taken by other cities to deal with the squeegee issue.

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the progress the Department has made in: identifying a consortium of community-based agencies to implement the strategy; in securing funding from the senior levels of government; and to seek Council's approval to enter into an agreement with consortium. As well, an update of the initiatives other cities have taken to deter squeegeeing is provided in Appendix A.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Implementation of the Service Model:

In October, the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department provided an analysis of youth who tend to be involved in squeegeeing, what range of needs they have, and how the current service system responds to meet those needs. In summary, the report identified that the majority of people involved in squeegeeing are under the age of 24. They tend to be just one group of highly vulnerable street-involved, homeless youth who do not have permanent shelter, and often have complex personal issues. Many of these youth squeegee to meet their basic needs for food, clothing and shelter.

While there are a number of agencies providing services to street-involved homeless youth, the services are not co-ordinated and there is no single point of access to the range of supports required by the youth. Additionally, outside of the Metro Youth Job Corps program, there is no other program that incorporates both stabilization supports and employment experience.

The service model adopted by Council in November responds to the unique needs of this sub-group of homeless street-involved youth. It proposes a single point of access for homeless street-involved youth in both the east and west ends of the City; a new employment training program specifically targeted to address the unmet and complex needs of these youth and to divert youth from squeegeeing; and co-ordination of all the existing and new program elements into one overall program.

In January, the Department entered into negotiations with Human Resources Development Canada because HRDC expressed an interest in participating in this initiative. The Request for Proposal was developed based on the criteria approved by Council in November. HRDC was consulted in developing the RFP, and through that process indicated the areas they would consider funding and an estimated contribution level.

The Request for Proposals was distributed to community-based agencies in mid- March. A review panel of City and HRDC staff was established. Three proposals were received, however, only one proposal met the criteria established in the RFP. The successful proposal was submitted by a consortium of agencies led by Youthlink and including All-A-Board Youth Ventures, Evergreen Centre for Street Youth, Foodshare, Harbourfront Community Centre, KYTES, Parkdale Community Health Centre, Queen West Community Health Centre, Shout Clinic, and St. Christopher House.

City staff and HRDC have had two meetings with the successful consortium to finalize the program model and the budget. On the basis of these meetings, the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department has approved allocating up to $50,000.00 of the pre-approved City funding to the consortium to hire a Program Co-ordinator to refine the program model and begin co-ordinating the program elements. It is expected that the Program Co-ordinator will be in place by mid-May. Council is requested, by way of this report, to approve the City entering into contracts with HRDC to flow the $395,000.00 in federal funding, and to enter into a contract with the consortium. With Council approval for the HRDC funding and the consortium contract, the program can begin by the end of June.

Enforcement Strategies:

The Provincial Government has not yet passed the necessary legislative changes required by municipalities to effectively ban squeegeeing. It is widely anticipated that there will be a provincial election this spring, and although the Progressive Conservative Party has proposed provincial legislation to ban squeegeeing as part of its election platform, it is highly unlikely that the government will introduce this change prior to the election.

In view of this, the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services has initiated discussions with the Police to explore what can be done within existing legislation and by-laws to deter squeegeeing. Anecdotally, the experience from last year indicated that police presence at major intersections in the downtown area had the effect of reducing squeegeeing at those intersections. As well, the City should also restate its request that the Provincial Government immediately introduce amendments to the Highways Traffic Act to ban squeegeeing.

Conclusions:

In response to community concerns about squeegeeing and panhandling, in November 1998, City Council approved $250,000.00 for a service model for street-involved homeless youth and requested the Province to introduce legislation required to ban squeegeeing. Over the winter, the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department has approached other levels of government to provide funding to the service model, and undertaken a process to select a consortium of community-based agencies to pilot the service model. There has been no provincial action taken on enforcement.

With the arrival of spring, there has been an increase in squeegeeing at many major intersections in the City, which is causing frustration among some citizens. To enable the full implementation of the service model to divert street-involved homeless youth from squeegeeing, it is recommended that Council approve the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department entering into contracts with Human Resources Development Canada for funding, and with the consortium of community-based agencies led by Youthlink to pilot the service model.

It is further recommended that Council reiterate its request that the Provincial Government immediately introduce the appropriate legislation to ban squeegeeing. In the absence of any provincial action, the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services will be meeting with the officials from the Police Service to explore what can be done within existing legislation and by-laws to deter squeegeeing.

Contact Name:

Nancy Matthews

Tel: 392-8614

City of Vancouver:

The City has not introduced any by-laws to deal with the squeegee issue. However, under the Provincial Motor Vehicle Act there is a provision whereby no one is allowed to leave a position of safety like a crosswalk or sidewalk. If anyone steps on the road by leaving a position of safety, they are issued a ticket of $75.00. This is the enforcement mechanism used by the City of Vancouver Police Service to curtail squeegeeing. The Police Service reports that this mechanism is an effective deterrent to squeegeeing.

There is no specific funding provided by the City for diversion strategies aimed specifically at youth who squeegee in the City of Vancouver. City Council adopted Panhandling By-law No. 7885 on April 30, 1998. The by-law was adopted along with the City Manager's recommendations:

"That Council continue to work in collaboration with other government agencies, such as Crown Council, to address both the behaviour (specifically aggressive panhandling), as well as the root causes behind the behaviour, such as the need for food, shelter, and other basic personal needs, as well as the problems of drug and alcohol addictions.

That Council continue working with the Business Improvement Associations, as well as other interested community members, on initiatives to address panhandling, such as Outreach programs and Public Education Campaigns.

That Council continue to support the work of the Mayor's Coalition in Crime Prevention and Drug Treatment, encouraging collaborative partnerships to develop and support programming to address panhandling and its root causes."

City of Winnipeg:

Similar to the City of Toronto, Winnipeg has adopted an approach that combines enforcement with diversion. On May 1, 1998, the City of Winnipeg amended By-law No. 1481/77 by adding the following section:

"2.18 Soliciting in a Roadway:

No person shall enter a roadway or occupy a roadway for the purpose of offering the occupant or occupants of vehicles any goods or service, nor shall a person provide any goods or service in a roadway to the occupant or occupants of vehicles in the roadway, provided however, that this Section shall not be construed to render it unlawful for a person to enter a roadway to render assistance where such assistance is deemed necessary due to accident or breakdown."

Winnipeg City Council also adopted the following motion:

"Request the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg to lead an inter-agency working group to examine the so-called "squeegee issue" and make recommendations leading to a reasonable civic strategy which addresses regulation/prohibition, public safety, employment and shared public space."

The Social Planning Council of Winnipeg convened a Squeegee Task Force that submitted a report to Winnipeg City Council in July 1998. In August 1998, Winnipeg's Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) provided a review of the Social Planning Council Task Force Report, recommending that the By-law prohibiting soliciting business in a roadway be retained and that the Administration report back on the effectiveness of the by-law and its impacts in August 1999.

The CAO also recommended that the City encourage the community to apply, through the Winnipeg Development Agreement Strategic Initiatives Program 14 and with other supporters, for funds to assist in the development of a comprehensive business plan and feasibility study for a "multi-purpose" opportunity centre (the Powerhouse project). This program model brings together, under one roof, a number of services already dealing with at risk youth including unemployment support, training and education, alcohol and drug abuse counselling and shelter. In addition, the Powerhouse Project has an emphasis on economic sustainability, and provides a mix of alternative employment, youth-oriented retailers, small business incubation and lease/rental space. The expectation is that this revenue would cover a significant part of the operational budget.

The CAO also recommended that the City of Winnipeg encourage and assist the community to apply, through the Winnipeg Development Agreement Strategic Initiatives Program 5C, for funds to establish employment opportunities for youth.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee also submits the following communication (May 14, 1999) from Councillor Kyle Rae, Toronto Downtown:

I am writing to express may support for the recommendations contained in agenda Item No. 4 of the May 19, 1999, meeting of your Committee.

Specifically, I am in support of the recommendation that City Council continue to urge the Provincial Government to immediately introduce enforcement legislation that will effectively deter squeegee activities.

More importantly, I believe it is essential that Council support a diversion program. Contracts with HRDC and community-based agencies would see federal money, amongst others, applied to the service model for homeless street-involved youth.

The City has been grappling with the issue of squeegee kids and their actions for many years with limited to no success. I am hopeful that these recommendations, if acted upon by the City and Province, will change our rate of success.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter the following communications:

- (April 10, 1999) from Ms. S.R. Strub, S. Strub Office Professionals;

- (April 27, 1999) from Ms. Lucy Chik;

- (May 5, 1999) from Mr. Edmond Rose; and

- (March 9, 1999) from Mr. Kevin Yuen.

(Councillor Prue, at the meeting of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on May 19, 1999, declared his interest in that portion of the foregoing report pertaining to Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), in that his wife is an employee of HRDC and is involved in determining grants that may be awarded to various groups, including the City of Toronto.)

(Councillor Prue, at the meeting of City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, declared his interest in that portion of the foregoing Clause pertaining to Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), in that his wife is an employee of HRDC and is involved in determining grants that may be awarded to various groups, including the City of Toronto.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, amended this Clause by:

(1) deleting Recommendation No. (3) embodied in the report dated May 5, 1999, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, and inserting in lieu thereof the following new Recommendation No. (3):

"(3) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to submit a report to the Community Services Committee outlining actions that can be implemented to accelerate the evaluation of the current blended model demonstration projects;"; and

(2) adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1) Council urge the Province of Ontario to commit to funding an expansion of the new blended model projects based on the shared 80/20 provincial/municipal funding model for the Ontario Works Program to ensure that the City of Toronto does not risk assuming 100 percent of the costs of these projects;

(2) subject to concurrence from the Province of Ontario on proceeding with a second phase of the Ontario Works Demonstration Projects, the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to communicate with the Learning Enrichment Foundation and the other 38 agencies which currently have contracts in the Ontario Works Program regarding the 'Request for Proposal Process' necessary for the second phase of this program; and

(3) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to urge the Province of Ontario to provide additional funding to increase the supply of child care subsidy spaces required to meet the client needs of the Ontario Works Demonstration Projects.")

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated May 5, 1999, from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, subject to amending Recommendation No. (1) by adding thereto the following words:

"that the membership of the Sub-Committee be appointed by the new Community Services Committee at its meeting on June 17, 1999; and further that Councillors Rob Davis and George Mammoliti be invited to participate as members of such Sub-Committee;".

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to provide Members of the Committee with the addresses of the agencies listed in her report dated May 5, 1999, the geographic areas of the City of Toronto they serve, and the names of the Executive Directors and Board Members for each agency.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee submits the following report (May 5, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

This report updates City Council on the Ontario Works (O.W.) Demonstration Projects approved by City Council in July 1998, and discusses the establishment of a process for evaluating these Projects. A new proposal recently submitted to the Social Services Division by the Learning Enrichment Foundation is also briefly reviewed. Finally, the report discusses the creation of a sub-committee of Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee to support the Division's consideration of new blended models, pending the outcome of the evaluation process.

Financial Implications:

No changes are required to existing budget allocations.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) a Sub-Committee of Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee be established to support the Division's consideration of new blended models, pending the outcome of the evaluation of the current Demonstration Projects;

(2) consideration of the new Learning Enrichment Foundation proposal be deferred until the evaluation of the current blended model Demonstration Projects is completed, and the impacts assessed;

(3) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services update the Community Services Committee on the progress of the evaluation in the fall of 1999; and

(4) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

O.W.'s three program components provide opportunities for clients to be engaged in a variety of activities which lead to jobs, or which increase their employability. The Employment Supports (E.S.) stream includes activities such as basic education and training, job specific skill training and a range of other supports including child care and employment related expenses. Under Community Participation (C.P.), clients can update their work experience and work-related skills, build basic networks, enhance self-confidence and benefit the community through unpaid placements sponsored by community agencies and/or non-profit organizations. It includes approved self-initiated placements proposed by a participant. The Employment Placement (E.P.) stream supports job-ready participants in placement into unsubsidized, competitive employment and assists participants interested in self employment develop business enterprises.

As the Department has noted in previous reports to Council, the initial funding model under O.W. inhibited the movement of funds between these program streams. This, in turn, limited the City's ability to allocate funds to support activities, such as training, that were required to assist clients move into jobs. It also limited the City's ability to develop and fund projects that would blend O.W. program streams and integrate service delivery to better meet client's needs.

In mid-1998, the Ministry of Community and Social Services (M.C.S.S.) indicated it would allow greater flexibility under the O.W. program guidelines and funding formulae. This flexibility would permit local delivery agents to explore integrated service delivery proposals from community agencies.

In response to these changes, Toronto Social Services (T.S.S.) committed to work with contracted community agencies to undertake a limited number of demonstration projects blending training, experiential learning opportunities, supported job search assistance and placement into jobs. At that time, a number of community-based organizations, including the Learning Enrichment Foundation (L.E.F.) and Goodwill Industries, had expressed an interest to staff from M.C.S.S. and the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department in developing demonstration projects under O.W. that would test blended models of service delivery.

Subsequently, in its June 30, 1998, report to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, the Department recommended that T.S.S. develop and fund projects which provided a blended approach to service delivery under the E.S. and E.P. program streams of O.W. City Council approved initiation of these projects at its July 29, 1998, meeting. Council further indicated that the continuation of the projects in 1999 was contingent upon satisfactory evaluation, and the availability of Provincial funding.

Following Council approval, the Department engaged in active discussions and negotiations with L.E.F. and Goodwill Industries regarding project proposal development and implementation. Contracts were subsequently signed with both agencies.

The introduction of the demonstration projects is one Divisional response to meeting the continuum of needs of a changing social assistance caseload. The Division has also undertaken other strategies to respond to caseload changes and the enhanced flexibility allowed by the Province under O.W. program guidelines. Chief among these are the changes that have been introduced to the E.P. stream, discussed in Appendix 1.

This report describes the basic features of the blended models being delivered by L.E.F. and Goodwill Industries, and provides an update on the progress of the projects. The evaluation of the projects is then discussed. Recently, L.E.F. has submitted a new proposal which, given its scale and scope, has implications for the E.P. component and the Division's overall service delivery model. This proposal and its implications are briefly reviewed in the context of the existing demonstration projects and their evaluation.

Discussion:

(I) Demonstration Projects: Description and Update:

Through the two Demonstration Projects, the Division will assess the degree to which the integration of different interventions under the three O.W. streams will:

- improve clients' prospects of obtaining and sustaining employment;

- reduce the time clients stay on assistance; and

- provide adequate funds to agencies to deliver programs while ensuring the Division realizes cost savings as clients move into jobs.

The projects share certain common elements. The terms of both Goodwill's and L.E.F.'s agreements with the City include:

(1) negotiated and agreed upon performance standards;

(2) funding structures that provide financial rewards for meeting performance standards but limit funding if there is non-achievement of these standards;

(3) standard maximum time frames for client involvement in the Projects; and

(4) standard and clearly specified reporting requirements.

In addition to these common elements, there are a number of key differences in the range of services clients can receive and the way the Projects are funded.

(a) Range of Services:

In the Goodwill Project, client referrals are made to defined skill training courses based on the T.S.S. caseworkers assessment of client need. This is followed by job search and placement support. In the L.E.F. Project, based on a further assessment of client need, a determination is made about the range of services to be provided, which can include training and C.P. placements, again followed by job search and placement support.

(b) Funding:

Goodwill is funded in two ways: first, the agency is paid for individual training courses taken by clients (costs vary depending on length and content of courses); second, a flat fee is paid for each client that obtains and sustains employment. All fees are paid in arrears.

Funding for the L.E.F. Project is based upon a set fee per client which does not vary with the type or number of services provided. In addition, fees are paid for each client who obtains and sustains employment. A significant portion of the fees are paid in advance.

The following section provides more detailed information about key aspects of each of the service delivery approaches, and briefly updates the project status.

(A) Goodwill Industries Demonstration Project:

Project Description:

The Goodwill Demonstration Project blends the provision of training with job search assistance and supports. This Project was developed and implemented to assess the benefits, from a client and cost perspective, of linking training courses to job search supports and placement assistance within one agency.

Client referrals are made to approved skill training courses based on the service plan negotiated between the T.S.S. caseworker and the client. Goodwill is responsible for screening clients and determining if they will be accepted for participation in specific courses. If accepted, the expectation is that the client will continue to work with Goodwill for up to four months to find a job following completion of the course.

The Goodwill Project will serve a maximum of 115 clients. The maximum length of time for client involvement is ten months: this includes a six-month limit for skill development or training courses and four months for supported job search and placement assistance. The actual amount of time the client spends with the agency depends on the specific training undertaken.

The negotiated agreement with Goodwill includes a performance standard that 70 percent of participants in the Project will obtain jobs no later than four months after clients enter the job search phase. These participants must generate sufficient employment earnings to exit social assistance for a minimum of six months.

Funding:

Funding for the Goodwill Project is based on negotiated costs for training plus pre-determined fees for each client who obtains and sustains employment. Payment for the training portion of the Project is to be made following each client's successful completion thereof. To date, Goodwill is eligible for payment of approximately $124,000.00. In addition to the costs for training, a set fee is payable once a client obtains a job and further set fees are payable at three months and six months following the client's start of employment. All fees are payable in arrears.

If Goodwill achieves the performance standard agreed to, whereby 70 percent of clients obtain jobs within the specified time frame, then it will receive approximately $248,000.00, or $2,125.00 per client, over the length of the Project. There is also a provision whereby, if the negotiated performance standard is not met, Goodwill is responsible for reimbursing to the City three and six month fees for each unsuccessful participant.

Current Status:

As of the end of April 1999, the following is the reported status of clients in the Goodwill Demonstration Project:

(a) 40 participants have obtained employment;

(b) 23 participants have completed formal program involvement with the agency or have left the program for other reasons, and were not employed at the time of exit;

(c) 18 participants are still receiving training or have not moved into the job search phase of the Project; and

(d) 34 participants are in the job search phase of their involvement in the Project.

(B) The Learning Enrichment Foundation (L.E.F.) Demonstration Project:

Project Description:

The Learning Enrichment Foundation Project is a broad based model of service delivery. L.E.F. will build upon the initial assessment completed by T.S.S. caseworkers and, in conjunction with the client, assess the range of services that are required. Clients can potentially receive career exploration assistance, participate in a C.P. placement at L.E.F., undertake formal job specific skill training or computer-based training. In addition, all clients receive a two-week self-marketing workshop followed by a maximum of four-month of supported job search and placement assistance.

This Project was developed and implemented to assess the benefits, from a client and cost perspective, of linking the independent assessment of client need with the provision of a range of service options to clients within one organization.

The Project will serve up to 500 clients. The maximum length of time for client involvement is ten months: this includes up to six months for activities other than job search (i.e., career exploration, Community Participation, skill training and self-marketing workshop), and four months for supported job search and placement assistance. The actual time a client is involved in the Project depends on the specific services accessed.

The negotiated agreement with L.E.F. includes the performance standard that a minimum of 400 participants will obtain jobs no later than ten months after the client's formal registration in the Project. These 400 participants must obtain jobs that generate sufficient earnings to exit social assistance for a minimum of six months.

Funding:

Funding for the Project is based upon a set fee per client. The fee does not vary with the type or number of services provided. Under the terms of the agreement with the City, 65 percent of the overall fee is to be paid to the agency monthly during the client registration period. In 1998, L.E.F. received $951,600.00 for the 500 clients that it registered in the Project. The payment of the remaining fees will be based on clients' success in obtaining and sustaining jobs.

If L.E.F. achieves the performance standard agreed to, whereby 400 clients obtain jobs within the specified time frame, it will receive approximately $1,361,500.00 or approximately $2,725.00 per client. If the agreed upon performance standard is not met, L.E.F. will be responsible for reimbursing fees pre-paid by the City for each unsuccessful participant.

Current Status:

As of the end of April 1999, the following is the reported status of the 500 clients registered in the L.E.F. Demonstration Project:

(a) 122 participants have obtained employment;

(b) 120 participants have completed formal program involvement with the agency or have left the program for other reasons, and were not employed at the time of exit;

(c) 6 participants have completed formal program involvement with the agency or have left the program for other reasons, and have subsequently obtained jobs;

(d) 26 participants are still receiving training or are in the self-marketing phase of the Project; and

(e) 226 participants are in the job search phase of their involvement in the Project.

(II) Demonstration Project Evaluation:

The two Projects described above represent different approaches to delivering and funding services. Given the number of clients still actively engaged in programming at both Projects, it is too early to make determinations and comparisons on the success of these approaches. The Division is committed to evaluating the Project outcomes, and to assessing the benefits of these blended models, as directed by City Council.

The majority of clients will have completed their involvement by the fall of 1999. Initial evaluation findings will therefore be available in the later Fall. However, as explained below, the evaluation cannot be completed, and final results obtained, before the Spring of 2000.

To oversee the evaluation process, the Division is currently establishing a Steering Committee comprised of representatives of the Project agencies, M.C.S.S. and the City. One of the first tasks of the Steering Committee will be to initiate a Request For Proposal process to seek an independent evaluator. This individual will work with the Steering Committee to both develop the evaluation framework and implement the evaluation of the Projects.

As part of its deputation at the April 22, 1999, meeting of the C.N.S. Committee, L.E.F. requested that certain items be included in the evaluation. The Division concurs with a number of these items, and agrees with L.E.F. that collecting all relevant data related to the Projects, comparing cost-effectiveness between blended models and other interventions, and assessing job placement and retention rates, should be a core function of the evaluation.

By the fall of 1999, formal programming to all participants will be complete, and the first indicators of client success will be known (i.e., those clients who obtained jobs through participation in the Project). However, as noted by L.E.F., integral to the achievement of performance standards at both Projects is client job retention. Final job retention results will not be fully known until six months following the end of the formal programming period. Therefore, final determination of the success of the Projects cannot be completed until the spring of 2000.

Success in relation to negotiated performance standards is one key aspect of the evaluation. However, the stated intent for implementing the Demonstration Projects and completing an evaluation was also to determine if these service delivery approaches respond to O.W. clients' changing needs, reduce client length of stay on assistance and represent a cost-effective means of delivering services from an agency and City perspective. This aspect of the evaluation will also be important given the continuing changes to caseload composition and Divisional responses to these changes.

The results of the evaluation will inform and shape the future design of the Division's programs, as well as a provide a basis for determining how other blended approaches may be beneficial to delivering services to a changing client population.

(III) L.E.F.'s New Blended Model Proposal:

In March 1999, L.E.F. submitted a new three year proposal for the delivery of a blended model of service delivery under O.W. which integrates the Community Participation (C.P.) and Employment Placement (E.P.) streams. All clients would complete a C.P. placement at L.E.F., which, depending on client need, may include training. Following their C.P. placement, clients would receive job search/self-marketing instruction, followed by supported job search and placement assistance. For clients, maximum length of time in this new project would be ten months. L.E.F. is requesting a guarantee of at least 1,500 clients per year with whom they can work. The Department submitted a brief report, entitled "The Learning Enrichment Foundation Proposal Submission" to the April 22, 1999, Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee meeting.

Payment would incorporate fees associated with client participation in C.P., payment for job search instruction and then payment of fees that split the social assistance savings of clients who obtain and sustain employment. Under the proposed payment model, the Division will pay L.E.F. $1,955.00 million annually for three years. L.E.F. also indicates that it will experience a cash flow shortfall of $875,000.00 in the first year of operations.

There are a number of issues that the Province and the Division have noted in reviewing L.E.F.'s new proposal. These include the following:

(a) L.E.F. is requesting a multi-year funding commitment. This is not consistent with the current provincial funding formula. Provincial officials have confirmed that, under O.W., the Division cannot make funding commitments beyond one year to any service provider.

(b) L.E.F. is requesting a guarantee of 1,500 clients per year to be serviced under the new proposal. It is not possible for the Division to guarantee an exact number of clients to any of the agencies it works with under O.W. (fluctuations in caseload alone make this not feasible). The Division does not guarantee referrals under any O.W. contract arrangements.

(c) All available child care fee subsidies in both the O.W. funded stream and the regular funded stream are currently being utilized. As a result, waiting lists of O.W. clients requiring child care support are being developed. Without additional funding from the Province, there will continue to be an insufficient supply of child care subsidy spaces to meet client needs.

Until such time as the results of the evaluation of the first two Projects are available, it would be premature to proceed with new, large scale, blended approaches to service delivery. Given that O.W. funding is shared on an 80/20 Provincial/Municipal basis, any significant expansion of demonstration projects by the Division must be undertaken with Provincial concurrence. Without Provincial commitment, the City would be at risk of assuming responsibility for 100 percent of the costs of such projects.

For these reasons, it is recommended that consideration of the new proposal submitted to the Division by L.E.F. be deferred until the completion of the evaluation of the existing Demonstration Projects.

(IV) Future Blended Model Proposals:

The Division is committed to exploring and developing new service delivery approaches, and to expanding or refining its service delivery network to respond to changing caseload demographics and client needs. As stated above, the results of the evaluation of the current Demonstration Project will be pivotal in assessing whether blended models are effective, and how other blended approaches may be beneficial to delivering services to a changing client population.

At the same time, the Division is conscious that there is a wide range of agencies, located in different parts of the City and serving different client groups, that would potentially be interested in submitting proposals to explore innovative ways of delivering services to social assistance clients. At its April 22, 1999, meeting, the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee discussed the need to ensure that agencies across the City had the opportunity to put forward their proposals for consideration in any future process. The Division agrees that the potential development of new demonstration projects should be done in a way which invites participation from a range of appropriate agencies.

Ultimately, the Division's plans to pursue new blended models, and the time frames for doing so, will be governed by the results of the evaluation, and emerging program needs. If the Division pursues new demonstration projects, it is committed to establishing a process for inviting proposals from appropriate agencies from across the City. It is recommended that a sub-committee of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, comprised of three Councillors, be established to support this process. Staff will keep the Sub-Committee informed as to the progress of the Projects and the evaluation, and report on the outcomes of the evaluation. It is also important to ensure that M.C.S.S. staff have input into this process.

Conclusion:

In 1998, T.S.S. funded Demonstration Projects with Goodwill Industries and the Learning Enrichment Foundation, which provided a blended approach to service delivery under the E.S. and E.P. program streams of O.W. This report updates Council on the progress of these Projects. At this stage, given that both Projects are still proceeding, it is too early to provide an assessment of their effectiveness.

However, the Division is proceeding to undertake an evaluation of the Projects to determine the degree to which they are successful in meeting the performance standards agreed to with the respective agencies. The evaluation will also provide the Division with critical information about the overall viability of a blended approach to delivering services to O.W. clients.

L.E.F. recently submitted a new three-year proposal to the Division for the delivery of a blended model of service delivery under O.W. which integrates the Community Participation (C.P.) and Employment Placement (E.P.) streams. However, until such time as the results of the evaluation of the first two Projects are available, it is premature to proceed with any new, large scale, blended approaches to service delivery.

Ultimately, if the Division pursues new demonstration projects, it is committed to establishing a process for inviting proposals from a range of appropriate agencies across the City, consistent with its efforts to ensure that services are accessible to different groups of clients in different locations. As a means of supporting this process, it is recommended a sub-committee of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee be established.

Contact Name:

Heather MacVicar

General Manager, Social Services Division

Tel: 392-8952

Appendix 1

Improving Delivery of Employment Placement Services:

In 1998, Social Services staff and the community organizations contracted to deliver the E.P. component of O.W. identified a number of issues and concerns:

(a) In general, E.P. referrals represented a harder to serve client population than anticipated. Many clients who were being referred to E.P. did not have the requisite job search skills to readily access the labour market without first receiving instruction on basic job search techniques.

(b) the funding model under E.P. did not enable agencies to provide E.P. clients with the job search instruction they required in order to get a job and limited the success of clients and the agency's ability to obtain funding.

(c) the geographic location of agencies did not promote ease of access to this O.W. component living in different parts of the City. A potential need to broaden the E.P. service delivery network was anticipated in response to the increasing number of clients with child care and other obligations, and stated client preference for accessing services locally.

In response to these concerns, an enhanced model of E.P. service delivery was introduced in 1999. While this model is still geared towards the job-ready social assistance recipient, it enables agencies to provide and receive financial compensation for the provision of basic job search instruction at the beginning of client registration in E.P. As part of this change, the purchase of structured job search services was removed from the Skill Development Option and incorporated as part of the E.P. program delivery. As a result, an additional six agencies were added as E.P. delivery agents, improving the Division's capacity to serve clients and accessibility to services across the City.

These changes reflect the Division's ongoing commitment to improving delivery of programs and services under O.W. They also serve as an important point of reference for the evaluation of the effectiveness of the blended models of service delivery being explored through the Demonstration projects.

The following persons appeared before the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Paul Born, Canadian CED Network; and submitted a copy of a publication, entitled "Promoting Excellence in Community Economic Development";

- Ms. Eunice Grayson, Executive Director, and Mr. Donald C. MacDonald, Chair, The Learning Enrichment Foundation;

- Mr. Peter Boswick, Interim Personnel;

- Mr. Fergie Brown, Member of the Board of Directors of The Learning Enrichment Foundation;

- Mr. Joe Valvasori;

- Mr. Peter Frampton, and submitted a brief from Lasso Communications Inc.; and

- Mr. Sean Boyle, Brenloy Realty.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i) (May 17, 1999) from Ms. Doreen Itenson, Community Programs Manager, Toronto Region, Ministry of Community and Social Services, advising that the Toronto Region is not in a position to commit funding over a three-year period with respect to the Ontario Works Demonstration Projects; and

(ii) (June 4, 1999) from Ms. Eunice Grayson, Executive Director, The Learning Enrichment Foundation, requesting that Council accept, in principle, their proposed model for the Ontario Works Demonstration Projects and that staff be directed to negotiate with the Province, The Learning Enrichment Foundation and a Council Reference Group to achieve a compromise that meets provincial guidelines.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the confidential report (May 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, entitled "Client Identification and Benefits System Update", which was forwarded to all Members of Council under confidential cover.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee submits the following report (April 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

To outline the Client Identification and Benefits System (CIBS) vendor selection process leading up to, and the terms of reference of, the project initiated by the former Metropolitan Corporation, to review the 1997 agreement with Citibank Canada (hereafter Citibank) for development and operation of CIBS, and to provide an update on the current status of the project.

Financial Implications:

Financial implications are indeterminate at this time.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

(I) Overview:

The Social Services Division pursued a comprehensive strategy to improve client service and to increase the integrity of the social assistance delivery system throughout the 1990s. CIBS represented one of several initiatives aimed at modernizing this system. Other initiatives primarily addressed "front-end" social assistance processes - from initial capture of application information to verification of eligibility and calculation of entitlement.

CIBS was intended to integrate and automate other key activities required for effective delivery of social services in Toronto. These included: client identification through the use of an encrypted biometric client identifier¹, more efficient automated disbursement of both cash and non-cash benefits using an Automated Teller Machine (ATM)/bank card, and improved automated financial monitoring and tracking. (¹ A "biometric" identifier uniquely distinguishes an individual from all others. Examples of biometric technologies include finger scanning, hand geometry, and digitized facial photographs.)

It was anticipated that these components would function together to enhance the delivery system at three levels. At the enrolment stage, the biometric identifier was expected to offer increased system security by ensuring that a person could not enrol under multiple identities and thereby receive duplicate benefits. Automating the delivery of cash and non-cash benefits would streamline benefits disbursement and substantially reduce manually intensive business processes. In addition, client benefit cards would provide clients with easy access to their benefits: funds would be available through bank machines and Point of Sale locations. Finally, CIBS was intended to provide the Division with an integrated financial monitoring and tracking system with the capacity to generate on a regular and timely basis an integrated picture of benefits usage and related payments.

What was truly innovative about CIBS was that it had the potential to combine leading-edge technologies in an integrated way. There was substantial evidence that the development of such a system would generate certain significant advantages for both clients and for the effective and efficient delivery of services by the Division. Among the key anticipated benefits were enhanced client service, increased productivity, potentially substantial program savings, improved client access to services, and increased system integrity. These benefits were well beyond those that could be obtained by implementing the individual technologies involved independently. At the same time, CIBS was seen to offer a high degree of system flexibility and versatility. A detailed discussion of CIBS, including a description of potential benefits and an elaboration of the sound financial case for proceeding, is contained in a number of reports to Metropolitan Council (see Metro Human Services Committee, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 8, 1996 and Metro Human Services Committee, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 8, 1997).

Staff undertook a comprehensive examination of overall savings related to the implementation of CIBS. Program savings resulting from increased levels of system integrity provided by CIBS, based on a projected caseload reduction of 3 percent, a conservative estimate drawn from experiences in other jurisdictions, were estimated, as were direct savings and cost avoidance attributable to administrative improvements achieved through CIBS

Based on caseload levels of approximately 92,000 cases in the Spring 1997, and 80/20 Provincial/Municipal cost-sharing, total annual savings of $27.7 million gross, $7.2 million net were projected.

The average annual cost of implementing and operating CIBS was estimated to be $3.32 million ($16.6 million over the five-year contract period). This was based on a monthly rate of $1.84 per active case, or a minimum of 36,800 per month, for the operation of the biometric and non-cash components of CIBS. In addition, for the operation of the cash component of the system, Citibank was to be paid a $2.50 per month fee for each client having access to a CIBS cash account. It was projected that CIBS would pay for itself in two to two and a half years, depending on caseload size. In addition to per case costs, the contract contained a provision to amortize the $1.5 million U.S. costs related to the Division's purchase of necessary hardware and software.

CIBS was intended to be a central part of the Division's core strategic objective: to develop a modern, responsive and efficient social services delivery system which both meets the needs of Toronto's most vulnerable residents, and ensures the integrity of the social assistance program. This could best be accomplished through the innovative application of new technologies.

Beyond the sound financial case for proceeding, it was also envisaged that the delivery foundation established by CIBS would give the Division unprecedented flexibility in the administration of program benefits, with the ability to adapt to a wide range of changes that have subsequently been enacted by senior levels of government, including the introduction of the Ontario Works Act (O.W.A.) and the transfer of the Family Benefits sole support caseload to Toronto.

(II) Vendor Selection Process:

For the reasons enumerated above, the Social Services Division issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for development of CIBS in 1994. The RFP sought solutions that incorporated the best available technology, provided demonstrable and significant increases in efficiency and effectiveness, and offered the highest available levels of privacy protection.

A number of proposals were subsequently received in response to the RFP. At the Division's request, a project team was formed, drawing on expertise from across the Corporation. This team was comprised of staff from the Legal, Corporate, Human Resources, and Finance Departments, the Corporate Access and Privacy Office, and the Community Services Department's Social Development and Management Services Division. Its role was to provide technical expertise in a range of areas, including structuring the negotiations process, analyzing financial proposals, evaluating technologies and providing specialized legal services.

To provide oversight for the vendor selection process, a political Steering Committee comprised of four Metro Councillors appointed by Metropolitan Council, along with representatives from the Social Services Division, Metro Treasury , Corporate Services and Metro Legal, was formed. In addition, an Executive Secretariat comprised of senior staff from the above Departments and Audit was struck to provide direction to the project team and to make recommendations to the Steering Group.

A two-phase evaluation process was initiated. In Phase I, all proposals were reviewed to ensure adherence to mandatory requirements identified in the RFP. A short list of viable submissions was subsequently compiled. At this point, the Division reported to Metropolitan Council on the status of the evaluation, and obtained approval to proceed with Phase II.

In Phase II, the project team was divided into five separate sub-teams representing all aspects of Metro's business and technology environment to provide the necessary expertise to assess proposals under more than 90 criteria covering six areas: business fit, technical fit, implement ability, value, proponent viability and privacy requirements. Specific scores were assigned by each sub-team and considered by the Evaluation Team. An Audit Team had full access to the detailed scores and accompanying documentation.

On the basis of the results of this evaluation process, three viable consortia were identified, and a preferred proponent selected. With Metropolitan Council authorization, in June 1996, Division staff initiated negotiations with the preferred proponent. However, suitable financial terms were not reached, and following direction from the political Steering Committee, negotiations continued with the two remaining consortia. Revised proposals were developed, and best and final offers submitted by these vendors. Subsequently, based on this review, the Steering Committee accepted the Department's recommendation to seek Council approval to negotiate with Citibank.

Citibank was chosen on the basis of substantial experience in the operation of electronic benefits transfer systems in nearly 30 jurisdictions in the United States. Citibank assured the Division that its existing products could be modified to address the Divisions's business needs and that its organization had the expertise and resources to complete this modification. Citibank also committed itself to work with the Division to expedite the design and development to meet the Division's needs, and promised under the terms of the Agreement to comply with all applicable legislation.

In June 1997, the Metropolitan Council granted the Community Services Department the authority to negotiate a contract with Citibank Canada to design and develop CIBS. The following section provides an overview of the Agreement reached with Citibank.

(III) Agreement with Citibank:

In order to protect Metro's interests, and minimize its financial exposure during the development process, the Division established a set of conditions that any negotiated agreement would have to meet. These included two primary components:

(a) absence of any up-front expenditures by Metro; and

(b) an overall cost commensurate with the benefits expected.

An independent expert was engaged to assist the Division in the negotiations with Citibank, as were appropriate corporate staff, notably staff from the Metro Legal Department. Agreement with Citibank was reached in August of 1997.

As per this Agreement, Citibank was responsible for the design, development and implementation of the CIBS, which was to consist of a biometric identifier, a bank card for disbursement of both cash and non-cash benefits and automated tracking of benefits. Metro provided input to Citibank so that it could execute its responsibilities under the Agreement.

The financial terms of the Agreement stipulated that payments to Citibank were to be made on a per case-per month basis. In keeping with the condition that no up-front expenditures would be required by Metro, payments were not to commence until two months following the start of a successful pilot, or when 20,000 cases had been enrolled, whichever came first.

As a means of affording the appropriate protection for both parties, this Agreement clearly specifies the terms under which either party can terminate, or seek termination of, said Agreement. There are several circumstances under which the City can unilaterally terminate the Agreement. However, the only condition under which Citibank can unilaterally end the Agreement would be the introduction of adverse legislation that would prevent it from providing services required under the Agreement. All or any part of the Agreement can be terminated by mutual written agreement of the parties.

It should be noted that if the City terminated the Agreement without cause, Citibank would be entitled to recover implementation and termination costs and expenses.

(IV) Metropolitan Council Direction:

In authorizing the Division to proceed with negotiations for the development CIBS, on two separate occasions Metropolitan Council directed the Division to address a number of issues (see Appendix 1). The Division has complied with these directions, of which the primary ones are briefly discussed below. As directed, an independent security consultant was hired to ensure the system's technical invulnerability. Similarly, an expert evaluation was completed to ensure that clients' encrypted biometric information would be protected from unauthorized disclosure and abuse.

In response to Metropolitan Council's concerns, specific system design features were completed to ensure that:

(a) no biometric information would be encoded onto the benefits card;

(b) the benefits card would not contain a client picture;

(c) the biometric identifier would not be stored as an image; and

(d) all biometric records would be stored in a secured data base separate and distinct from personal client information.

As part of its efforts to communicate the benefits of CIBS to the community, and to obtain feedback on the project, consultations were undertaken with clients, staff and community groups, under the direction of an independent consultant. The results, which supported the broad directions proposed by the Division, were subsequently reported to Metropolitan Council in June 1997 (Metro Human Services Committee, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 8). As requested by that Council, a public presentation on the use of biometric technology, and its proposed use in CIBS, was made to the Human Service Committee.

Discussion:

System Design and Development:

Initially, the Division established a project team comprised of Metro staff with a dual mandate: to ensure that the terms of the Agreement were complied with, and to provide appropriate input to enable Citibank's completion of the design and development phases. A cross-corporate staff team continued to provide advice to the CIBS project team. In addition, a Project Steering Committee, comprised of senior Departmental and Citibank staff, was constituted to facilitate communication between the two organizations to ensure the prompt resolution of issues arising during the design and development phase.

These phases involved the integrated design and development of the following features:

(a) a cash disbursement system incorporating a bank card;

(b) creation of a non-cash disbursement system;

(c) design of a biometric system and final selection of associated hardware; and

(d) preparation for undertaking and testing a CIBS pilot, including an implementation plan.

From the outset, Divisional staff made every effort to support and assist with the development of an integrated identification and benefits disbursement system that met the Division's needs. These steps included:

(i) determining the Division's business requirements in order to expedite the progress of the project, and ensure that Citibank's design met the Division's needs;

(ii) providing constructive and detailed written feedback to Citibank throughout the design and development phases;

(iii) ensuring that CIBS addressed Provincial Information and Privacy Commission concerns related to the protection of privacy and security of information by brokering ongoing discussions among the Commission, the City and Citibank; and

(iv) providing Citibank, through the City's independent consultant, with specific expertise related the implementation of Electronic Banking Transfer systems in a Canadian context.

This level of co-operation with Citibank by Metro staff was provided on an ongoing basis consistent with the Division's commitment to the completion of the Project, and the development of a system design which met the Division's business requirements. Throughout the course of the Project, the Division committed the appropriate and necessary resources to ensure the success of the Project. These resources included Divisional staff, Corporate staff, and external experts engaged by the City. As per its Agreement with Citibank, neither the former Metro nor the City has made any payments to Citibank for the design or development of CIBS.

Current Status:

Design and development of CIBS has continued since the signing of the Agreement. However, there have been a number of delays which have extended the projected time frame for completion of the design and development phases, and the initiation of a CIBS pilot.

In mid-April, in a letter to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, Citibank indicated that it was "no longer able to continue negotiations with Metro (sic) for the design and implementation of the CIBS Project contemplated by our agreement dated August 15, 1997", and that "our relationship in respect of the CIBS Project is at end subject to a reservation of Citibank Canada's right to recover reasonable and fair compensation for the expenses incurred to date."

Citibank has been notified in a letter dated April 28, 1999, that the City's position is that Citibank's unilateral ending of the CIBS project constitutes the termination of the Agreement and amounts to a fundamental and actionable breach of contract. As noted previously, under the terms of the Agreement the sole condition whereby Citibank may initiate termination is that of Adverse Legislation; otherwise termination must be by Mutual Agreement or initiated by the City (as successor to the Metropolitan Corporation).

Conclusion:

In summary, this report discusses the CIBS project, vendor selection process, key terms of the 1997 Agreement, Citibank Canada's recent communication announcing its unilateral withdrawal from the Project and the Division's response. Given the potential for litigation a more detailed discussion of salient issues related to the delays that have occurred in the project and the Division's position regarding Citibank's management of the project will be provided in a separate in camera report to Committee that will be forwarded to Community and Neighbourhood Services for its May 19, 1999 meeting. This report extensively documents the history of the Project, the Division's ongoing efforts to ensure the successful implementation of CIBS and makes recommendations with respect to actions that should be undertaken by appropriate City staff.

Contact Name:

Heather MacVicar,

General Manager,

Tel: 392-8952

Metro Council Amendments regarding CIBS:

The Metropolitan Council on June 19, 1996, amended this Clause [Report No. 8, Clause No. 1]:

(1) to provide that the encrypted biometric customer identifier not be shared with any other Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions, or any other level of government; and

(2) by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1) Metropolitan Council:

(a) proceed with a biometric identifier component of the proposed Client Identification and Benefits System and request the Provincial Government to amend the General Welfare Assistance Act and/or regulations thereunder to authorize specifically the use of a biometric identifier as a mandatory requirement for the initial or continuing receipt of welfare assistance; and

(b) request the Federal Government to investigate the use of biometric technology for identification purposes; and

(2) the Commissioner of Corporate and Human Resources be requested to investigate the possibility of substituting biometric technology for the current security identification system utilized in Metro Hall and submit a report thereon to the Corporate Administration Committee.")

The Human Services Committee recommends:

(1) the adoption of the following joint report (April 29, 1996) from the Commissioner of Community Services and Commissioner of Corporate and Human Resources;

(2) that in all negotiations with the consortium led by Unisys Canada Inc.:

(a) the Commissioner of Community Services be requested to pursue alternative biometric identifiers and report thereon to the Human Services Committee; and

(b) the Metro position be guided by the benefit of giving caseworkers more time to give clients counsel and advice, pursuant to achieving an accurate, efficient card system for General Welfare Assistance;

(3) that the design of the Client Identification and Benefits System (C.I.B.S.) include the following elements:

(a) the encrypted biometric customer's identifier shall not be encoded onto a customer benefit card;

(b) an individual's unique identifier would be deleted from the C.I.B.S. within three months of the individual no longer receiving benefits;

(c) no photograph of the customer shall be on the customer benefit card;

(d) an individual's unique identifier shall be stored on a secured data base with no other personal information other than a file reference number;

(e) at no time shall C.I.B.S. store or take a photograph of a customer's fingerprints;

(f) a caseworker shall not have access to a customer's identifier; and

(g) any adult resident of Metropolitan Toronto can request their biometric identifier be added to C.I.B.S. for a period of up to one year;

(4) that Metro Community Services seek the opinion of current G.W.A. clients on their reaction to the proposal and alternative biometric identifiers;

(5) that the Commissioner of Community Services be requested to prepare a presentation for the public with regard to biometric technology, the date, time and location of such presentation to be announced well in advance, and be at the same time as consideration is given to the report requested in Recommendation No. (2)(a) above; and

(6) that the Commissioner of Community Services be requested to report to the Human Services Committee on the feasibility of a representative of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario providing a response as to what are acceptable and unacceptable forms of identification, including the proposed finger-scanning system, such report to be considered at the same time as the report requested in Recommendation No. (2)(a) above.

The Metropolitan Council on June 4, 1997, amended this Clause [Report No. 8, Clause No. 1] by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Community Services be authorized to seek an independent expert opinion as to the proposed system's technological invulnerability from unauthorized use and report thereon to Metropolitan Council, through the Human Services Committee, as part of the report requested in Recommendation No. (5) embodied in the joint report dated April 24, 1997, from the Commissioner of Community Services and the Commissioner of Corporate and Human Resources."

The Human Services Committee recommends the adoption of the joint report dated April 24, 1997, from the Commissioner of Community Services and the Commissioner of Corporate and Human Resources, subject to amending Recommendation No. (2) to read as follows:

"(2) the Community Services Department be authorized to commence design, development and pilot phase implementation of CIBS immediately upon finalization of a contract with Citibank; and further that the pilot phase include a significant proportion of Metropolitan employees, Councillors, and social assistance recipients who volunteer to participate;".

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (May 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act, save and except the recommendations embodied therein.

(Extract from the confidential report dated May 14, 1999,

from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services

addressed to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee.)

"Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services determine what expenses and losses the City has suffered as a result of Citibank's failure to meet its obligations under the Agreement;

(2) Council instruct the City Solicitor:

(i) to give formal notification to Citibank that its unilateral ending of the CIBS Project constitutes termination of the Agreement and amounts to a fundamental and actionable breach of contract;

(ii) to make efforts to negotiate an appropriate payment to the City by way of reimbursement and report to Council accordingly;

(iii) in the absence of such a negotiated reimbursement, to commence legal proceedings against Citibank to recover such expenses and losses and report to Council from time to time as circumstances warrant; and

(iv) to defend any legal actions initiated by Citibank and make an appropriate counterclaim for the City's expenses and losses; and

(3) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to Recommendations (1) and (2).")

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to designate the General Manager of Children's Services as the Child Care Administrator as required by the Child Care Service Management Guidelines of the Ministry of Community and Social Services and to delegate signing authority to the General Manager of Children's Services to execute service contract agreements for child care services on behalf of the City of Toronto.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Council's approval of the 1999 Children's Services budget provides the financial ceilings within which service contracts for the provision of fee subsidies, wage subsidies, and funding for special needs resourcing and family resource centres are signed. There are no financial implications beyond the limits of the approved 1999 Children's Services budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the General Manager of Children's Services be appointed as "Child Care Administrator" for the purpose of child care system management under the terms of the Child Care Service Management Guidelines of the Ministry of Community and Social Services; and

(2) authority be given to the General Manager of the Children's Services Division to execute service contracts for child care services on behalf of the City of Toronto; and

(3) the appropriate City officials take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

A March 5, 1999, report, entitled "Transfer of Provincial Responsibilities to Social Services and Children's Services", granted authority to the Children's Services Division of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department to assume system management responsibility for child care programs being transferred from the Ministry of Community and Social Services effective July 1, 1999. Council's April 13, 1999, approval of this report provided authority for Children's Services to enter into service contracts for transferring programs including wage subsidy, special needs resourcing, family resource centres and approved corporations providing child care services. Since September 15, 1981, designated officials within the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department have had the delegated authority to enter into fee subsidy contracts with community childcare operators.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

With the advent of the new City's by-law governing signing authorities, the Department has been advised that it is necessary to specifically designate the General Manager of Children's Services as a signing officer specific to childcare service contracts. Following the transfer of the additional child care responsibilities from the Province on July 1, 1999, it will be necessary for the General Manager of Children's Services to sign a total of approximately 800 child care service contracts on an annual basis. The total annual value per service contract ranges from approximately $300.00 to $6,700,000.00. (The average contract value is $310,000.00.) The service contracts will be in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services has published Child Care Service Management Guidelines to assist and support the City as the designated child care system manager to carry out its enhanced responsibilities following the transfer of additional child care programs July 1, 1999. These Guidelines require the appointment of a "Child Care Administrator". The Department recommends that the General Manager of Children's Services be appointed "Child Care Administrator" as required by the Ministry's Child Care Service Management Guidelines.

Conclusions:

This report recommends designating the General Manager of Children's Services as the "Child Care Administrator" as required by the Child Care Service Management Guidelines of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. This report also recommends designating the General Manager of Children's Services as a signing officer for all child care service contracts. The recommendations of this report have been reviewed with the Treasurer and have her concurrence.

Contact Name:

Marna Ramsden-Urbanski

General Manager, Children's Services Division

Tel: 392-8128/Fax: 392-4576

E-mail: ramsden@csis.csis.csd.metrotor.on.ca

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Update on the Purchase of Employment Training Programs for Social Assistance Clients under the Ontario Works Program.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having received the following report:

(May 5, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services providing an update on the Purchase of Employment Training Programs for Social Assistance clients under the Ontario Works Program; outlining the current status of the Skill Development Option of the Program; identifying key operational issues and actions the Social Services Division is taking to further enhance the availability and effectiveness of purchased training programs; and recommending that the report be received for information.

(b) Toronto Youth Job Corps and Youth Outreach Toronto.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee, and Council, the adoption of the following report:

(May 5, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services respecting the Toronto Youth Job Corps and Youth Outreach Toronto; and recommending that:

(1) City Council authorize the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to enter into a funding agreement with HRDC for expansion of Toronto Youth Job Corps for the period April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000, the total cost of the agreement not to exceed $1,256,370.00 gross, and the City of Toronto's contribution to the program not to exceed the approved 1999 Operating Budget for Job Corps of $156,370.00;

(2) the Commissioner identify and contract with an appropriate non-profit organization to deliver the program in the Jane Finch area;

(3) the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department be authorized to budget for the $74,000.00 net impact for the year 2000 budget;

(4) Toronto Youth Job Corps and Youth Outreach Toronto program management and administration be immediately transferred from the Social Services Division to the Social Development Division; and

(5) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

(Councillor Prue, at the meeting of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on May 19, 1999, declared his interest in the aforementioned report, in that his wife is an employee of Human Resources Development Canada and is involved in determining grants that may be awarded to various groups, including the City of Toronto.)

(c) Report and Recommendations of the Police Working Group, A Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services for a report thereon to the Community Services Committee:

(May 5, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes on October 19, 1998, endorsed the recommendations contained in the report dated September 1998 from the Police Working Group, a Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee on Homeless and Socially Isolated Persons; and submits such report for consideration by the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee.

(d) Review of the "Early Years Study".

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having received the following report; and having further directed that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be requested to report to the Community Services Committee on:

(a) the number of high quality parenting programs available, and how such programs could be nurtured; and

(b) the availability of provincial funding (referred to in the recent provincial budget) for cost-sharing of pilot parenting programs:

(May 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services providing a review of the findings of the Early Years Study, prepared by Dr. Fraser Mustard and Ms. Margaret McCain; outlining the initial response of the Provincial Government to the Study; and recommending that the report be received for information.

(e) Human Rights Tribunal Ruling - Income Testing.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having received the following report:

(May 5, 1999) from the Chief Executive Officer, Toronto Housing Company Inc., advising, for information, that the Board of Directors of the Toronto Housing Company Inc. on April 19, 1999, received a report (April 9, 1999) from the Chief Executive Officer respecting a decision by the Board of Inquiry on December 22, 1998, under the Ontario Human Rights Code with regard to income testing, and the implications for private and social housing.

(f) Request for Appointments to an Advisory Committee of the Workers Information and Action Centre of Toronto.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and Councillors Ashton, Brown, Korwin-Kuczynski and Miller to provide assistance to the review of the Workers Information and Action Committee of Toronto (WIACT) (but not join the Advisory Committee), particularly with respect to its future, reporting structure, and seeking funding from other levels of government, and to report thereon to the Community Services Committee:

(May 6, 1999) from Ms. Trish Stovel, Workers Information and Action Centre of Toronto, requesting that City Councillors be appointed to serve on an Advisory Committee while the review of the Workers Information and Action Centre of Toronto is taking place; and listing those Councillors interested.

(g) Accomplishments of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having received the following report:

(May 13, 1999) from Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski, Chair, highlighting the significant accomplishments of the Committee over the past eighteen months.

(h) Children and Youth Advocate Annual Report 1998.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having:

(1) referred the Children and Youth Advocate Annual Report 1998 to:

(a) the Children and Youth Action Committee for comment;

(b) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services with a request that she report thereon to the Community Services Committee with an action plan;

(2) referred to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services the communication from Campaign 2000 for comment and report thereon to the Children and Youth Action Committee, in order that a City position and possible action on child poverty could be available for presentation to the Annual General Meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities on June 4, 1999; and

(3) directed that its appreciation be extended to the following for their contribution and support towards the first Children and Youth Advocate Annual Report:

(a) staff from the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department, Public Health Department, Parks and Recreation Division of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, Library Services and the Healthy City Office; and

(b) the members of the Children and Youth Action Committee:

(i) Children and Youth Advocate Annual Report 1998, submitted by Councillor Olivia Chow; and

(ii) (May 18, 1999) from Ms. Laurel Rothman, Coordinator, Campaign 2000, Ms. June Callwood, Executive Member, Campaign Against Child Poverty, and Mr. Harry Kits, Executive Director, Citizens for Public Justice.

(i) Process for the Handling of Confidential Reports.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee during consideration of a confidential report from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services respecting the Client Identification and Benefits System Update, reports having directed that the Chief Administrative Officer, City Solicitor, and City Clerk be requested to report to the Administration Committee on a fail safe system to prevent confidential reports distributed to Members of Council and senior staff from being leaked to the press, such report to include any actions that could be taken against any individual found to have released such information.

(j) Recognition of Volunteers Associated with Homeless Programs.

The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee reports having:

(1) recognized the following agencies and individuals that went above and beyond the call of duty to respond to the City's call for help to operate services for homeless people during the past six months; and Councillor Chris Korwin Kuczynski, Chair, presented a framed certificate of appreciation to:

- Captain David MacDonald and Sgt. Bowdin Cherniawski, representing the Department of National Defence;

- Mrs. Evadne Wilkinson, Grant African Methodist Episcopal Church, and Sister Susan Morin representing the Out of the Cold Program (unable to attend meeting);

- Ms. Donna Endicott and Mr. Wael Ibrahim, representing The Canadian Red Cross Society, Metropolitan Toronto Region;

- Ms. Sioban Kennedy and Mr. Bob Braithwaite, representing the St. John Ambulance, Toronto Branch;

- Mr. Steve Steele from Bill & Son Towing, representing Project Shelter;

- Mr. Dennis Brooks, Forensic Support Services;

- Ms. Sue Goodfellow, representing Eva's Place;

- Ms. Louise Couto, representing the Society of St. Vincent de Paul; and

- Colonel Kerr and Mr. Jeff Noel, The Salvation Amy; and

(2) expressed appreciation to staff of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department for their co-ordination of the aforementioned services.

(Councillor Prue, at the meeting of City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, declared his interest in Item (b), entitled "Toronto Youth Job Corps and Youth Outreach Toronto", embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that his wife is an employee of Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) and is involved in determining grants that may be awarded to various groups, including the City of Toronto.)

Respectfully submitted,

CHRIS KORWIN-KUCZYNSKI

Chair

Toronto, May 19, 1999

(Report No. 6 of The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999.)