HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-07-11 Council Workshop Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDAADOPTION OF THE AGENDAADOPTION OF THE AGENDAADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2.MINUTESMINUTESMINUTESMINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of July 4, 2016
2.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council - Nil
2.3 Business Arising from Committee and Commission Minutes
3.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILPRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILPRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILPRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
3.1
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDACOUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDACOUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDACOUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
July 11July 11July 11July 11, 20, 20, 20, 2011116666
10101010:00:00:00:00 a.m.a.m.a.m.a.m.
Blaney Room, 1Blaney Room, 1Blaney Room, 1Blaney Room, 1stststst Floor, Floor, Floor, Floor, CityCityCityCity HallHallHallHall
The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and
other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at
this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to
Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more
information or clarification. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by
the City of Maple Ridge.
REMINDERSREMINDERSREMINDERSREMINDERS
July 11, 2016July 11, 2016July 11, 2016July 11, 2016
Closed Council Cancelled
July 12, 2016July 12, 2016July 12, 2016July 12, 2016
Council Meeting 7:00 p.m.
Council Workshop
July 11, 2016
Page 2 of 4
4.MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTSMAYOR AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTSMAYOR AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTSMAYOR AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
5.UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESSUNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESSUNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESSUNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Social ServiceSocial ServiceSocial ServiceSocial Servicessss Research ProjectResearch ProjectResearch ProjectResearch Project
Staff report dated July 11, 2016 providing an update on the Social Services review
and seeking input from Council. Presentation by Scott Graham, Associate
Executive Director, Manager of Research, Planning and Consulting, Social Planning
and Research Council of British Columbia (SPARC BC).
5.2 Update on the Interim Modular Shelter and Permanent Purpose Built Shelter Update on the Interim Modular Shelter and Permanent Purpose Built Shelter Update on the Interim Modular Shelter and Permanent Purpose Built Shelter Update on the Interim Modular Shelter and Permanent Purpose Built Shelter
ProcessProcessProcessProcess
Staff report dated July 11, 2016 recommending that Council endorse the updated
process outlined in the report dated July 11, 2016.
5.3 EMS Implementation EMS Implementation EMS Implementation EMS Implementation –––– Soil Deposit Bylaw ReviewSoil Deposit Bylaw ReviewSoil Deposit Bylaw ReviewSoil Deposit Bylaw Review
Staff report dated July 11, 2016 recommending that the Soil Deposit Regulation
Bylaw Review process outlined in the staff report entitled “Environmental
Management Strategy Implementation – Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation
Bylaw (No. 5763 -1999) Review” dated July 11, 2016 be endorsed.
5.4 Remaining 2016 Community Grant BudgetRemaining 2016 Community Grant BudgetRemaining 2016 Community Grant BudgetRemaining 2016 Community Grant Budget
Staff report dated July 11, 2016 recommending that an allocation of $10,000 for
a Donor Recognition project from the 2016 Community Grants Budget be
approved.
6.CORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCE
The following correspondence has been received and requires a response. Staff is
seeking direction from Council on each item. Options that Council may consider include:
a) Acknowledge receipt of correspondence and advise that no further action will be
taken.
b) Direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation regarding the subject matter.
c) Forward the correspondence to a regular Council meeting for further discussion.
d) Other.
Once direction is given the appropriate response will be sent.
Council Workshop
July 11, 2016
Page 3 of 4
6.1 Upcoming EventsUpcoming EventsUpcoming EventsUpcoming Events
July 9, 2016
6:00 pm
Block Party Dinner – Anderson Creek Neighbourhood
Anderson Creek Drive
July 28, 2016
9:00 am
Business Walk – Chamber of Commerce and Economic
Development Department
Maple Meadows Business area
7.BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILBRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILBRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILBRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
Links to member associations:
•Union of British Columbia Municipalities (“UBCM”) Newsletter The Compass
o http://www.ubcm.ca/EN/main/resources/past-issues-compass/2016-
archive.html
•Lower Mainland Local Government Association (“LMLGA”)
o http://www.lmlga.ca/
•Federation of Canadian Municipalities (“FCM”)
o https://www.fcm.ca/
8.MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENTMATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENTMATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENTMATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
9.ADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: _________________
Council Workshop
July 11, 2016
Page 4 of 4
Rules for Holding a Closed MeetingRules for Holding a Closed MeetingRules for Holding a Closed MeetingRules for Holding a Closed Meeting
A part of a council meeting may be closedmay be closedmay be closedmay be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one
or more of the following:
(a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a positionholds or is being considered for a positionholds or is being considered for a positionholds or is being considered for a position as
an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality;
(b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or being considered for a municipal award or being considered for a municipal award or being considered for a municipal award or
honourhonourhonourhonour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity;
(c) labour relationslabour relationslabour relationslabour relations or employee negotiations;
(d) the security of propertysecurity of propertysecurity of propertysecurity of property of the municipality;
(e) the acquisition, dacquisition, dacquisition, dacquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvementsisposition or expropriation of land or improvementsisposition or expropriation of land or improvementsisposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that
disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;
(f) law enforcementlaw enforcementlaw enforcementlaw enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the
conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment;
(g) litigation or potential litigationlitigation or potential litigationlitigation or potential litigationlitigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality;
(h) an administrative tribunal hearingadministrative tribunal hearingadministrative tribunal hearingadministrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the municipality,
other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council
(i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitorsolicitorsolicitorsolicitor----client privilegeclient privilegeclient privilegeclient privilege, including communications necessary for
that purpose;
(j) informationinformationinformationinformation that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited
from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Actunder section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Actunder section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Actunder section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
(k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal serviceproposed provision of a municipal serviceproposed provision of a municipal serviceproposed provision of a municipal service that are at
their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the
interests of the municipality if they were held in public;
(l) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and
progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual reportpreparing an annual reportpreparing an annual reportpreparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal
report]
(m) a matter that, under another enactmentanother enactmentanother enactmentanother enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting;
(n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of
subsection (2)
(o) the considerationconsiderationconsiderationconsideration of whether the authority under section 91authority under section 91authority under section 91authority under section 91 (other persons attending closed meetings)
should be exercised in relation to a council meeting.
(p) information relating to local government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nationslocal government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nationslocal government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nationslocal government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nations, where
an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential.
City of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOPCOUNCIL WORKSHOPCOUNCIL WORKSHOPCOUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTESMINUTESMINUTESMINUTES
July 4, 2016
The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on July 4, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in the
Blaney Room of City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for the
purpose of transacting regular City business.
PRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor N. Read E.C. Swabey, Chief Administrative Officer
Councillor C. Bell K. Swift, General Manager of Community Development,
Councillor K. Duncan Parks and Recreation Services
Councillor B. Masse F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development
Councillor G Robson Services
Councillor T. Shymkiw C. Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services
Councillor C. Speirs Other Staff as Required
C. Nolan, Manager of Accounting
D. Denton, Property and Risk Manager
W. McCormick, Director of Recreation and Community
Services
Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDAADOPTION OF THE AGENDAADOPTION OF THE AGENDAADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was adopted with the addition of the following
5.7 Deputy Mayor Role
2.MINUTESMINUTESMINUTESMINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the Minutes of the Minutes of the Minutes of the June 20, 2016June 20, 2016June 20, 2016June 20, 2016 Council Workshop Meeting Council Workshop Meeting Council Workshop Meeting Council Workshop Meeting
R/2016-293
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting ofThat the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting ofThat the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting ofThat the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of June 20, 2016June 20, 2016June 20, 2016June 20, 2016 be be be be
adopted as circulated.adopted as circulated.adopted as circulated.adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
2.1
Council Workshop Minutes
July 4, 2016
Page 2 of 7
2.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of CouncilMinutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of CouncilMinutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of CouncilMinutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council
R/2016-294
It was moved and seconded
That That That That the minutes of meetings of the Advisory Design Panel of May 10, 2016, the minutes of meetings of the Advisory Design Panel of May 10, 2016, the minutes of meetings of the Advisory Design Panel of May 10, 2016, the minutes of meetings of the Advisory Design Panel of May 10, 2016,
the Agricultural Advisory Committee of May 26, 2016, the Community the Agricultural Advisory Committee of May 26, 2016, the Community the Agricultural Advisory Committee of May 26, 2016, the Community the Agricultural Advisory Committee of May 26, 2016, the Community
Heritage Commission of May 3, 2016 and the Public Art Steering Committee Heritage Commission of May 3, 2016 and the Public Art Steering Committee Heritage Commission of May 3, 2016 and the Public Art Steering Committee Heritage Commission of May 3, 2016 and the Public Art Steering Committee
of Mof Mof Mof March 29, 2016 be received.arch 29, 2016 be received.arch 29, 2016 be received.arch 29, 2016 be received.
CARRIED
2.3 Business Arising from Committee MinutesBusiness Arising from Committee MinutesBusiness Arising from Committee MinutesBusiness Arising from Committee Minutes – Nil
3.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILPRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILPRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILPRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil
4 MAYOR’S AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTSMAYOR’S AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTSMAYOR’S AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTSMAYOR’S AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
Councillor BellCouncillor BellCouncillor BellCouncillor Bell
Councillor Bell attended a Ridge Meadows Youth Wellness Centre fundraising
strategy meeting. She noted that she received comments from downtown
stakeholders that notice of meeting for the temporary shelter was either late
or not received. The General Manager of Community Development, Parks and
Recreation Services advised on the expanded distribution area for the notice
and times delivered.
Councillor Bell also attended the Canada Day celebration held in Memorial
Peace Park.
Councillor DuncanCouncillor DuncanCouncillor DuncanCouncillor Duncan
Councillor Duncan provided an overview of the Making Cities Livable
Conference she attended. She gave an update on Public Art Committee
submission for the Canada 150 Grant.
Councillor SpeirsCouncillor SpeirsCouncillor SpeirsCouncillor Speirs
Councillor Speirs attended a Tailgate Meeting at Hammond Stadium and the
Canada Day celebrations in Memorial Peace Park.
Councillor MasseCouncillor MasseCouncillor MasseCouncillor Masse
Councillor Masse provided information on the sessions he attended at the
Making Cities Livable Conference.
Council Workshop Minutes
July 4, 2016
Page 3 of 7
Councillor RobsonCouncillor RobsonCouncillor RobsonCouncillor Robson
Councillor Robson attended the Canada Day celebrations held in Memorial
Peace Park. He spoke to the difficulty in assisting individuals who are
hoarders and indicated that he will be putting forward a notice of motion to
address the matter. He suggested that the Haney Bypass be designated a
truck route and that trucks not be permitted on the downtown section of
Lougheed Highway.
Deputy Mayor ShymkiwDeputy Mayor ShymkiwDeputy Mayor ShymkiwDeputy Mayor Shymkiw
Deputy Mayor Shymkiw attended Chief Spence’s retirement, the Canada Day
celebration held in Memorial Peace Park, and an Economic Development
Committee meeting. He advised that he continues to meet with Tantalus Labs
and with Thornhill residents and met with a Council focus group for the
branding review.
Mayor ReadMayor ReadMayor ReadMayor Read
Mayor Read met with ISS students and met with citizens on Wednesday
morning. She attended the Samuel Robertson Technical School graduation
ceremony. She participated in the production of a video for Metro Vancouver
highlighting Maple Ridge’s tree bylaw, has been working with citizens around
the Marc Road development, attended the signing of a Memorandum of
Understanding between Alisa's Wish and the RCMP and had dinner with
Katzie First Nation Chief Susan Miller.
Mayor Read attended a Metro Vancouver Board meeting and retirement
parties for Russ Carmichael, Director of Engineering Operations and for Fire
Chief Dane Spence. She had a dinner meeting the MP Dan Ruimy, attended
National Aboriginal Day, a 102nd birthday party for a Maple Ridge resident,
met with Grade 1 and 2 students from Eric Langton and had a meeting with a
representative from ICBC. She also attended the Mayors’ Consultative Forum
re: the IHIT funding formula. She participated in the Canada Day celebrations
held in Memorial Peace Park.
5. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESSUNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESSUNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESSUNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Funding to Host Mayor’s Regional Summit on Funding to Host Mayor’s Regional Summit on Funding to Host Mayor’s Regional Summit on Funding to Host Mayor’s Regional Summit on HomelessnessHomelessnessHomelessnessHomelessness
Staff report dated July 4, 2016 recommending that staff prepare and submit a
Request for Proposal to obtain funding to host a Mayor’s Regional Summit on
Homelessness.
The General Manager Community Development, Parks and Recreation
reviewed the report.
Council Workshop Minutes
July 4, 2016
Page 4 of 7
R/2016-295
It was moved and seconded
That That That That staff prepare and submit an RFP to obtain funding to host a Mayor’s staff prepare and submit an RFP to obtain funding to host a Mayor’s staff prepare and submit an RFP to obtain funding to host a Mayor’s staff prepare and submit an RFP to obtain funding to host a Mayor’s
Regional Summit on Homelessness.Regional Summit on Homelessness.Regional Summit on Homelessness.Regional Summit on Homelessness.
CARRIED
5.2 Social Policy Advisory Committee Recommendations for Terms of ReferenceSocial Policy Advisory Committee Recommendations for Terms of ReferenceSocial Policy Advisory Committee Recommendations for Terms of ReferenceSocial Policy Advisory Committee Recommendations for Terms of Reference
---- Community Dialogue on HomelessnessCommunity Dialogue on HomelessnessCommunity Dialogue on HomelessnessCommunity Dialogue on Homelessness
Staff report dated July 4, 2016 recommending that the Social Policy Advisory
Committee’s Terms of Reference for a Community Dialogue on Homelessness
be endorsed.
R/2016-296
It was moved and seconded
That the Social PolThat the Social PolThat the Social PolThat the Social Policy Advisory Committee’s Terms of Reference for a icy Advisory Committee’s Terms of Reference for a icy Advisory Committee’s Terms of Reference for a icy Advisory Committee’s Terms of Reference for a
Community Dialogue on Homelessness be endorsed.Community Dialogue on Homelessness be endorsed.Community Dialogue on Homelessness be endorsed.Community Dialogue on Homelessness be endorsed.
CARRIED
5.3 Impacts and Recommendations from the High Impact Stakeholders WorkshopImpacts and Recommendations from the High Impact Stakeholders WorkshopImpacts and Recommendations from the High Impact Stakeholders WorkshopImpacts and Recommendations from the High Impact Stakeholders Workshop
Staff report dated July 4, 2016 recommending that a temporary position to
support public safety in the downtown be created, that a central number for
reporting non-emergency issues relating to the creation of the shelter be
created, that on-line communications with businesses and residents in the
downtown be enhanced and that the coordination of needle retrieval in the
downtown be improved through the formation of a Needle Retrieval
Committee.
The General Manager Community Development, Parks and Recreation
reviewed the report. The Chief Administration Officer advised that former Chief
of Police, Dave Walsh has been hired to support public safety in the
downtown.
Council Workshop Minutes
July 4, 2016
Page 5 of 7
R/2016-297
It was moved and seconded
That staff be directed to:That staff be directed to:That staff be directed to:That staff be directed to:
1. 1. 1. 1. Create a temporary position to support public safety in the downtown; Create a temporary position to support public safety in the downtown; Create a temporary position to support public safety in the downtown; Create a temporary position to support public safety in the downtown;
and,and,and,and,
2. 2. 2. 2. Establish a Establish a Establish a Establish a central number for reporting noncentral number for reporting noncentral number for reporting noncentral number for reporting non----emergency issues relating emergency issues relating emergency issues relating emergency issues relating
to the operation of the temporary shelter; and,to the operation of the temporary shelter; and,to the operation of the temporary shelter; and,to the operation of the temporary shelter; and,
3. 3. 3. 3. Enhance onEnhance onEnhance onEnhance on----line communications to increase communication with line communications to increase communication with line communications to increase communication with line communications to increase communication with
businesses and residents in the downtown; and,businesses and residents in the downtown; and,businesses and residents in the downtown; and,businesses and residents in the downtown; and,
4. 4. 4. 4. Improve coordination of needle rImprove coordination of needle rImprove coordination of needle rImprove coordination of needle retrieval in the downtown through the etrieval in the downtown through the etrieval in the downtown through the etrieval in the downtown through the
formation of a Needle Retrieval Committee.formation of a Needle Retrieval Committee.formation of a Needle Retrieval Committee.formation of a Needle Retrieval Committee.
CARRIED
5.4 Council Policy 6.20 Council Policy 6.20 Council Policy 6.20 Council Policy 6.20 ---- DDDDevelopment Information Meetings evelopment Information Meetings evelopment Information Meetings evelopment Information Meetings –––– Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed
RevisionsRevisionsRevisionsRevisions
Staff report dated July 4, 2016 recommending that Council Policy 6.20 –
Development Information Meetings dated January 26, 2010 be repealed and
replaced with Council Policy 6.20 – Development Information Meetings dated
July 4, 2016.
R/2016-298
It was moved and seconded
That Council Policy 6.20 That Council Policy 6.20 That Council Policy 6.20 That Council Policy 6.20 ---- Development Information Meetings, dated January Development Information Meetings, dated January Development Information Meetings, dated January Development Information Meetings, dated January
26, 2010 be repealed and replaced with the attached draft Council Policy 26, 2010 be repealed and replaced with the attached draft Council Policy 26, 2010 be repealed and replaced with the attached draft Council Policy 26, 2010 be repealed and replaced with the attached draft Council Policy
6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 –––– Development Information Meetings, dated July 4, 2016.Development Information Meetings, dated July 4, 2016.Development Information Meetings, dated July 4, 2016.Development Information Meetings, dated July 4, 2016.
R/2016-299
It was moved and seconded
That That That That the notice period of at least 10 days in Policy 6.20, Section 6) be the notice period of at least 10 days in Policy 6.20, Section 6) be the notice period of at least 10 days in Policy 6.20, Section 6) be the notice period of at least 10 days in Policy 6.20, Section 6) be
amended to 2 weeks.amended to 2 weeks.amended to 2 weeks.amended to 2 weeks.
DEFEATED
Mayor Read, Councillor Duncan, Councillor Masse, Councillor Robson,
Deputy Mayor Shymkiw, Councillor Speirs - OPPOSED
MAIN MOTION CARRIED
5.5 Sports Team Sponsorship PolicySports Team Sponsorship PolicySports Team Sponsorship PolicySports Team Sponsorship Policy
Staff report dated July 4, 2016 providing options for the future sponsorship of
sports teams by the City of Maple Ridge.
The Manager of Accounting reviewed the report.
Council Workshop Minutes
July 4, 2016
Page 6 of 7
R/2016-300
It was moved and seconded
That That That That the the the the report dated July 4, 2016 titled “Sports Team Sponsorship Policy” be report dated July 4, 2016 titled “Sports Team Sponsorship Policy” be report dated July 4, 2016 titled “Sports Team Sponsorship Policy” be report dated July 4, 2016 titled “Sports Team Sponsorship Policy” be
received for information.received for information.received for information.received for information.
CARRIED
Note: Councillor Robson excused himself from discussion of Item 5.6 at 11:33 a.m.
as his residence is in the vicinity of the cell tower.
5.6 PPPProposedroposedroposedroposed Telus Cell TowerTelus Cell TowerTelus Cell TowerTelus Cell Tower,,,, Webster’s CornerWebster’s CornerWebster’s CornerWebster’s Cornerssss
Verbal update by the Property and Risk Manager
Councillor Masse spoke to potential health impacts to children and advised
that he would like a general agreement from Council to send a letter of non-
concurrence to Industry Canada
R/2016-301
It was moved and seconded
That That That That staff be directed to prepare a report staff be directed to prepare a report staff be directed to prepare a report staff be directed to prepare a report on the on the on the on the cell phone tower approval cell phone tower approval cell phone tower approval cell phone tower approval
processprocessprocessprocesseseseses and the implications of those processes, for the City to articulate a and the implications of those processes, for the City to articulate a and the implications of those processes, for the City to articulate a and the implications of those processes, for the City to articulate a
position on cell towers.position on cell towers.position on cell towers.position on cell towers.
CARRIED
Note: Councillor Robson returned to the meeting at 11:47 a.m.
5.7 Deputy Mayor RoleDeputy Mayor RoleDeputy Mayor RoleDeputy Mayor Role
Councillor Robson requested that the Deputy Mayor role be eliminated.
R/2016-302
It was moved and seconded
That That That That staff be directed to prepare an amendment to the council staff be directed to prepare an amendment to the council staff be directed to prepare an amendment to the council staff be directed to prepare an amendment to the council procedure procedure procedure procedure
bylaw to revert from a Deputy Mayor role to an acting mayor rotation.bylaw to revert from a Deputy Mayor role to an acting mayor rotation.bylaw to revert from a Deputy Mayor role to an acting mayor rotation.bylaw to revert from a Deputy Mayor role to an acting mayor rotation.
CARRIED
Mayor Read, Councillor Duncan, Deputy Mayor Shymkiw - OPPOSED
6.CORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCECORRESPONDENCE
Council Workshop Minutes
July 4, 2016
Page 7 of 7
6.1 Upcoming EventsUpcoming EventsUpcoming EventsUpcoming Events
July 26, 2016
6:00 p.m.
2016 Public Budget Q&A – Council Chambers, City Hall
Organizer: City of Maple Ridge
7.BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILBRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILBRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILBRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL – Nil
8.MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENTMATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENTMATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENTMATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT – Nil
9.ADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENTADJOURNMENT – 12:05 p.m.
_______________________________
N. Read, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
C. Marlo, Corporate Officer
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 11, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Social Services Research Project
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
As part of the Maple Ridge Resilience Initiative (MRRI), the City embarked on a process to review the
delivery of social services in the community particularly within the context of mental health,
substance use, homelessness and housing. A Request for Proposal was completed with the Social
Planning and Research Council (SPARC) selected as the successful proponent. The project work was
divided into five phases and Council was updated upon the completion of each phase. The project is
in its final phase and the final draft report and technical appendices are attached for review. Staff is
seeking Council’s input
RECOMMENDATION:
No resolution required.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
Council endorsed the objectives outlined in the Request for Proposal for the delivery of a Social
Services Delivery Project The Social Services Research Project was developed to:
1.Gain a clear understanding of the current service delivery and funding models in the areas of
mental health, substance use, and housing supports for marginal populations.
2. Assess and analyze the effectiveness (strengths, gaps, and opportunities for improvement) of
current delivery and funding models in meeting the community’s needs, and preparing to
meet future/growing needs.
3. Develop recommendations designed to position Maple Ridge to advocate for improved
service delivery, enhanced funding, increased resources and better coordination and service
delivery models.
4. To design metrics, as well as an ongoing mechanism, to measure the effectiveness collective
impact of service delivery and funding models at the local level.
The Project:
The project was divided into five phases with substantive work being completed in each phase.
Throughout the project, the consultant engaged the Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Katzie Community
Network to participate in each phase of the project. The consultant presented to Council and the
Community Network at the completion of each phase.
5.1
2
The Report:Project Inception Meeting, Detailed Work Plan, Contract Signing
Project Outputs:
Social Services Stakeholder Survey.
Inventory of Maple Ridge Social Services (Housing, Mental Health, Problematic
Substance Use and Addictions).
Review of Evidence Based Practices.
Consultation Workshops.
Shared Performance Outcome Framework.
Strategic Directions and Implementation Programs.
There are fifteen strategic directions being recommended in the area of housing for
vulnerable populations, mental health service enhancements, and enhanced programs to
address problem substance use and addictions. The strategic directions are framed with
information on related initiatives, implementation steps, potential partner organizations and
the resources required to act on the direction.
Phase 1: Project Inception Meeting, Detailed Work
Plan, Contract Signing
Council Presentation: October 5, 2015
Phase 2: Inventory of Service Delivery, Mapping and
Online Stakeholder Survey
Council Presentation: December 7, 2015
Phase 3: Development of Summary of Evidence-Based
Practices and Inventory of Funding Sources
Council Workshop: February 1, 2016
Phase 4: Key Stakeholder Workshops, Social
Responsibility Matrices, Assessment and Development
of Metrics
Council Workshop: May 16, 2016
Phase 5: Development and Submission of Social
Services Delivery Research Report and Technical
Appendices
Council Workshop: July 11, 2016
3
This is Council’s opportunity to provide feedback on the report and strategic directions. The
consultant will be returning with the community impact matrices and the final report. Council
will have an opportunity to endorse the Implementation Plan at that time.
b)Desired Outcome:
That the report be received for information and that the strategic directions and
implementation program be considered for endorsement when the final report is presented
to Council.
c)Strategic Alignment:
The report aligns with goals and objectives in the Housing Action Plan.
d)Citizen/Customer Implications:
Improved access to services in the area of mental health, substance use and housing is a
benefit to all citizens, particularly the most vulnerable, and the community as a whole.
CONCLUSIONS:
The Social Services Research Project has engaged multi-stakeholders including people with lived
experience. There are a number of strategic directions that can be acted upon locally with minimal
resources. There are some areas that will need further exploration and greater resources to be
acted upon.
“Original signed by Shawn Matthewson”
Prepared by: Shawn Matthewson, Social Policy Analyst
“Original signed by Wendy McCormick”
Reviewed by: Wendy McCormick, Director of Recreation
“Original signed by Kelly Swift”
Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager, Community Development
Parks & Recreation Services
“Original signed by Ted Swabey”
Concurrence: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
:sm
Attachment:
Maple Ridge Social Services Delivery Research Project - Draft Summary Report July 2016
Maple Ridge Social Services Delivery Research Project - Draft Summary Report July 2016 - Appendixes A - E
Maple Ridge Social Services
Delivery Research Project
DRAFT Summary Report
July 2016
Table of Contents
1.0. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1
2.0. Research Methods and Phases of Activity ................................................................................3
3.0. Summary of Research Findings ................................................................................................6
3.1. Social Service Stakeholders Survey Summary ............................................................................... 6
3.1.1. Respondent Background Summary ....................................................................................... 6
3.1.2. Housing Services Summary ................................................................................................... 6
3.1.3. Mental Health Services Summary ......................................................................................... 7
3.1.4. Substance Use Services Summary ......................................................................................... 7
3.1.5. Duplication in Services Summary .......................................................................................... 8
3.1.6. Rankings of Organization Assets and Issues Summary ......................................................... 8
3.2. Inventory of Maple Ridge Social Services Summary (Housing, Mental Health,
Problematic Substance use and Addictions) ................................................................................. 9
3.2.1. Criteria for Inclusion .............................................................................................................. 9
3.3. Review of Evidence Based Practices Summary ........................................................................... 10
3.3.1. Housing Case Study #1 - Sunshine Coast Housing Project .................................................. 10
3.3.2. Housing Case Study #2 - Medicine Hat Plan to End Homelessness .................................... 11
3.3.3. Housing Case Study #3 - London Ontario: Homelessness Prevention System ................... 12
3.3.4. Mental Health Case Study #1 - Preventing Homelessness through Mental Health
Discharge Planning: Best Practices and Community Partnerships in British Columbia ...... 13
3.3.5. Mental Health Case Study #2 - England’s Department for Communities and Local
Government Preventing Homelessness Project ................................................................. 14
3.3.6. Substance Use Case Study #1: At Home / Chez Soi Project (Vancouver) ........................... 15
3.4. Consultation Workshops Summary ............................................................................................ 16
3.4.1. Housing ............................................................................................................................... 17
3.4.2. Mental Health Services ....................................................................................................... 18
3.4.3. Problem Substance Use and Addiction Services ................................................................. 18
4.0. Shared Performance Outcome Framework ............................................................................ 21
5.0. Concluding Strategic Directions and Recommended Implementation Programs ...................... 23
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of Consultation Workshops .......................................................................................... 16
Table 2. Priority Housing Issues Identified by Workshop Participants ....................................................... 17
Table 3. Priority Mental Health Issues Identified by Workshop Participants ............................................. 18
Table 4. Priority Problem Substance Use and Addictions Issues Identified by Workshop
Participants .................................................................................................................................... 19
Table 5. Implementation Directions: Housing for Vulnerable Populations ................................................ 24
Table 6. Implementation Directions: Mental Health Service Enhancements ............................................ 27
Table 7. Implementation Directions: Enhanced Programs to Address Problem Substance Use
and Addictions .............................................................................................................................. 30
List of Figures
Figure 1. Phases in Social Service Delivery Research Project ....................................................................... 3
Page | 1
1.0. Introduction
This report presents summary information gathered during the Maple Ridge Social Services Delivery
Research Project. The information herein and the related technical appendices aim to equip the City of
Maple Ridge (including council, staff, and committees) with knowledge and recommendations to
support decision making with regard to issues related to housing for vulnerable populations, mental
health, and problem substance use and addictions in Maple Ridge.
As per the Request for Proposals, this study is intended to identify opportunities available to the City
that will improve the delivery of all services and will identify funding models for services in the area.
Within this context a number of specific goals guided this applied study:
1.Help the City gain a clear understanding of the current service delivery and funding models in
the three (3) focus areas of mental health, substance use, and housing supports for marginal
populations;
2.Assess and analyze the effectiveness of current delivery and funding models in meeting the
community of Maple Ridges’ needs, and preparing to meet its future as well as present growing
needs;
3.Develop recommendations designed to position Maple Ridge to advocate for:
Changes that will improve the capacity and effectiveness of the current delivery system;
Enhanced access to funding programs;
Increased resources; and
Services designed to address the needs of vulnerable populations, achieve improved
access by streamlining the delivery system, and ensure ongoing effectiveness though
efficient, innovative, and effective use of resources.
4.Design metrics, as well as an ongoing mechanism, to measure the effectiveness and collective
impact of service delivery and funding models at the local level.
This summary report presents a high level overview of the major findings from the study and is
supported by six technical appendices that provide additional background on the issues identified during
the research process. The six Technical Appendices referred to above have the following titles:
1.Technical Appendix A: Social Service Stakeholders Survey Summary;
2.Technical Appendix B: Backgrounder for Inventory of Maple Ridge Social Services;
3.Technical Appendix C: Review of Evidence Base Practices;
4.Technical Appendix D: Consultation Workshops Summary;
5.Technical Appendix E: Measuring and Monitoring Results Summary; and,
6.Technical Appendix F: Social Responsibility Matrices Summary.
In addition to this summary report and the six Technical Appendices, a number of information
Page | 2
summaries, maps, and funding inventories were developed in support for the engagement elements of
the project.
In the following section (Section 2), the research methodology and activities are summarized. Section 3
contains a summary of findings from the different lines of inquiry relevant to this study. Section 4
provides an outline of an initial shared performance measurement and outcome framework. Section 5 is
a summary of conclusions from the range of project activities, while Section 6 provides a detailed
implementation program outlining major recommendations and activities in each of the three focus
areas (housing for vulnerable populations, mental health, and problematic substance use and
addictions).
Page | 3
2.0. Research Methods and Phases of Activity
Qualitative and quantitative research and analysis methods were used to complete this project. These
include: online survey and summary of results, service inventory, mapping, compilation of case study
information on evidence-based practices, summary of funding sources, six community consultation
workshops, development of evaluation measures, and development of social responsibility matrices.
Detailed research method notes are provided in the technical appendices where applicable. The figure
below summarizes the major project activities.
Figure 1. Phases in Social Service Delivery Research Project
Phase 1: Project Inception Meeting, Detailed Work
Plan, Contract Signing
Phase 2: Inventory of Service Delivery, Mapping and
Online Stakeholder Survey
Phase 3: Development of Summary of Evidence-Based
Practices and Inventory of Funding Sources
Phase 4: Key Stakeholder Workshops, Social
Responsibility Matrices, Assessment and Development
of Metrics
Phase 5: Development and Submission of Social
Services Delivery Research Report and Technical
Appendices
Page | 4
The following is a summary of activities in each of the project phases:
Phase 1: Project Inception Meeting, Detailed Work Plan, Contract Signing
1.Developed a project work plan in conjunction with City staff;
2.Confirmed meeting schedule and presentation dates with the City staff;
3.Developed a Gantt chart to visualize project milestones; and,
4.Finalized the project contract.
Phase 2: Inventory of Service Delivery, Mapping and Online Stakeholder Survey
1.Developed and administered an online stakeholder survey circulated to key stakeholders in
Maple Ridge (including senior managers, Executive Directors, and other knowledgeable
individuals identified through the service inventory and recommended by the project Steering
Committee) (Appendix A);
2.Completed inventory of services providing support for housing of vulnerable populations,
mental health and problem substance abuse and addictions issues (Appendix B); and,
3.Developed Service Delivery Maps summarizing socio-demographic information in the City of
Maple Ridge (distributed separately).
Phase 3: Development of Discussion Paper on Evidence-Based Practices and Inventory of Funding
Sources
1.Developed a total of five case studies summarizing model approaches in addressing issues
related to housing and homelessness (the Sunshine Coast Housing Project, the Medicine Hat
Plan to End Homelessness, and the London, Ontario: Homelessness Prevention System) and
mental health services (mental health discharge planning in British Columbia, Department for
Communities and Local Government in London, United Kingdom) (Appendix C); and,
2.Compiled an inventory of funding sources intended to support potential future actions to
address issues of housing for vulnerable populations, mental health and problem substance use
and addictions (distributed separately).
Phase 4: Consultation, Social Responsibility Matrices, and Assessment and Development of Metrics
1.In conjunction with the above research activities, SPARC BC conducted an extensive consultation
process involving a range of stakeholders including City of Maple Ridge Council and community
social service organizations (Appendix D); and,
2.Using elements identified throughout the research project, a social responsibility matrix was
developed outlining the varying scope of responsibility for each of the three levels of
government, as well as the community service sector (Appendix F).
Page | 5
Phase 5: Development and Submission of the Social Services Delivery Research Report
The purposes of the final report are to
1. To articulate a series of recommendations intended to inform the City of Maple Ridge in
advocating for reform of policies and systems related to the current social service delivery and
funding models; and,
2. Provide a clearer picture about:
How to enable more coordinated communication among the City, service providers, and
their clientele;
Steps to enhance access for clients seeking mental health, substance use, and housing-
related services; and,
A clear rationale for both the human rights and business case that is needed to enhance
existing social service systems.
Page | 6
3.0. Summary of Research Findings
3.1. Social Service Stakeholders Survey Summary
A survey questionnaire was circulated to key stakeholders involved in developing solutions to issues
associated with the three them areas (housing for vulnerable populations, mental health, and problem
substance use and addictions). The sections below provide an overview of responses. For full details see
Appendix A: Social Service Stakeholders Survey Summary.
3.1.1. Respondent Background Summary
In total, 26 respondents took part in a 27-item survey. Each Likert-scale question received, at minimum,
18 responses. Among the respondents who took part in the survey, 16 (62%) represented non-profit
service organizations or associations, 3 (12%) represented faith-based groups, and 7 (27%) represented
various levels of government.
Among full-time employees hired by each respondent’s organization, 12 (52.1%) reported having 25 or
fewer full-time employees, 5 (21.7%) reported having between 26 and 50 full-time employees, and 6
(26%) reported their organization having 51 or more full-time employees.
Among less than full-time employees hired by each respondent’s organizations, 18 (72%) of respondents
reported having between 1 and 25 less than full-time employees, 6 (26%) of respondents reported
having between 26 and 500 less than full time employees, and 1 (4%) respondent indicated their
organization employs more than 500 less than full-time employees.
3.1.2. Housing Services Summary
The majority of respondents (32%) selected male and female populations as being provided housing
services by their organizations while children (0 to 12 years) (0%), youth (13 to 18 years (8.3%) and
families (12.5%) were least likely to have housing services provided to them. No respondent indicated
housing services were more than adequate in meeting the needs of any population group. The majority
of respondents, for each population type, indicated such services were either inadequate, or they had
no opinion/did not know.
Approximately 10 (47.7%) respondents indicated that between 0% and 30% of their organization’s
housing services are at risk of losing funding before 2017 while 2 (9.5%) respondents indicated that
between 91% and 100% of such services are at risk of losing funding before 2017. The majority of
respondents (26.3%) indicated that seniors (ages 65+) would be most adversely affected by the loss of
housing services, while all populations was the second most selected category (21.1%).
Respondents identified people who are homeless, families and seniors as needing more focused housing
services including affordable rental housing for families, increased subsidized units for families and
people with disabilities, low barrier and long-term supportive housing, and transitional housing for
women with children fleeing abusive situations. For youth specifically, respondents indicated a need for
better support for youth in care including emergency youth shelter that is situated in Maple Ridge,
Page | 7
increased affordable market rentals for young adults, supportive housing for young adults and youth
with mental health/substance use barriers, and supportive housing for youth with developmental and
‘hidden’ disabilities. Respondents also identified a need for more housing specific to seniors, outreach
workers who can assist at-risk seniors which completing application forms, applying for subsidies,
transportation options, and connection to mental health and social services and home support.
3.1.3. Mental Health Services Summary
The majority of respondents (48%) selected people with disabilities and LGBTQ communities as being
populations being provided mental health services by their organizations while children (0 to 12
years)(20%) and families (28%) were the least likely populations selected as having mental health
services being provided to them. Approximately 5 (20%) respondents reported all populations being
provided mental health services by their organization. Respondents were much more likely to rate
mental health services as inadequate in meeting the needs of such populations living in Maple Ridge.
Respondents identified children, youth, and seniors as populations currently underserved by mental
health services. For children and youth, respondents indicated a need for more flexible and client-
focused services, online therapy, 24 hour youth crisis response, and early identification of mental health
challenges in younger children. For seniors (65+), respondents indicated the need for more geriatric
mental health assessments, reduction in wait times, greater support an aging population, anti-stigma
and cognitive skill building, wrap-around support for vulnerable populations focusing on relationship
building, services focused upon co-occurring mental health disorders, vocational supports and
occupational therapy.
Approximately 9 (42.9%) respondents indicated that between 0% and 30% of their mental health
services are at risk of losing funding before 2017, while 3 (14.3%) respondents reported 91% to 100% of
their mental health services are at risk of losing funding before 2017. The populations most adversely
affected would include male, female, and senior (65+), and youth (13-18 years) populations as indicated
by 4 (21.1%) respondents.
3.1.4. Substance Use Services Summary
The majority of respondents (32%) selected First Nations populations, people with disabilities (32%), and
people who are homeless (28%) as being populations their organization provides substance use services
to, while children (0 to 12 years) (12%), youth (13 to 18 years (16%) and families (16%) were least likely
to receive substance use services by their organizations. Approximately 5 (20%) respondents reported
all of the listed populations have substance use services provided to them by their organizations.
Respondents were much more likely to rate the adequacy of substance use services by population group
as either inadequate or had no opinion/did not know.
Respondents identified treatment and detox as service areas requiring more attention including
recovery programs, second stage housing, post-treatment relapse prevention, general detox and drug
and alcohol treatment (both resident and non-resident) with a particular focus on youth programming,
accessible methadone services, counselling and support groups, more outreach and trauma support,
evidence and research-based harm reduction programs and strategies, early intervention and drug and
Page | 8
alcohol awareness programs within schools, healthy lifestyle programming, parent/guardian education,
and training for first responders and front line workers on the impact of substance abuse on brain
function and how to support individuals with substance use challenges.
Approximately 8 (33.4%) respondents indicated that between 0% and 30% of substance use services
were at risk of losing funding before 2017, while 3 (12.5%) respondents indicated that between 91% and
100% of such services were at risk of losing funding before 2017. The majority of respondents (20%)
indicated that all populations would be most adversely affected by the loss of substance use services.
3.1.5. Duplication in Services Summary
Approximately 14 (56%) respondents indicated no duplication of mental health, substance use, or
housing services in Maple Ridge while 5 (20%) respondents indicated Maple Ridge does have duplication
of services in housing and homeless outreach. Administration and internal operations as well as limited
coordination among organizations were seen as a reason for some of this overlap.
3.1.6. Rankings of Organization Assets and Issues Summary
Regarding organization assets, respondents ranked strong service delivery model (M = 2.82) and talented
and dedicated staff (M = 2.82) as the most important set of assets their organization currently has.
Respondents ranked a strong governance model (M = 6.2), strong grant writing skills to secure funding
(M = 6.56) and other assets (M = 9.0) as the least important set of assets their organization currently
has.
Regarding organization issues, respondents ranked not having enough funding to create services that
meet the needs of clients (M = 1.94) and not having enough funding for administration and/or expenses
(M = 2.81) as the most important service implementation issues their organization currently faces.
Issues considered the least important include inadequate translation and interpretation support for
clients (M = 10.73), lack of effective policies and procedures (M = 10.7), and lack of exemption from
municipal property taxes (M = 10.18). A majority of respondents identified a lack of funding as both an
implementation issue and as a root cause. Respondents noted that a lack of funding simply means that
fewer front line staff can be hired and fewer clients can be served. Additionally, a few respondents
noted that the public needs more awareness and understanding regarding social priorities with
communities. Respondents described an environment of misinformation, resistance and fear when it
comes to services focused around substance use, mental health and housing in Maple Ridge. In addition,
transportation was identified as an issue for some populations – in terms of accessing services when
required.
To address these issues, the majority of respondents considered increased funding as a solution,
educate policy makers about issues facing community organizations, consider sharing administrative
costs between organizations, ask cities to waive property taxes for social service organizations, find
longer term funders, and more funding specifically to substance use education, prevention and
treatment within schools.
Page | 9
3.2. Inventory of Maple Ridge Social Services Summary (Housing, Mental
Health, Problematic Substance use and Addictions)
The main objective of the Maple Ridge’s Social Services Delivery Research Project is to identify key
trends, strengths and opportunities related to the service system regarding mental health, substance
use, and housing in Maple Ridge in order to establish consistent, innovative and coordinated service
delivery and improve accessibility of services.
This document is organized according to the three theme areas: (1) Mental Health (79 services and 24
Subcategories); (2) Substance Use (38 programs in 18 Subcategories); and, (3) Housing (47 programs in
20 Subcategories). The next subsection provides an overview of the criteria for inclusion into the
inventory.
3.2.1. Criteria for Inclusion
The development of the Service Inventory was based on three existing sources:
1. City of Maple Ridge Parks and Leisure Services Community Directory:
http://mrpmparksandleisure.ca/;
2. Red Book Online: http://redbookonline.bc211.ca/; and,
3. Referrals by City of Maple Ridge staff and Community Network members.
Organization information was confirmed by requesting that service providers review their organizational
information for accuracy and completeness. The criteria for inclusion into the Service Inventory include:
1. Services must be offered in Maple Ridge;
2. Services must be free or low cost; and,
3. Services must offer or be related to one or a combination of the following themes:
Housing
Mental Health; or,
Substance Use.
The development of a draft Service Inventory identified 134 unique programs offered through 51
organizations. Of those 51 organizations, 35 (69%) are based in Maple Ridge and 16 (31%) organizations
are based outside Maple Ridge. Of the 134 individual programs, 106 (79%) are located in Maple Ridge
while 28 (21%) are located outside Maple Ridge.
Once the draft service inventory was developed, validation was sought for the information compiled
about existing resources including:
Program category (mental health, substance use, and/or housing);
Program name;
Service description;
Page | 10
Target population (Families; Children 0 to 12 years; Youth 13 to 18 years; Youth 19 to 24
years; Seniors 65+ years; Women; Males, LGBTQ; First Nations; Immigrant/Refugee;
People with disabilities, People who are homeless; All of these populations; and/or,
Other);
Host/Referring Organization
Organization Name;
Program (Yes/No) and Organization (Yes/No);
Offered within Maple Ridge (Yes/No);
Long Term (program has been running for 5 years or more) or Short Term (program has
been running for less than 5 years);
Secured funding for program up to 2017 (Yes/No);
Unit number or P.O. Box, street address, city, province and postal code; and,
Phone number, email and website
To facilitate this process, Executive Directors and Senior Program Officers who offer programs that
address housing, mental health, and substance abuse issues were contacted the second week of
November of 2015 for their review for accuracy of an excel spreadsheet containing program information
they oversee. A reminder email was sent a week later and a final reminder email was sent at the end of
November of 2015.
Approximately 18 programs out of 134 unique programs were reviewed and validated, constituting 13%
of the total programs. These programs came from 10 organizations constituting 20% of the total number
(N = 51) of organizations.
3.3. Review of Evidence Based Practices Summary
A review of best practice examples related to housing and mental health was undertaken as part of this
project. The six case studies illustrate local and worldwide initiatives that seek to address challenges
related to the focus of this project. The sections below provide a basic summary of relevant information
from the housing studies. For a complete description of each project please see Technical Appendix C:
Review of Evidence Base Practices.
3.3.1. Housing Case Study #1 - Sunshine Coast Housing Project
This case study provides an overview of the Sunshine Coast Housing Project, an affordable housing study
intended to explore the need for affordable housing on British Columbia’s Sunshine Coast and to
develop an affordable housing strategy for the area. The study included: a review of a range of data
related to the housing situation on the Sunshine Coast; completion of key stakeholder interviews on
housing issues; development and presentation of a housing profile (including examples of affordable
housing initiatives and tools); a needs assessment to identify gaps in affordable housing on the Sunshine
Coast; development of case studies highlighting the roles of local governments, as well as a review of
governance options; outline of ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of community land trust and housing trust funds;
Page | 11
description of potential affordable housing sites; and a review of current local government policies and
practices regarding affordable housing.
Some lessons learned through the process included:
1. It takes time to build support in the community and education and community outreach is
critical to securing local buy in for solutions;
2. It is important to ensure that key individuals and institutions in the are informed and engaged in
the process; and,
3. Recognize the key role that a social planning council can play in relationship building,
communication among stakeholders, and advocacy to the larger community by bringing a
perspective that emphasizes the need for long-term solutions involving coordination and
collaboration among a range of community interests.
The project also identified a number of challenges including:
1. It is difficult for smaller communities to amass significant funds to be able to create affordable
housing;
2. There was a lack of municipally owned land close to amenities and served by public
transportation that could be used for affordable housing;
3. Requirements specific to rural areas may make it costly to build affordable housing; and,
4. The approval process is slow due to demands related to housing and commercial development
projects.
3.3.2. Housing Case Study #2 - Medicine Hat Plan to End Homelessness
The overall goal of the Medicine Hat Plan to End Homelessness is to ensure that no-one in the
community would have to live in an emergency shelter or “sleep rough” for more than 10 days before
they had access to stable housing and associated supports.
Implementation of the plan is coordinated by Medicine Hat Community Housing Society (MHCHS) which
utilizes a systems approach based on a ‘housing first’ philosophy. The approach is based on a number of
key strategies including:
1. System-wide planning with an emphasis on long-term chronic and episodically homeless;
2. Housing and supports including maximizing the use of affordable housing stock and increasing
the capacity for the development of permanent affordable housing;
3. Systems integration and prevention (e.g., access to income assistance, partnership with the
education sector to address homelessness risk among young people, improved discharge
planning by medical services, exploring better integration between family violence and
homeless serving systems, and support for the development of a poverty reduction strategy);
4. Acquiring and maintaining data and research on the homeless-serving system; and,
Page | 12
5.Development of leadership and sustainability including increased public awareness and
engagement in ending homelessness in Medicine Hat, developing and advancing policy priorities
to support the Plan to end Homelessness, and providing leadership to end homelessness in
Alberta and Canada.
Since 2009, Medicine Hat has seen a 45% reduction in shelter usage. In addition, 42% of participants
who entered a housing first program were employed. Alberta’s first ever Point in Time Homeless Count
was conducted in Medicine Hat on October 16, 2014. On that night, 64 people were counted, five of
whom were on the street and 59 of whom were in an emergency shelter or short-term supportive
housing.
3.3.3. Housing Case Study #3 - London Ontario: Homelessness Prevention System
Ontario’s Housing Services Act introduced in 2011 required all Municipal Service Managers to develop a
council-approved 10-year plan to address housing and homelessness. In response to this Act, the City of
London developed two separate plans based on a ‘housing first’ approach: the London Community
Housing Strategy (2010), and the Community Plan on Homelessness (2010). The City’s approach focused
on assisting individuals and families by seeking the right housing, at the right time, in the right place with
the right level of approach. These plans were developed through extensive consultation, including a
community roundtable, a youth focus group and reviews on emerging directions.
In 2012, the City also engaged in a comprehensive approach to revising its Official Plan, called “ReThink
London”, a significant focus of which was upon homelessness strategies and policies. Finally, in 2013,
the City introduced the Homeless Prevention System: a 3-year implementation plan outlining a
coordinated and outcome oriented approach to reducing and preventing homelessness in London.
This implementation plan was developed through a series of community forums, and included monthly
community advisory group meetings.
London’s Homeless Prevention System contains four areas of focus, including:
1.Securing housing – This is addressed through the Neighbourhood Housing Support Centre
(NHSC). The NHSC functions as both a physical and virtual hub for homeless individuals, along
with those at risk of becoming homeless
2.Providing housing with supports – This is also addressed through the NHSC. A key component
of the centre’s success is collaboration between NHSC, community service providers, the City of
London, and other stakeholders. The close collaboration between stakeholders has helped
support the development of a preventative system based on working groups, accountability
agreements, common assessment and performance measurement tools, an integrated
information system, case management and service practices, communication protocols and
collaborative governance.
3.Housing stability – The Housing Stability Fund is the main component of this focus area. The
overall goal of the fund is to offer financial assistance to low income Londoners who may be at
risk of homelessness by helping them obtain and retain housing by offering grants and loans to
Page | 13
low income residents to assist in paying rent, emergency energy assistance, and moving
assistance.
4.Reduced pressure on emergency shelter use – This is addressed by developing strategies to
divert individuals from entering shelters in the first place. Diversion is addressed through: short-
term case management; conflict mediation; connection to services outside homeless service
sector; provision of financial, utility and or rental assistance and increasing availability of
different types of housing options.
The Centre has also articulated a fifth area of focus, Strategy, Competency and Capacity, intended to
strengthen community ties and achieve the actions of the Implementation Plan.
In 2017, the City of London plans to undertake an evaluation of the implementation of the plan to date.
No new statistics on the homeless population are currently available.
3.3.4. Mental Health Case Study #1 - Preventing Homelessness through Mental Health
Discharge Planning: Best Practices and Community Partnerships in British Columbia
This case study is based on a research project aimed at identifying effective policies, practices and
resource requirements intended to prevent homelessness among residents and patients discharged
from mental health facilities. The research project gathered interview data from four mental health
facilities representing a mix or rural and urban communities: St. Mary’s Hospital Psychiatric In-Patient
Unit (Sunshine Coast); Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital (Psychiatric In-Patient Unit and Tertiary
Residential Care) (Trail and area); Lions Gate Hospital Acute Psychiatric In-Patient Unit (Vancouver North
Shore); and Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addictions (available province-wide).
The study identified a number of best practices associated with effective discharge planning including:
1.Access to appropriate housing resources;
2.Access to community support services;
3.Partnerships and ‘buy-in’ among health care providers, community services, and peer support;
4.Information sharing agreements between hospitals and community services;
5.Early identification of discharge needs;
6.Clearly established ‘home’ for discharge planning within the hospital unit;
7.Discharge planning has a long-term focus on housing and services; and,
8.Discharge planning is culturally sensitive.
Barriers to successful discharge planning include:
1.Lack of long term planning and support networks;
2.Community services and peer networks are not involved in discharge planning;
3.Rural locations lack appropriate resources for mental health patients;
Page | 14
4.There is a significant gap in housing for those with concurrent disorders;
5.Individuals with behavioural problems are difficult to house;
6.BC has significant gaps in affordable housing across the spectrum;
7.The overall cost of housing in BC and low income assistance rates aggravate the situation;
8.Funding cuts by senior levels of government mean that community services are lacking in rural
location and overburdened in urban areas; and,
9.There is no formal mechanism for involving community service organizations in discharge
planning even though the play a critical role in supporting clients living in the community.
3.3.5. Mental Health Case Study #2 - England’s Department for Communities and Local
Government Preventing Homelessness Project
In 2008 the Mayor of London, England committed to ending ‘rough sleeping’ in the Greater London area
by the end of 2012. This case study summarizes the role of the government of England’s Department for
Communities and Local Government in supporting achievement of this goal.
One initiative described is the No-Second Night Out initiative that was intended to ensure that no
individual who spent one night on the street would spend a second night on the street. Components of
the initiative included:
1.Assisting people off the streets;
2.Helping people to access health care;
3.Supporting people to find work;
4.Reducing bureaucratic burdens;
5.Increasing local control over investment in services; and,
6.Devolving responsibility for tackling homelessness.
Another initiative described is “Making Every Contact Count: A Joint Approach to Preventing
Homelessness” which relies on collaboration and cooperation among various stakeholders services
populations at-risk for homelessness. Strategies employed include:
1.Addressing issues arising from troubled childhoods and adolescence;
2.Improving health;
3.Reducing involvement in crime;
4.Improving access to financial advice, skills and employment services; and,
5.Initiating innovative social funding mechanisms for homelessness.
Although these initiatives were seen as successful, the number of “rough sleepers” counted within
London between 2001 and 2014 continued to rise. Despite this accomplishments included:
Page | 15
1. Establishment of a national Rough Sleeper Reporting Line and Website;
2. Completion of a report containing recommendations on how hospital admission and discharge
can be improved for people who are homeless; and,
3. Funding of Homeless Link, a partnership of five local authorities focused on improving outcomes
for homeless people with co-occurring mental health and substance use challenges.
3.3.6. Substance Use Case Study #1: At Home / Chez Soi Project (Vancouver)
This case study summarizes At Home / Chez Soi, a housing research initiative that included consideration
of multidisciplinary approaches to addressing homelessness for Canadians with mental health issues.
The research took place in five Canadian cities (Moncton, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, and Vancouver).
This included comparison of various housing interventions modeled on the needs of participants. The
models assessed included:
1. Housing First (HF) – based on a philosophy of consumer choice this model features immediate
access to housing and support services, no mandatory psychiatric treatment or sobriety, and
weekly tenant/case worker meetings;
2. Intensive Case Management (ICM) – based on a case management team which brokers
specialized services to community agencies and included centralized assignment and weekly
case conferences, worker accompaniment to appointments, and a client/staff ratio of 16:1;
3. Housing First with Assertive Community Treatment Groups (HF with ACT) – Based on a
transdisciplinary team (psychiatrist, nurse, occupational therapist, substance abuse specialist,
and peer specialist) that includes daily team meetings, involvement by program staff in hospital
admissions and discharges, and a client/staff ratio of 9:1;
4. Congregate Housing and Supports (CONG) – Self-contained units in a single building with
common areas and meals provided along with onsite support staff (psychiatrist, social worker,
nurse, pharmacy, activity planning) and a client staff ration of 12:1 ; and,
5. Treatment as Usual (TAU) – No housing and supports provided although some participants may
receive housing and support through other programs and agencies.
This case study summarizes the results of the Vancouver At Home (VAH) study which included 497 adult
participants (19 and older) living with mental health issues and lacking stable housing. In the Vancouver
component participants were randomly assigned to one of three possible study groups (HF with ACT,
CONG, and TAU).
Research results documented that:
1. Housing First interventions cost $28,862 per person per year on average for high needs
participants and $15,952 per person per year for moderate need participants1; and,
1 Costs included front line staff salaries, supervisors, program expenses (travel, rent, utilities), and rent supplement
provided by MHCC grant.
Page | 16
2. Costs for high needs participants were on average $24,190 less per person than the costs of all
other related services (e.g., psychiatric hospitals, hospitals, emergency shelters, etc.) while the
costs for moderate needs participants increased by $2,667.
Researchers articulated the following lessons:
1. There is a need to clearly establish roles for researchers and service providers;
2. The hiring of a Site Coordinator was essential in facilitating equality among team members and
in building relationships, trust and transparency;
3. Small committees to address front-line problems in a prompt manner were more important
than reliance on higher level meetings; and,
4. The short and long term success of the Vancouver project was based on building consensus
among a variety of stakeholders around a common vision for the project and in drawing
together the right partners representing both disenfranchised groups and organizations
committed to inclusivity and parity of participation.
3.4. Consultation Workshops Summary
In order to supplement and enhance the information already collected, a series of consultation
workshops were held February to early May, 2016. The workshops involved a wide range of participants
including City of Maple Ridge Council members, community service providers and stakeholders, and a
variety of people with lived experience of issues of homelessness, mental health and problematic
substance use and addictions. An estimated 115 individuals took part in these sessions (see Table 1).
Table 1. Summary of Consultation Workshops
Workshop Date Estimated
Attendance
1. Maple Ridge Community Network (Session 1) February 1, 2016 30
2. Maple Ridge City Council February 1, 2016 7
3. Youth Advisory Council March 8, 2016 20
4. Alouette Home Start Residents (Workshop) March 22, 2016 16
5. Alouette Home Start Residents (Poster) March 29, 2016 15
6. Maple Ridge Community Network (Session 2) April 25, 2016 25
7. Maple Ridge Local Action Team Youth Representatives May 3, 2016 7
TOTAL 120
Page | 17
The workshop format was varied to take into account the specific needs of the participants. For some
sessions, presentations and small groups discussions were used to gather information and identify
priority issues.
In other sessions, a community meal was followed by a discussion and brainstorm session. In some
cases, posters were used to gather comments and responses to questions about priority issues. This
method was used to ensure confidentiality for those sharing parts of their lived experience. Another
method was to ask participants to work in small groups to identify priority issues, short-term actions
(i.e., within two years), and potential partners. This was utilized in workshops involving community
service providers,
The tables below provide a brief summary of the top priorities identified by workshop participants in
each of the three topic areas (housing, mental health, problem substance abuse and addictions).
Further details of the methods utilized in each workshop and the complete workshop notes are included
in Appendix D: Consultation Workshops Summary Report.
3.4.1. Housing
Table 2 provides an outline of priority issues identified by workshop participants. Issues identified
include continued support for the implementation of the Maple Ridge Housing Action Plan, improved
coordination and integration of services, improved access to services, outreach to landlords and
property owners, as well as improved support people in transition in the community.
Table 2. Priority Housing Issues Identified by Workshop Participants
MR Community
Network (1)
MR City
Council
MR City Youth
Advisory Council
Alouette
Heights
Supportive
Housing
MR Community
Network (2)
MR LAT Youth
Representatives
Improve
access to
affordable
housing
Support
rent
subsidies
Continue to
implement
the
Housing
Action Plan
Integration
of mental
health
services
with
housing
Centralize
housing
resources
Address cost
of rental
housing for
youth
Address
transport-
ation issues
Work to
decrease
waiting
times for
social
housing
Improve
access to
affordable
housing
Supportive
housing
provides
stability
and
community
Supportive
housing as
a found-
ation for
other life
changes
Improve
care and
housing for
those
leaving
residential
treatment
Work with
landlords
and
property
managers to
ensure
housing
options
Safe house
for youth
Improve
life-skills
support for
youth living
on their
own
Page | 18
3.4.2. Mental Health Services
Workshop participants articulated a range of priority issues related to mental health services (Table 3).
These included the need to develop effective strategies to support those with co-occurring disorders,
improved outreach in the form of an Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) team, improved outreach
for youth in transition out of foster care. Participants also identified issues such as the need for a
regional approach to services, improved coordination and communication among service provider as
well as improved referral and service-delivery. Public education was also identified as a priority issue as
was improved education for medical personal and front line workers about the needs of youth and the
resources available to support them.
Table 3. Priority Mental Health Issues Identified by Workshop Participants
MR Community
Network (1)
MR City
Council
MR City Youth
Advisory Council
Alouette Heights
Supportive
Housing
MR Community
Network (2)
MR LAT Youth
Representatives
Co-
occurring
Disorders
Outreach
(ACT Team)
Outreach
(Youth in
transition
out of
foster care
Outreach
(Youth in
transition
out of
foster
care)
Regional
approach
to mental
health and
addictions
Improve
referral
process
Improve
service
delivery
model in
three areas
Address
shame and
stigma
associated
with mental
health
issues
Improve
staff training
to ensure
youth feel
welcomed
Address
confident-
iality issues
Address
“NIMBY”
syndrome
Improve
access and
awareness
to local
services
Develop a
mental
health
working
group
Education
for medical
professional
s about
referrals
Increase the
number of
no or low
barrier
programs
Educate
adults who
work with
youth
3.4.3. Problem Substance Use and Addiction Services
With regard to problem substance use and addiction services participants identified a range of priority
issues (Table 4). Highest priority issues included improved access to services including detox, improved
outreach to youth and to children 6-12, the need for a dedicated “sobering” centre, improved second
stage treatment options, and increased outreach to those with both mental health and addictions
issues. Other frequently mentioned issues included the need for improve coordination of services, a
regional approach to addictions, and public education to address the stigma associated with problem
substance use and addiction.
Page | 19
Table 4. Priority Problem Substance Use and Addictions Issues Identified by Workshop Participants
MR Community
Network (1)
MR City
Council
MR City Youth
Advisory
Council
Alouette
Heights
Supportive
Housing
MR Community
Network (2)
MR LAT Youth
Representatives
Improve
access to
detox
facilities for
all
(especially
youth)
Establish
Sobering
Centre
Outreach
(Youth)
Children
and youth
(0-12) with
emphasis
on 6-12
Regional
approach
to mental
health and
addictions
Address
barriers for
youth (13-
17) in
accessing
addictions
services
Address
shame and
stigma
associated
with
addictions
issues
Ensure
support in
all life
areas
Work to
improve
youth trust
in services
that
address
problem
substance
abuse and
addictions
Improve 2nd
stage
treatment
options
Ensure
“sober
living”
options
Ensure
follow-up
support to
address
issues of
integration
Increase
outreach to
vulnerable
populations
with both
mental
health and
addictions
issues
Explore co-
location of
mental
health and
addictions
services
Improve
public
education
in all three
areas
(housing,
mental
health, and
addictions)
Improve
coordination
services
Across the six workshops and the three topic areas a number of common themes emerged. These
include:
1.Support for the City of Maple Ridge Housing Action Plan including a strong desire to be involved
in the implementation of the plan as a means of facilitating the development of affordable
housing in general and housing for vulnerable populations in particular;
2.A strong desire to move past the silos that can constrict effective action on issues of housing for
vulnerable populations, mental health, and problem substance use and addictions by developing
strategies for more effective coordination of services and programs addressing these issues
(e.g., consideration of regional approaches to service delivery, and more communications,
coordination and integration of services across the three areas, etc.);
3.A need for ongoing public education to ensure that community residents are informed about
community initiatives and to address issues of shame and stigma;
Page | 20
4.A need to pay attention to issues of access by addressing the barriers that prevent community
members for accessing needed services. Issues related to youth include affordable housing,
transportation, trust, and education for front line workers on how to speak with youth and what
services are available for them; and,
5.A need to improve outreach to families with children 6-12 and other vulnerable populations.
Page | 21
4.0. Shared Performance Outcome Framework
In addition to the consultation workshops, two additional facilitated workshops were held to gather
feedback on the means by which progress and results can be monitored, evaluated and reported on
with regard to the three focus areas of housing for vulnerable populations, mental health, and problem
substance use and addictions.
Participants in the workshops included members of the Community Network and representatives of the
City of Maple Ridge.
Appendix E: Measuring and Monitoring Results Summary Report provides full details of discussions and
recommendations articulated during this process.
Participants worked to refine a list of anticipated outcomes from service program. The discussion
touches on a number of issues including:
1. Quality of Life;
2. Proactive Approaches;
3. Community Driven Approaches;
4. Mobility;
5. Engagement of Senior Citizens;
6. Integration;
7. Information Sharing; and,
8. Using the Right Language.
Participants identified a number of potential measures and assessed the measures in terms of
meaningfulness and practicality. These potential measures included:
1. Number of clients served: mental health, substance use, and in need of housing – 12 of 12
participants thought this was ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ meaningful while 8 of 12 participants
indicated sourcing responses were practical.
2. Number (%) of clients cycling services: mental health, and substance use – 10 of 12
participants thought this was ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ meaningful while 10 of 12 participants
indicated sourcing responses were practical.
3. Number (%) of clients transitioning to: supportive housing, and return to work – 9 of 11
participants thought this was ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ meaningful while 9 of 9 participants indicated
sourcing responses were ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ practical.
4. Number (%) of clients connecting within the community: libraries, recreation, other – 12 of 12
participants thought this was ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ meaningful while 10 of 11 participants
indicated sourcing responses were ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ practical.
Page | 22
5. Prevalence and description of shared physical space accessible in the community – 9 of 12
participants thought this was ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ meaningful while 11 of 11 participants
indicated sourcing responses were ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ practical.
6. Average ratings of citizen awareness of: aspects of homelessness, faced trauma, the stigma of
mental health, etc. – 12 of 12 participants thought this was ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ meaningful
while 8 of 12 participants indicated sourcing responses were ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ practical.
7. Average ratings among parents of: access to services, continuity in care, and barriers faced by
children and youth – 9 of 11 participants thought this was ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ meaningful
while 8 of 11 participants indicated sourcing responses were ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ practical.
8. Average client ratings of the: suitability of services, means to advocate on their own needs,
and ability to adapt to circumstances – 10 of 12 participants thought this was ‘very’ or
‘somewhat’ meaningful while 11 of 12 participants indicated sourcing responses were ‘very’ or
‘somewhat’ practical.
9. Average client ratings of: safety, sense of belonging, access to social and recreational
experiences, access to food, ability to work – 10 of 10 participants thought this was ‘very’ or
‘somewhat’ meaningful while 10 of 10 participants indicated sourcing responses were ‘very’ or
‘somewhat’ practical.
10. Periodic Evaluation (with GVRSC, Fraser Health and/or Housing BC) of: capacity, addressing
cultural differences, state of collaboration, etc. – 7 of 10 participants thought this was ‘very’ or
‘somewhat’ meaningful while 3 of 10 participants indicated sourcing responses were ‘very’ or
‘somewhat’ practical.
Two suggestions were made at the end of the session with regard to the implementation performance
measures. First, ensure that when service providers are asked to submit data substantial time and effort
is not required to complete the information. For example, surveys should ask only a few questions and
mainly focus on fixed response options (e.g., scale, check-boxes, etc.) rather than open ended questions.
Second, use the first one or two years to refine tools and to agree on information sources. Wait until the
second or third year to establish baselines and analysis.
Page | 23
5.0. Concluding Strategic Directions and Recommended
Implementation Programs
This section provides the our logical conclusions based on what the research indicated. In the tables
below, we provide implementation directions for housing for vulnerable populations (Table 5),
implementation directions for mental health service enhancements (Table 6), and implementation
directions for enhanced programs to address problem substance use and addictions (Table 7) in Maple
Ridge.
Each table of recommendations includes: (1) concluding strategic directions; (2) related city bodies or
initiatives within Maple Ridge; (3) implementation steps to work towards their associated strategic
direction; (4) potential partner organizations; and (5) the level of resources required to work towards
each strategic direction.
* City of MR = City of Maple Ridge; Community Network = Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Katzie Community Network; Community Network - Substance Misuse and Prevention = Maple Ridge, Pitt
Meadows, Katzie Community Network Substance Misuse and Prevention Subcommittee; MR Local Action Team = Maple Ridge Local Action Team (Child and Youth Mental Health and Substance Use
Collaborative (CYMHSU)); MSDSI = Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation; MCFD = Ministry of Family Development
** Low – Builds on initiatives currently underway and can be implemented with minimal reallocation of existing resources; Medium – May involve increased funding and the development of
partnerships with community organizations, funders, senior levels of government, etc.; High – May involve substantial support from outside sources such as senior levels or government as well as the
development of complex partnerships and agreements
Page | 24
Table 5. Implementation Directions: Housing for Vulnerable Populations
Concluding Strategic
Direction
Related City
Bodies or Initiatives Implementation Steps
Potential
Partner
Organizations*
Resources
Required**
1. Continue to focus
on collaborative
approaches to
implementing the
Housing Action
Plan
Mayor and Council
Housing Action
Plan
Social Planning
Advisory
Committee
Resilience
Initiative
1.1 Liaison with the Community Network on the ongoing
implementation of The Housing Action Plan Community Network Low
1.2 Public engagement and communication to build
awareness and support to address housing issues Community Network Low to
Medium
1.3 Host a regional summit focused on the development of
collaborative solutions to issues of affordable housing
and homelessness
Metro Vancouver
Homelessness
Partnering Strategy
Medium
1.4 Identify strategies to support difficult to find housing
(e.g., sober living, second stage housing, affordable
housing, etc.)
Fraser Health
BC Housing
High
2. Explore the
development of a
centralized
approach to the
provision of
housing services in
Maple Ridge
Housing Action
Plan
Social Planning
Advisory
Committee
Resilience
Initiative
2.1 Work with the Community Network to identify lead
organizations and governance structures for ensuring
ongoing coordination of housing services in Maple
Ridge
Community Network Low to
Medium
2.2 Work to improve the homelessness count to provide a
complete picture of homelessness in Maple Ridge Metro Vancouver Low
2.3 Examine best practice models from around the world to
address housing and homelessness
Housing Service
Providers Low
2.4 Work with responsible Ministries and Agencies to
improve access to and adequacy of rental subsidies for
those who are at risk of losing their homes or who are
homeless and seeking accommodation
Community Network
BC Housing
Low
* City of MR = City of Maple Ridge; Community Network = Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Katzie Community Network; Community Network - Substance Misuse and Prevention = Maple Ridge, Pitt
Meadows, Katzie Community Network Substance Misuse and Prevention Subcommittee; MR Local Action Team = Maple Ridge Local Action Team (Child and Youth Mental Health and Substance Use
Collaborative (CYMHSU)); MSDSI = Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation; MCFD = Ministry of Family Development
** Low – Builds on initiatives currently underway and can be implemented with minimal reallocation of existing resources; Medium – May involve increased funding and the development of
partnerships with community organizations, funders, senior levels of government, etc.; High – May involve substantial support from outside sources such as senior levels or government as well as the
development of complex partnerships and agreements
Page | 25
2.5 Work with responsible Ministries and Agencies to
support the development of effective programs to
provide job training and experience for people who are
homeless
Work BC
Ministry of SDSI Medium
2.6 Work with responsible Ministries and Agencies to
support the purchase of buildings to provide shelter
and support for vulnerable people in Maple Ridge
BC Housing High
3. Improve the
integration of
mental health
services within
existing housing
programs
Housing Action
Plan
Official
Community Plan
(Section 3.2)
3.1 Develop a mental health working group/committee
with membership from housing, community services,
Mental Health and Substance Use Services
MR Local Action Team
Community Network
Fraser Health
Medium
3.2 Improve access to mental health services for people
living in subsidized housing complexes
Fraser Health
BC Housing
Low to
Medium
4. Enhance outreach
capacity among
agencies to support
people in need of
housing
Community Grants
Policy
Social Planning
Advisory
Committee
Resilience
Initiative
4.1 Support the establishment of programs and services
that build on existing community strengths
Housing Service
Providers Low
4.2 Enhance coordination and support in three inter-
related areas (education, employment, and housing) Community Network
Medium
4.3 Improve services for members of the LGBTQ community
in need of housing and mental health support Community Network
Medium
4.4 Develop strategies to ensure that youth are able to find
safe, affordable housing in Maple Ridge
Community Network
MR Local Action Team
Medium to
High
5. Strengthen the
focus on the
development of
second stage
housing options
Mayor and Council
Housing Action
Plan
Official
Community Plan
(Section 3.2)
5.1 Support the development of a Needs Assessment and
Feasibility Study for Second Stage housing in Maple
Ridge
BC Housing
Non-Profit Housing
Service Providers
Low
5.2 Support the implementation of second stage housing
projects in Maple Ridge
BC Housing
Non-Profit Housing
Service Providers
Medium
* City of MR = City of Maple Ridge; Community Network = Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Katzie Community Network; Community Network - Substance Misuse and Prevention = Maple Ridge, Pitt
Meadows, Katzie Community Network Substance Misuse and Prevention Subcommittee; MR Local Action Team = Maple Ridge Local Action Team (Child and Youth Mental Health and Substance Use
Collaborative (CYMHSU)); MSDSI = Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation; MCFD = Ministry of Family Development
** Low – Builds on initiatives currently underway and can be implemented with minimal reallocation of existing resources; Medium – May involve increased funding and the development of
partnerships with community organizations, funders, senior levels of government, etc.; High – May involve substantial support from outside sources such as senior levels or government as well as the
development of complex partnerships and agreements
Page | 26
6. Develop
collaborations with
landlords and
property
management
companies (e.g.,
develop a “Friendly
Landlord Network”)
Housing Action
Plan
6.1 Compile contact information for landlords and property
management companies that offer rentals in Maple
Ridge
Community Network Low
6.2 Initiate a public consultation and engagement process
with landlords and property management companies
aimed at identifying priority issues and
recommendations
Community Network
Low to
Medium
6.3 Support the establishment of an ongoing Landlord
Network as a forum for education and problem solving Community Network Low to
Medium
* City of MR = City of Maple Ridge; Community Network = Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Katzie Community Network; Community Network - Substance Misuse and Prevention = Maple Ridge, Pitt
Meadows, Katzie Community Network Substance Misuse and Prevention Subcommittee; MR Local Action Team = Maple Ridge Local Action Team (Child and Youth Mental Health and Substance Use
Collaborative (CYMHSU)); MSDSI = Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation; MCFD = Ministry of Family Development
** Low – Builds on initiatives currently underway and can be implemented with minimal reallocation of existing resources; Medium – May involve increased funding and the development of
partnerships with community organizations, funders, senior levels of government, etc.; High – May involve substantial support from outside sources such as senior levels or government as well as the
development of complex partnerships and agreements
Page | 27
Table 6. Implementation Directions: Mental Health Service Enhancements
Concluding Strategic
Direction
Related City Body
or Initiatives Implementation Steps
Potential
Partner
Organizations*
Resources
Required**
7. Explore the
feasibility of
developing and
operating a youth
safe program (or
Safe House) that
youth at risk can
access when in
need
Social Planning
Advisory
Committee
Youth Advisory
Committee
7.1 Identify lead community organization in partnership
with local stakeholders MCFD
Low
7.2 Complete needs assessment and feasibility assessment
studies and implementation strategy MCFD
Medium
7.3 Develop and implement safe house program MCFD High
8. Develop strategies
for providing
mental health
services at same
space as addictions
or improve referral
process
Social Planning
Advisory
Committee
8.1 Initiate a Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study to
examine issues related to co-location of services
Community Network -
Substance Misuse and
Prevention
MR Local Action Team
Fraser Health
Medium
8.2 Develop a regional approach to addictions and mental
health service needs
Community Network -
Substance Misuse and
Prevention
MR Local Action Team
Fraser Health
High
9. Design and
implement an
innovative public
education
campaign around
Mayor and Council
Social Planning
Advisory
Committee
9.1 Initiate a discussion with the Community Network
about how to improve ongoing public education,
engagement and consultation with regard to housing
and mental health
Community Network -
Substance Misuse and
Prevention
MR Local Action Team
Fraser Health
Low
* City of MR = City of Maple Ridge; Community Network = Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Katzie Community Network; Community Network - Substance Misuse and Prevention = Maple Ridge, Pitt
Meadows, Katzie Community Network Substance Misuse and Prevention Subcommittee; MR Local Action Team = Maple Ridge Local Action Team (Child and Youth Mental Health and Substance Use
Collaborative (CYMHSU)); MSDSI = Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation; MCFD = Ministry of Family Development
** Low – Builds on initiatives currently underway and can be implemented with minimal reallocation of existing resources; Medium – May involve increased funding and the development of
partnerships with community organizations, funders, senior levels of government, etc.; High – May involve substantial support from outside sources such as senior levels or government as well as the
development of complex partnerships and agreements
Page | 28
the issues of
homelessness and
mental health, with
strategic
partnerships with
media and
community leaders
Resilience
Initiative
9.2 Implement ongoing public education strategies
addressing issues of homelessness and mental health
Community Network -
Substance Misuse and
Prevention
MR Local Action Team
Fraser Health
Medium
10. Improve wrap
around support
for youth who are
transitioning out
of the foster care
system
Social Planning
Advisory
Committee
Youth Planning
Table
10.1 Support the development or an effective wraparound
model targeted at youth transitioning out of the foster
care system
Fraser Health
MCFD
BC Housing
Medium
11. Invest in enhanced
programming and
support networks
for people
affected by mental
health and
substance use
issues (i.e., people
with co-occurring
disorders)
Social Planning
Advisory
Committee
11.1 Research best practice models addressing the needs of
people with co-occurring disorders Fraser Health Low
11.2 Work with Community Network to convene a
presentation and discussion session aimed at
developing understanding and collaborative solutions
Community Network
Community Network -
Substance Misuse and
Prevention
Low
12. Support the
development of
strategies to
improve access by
youth to services
addressing mental
Mayor and Council
Social Planning
Advisory
Committee
Youth Planning
12.1 Support the development of a network promoting
community collaboration to address youth issues Community Network
MR Youth Planning
Table
MR Local Action Team
Medium 12.2 Ensure that adults who work with youth are educated
on how to work with youth (including listening and
support skills, knowledge about services, etc.) to ensure
that youth feel welcomed and included in support
* City of MR = City of Maple Ridge; Community Network = Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Katzie Community Network; Community Network - Substance Misuse and Prevention = Maple Ridge, Pitt
Meadows, Katzie Community Network Substance Misuse and Prevention Subcommittee; MR Local Action Team = Maple Ridge Local Action Team (Child and Youth Mental Health and Substance Use
Collaborative (CYMHSU)); MSDSI = Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation; MCFD = Ministry of Family Development
** Low – Builds on initiatives currently underway and can be implemented with minimal reallocation of existing resources; Medium – May involve increased funding and the development of
partnerships with community organizations, funders, senior levels of government, etc.; High – May involve substantial support from outside sources such as senior levels or government as well as the
development of complex partnerships and agreements
Page | 29
health issues and
problem
substance use and
addiction
Table services
12.3 Support the implementation of an advocate position
that can help youth navigate the various services
available to them including support for those
transitioning from foster care into independent living
* City of MR = City of Maple Ridge; Community Network = Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Katzie Community Network; Community Network - Substance Misuse and Prevention = Maple Ridge, Pitt
Meadows, Katzie Community Network Substance Misuse and Prevention Subcommittee; MR Local Action Team = Maple Ridge Local Action Team (Child and Youth Mental Health and Substance Use
Collaborative (CYMHSU)); MSDSI = Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation; MCFD = Ministry of Family Development
** Low – Builds on initiatives currently underway and can be implemented with minimal reallocation of existing resources; Medium – May involve increased funding and the development of
partnerships with community organizations, funders, senior levels of government, etc.; High – May involve substantial support from outside sources such as senior levels or government as well as the
development of complex partnerships and agreements
Page | 30
Table 7. Implementation Directions: Enhanced Programs to Address Problem Substance Use and Addictions
Concluding Strategic
Direction
Related City Body
or Initiatives
Implementation Steps Potential
Partner
Organizations*
Resources
Required**
13. Enhance support
for the work of
the Substance
Misuse and
Prevention
Committee (sub-
committee of the
Community
Network)
Social Planning
Advisory
Committee
Youth Planning
Table
13.1 Provide resources to develop a strategic plan and
funding strategy to provide sustainable support for the
Substance Misuse and Prevention Committee
Community
Network
Medium
13.2 Implement strategies to provide a continuum of
services to support people who struggle with
problematic substance use and addictions issues that
addresses emergency and short-term services (detox,
sobering centre, youth detox) medium term (addiction
treatment specialized treatment, outpatient services)
and long-term services (second stage treatment)
Community
Network
Fraser Health
Ministry of Children
and Family
Development
High
14. Improve access to
detox facilities
with an emphasis
on facilities
geared to youth
who wish to
address problem
substance use and
addiction issues
Social Planning
Advisory
Committee
Youth Planning
Table
14.1 Develop strategies to remove barriers that prevent
youth (13-17) from accessing addictions services
Community
Network
MR Local Action
Team
Fraser Health
Low to
Medium
14.2 Work with youth representatives to implement ongoing
evaluation and feedback on the accessibility and
effectiveness of services addressing problem substance
us and addictions
Community
Network
MR Local Action
Team
Fraser Health
Low
* City of MR = City of Maple Ridge; Community Network = Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Katzie Community Network; Community Network - Substance Misuse and Prevention = Maple Ridge, Pitt
Meadows, Katzie Community Network Substance Misuse and Prevention Subcommittee; MR Local Action Team = Maple Ridge Local Action Team (Child and Youth Mental Health and Substance Use
Collaborative (CYMHSU)); MSDSI = Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation; MCFD = Ministry of Family Development
** Low – Builds on initiatives currently underway and can be implemented with minimal reallocation of existing resources; Medium – May involve increased funding and the development of
partnerships with community organizations, funders, senior levels of government, etc.; High – May involve substantial support from outside sources such as senior levels or government as well as the
development of complex partnerships and agreements
Page | 31
15. Develop enhanced
after care drug
and alcohol
rehabilitation for
people once they
leave residential
treatment, with a
focus on
integrated case
management and
wrap around
approaches that
involve multi-
agency
collaboration
Social Planning
Advisory
Committee
Youth Planning
Table
15.1 Support the development of collaboration and planning
between community service organizations, mental
health service providers as well as problem substance
use and addictions services
City of Maple Ridge
Community
Network
MR Local Action
Team
Fraser Health
Low
15.2 Support the development of consistent performance
measures in order to improve evaluation and
measurement of services
Community
Network
MR Local Action
Team
Fraser Health
Low to
Medium
16. Explore the
development of
an Assertive
Community
Treatment (ACT)
team in Maple
Ridge based on
the success of
models
implemented in
other BC
Communities
Social Planning
Advisory
Committee
16.1 Gather information on ACT teams in Surrey, Abbotsford
and other communities
Community
Network
Fraser Health
MCFD
Low
16.2 Invite knowledgeable speakers to address the
Community Network
Community
Network
Fraser Health
Low
16.3 Work with Fraser Health and Ministry of Children and
Family Development to ensure the development of a
Maple Ridge ACT Team
Community
Network
Fraser Health
MCFD
High
* City of MR = City of Maple Ridge; Community Network = Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Katzie Community Network; Community Network - Substance Misuse and Prevention = Maple Ridge, Pitt
Meadows, Katzie Community Network Substance Misuse and Prevention Subcommittee; MR Local Action Team = Maple Ridge Local Action Team (Child and Youth Mental Health and Substance Use
Collaborative (CYMHSU)); MSDSI = Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation; MCFD = Ministry of Family Development
** Low – Builds on initiatives currently underway and can be implemented with minimal reallocation of existing resources; Medium – May involve increased funding and the development of
partnerships with community organizations, funders, senior levels of government, etc.; High – May involve substantial support from outside sources such as senior levels or government as well as the
development of complex partnerships and agreements
Page | 32
17. Explore the
feasibility of
developing and
operating a
“Sobering House”
Social Planning
Advisory
Committee
17.1 Support the completion of a Needs Assessment and
Feasibility Study for a sobering centre in Maple Ridge
Fraser Health
RCMP
Low to
Medium
18. Improve access to
services for
people with
mental health and
substance use
challenges, as well
as economic
constraints, by
removing transit
barriers and hours
of service barriers
Social Planning
Advisory
Committee
Active
Transportation
Advisory
Committee
Youth Planning
Table
18.1 Initiate a discussion with the Community Network,
Youth Planning Table and people living in poverty
focused on identify strategies to address the barriers
that prevent access to services for people facing
challenges relating to transportation and income
Community
Network
MR Local Action
Team
Low
19. Engage senior
levels of
government in
developing
stronger regional
approaches to
addressing mental
health and issues
related to
problem
substance use and
addictions
Mayor and Council
Social Planning
Advisory
Committee
Youth Planning
Table
19.1 Initiate a discussion with Community Network, Youth
Planning Table Local Action Team and other
organizations focused on identifying strategies to
support the development of regional approaches to
address mental health issues as well as issues related to
problem substance use and addictions
Community
Network
MR Youth Planning
Table
MR Local Action
Team
Other regional
municipalities
Low to
Medium
Maple Ridge Social
Services Delivery
Research Report
DRAFT Technical Appendix A:Social Service
Stakeholders Survey Summary
July 2016
Table of Contents
1.0.Introductory Questions ...........................................................................................................1
1.1.Respondent Consent to Complete the Survey ..............................................................................1
1.2.Organization Types .......................................................................................................................1
1.3.Number of Full-Time Employees...................................................................................................2
1.4.Number of Less than Full-Time Employees...................................................................................3
2.0.Populations Served by Mental Health, Substance Use and Housing Services .............................4
2.1.Populations Served by Mental Health Services ............................................................................4
2.2.Populations Served by Substance Use Services ............................................................................5
2.3.Populations Served by Housing Services ......................................................................................6
3.0.Mental Health Services ...........................................................................................................7
3.1.Adequacy of Mental Health Services in Meeting the Needs of Diverse Populations
Living in Maple Ridge ...................................................................................................................7
3.2.Types of Mental Health Services Requiring the Most Attention in Maple Ridge .........................8
3.3.Proportion of Delivered Mental Health Services At Risk of Losing Funding Before 2017 ............9
3.4.Population Groups Most Adversely Affected by a Loss of Mental Health Services Funding ......10
4.0.Substance Use Services .........................................................................................................11
4.1.The Adequacy of Substance Use Services in Meeting the Needs of Diverse Populations
Living in Maple Ridge .................................................................................................................11
4.2.Types of Substance Use Services Requiring the Most Attention in Maple Ridge .......................12
4.3.Proportion of Delivered Substance Use Services At Risk of Losing Funding Before 2017 ..........13
4.4.Population Groups Most Adversely Affected by a Loss of Substance Use Services Funding .....14
5.0.Housing Services ...................................................................................................................15
5.1.Adequacy of Housing Services in Meeting the Needs of Diverse Populations Living in
Maple Ridge ................................................................................................................................15
5.2.Types of Housing Services Requiring the Most Attention in Maple Ridge .................................16
5.3.Proportion of Delivered Housing Services At Risk of Losing Funding Before 2017 ....................17
5.4.Population Groups Most Adversely Affected By Loss of Housing Services Funding ...................18
6.0.Challenges in Service Implementation and Delivery ...............................................................19
6.1.Duplication of Programs or Services in Maple Ridge ..................................................................19
6.2.Description in Duplication in Services .........................................................................................19
6.3.Most and Least Important Services Implementation Assets ......................................................20
6.4.Most and Least Important Service Implementation Issues ........................................................21
6.5.Description of Other Service Implementation Issues Respondent’s Organizations
Currently Face ............................................................................................................................22
6.6.Root Causes of Most Important Issues Identified by Respondents ............................................22
6.7.What Needs to be Done to Address Identified Issues ................................................................23
6.8.Emerging Mental Health, Substance Use and Housing Service Needs of Diverse
Populations Needing Priority Attention ......................................................................................23
List of Tables
Table 1.Respondent Ranking of Relative Importance of Service Implementation Assets.......................20
Table 2.Respondent Ranking of Relative Importance of Service Implementation Issues .......................21
List of Figures
Figure 1.Respondents Reporting of the Number of Full-Time Employees ................................................2
Figure 2.Respondents Reporting of the Number of Less Than Full-Time Employees................................3
Figure 3.Respondents Reporting Types of Population Groups Served By Mental Health Services ...........4
Figure 4.Respondents Reporting Types of Population Groups Served By Substance Use Services ..........5
Figure 5.Respondents Reporting Types of Population Groups Served By Housing Services .....................6
Figure 6.Respondents Rating of the Adequacy of Mental Health Services By Population Group .............7
Figure 7.Respondents Reporting the Proportion of Mental Health Services At Risk of Losing
Funding Before 2017....................................................................................................................9
Figure 8:Respondents Reporting the Population Groups Most Adversely Affected by Loss
of Mental Health Funding Before 2017 .....................................................................................10
Figure 9.Respondents Rating of Adequacy of Substance Use Services By Population Group .................11
Figure 10.Respondents Reporting the Proportion of Substance Use Services At Risk of Losing
Funding Before 2017 .................................................................................................................13
Figure 11.Respondents Rating of Population Groups Most Adversely Affected By Loss of
Substance Use Funding Before 2017 ........................................................................................14
Figure 12.Respondents Rating of Adequacy of Housing Services By Population Group ..........................15
Figure 13.Respondents Reporting of the Proportion of Housing Services At Risk of Losing
Funding Before 2017 ................................................................................................................17
Figure 14.Respondents Rating of Population Groups Most Adversely Affected By Loss of Housing
Services Funding Before 2017 ..................................................................................................18
Figure 15.Respondents Reporting Duplication of Programs or Services in Maple Ridge .........................19
Page |1
1.0.Introductory Questions
1.1.Respondent Consent to Complete the Survey
Survey Question #1 Total Number of Responses
Will you consent and complete this survey?n = 26
When asked whether they will consent to completing the survey, all 26 (100%) respondents selected yes.
1.2.Organization Types
Survey Question #2 Total Number of Responses
What is the name of your organization?n = 26
When asked to provide the name of their organization, a total of 26 (100%) respondents provided the
name of their organization,representing a variety of NPOs, associations, faith groups and various levels
of government (municipal, provincial, federal) from the Maple Ridge area, including the following:
62% of respondents (n = 16) represent non-profit service organizations, or associations:
2 representatives from Maple Ridge/ Pitt Meadows Community Services;
2 representatives from Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Katzie Community Network;
PLEA Community Services Society of BC;
Ridge Meadows Seniors Society;
Westcoast Family Centres Society –Ridge Meadows;
InnerVisions Recovery Society (Drug Addiction Treatment Centre);
Asante Center (Provides services related to FASD, ASD and other complex
developmental needs);
RainCity Housing;
Canadian Mental Health Association, Vancouver-Fraser Branch;
MPA Society –Vancouver Mental Health and Society Services;
The Family Education and Support Centre;
Ridge Meadows Child Development Centre (Society);
Allouette Addictions Services; and,
Allouette Home Start Society.
12% of respondents (n = 3) represent faith-based groups:
Petals (Ministry of Maple Ridge Baptist Church);
Teen Mother Choices (Cornerstone Neighbourhood Church); and,
The Salvation Army Caring Place.
27 % of respondents (n = 7) represent various levels of government:
RCMP;
Page |2
Child and Youth Mental Health Programs, Ministry of Children and Family Development;
Maple Ridge Office of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation;
3 representatives from Fraser Health; and,
Social Planning Department, City of Maple Ridge.
1.3.Number of Full-Time Employees
Survey Question #3 Total Number of Respondents
How many full-time employees does your organization have?n =23
When asked how many full-time employees the respondent’s organization employs,a total of 23
responses were provided. A total of 12 respondents (52.1%) reported their organization having 25 or
fewer full-time employees, with 9 (39.1%)respondents having between 1 and 10 full-time employees.
Another 5 (21.7%) respondents reported their organization having between 26 and 50 full-time
employees, while 6 (26%)respondents reported their organization having 51 or more full-time
employees.Figure 1 provides a breakdown of respondent’s selections for Question 3.
Figure 1.Respondents Reporting of the Number of Full-Time Employees
39.1%
1-10 Employees
13.0%
11-25 Employees
21.7%
26-50 Employees
4.3%
51-100 Employees
17.4%
101-500 Employees
4.3%
500+ Employees
Page |3
1.4.Number of Less than Full-Time Employees
Survey Question #4 Total Number of Responses
How many less than full-time employees does your organization have?n = 25
When asked how many less than full-time employees the respondent’s organization employs,25
responses were provided. Approximately 18 (72%)respondents indicated their organization employs
between 1 and 25 less than full-time employees with 14 (56%) having between 1 and 10 less than full-
time employees.A total of 6 (24%)respondents reported their organizations employ between 26 and
500 less than full time employees and 1 (4%) respondent indicated their organization employs more
than 500 less than full-time employees.Figure 1 provides a breakdown of respondent’s selections for
Question 4.
Figure 2.Respondents Reporting of the Number of Less Than Full-Time Employees
56.0%
1-10 Employees
16.0%
11-25 Employees8.0%
26-50 Employees
8.0%
51-100 Employees
8.0%
101-500
Employees
4.0%
500+ Employees
Page |4
2.0.Populations Served by Mental Health,Substance Use and
Housing Services
2.1.Populations Served by Mental Health Services
Survey Question #5 Total Number of Responses
Which populations are served by the mental health services your
organization provides? Please check all that apply.n = 25
When asked which populations are served by the mental health services their organization provides,a
total of 25 responses were provided, of which 12 (48%)respondents indicated that mental health
services were provided to LGBTQ individuals and to people with disabilities.Another 11 (44%)
respondents indicated their organization provides mental health services to men, women, and to First
Nation populations. A total of 10 (40%) respondents indicated such services were provided to seniors
(65+)while 9 (36%)respondents indicated these services are provided to youth (ages 19-24)and
immigrants/refugees.Only five (20%) respondents indicated that all populations listed are provided
mental health services by their organization.Figure 3 provides a breakdown of respondent’s selections
for Question 5.
Figure 3.Respondents Reporting Types of Population Groups Served By Mental Health Services
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%Reponse Count (#)Response %Response Count Response percent
Page |5
2.2.Populations Served by Substance Use Services
Survey Question #6 Total Number of Responses
Which populations are served by the substance use services your
organization provides? Please check all that apply.n = 25
When asked which populations are served by the substance use services their organization provides, a
total of 25 responses were provided.Both people with disabilities and First Nation populations had 8
(32%) respondents who indicated that their organization provided substance use services to them .
Likewise,7 (28%)respondents identified people who are homeless as served by their organization’s
substance use services.Figure 4 provides a breakdown of respondent’s selections for Question 6.
Figure 4.Respondents Reporting Types of Population Groups Served By Substance Use Services
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%Response Count (#)Response %Response Count Response Percent
Page |6
2.3.Populations Served by Housing Services
Survey Question #7 Total Number of Responses
Which populations are served by the housing services your
organization provides? Please check all that apply.n = 24
When asked which populations are served by the housing services their organization provides,a total of
24 responses were provided.Both men and women had 10 (41.7%) respondents who indicated that
their organization provided housing services to them. A total of 9 (37.5%) respondents indicated that
their organization provided such services to First Nations, while people who are homeless, people with
disabilities, and seniors (65+)each had 8 (33.3%) respondents who indicated they provide such services
to them. Populations least served by housing services provided by Maple Ridge organizations include
children ages 0-12 with no respondents (0%)selecting this population, while 2 (8.3%) respondents
selected youth (13 to 18). The low availability of housing for these populations are most likely attributed
to the fact that children under the age of 18 do not generally receive independent housing outside of a
family or guardianship. However,families as a population unit were also less likely to be served by
housing services with 3 (12.5%)respondents selecting this population group.Figure 5 provides a
breakdown of respondent’s answers for Question 7.
Figure 5.Respondents Reporting Types of Population Groups Served By Housing Services
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%Response Count (#)Response %Response Count Response Percent
Page |7
3.0.Mental Health Services
3.1.Adequacy of Mental Health Services in Meeting the Needs of Diverse
Populations Living in Maple Ridge
Survey Question #8 Total Number of Responses
Please rate the adequacy of mental health services in meeting the
needs of the following populations living in Maple Ridge.n = 24 -26
When asked to rate the adequacy of mental health services in meeting the needs of diverse populations
living in Maple Ridge,between 24 and 26 responses were provided.Overall, for each population group,
respondents were much more likely to rate mental health services as inadequate in meeting the needs
of such populations living in Maple Ridge. Only 1 (4%) respondent selected more than adequate for any
of the populations (people who are homeless was seen as provided more than adequate services).
Between 4% and 19% of respondents selected adequate for all populations. Between 42% and 80% of
respondents selected inadequate with 20 (80%) respondents indicating that mental health services
serving the needs of youth (19 to 24 years)as the most inadequate.Figure 6 provides a breakdown of
the overall adequacy of mental health services received by each population group.
Figure 6.Respondents Rating of the Adequacy of Mental Health Services By Population Group
1
5 4 3 2 2 4 2 1 1 3
16
12
17 20
15
17
15
10
13
10
14 18
1
5
9
5 3
8
4
8
13
10
14
7 5
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Response CountMore than adequate Adequate Inadequate No opinion / I don't know
Page |8
3.2.Types of Mental Health Services R equiring the Most Attention in Maple Ridge
Survey Question #9 Total Number of Responses
Given your responses to the above, what types of mental health
services for the populations you selected requires the most attention in
Maple Ridge?
n = 24 -25
When asked what types of mental health services require the most attention in Maple Ridge, between
24 and 25 responses were provided.A number of respondents identified population groups most in
need of mental health services, including:seniors (65+), people who are homeless, First Nations, children
and youth, women, families, people with disabilities and immigrants/refugees. Respondents were most
likely to identify children and youth, and seniors as populations currently underserved by mental health
services.
Other respondents also identified types of mental health services requiring attention, specific to
children and youth. Notably, respondents identified mental health outreach support for this population;
including more flexible, client focused services, such as support crafted to youth and emerging adults
through late night appointments, online therapists, or 24 hour youth crisis response. Respondents also
identified direct intervention in supporting children and youth seeking assistance as an area requiring
focus; along with more access to child psychiatry in general –including more inpatient beds, and
residential resources. Likewise, respondents noted that more consideration needs t o be made to the
early identification of mental health challenges in younger children –including such challenges as
anxiety and attachment disorders, and self-regulation. It was also identified that parents and families
need greater access to education and tools to support young children with mental health issues.
Additional respondents identified a couple mental health services specific to seniors (65+), including
more geriatric mental health assessments (diagnosing dementia spectrum diseases); and services to
help support an aging population.Respondents listed a need for other mental health services, unspecific
to any sub-population, along with an overall reduction in wait times for mental health services and
assessment. Other mental health services for which there is a need in Maple Ridge, include:
More (clinical) counselling support, including treatment and intervention services for
mental health disorders and challenges;
Anti-stigma and cognitive skill building;
Services specializing in eating disorders, trauma, abuse (physical and sexual);
Intense wrap-around support for vulnerable populations focusing on relationship
building;
Depression diagnosis and treatment;
Services focused upon co-occurring mental health disorders;
Vocational supports and occupational therapy;
Reduction in wait times for mental health services and assessment;and,
Education of front line workers (city employees, RCMP, hospital staff) on mental health.
Page |9
3.3.Proportion of Delivered Mental Health Services At Risk of Losing Funding Before
2017
Survey Question #10 Total Number of Responses
What proportion of the mental health services you deliver are at risk of
losing funding before 2017?n = 21
When asked what proportion of the mental health services delivered by the respondent’s organization is
at risk of losing funding before 2017,21 responses were provided. Approximately 9 (42.9%) respondents
were unsure of what proportion of mental health services are at risk of losing funding before 2017.
Approximately 6 (28.6%) respondents indicated that between 0% and 10% is at risk of losing funding
while 3 (14.3%) respondents indicated between 91% and 100% of mental health services were at risk of
losing funding before 2017.Figure 7 provides a breakdown of respondent’s selections for Question 10.
Figure 7.Respondents Reporting the Proportion of Mental Health Services At Risk of Losing Funding
Before 2017
28.6%
0% to 10% of
Funding
4.8%
11% to 20% of
Funding
9.5%
21% to 30% of
Funding
14.3%
91% to 100% of
Funding
42.9%
Do Not Know
Page |10
3.4.Population Groups Most Adversely Affected by a Loss of Mental Health Services
Funding
Survey Question #11 Total Number of Responses
Which population groups would be most adversely affected?n = 19
When asked which population groups would be most adversely affected,19 responses were provided.
Approximately 6 (31.6%)respondents were unsure of which specific population groups would be most
adversely affected, while women, males, seniors (ages 65+)and youth ages 13-18 years each had 4
(21.1%) respondents indicate these populations would be adversely affected. Figure 8 provides a
breakdown of respondent’s selections for Question 11.
Figure 8:Respondents Reporting the Population Groups Most Adversely Affected by Loss of Mental
Health Funding Before 2017
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%Response Count (#)Response %Response Count Response Percent
Page |11
4.0.Substance Use Services
4.1.The Adequacy of Substance Use Services in Meeting the Needs of Diverse
Populations Living in Maple Ridge
Survey Question #12 Total Number of Responses
Please rate the adequacy of substance use services in meeting the
needs of the following populations living in Maple Ridge.n =24 -25
When asked to rate the adequacy of substance use services in meeting the needs of diverse populations
living in Maple Ridge, between 24 and 25 responses were provided.Respondents were much more likely
to rate the adequacy of substance use services by population group as either inadequate or had no
opinion/did not know.For males and people who are homeless, only 1 (4%) respondent selected more
than adequate in meeting their needs.Between 4% and 19% of respondents selected adequate for all
populations. Between 36% and 50% of respondents selected inadequate for each population including
12 (50%) respondents indicating that substance use services serving the needs of youth (13 to 18 years)
as the most inadequate.Figure 9 provides a breakdown of respondent’s selections for Question 12.
Figure 9.Respondents Rating of Adequacy of Substance Use Services By Population Group
1 1
4 5 4 5
2 3 3 3 3 2
3
2
12 11 9 9
8
12 11
6
10 10
10
8
1
9 9 11 10
14
9 10
15
11 12 10
13
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Response CountMore than adequate Adequate Inadequate No opinion / I don't know
Page |12
4.2.Types of Substance Use Services Requiring the Most Attention in Maple Ridge
Survey Question #13 Total Number of Responses
Given your responses to the above, what types of substance use
services for the populations you selected requires the most attention in
Maple Ridge?
n =22
When asked what types of substance use services require the most attention in Maple Ridge, a total of
22 responses were provided. Respondents identified youth (19-24), families, First Nations, refugees,
people who are homeless, and children (0-12) as population groups most in need of substance use
services,
Respondents pinpointed a number of substance use services requiring attention in Maple Ridge.
Approximately 3 (14%) respondents stated that more substance use services (of all types) are needed,
overall. Another 3 (14%)respondents stated that more work focused around substance use needs to be
undertaken collaboratively among and between organizations in order to better leverage expertise and
resources while also improving the coordination of such services within the community (e.g., between
the hospital and outpatient and treatment facilities). Other respondents identified the need for services
and therapists focused on concurrent/ co-occurring mental health and substance use challenges.
Additionally,respondents identified treatment and detox as service areas requiring more attention.
More specifically, respondents saw a need for more recovery programs, including second stage housing
and post-treatment relapse prevention; in addition to general detox and drug and alcohol treatment
(both resident and non-resident) with a particular focus on youth programming in this area.There was
also a note by respondents about a lack of accessible methadone services, which can at times be difficult
for people who are homeless to access.
Respondents also identified counselling and support groups as a service area requiring focus and
attention. Respondents identified substance use counselling services in general, and more specifically
those geared to youth as a service delivery area in which there can be long wait times. In addition, one
respondent saw a need for more outreach and trauma support.
Respondents stated there was a need for program design to be evidence and research-based with a
particular focus on harm reduction.In addition, respondents identified a need for more early
intervention and drug and alcohol awareness programs within schools, including healthy lifestyle
programming. There was also an identified need for education for parents/guardians, first responders
and front line workers on the impact of substance abuse on brain function and how to support
individuals with substance use challenges.
Page |13
4.3.Proportion of Delivered Substance Use Services At Risk of Losing Funding
Before 2017
Survey Question #14 Total Number of Responses
What proportion of the substance use services you deliver are at risk of
losing funding before 2017?n = 24
When asked what proportion of the substance use services delivered by the respondent’s organization is
at risk of losing funding before 2017,24 responses were provided. Approximately 13 (54.2%)
respondents did not know the proportion of substance use services delivered by their organization that
was at risk of losing funding before 2017.Approximately 7 (29.2%) respondents indicated that between
0%and 10% of such services were at risk of losing funding before 2017 while 3 (12.5%)respondents
indicated that between 91% and 100% of such services were at risk of losing funding before 2017.Figure
10 provides a breakdown of respondent’s selections for Question 14.
Figure 10.Respondents Reporting the Proportion of Substance Use Services At Risk of Losing Funding
Before 2017
29.2%
0% to 10% of
Funding
4.2%
21% to 30% of
Funding
12.5%
91% to 100% of
Funding
54.2%
Do Not Know
Page |14
4.4.Population Groups Most Adversely Affected by a Loss of Substance Use Services
Funding
Survey Question #15 Total Number of Responses
Which population groups would be most adversely affected?n = 20
When asked which population groups would be most adversely affected,20 responses were provided.
Approximately 8 (40%)respondents indicated they did not know,while 4 (20%) respondents indicated
that all populations would be adversely impacted.Figure 11 provides a breakdown of respondent’s
selections for Question 15.
Figure 11.Respondents Rating of Population Groups Most Adversely Affected By Loss of Substance Use
Funding Before 2017
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%Response CountResponse %Response Count Response Percent
Page |15
5.0.Housing Services
5.1.Adequacy of Housing Services in Meeting the N eeds of Diverse Populations
Living in Maple Ridge
Survey Question #16 Total Number of Responses
Please rate the adequacy of housing services in meeting the needs of
the following populations living in Maple Ridge.n = 24 -25
When asked to rate the adequacy of substance use services in meeting the needs of diverse populations
living in Maple Ridge, between 24 and 25 responses were provided. No respondent indicated housing
services were more than adequate in meeting the needs of any population group. The majority of
respondents, for each population type, indicated such services were either inadequate, or they had no
opinion/did not know.For immigrants/refugees and First Nations populations, no respondent selected
adequate. Between 38% and 63% of respondents indicated that housing services were inadequate for
all populations with 15 (63%) respondents indicating that such services for immigrants/refugees being
the most inadequate in meeting their needs.Figure 12 provides a breakdown of respondent’s selections
for Question 16.
Figure 12.Respondents Rating of Adequacy of Housing Services By Population Group
1
4
1 1 1 2 1 2 1
12
12
11
14 12 10
9
13
15
9 9
3
12
9
12
9 11 12
15
10
7
13 14
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Adequate Inadequate No opinion / I don't knowResponse Count
Page |16
5.2.Types of Housing Services Requiring the Most Attention in Maple Ridge
Survey Question #17 Total Number of Responses
Given your responses to the above, what types of housing services for
the populations you selected requires the most attention in Maple
Ridge?
n = 22
When asked what types of housing services require the most attention in Maple Ridge, a total of 22
responses were provided.Respondents were fairly unanimous in stating that numerous housing types
are needed for virtually all population groups in Maple Ridge,but most significantly people who are
homeless, families and seniors. More specifically, respondents identified a need for the following types
of housing stock:
Supportive housing;
Affordable rental housing for families;
Increased subsidized units for families, and people with disabilities;
Low barrier housing;
Long term supportive housing;
Purpose built rental housing;
Housing for women with children fleeing abusive situations;
Long term affordable housing;and,
Transitional housing.
The absolute need for such affordable housing of all types, was brought home by a respondent who
noted that “There was a time where a supplemental application completed by a Social Worker
confirming their homeless status would have resulted in placement in a BC Subsidized unit.I have not
seen this result in years.”Overall, respondents identified that the existing services available are
satisfactory but that the volume of need is greater than services available.
A number of respondents identified a need for supportive housing types for youth. One respondent
identified a need to better support youth in care. Youth specific housing types described by respondents
included the following:
Emergency youth shelter (situated in Maple Ridge);
Youth transitional housing;
Increased affordable market rentals for young adults;
Supportive housing for young adults and youth with mental health/ substance use
barriers;and,
Supportive housing for youth with developmental disabilities and ‘invisible disabilities’1.
Respondents also identified a need for more housing specific to seniors; in addition to a need for a
seniors outreach worker who could assist at-risk seniors which completing application forms, applying
for subsidies, transportation options, and connection to mental health and social se rvices and home
support.
1 Was noted by a respondent that CLBC criteria for support is an IQ under 70; those with low adaptive scores but
an IQ over 70 still may not be able to live independently –however there are no supportive housing options
available to them.
Page |17
5.3.Proportion of Delivered Housing Services at Risk of Losing Funding Before 2017
Survey Question #18 Total Number of Responses
What proportion of the housing services you deliver are at risk of losing
funding before 2017?n = 21
When asked what proportion of the substance use services delivered by the respondent’s organization is
at risk of losing funding before 2017,21 responses were provided. Approximately 9 (42.9%) respondents
said that they did not know while another 9 (42.9%) respondents indicated that between 0% and 10% of
their organization’s housing services are at risk of losing funding before 2017.Approximately 2 (9.5%)
respondents indicated that between 91% and 100% of such services are at risk of losing funding before
2017.Figure 13 provides a breakdown of respondent’s selections for Question 18.
Figure 13.Respondents Reporting of the Proportion of Housing Services At Risk of Losing Funding
Before 2017
42.9%
0% to 10% of
Funding4.8%
21% to 30% of
Funding
9.5%
91% to 100% of
Funding
42.9%
Do Not Know
Page |18
5.4.Population Groups Most Adversely Affected By Loss of Housing Services
Funding
Survey Question #19 Total Number of Responses
Which population groups would be most adversely affected?n = 19
When asked which population groups would be most adversely affected,19 responses were provided.
Approximately 6 (31.6%) respondents indicated they did not know while 5 (26.3%)respondents
indicated that seniors (ages 65+)would be most adversely affected by loss of housing services.No
respondent indicated that children (0 to 12) LBBTQ populations would be adversely affected. Figure 14
provides a breakdown of respondent’s selections for Question 19.
Figure 14.Respondents Rating of Population Groups Most Adversely Affected By Loss of Housing
Services Funding Before 2017
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%Response CountResponse PercentResponse Count Response Percent
Page |19
6.0.Challenges in Service Implementation and Delivery
6.1.Duplication of Programs or Services in Maple Ridge
Survey Question #20 Total Number of Responses
Given your review of social services (previous questions), do you see
any duplication of programs or services in Maple Ridge?n = 25
When asked whether they see any duplication of programs or services in Maple Ridge, 25 responses
were provided,with 14 (56%) respondents indicating there are no duplication of programs or services
(mental health, substance use, housing services) in Maple Ridge. Approximately 5 (20%)respondents
indicated Maple Ridge does have duplication of services or programs while 6 (24%)respondents were
not sure.Figure 15 provides a breakdown of respondent’s selections for Question 20.
Figure 15.Respondents Reporting Duplication of Programs or Services in Maple Ridge
6.2.Description in Duplication in Services
Survey Question #21 Total Number of Responses
If yes, please describe the duplication in services or programs.n =7
When asked to describe the duplication in services or programs (among those respondents who selected
yes for question #20), 7 respondents provided a description of such duplication and where it exists.
provide a description where such duplication exists.A few respondents noted that although there may
be some duplication in services –particularly in housing and homeless outreach; that the duplication in
and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. This theme was reiterated by a few respondents who gave
20.0%
Yes
56.0%
No
24.0%
Not Sure
Page |20
different takes on the duplication including organizations having different approaches which may
overlap with others. However, there appears to be insufficient services available overall, leaving those
living in Maple Ridge in need. Another respondent considered the duplication in terms of different
organizations providing services to the same families where,in this case, overlap occurs to ensure
families are provided adequate support.
Another theme described by respondents is the duplication existing within and amongst organizations in
terms of administration and internal operations. One respondent thought it important to consider ways
to lower the administrative workload of agency staff in order to increase the impact programs and
services could have on the community, by perhaps either reducing the number of agencies or perhaps
by looking for greater collaboration amongst service providers.
Another respondent thought that any lack of coordination in services stems from the inability to share
information across provincial ministries. This individual thought that all points of contact that individuals
make with the provincial system (schools, daycares, etc .) should connect people with the services or
supports they require.
6.3.Most and Least Important Services Implementation Assets
Survey Question #22 Total Number of Responses
Please rank the service implementation assets your organization
currently has from the most important (1) to the least important (7) by
choosing from the drop down menu of each issue. Please note: The list
will reorder as you select the rankings for each item.
n =18
When asked to rank the service implementation assets your organization currently has from the most
important (1) to the least important (7), 18 respondents provided their selections.Overall, respondents
ranked strong service delivery model (M = 2.82) and talented and dedicated staff (M = 2.82) as the most
important set of assets their organization currently has. Respondents ranked a strong governance model
(M = 6.2), strong grant writing skills to secure funding (M = 6.56) and other assets (M = 9.0) as the least
important set of assets their organization currently has.Table 1 provides a breakdown of respondent’s
selections for Question 22.
Table 1.Respondent Ranking of Relative Importance of Service Implementation Assets
Rank Service Implementation Assets Rank
Average
Response
Count
1.Strong service delivery model 2.82 17
2.Talented and dedicated staff 2.82 17
3.Location accessible to clients 3.94 17
4.Strong support from partner organizations 4.88 17
5.Adequate funding for administration and or operations 5.38 16
6.Strong support from government 5.67 15
7.Low turn-over in human resources responsible for service delivery 5.69 16
8.Strong governance model 6.20 15
9.Strong grant writing skills to secure funding 6.56 16
10.Other 9.00 5
Page |21
6.4.Most and Least Important Service Implementation I ssues
Survey Question #23 Total Number of Responses
Please rank the service implementation issues your organization
currently faces from the most important (1) to the least important (7)
by choosing from the drop down menu of each issue. Please note: The
list will reorder as you select the rankings for each item.
n = 20
When asked to rank the service implementation issues their organization currently has from the most
important (1) to the least important (7), 20 respondents provided their selections.Overall, respondents
ranked not having enough funding to create services that meet the needs of clients (M = 1.94) and not
having enough funding for administration and/or expenses (M = 2.81) as the most important service
implementation issues their organization currently faces.Clearly, access to funding of all types appears
to be the most important issue facing most service organizations in Maple Ridge. Issues considered the
least important include inadequate translation and interpretation support for clients (M = 10.73),lack of
effective policies and procedures (M = 10.7), and lack of exemption from municipal property taxes (M =
10.18).Table 2 provides a breakdown of respondent’s selections for Question 23.
Table 2.Respondent Ranking of Relative Importance of Service Implementation Issues
Ranking Service Implementation Issues Rating
Average
Response
Count
1.Not having enough funding to create services that meet needs of
clients
1.94 18
2.Not having enough funding for administration and/or expenses 2.81 16
3.Lack of financial support for core work 3.47 17
4.Lack of support from government 4.0 14
5.Transportation challenges faced by clients who are trying to access
services
4.27 11
6.Lack of advocacy work as a collective 7.09 11
7.Lack of support from partner organizations 8.0 10
8.Burdensome and time consuming evaluation and reporting
requirements
8.36 11
9.Regular turnover in human resources responsible for service delivery 9.70 10
10.Other 9.75 8
11.Lack of information about what other organizations are doing 9.82 11
12.Negotiating collective agreement 9.91 11
13.Lack of exemption from municipal property taxes 10.18 11
14.Lack of effective policies and procedures 10.7 10
15.Inadequate translation and interpretation support for clients 10.73 11
Page |22
6.5.Description of Other Service Implementation I ssues Respondent’s Organizations
Currently Face
Survey Question #24 Total Number of Responses
If you selected 'other' as a service implementation issue your
organization currently faces, please describe the issue below.n = 5
When asked to describe other service implementation issues, 5 respondents provided a description of
such other issues. Among these responses, the service implementation issues faced by organizations in
Maple Ridge include the following:
Lack of affordable housing;
Community misinformation and resistance (regarding mental health, substance use and
housing services);
Lack of communication between relevant provincial ministries; and,
Balancing provincial needs with local needs.
6.6.Root Causes of Most Important Issues Identified by Respondents
Survey Question #25 Total Number of Responses
For the issue you identified as most important, what are the root
causes of this issue from your perspective?n =18
When asked to describe the root causes of the issue identified as the most important,18 respondents
provided a description of such root causes.A majority of respondents identified a lack of funding as both
an implementation issue (see question 23) and as a root cause. There were a number of perspectives
regarding the impact that a lack of sustainable funding has on organizations and the community, and
what can be done. Respondents noted that a lack of funding simply means that fewer front line staff can
be hired, and fewer clients can be served.
Additionally, several respondents noted that funders often don’t want to pay for the administrative
portion of service agencies operations which include:(1)regulatory obligations for work-safe, collective
agreements, staff wellness; (2) infrastructure costs including IT, repairs, replacement costs, accessibility
improvements; and, (3) other costs including governance, human resources, promotion, social media,
risk and management.
A number of respondents identified provincial funding formulas both at the Ministry of Health (for
Health Authorities)and within the Ministry of Children and Family Development, as both restrictive and
limited. One respondent noted that funding from such ministries remains static including: (1)no costs of
living increases have been factored in;(2)no mechanism to redistribute funding as communities grow
and populations change over time;and, (3)no funding increases to administrative or operations budgets
since 2009.
One respondent noted that the provincial government apparently negotiated a collective agreement in
2012, which remained unfunded and agencies were asked to find the money in operations. In addition, a
few respondents said provincial ministries may want to consider ways of integrating funding models, or
simply finding ways to connect within and amongst ministries and agencies more effectively to be more
responsive changing needs within communities. Respondents noted that funding seemed to be short on
all sides within provincial ministries and within the community as a whole. A few respondents identified
Page |23
conditions of poverty within the community as a cause of many of the issues –as people do not have
sufficient income on which to live.
Additionally, a few respondents noted that the public in general, needs more information to facilitate
better awareness and understanding regarding social priorities with communities. Respondents
described an environment of misinformation, resistance and fear when it comes to services focused
around substance use, mental health and housing in Maple Ridge. In addition, transportation was
identified as an issue for some populations –in terms of accessing services when required.
6.7.What Needs to be Done to Address Identified Issues
Survey Question #26 Total Number of Responses
What needs to be done to address this issue from your perspective?n =19
When asked what needs to be done to address these issues,19 respondents provided a description of
what they believe is needed.As a majority of respondents identified lack of funding as a major issue,the
majority of respondents also considered increased funding as a solution. Respondents considered a few
different ways to address this lack of funding both within the government and in the community:
Educate policy makers about issues facing community organizations; including the
necessity of administrative costs;
Provincial government should look into distribution of necessary funds on a population-
based formula and should honour negotiated contracts with service level staff;
Consider sharing administrative costs between organizations;
Ask cities to waive property taxes for social service organizations (much like churches);
Creative models of support and housing that reduce costs and overhead;
Find longer term funders;and,
More funding specifically to substance use education, prevention and treatment within
schools.
A few respondents were candid about solutions to funding shortages describing their organizations
having already taken many steps to address the issue with various levels of government and that unless
funding levels are addressed, service levels will continue to be reduced within communities. Others
offered potential policy solutions at the provincial level, including implementing a guaranteed minimum
income program across the province and a review of service integration in order to adopt a social policy
framework to align related ministries.
6.8.Emerging Mental Health, Substance Use and Housing Service Needs of Diverse
Populations Needing Priority Attention
Survey Question #27 Total Number of Responses
What emerging mental health, substance use, and housing service
needs of diverse populations do you think need priority attention?n = 20
Homelessness
A number of respondents identified homelessness as a growing issue in Maple Ridge. Respondents listed
a number of different housing service needs related to homelessness, including:
Page |24
Housing first –and then prevention and education;
Emergency shelter for youth;
Low barrier shelters;
Emergency housing for youth who are not within foster care system; refunding of Iron
Horse;
Permanent shelter for people who are homeless;
Overall homelessness strategy for the city, province and country;
Housing subsidies, affordable housing and supported housing;and,
Decide upon acceptable housing model for the chronically homeless.
Affordable Housing
Another theme reiterated by respondents, was the overall need for more affordable housing options in
Maple Ridge. The lack of affordable housing options seemingly impacts all population groups.
Respondents identified a few specific housing priorities in the community, including:
Affordable and accessible seniors housing;
Enhanced supported housing;
Publicly funded assisted living units;and,
Low-rent market housing and a continuum of housing.
Community-Based Support for Substance Use Services
Overall, respondents identified a need for more resources within the community to support individuals
with substance use challenges. More specifically, respondents identified the following related needs:
Harm reduction services;
Opioid substitution access (methadone);
Early identification / assessment;
Wrap around services for the individual and family; providing direct intervention and
preventative measures;
Trauma-based practice across community service providers, RCMP, Health, MCFD and
schools;
More counsellors and resources to refer individuals;
More treatment beds, detox, and second stage housing;
Follow up support;and,
Outreach.
Youth-Focused Mental Health Services
Respondents identified a significant need within the community for more youth-focused mental health
services. While there is need within the community for more mental health services, overall,
respondents seemed to indicate that such services are particularly thin on the ground for youth.
Respondents gave a few examples of the need for such services, including the following:
Community support for children and youth presenting with moderate to severe anxiety;
Collaborative programs and supports for youth resorting to suicidal behaviour;
Page |25
Youth treatment and detox centres;and,
Improved access to mental health counselling.
Concurrent Disorders
A few respondents identified the need for more support and resources for individuals with concurrent
disorders (presenting with both mental health and substance use challenges). There are apparently few
clinicians or community organizations able to support individuals with these challenges.
Maple Ridge Social Services
D Delivery Research Report
DRAFT Technical Appendix B:Backgrounder for
Inventory of Maple Ridge Social Services
(Housing,Mental Health, Problematic Substance use and Addictions)
July 2016
Table of Contents
1.0.Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1
1.1.About The Service Mapping Project .............................................................................................1
1.2.Criteria for Inclusion......................................................................................................................1
2.0.Services Provided .......................................................................................................................3
3.0.Organizations and Programs by Categories ..................................................................................5
3.1.Mental Health Organizations and Programs.................................................................................5
4.0.Mental Health, Substance Use, and Housing Services Inventory ...................................................7
4.1.Mental Health Services Inventory by Subcategories ....................................................................7
4.2.Substance Use Services Inventory by Subcategories ....................................................................8
4.3.Housing Services Inventory by Subcategories ..............................................................................9
List of Tables
Table 1.Host/Referring Organization and Number of Services Provided ....................................................3
Table 2.Inventory Categories and Subcategories ........................................................................................5
Table 3.Mental Health Services Provided by Subcategories .......................................................................7
Table 4.Substance Use Services Provided by Subcategories .......................................................................8
Table 5.Housing Services Provided by Subcategories..................................................................................9
Page |1
1.0.Introduction
1.1.About The Service Mapping Project
The main objective of the Maple Ridge’s Social Services Delivery Research Project is to identify key
trends, strengths and opportunities related to the service system regarding mental health,substance
use, and housing in Maple Ridge in order to establish consistent, innovative and coordinated service
delivery and improve accessibility of services.
This document is organized according to the three theme areas:(1)Mental Health (79 services and 24
Subcategories); (2)Substance Use (38 programs in 18 Subcategories); and, (3)Housing (47 programs in
20 Subcategories).The next subsection provides an overview of the criteria for inclusion into the
inventory.
1.2.Criteria for Inclusion
The development of the Service Inventory was based on three existing sources:
City of Maple Ridge Parks and Leisure Services Community Directory:
http://mrpmparksandleisure.ca/;
Red Book Online:http://redbookonline.bc211.ca/; and,
Referrals by City of Maple Ridge staff and Community Network members.
Organization information was confirmed by requesting that service providers review their organizational
information for accuracy and completeness.The criteria for inclusion into the Service Inventory include:
Services must be offered in Maple Ridge;
Services must be free or low cost; and,
Services must offer or be related to one or a combination of the following themes:
o Mental Health;
o Substance Use; or,
o Housing.
The development of a draft Service Inventory identified 134 unique programs offered through 51
organizations. Of those 51 organizations, 35 (69%) are based in Maple Ridge and 16 (31%) organizations
are based outside Maple Ridge. Of the 134 individual programs, 106 (79%) are located in Maple Ridge
while 28 (21%) are located outside Maple Ridge.
Once the draft service inventory was developed, validation was sought for the information compiled
about existing resources including:
Program category (mental health, substance use, and/or housing);
Program name;
Service description;
Target population (Families; Children 0 to 12 years; Youth 13 to 18 years; Youth 19 to 24
years;Seniors 65+ years; Women; Males, LGBTQ; First Nations; Immigrant/Refugee;
Page |2
People with disabilities, People who are homeless; All of these populations;and/or,
Other);
Host/Referring Organization
Organization Name;
Program (Yes/No) and Organization (Yes/No);
Offered within Maple Ridge (Yes/No);
Long Term (program has been running for 5 years or more) or Short Term (program has
been running for less than 5 years);
Secured funding for program up to 2017 (Yes/No);
Unit number or P.O. Box, street address, city, province and postal code; and,
Phone number, email and website
To facilitate this process,Executive Directors and Senior Program Officers who offer programs that
address housing, mental health, and substance abuse issues were contacted the second week of
November of 2015 for their review for accuracy of an excel spreadsheet containing program information
they oversee.A reminder email was sent a week later and a final reminder email was sent at the end of
November of 2015.
Approximately 18 programs out of 134 unique programs programs were reviewed and validated,
constituting 13% of the total programs.These programs came from 10 organizations constituting 20% of
the total number (N = 51) of organizations.
Page |3
2.0.Services Provided
A total of 51 organizations were identified as delivering programs and services within the three main
categories identified (mental health, substance use, and housing services). Table 1 provides an overview
of these organizations and the number of programs in the service categories that each organization
offers.
Table 1.Host/Referring Organization and Number of Services Provided
Organization Name # of Services
Provided
1.Act 2 Child and Family Services 4
2.Al-Anon Family Groups -BC-Yukon Area 81 1
3.Alcohol & Drug Information and Referral Service 1
4.Alcohol-Drug Education Service 1
5.Alcoholics Anonymous 1
6.Alouette Addictions Services 1
7.Alouette Home Start Society 5
8.Arcus Community Resources 1
9.Asante Centre 1
10.BC Housing 4
11.bc211 1
12.British Columbia Schizophrenia Society 1
13.Canadian Mental Health Association -Simon Fraser Branch 1
14.City of Maple Ridge (Parks and Leisure Services) / Fraser Health Authority
(Mental Health and Substance Use)
1
15.Cocaine Anonymous -BC Area 1
16.Cornerstone Neighbourhood Church 1
17.Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention Centre of BC 1
18.Cythera Transition House Society 4
19.Family Education and Support Centre 7
20.Fraser Health 10
21.Fraser River All Nations Aboriginal Society 1
22.Friends in Need Food Bank 1
23.Haney Pioneer Village Cooperative 1
24.Immigrant Services Society of BC 2
25.Innervisions Recovery Society of BC 3
26.LifeRing Alcohol and Drug Peer Support Groups 1
27.Maple Ridge Mental Health Centre 9
28.Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Community Services 14
29.Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows, Katzie Community Network 2
30.Ministry of Children and Family Development 7
Page |4
31.MPA Society 3
32.Narcotics Anonymous -Vancouver Area 1
33.Native Courtworker and Counselling Association of British Columbia 1
34.One Way Club Society 1
35.Pathfinder Youth Centre Society -Maple Ridge Office 1
36.PLEA Community Services Society of BC 8
37.RainCity Housing 1
38.Ridge Meadows Association for Community Living 3
39.Ridge Meadows Child Development Society 2
40.Ridge Meadows Hospice Society 1
41.Ridge Meadows Hospital 4
42.Ridge Meadows Mental Health Self Support Centre 1
43.Ridge Meadows Seniors Centre 1
44.Salvation Army -BC Division 4
45.Salvation Army Caring Place 5
46.SUCCESS 1
47.Surrey Memorial Hospital 3
48.Tenant Resource Advisory Centre 1
49.The F.O.R.C.E. Society for Kids' Mental Health 1
50.West Coast Family Centres Society (Ridge Meadows)1
51.WJ Stelmaschuk and Associates Ltd (WJS Canada)1
TOTAL 134
Page |5
3.0.Organizations and Programs by Categories
Three categories and 62 subcategories were identified as part of the development of the inventory. The
three main categories include:(1)Mental Health (24 subcategories); (2)Substance Use (18
subcategories); and, (3)Housing (20 subcategories). Table 1 provides an overview of categories and
subcategories.
3.1.Mental Health Organizations and Programs
Mental health programs (24 subcategories); (2) Substance Use (18 subcategories); and, (3) Housing (20
subcategories). Table 2 provides an overview of categories and subcategories.
Table 2.Inventory Categories and Subcategories
Category Subcategory
Mental Health Programs
(24 Subcategories)
1.Assessment Services
2.Case Management
3.Counselling Services
4.Day Treatment
5.Drop In Services
6.Education
7.Employment Services
8.Family Support Services
9.Hospice
10.Housing
11.Information and Referral Services
12.In-Patient Services
13.Mentorship
14.Outreach Services
15.Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services
16.Public Health Nurse
17.Recreation Therapy
18.Sexual Health
19.Short Stay Housing
20.Short Term Assessment
21.Support Group
22.Support Services
23.Transition Housing
24.Wraparound Services
Page |6
Substance Use Services
(18 Subcategories)
1.Addictions Counselling
2.Advocacy Services
3.Capacity Development
4.Concurrent Disorders
5.Detox Management
6.Education
7.Employment Services
8.Family Support Services
9.FASD
10.Information and Referral
11.Outpatient Treatment
12.Outreach Services
13.Peer Support
14.Prevention
15.Residential Treatment
16.Support Services
17.Supported Recovery
18.Transitional Housing
Housing Programs
(20 Subcategories)
1.Advocacy
2.Affordable Housing
3.Assisted Living
4.Capacity Development
5.Community Living Services
6.Emergency Shelter
7.Food Programs
8.Health Services
9.Home Support
10.Housing Registry
11.Information and Referral
12.Language
13.Legal Services
14.Outreach -Homelessness
15.Prevention -Homelessness
16.Rent subsidy
17.Resettlement Assistance
18.Support -Homelessness
19.Supportive Housing
20.Transitional Housing
Page |7
4.0.Mental Health, Substance Use, and Housing Services
Inventory
4.1.Mental Health Services Inventory by Subcategories
Table 3 provides a breakdown of mental health services and subcategories. The total includes programs
that may have been identified in duplicate categories.
Table 3.Mental Health Services Provided by Subcategories
Category Subcategory Program Type # of Programs
Mental Health
Services
Assessment (5)
Assessment 3
Case Management 1
Short Term Assessment 1
Counselling Services (10)Counselling 10
In-Patient Services (7)Day Treatment 1
In-Patient 4
Psychosocial Rehabilitation 2
Support Services (23)
Drop In 3
Employment 1
Family Support 6
Mentorship 1
Peer Support Group 6
Recreation Therapy 1
Support Services 2
Sexual Health 2
Wraparound Services 1
Education (7)Education 7
Information and Referral (11)Information and Referral 11
Outreach (6)Outreach 5
Public Health Nurse 1
Housing (8)
Hospice 1
Housing 1
Short Stay Housing 1
Transition Housing 5
Programs 77
Organizations 25
Page |8
4.2.Substance Use Services Inventory by Subcategories
Table 4 provides a breakdown of substance use services and subcategories. The total includes programs
that may have been identified in duplicate categories.
Table 4.Substance Use Services Provided by Subcategories
Category Subcategory Program Type # of Programs
Substance Use Services
Treatment (11)
Addictions Counselling 2
Concurrent Disorders 1
Detox Management 1
Outpatient Treatment 2
Peer Support 5
Information and Referral (4)Information and Referral 4
Residential Treatment (5)Residential Treatment 4
Transitional Housing 1
Support (6)
Employment 1
Family Support 1
FASD Support 2
Support 1
Supported Recovery 1
Other (5)
Advocacy 1
Capacity Development 1
Education 1
Outreach 1
Prevention 1
Programs 31
Organizations 18
Page |9
4.3.Housing Services Inventory by Subcategories
Table 5 provides a breakdown of housing services and subcategories. The total includes programs that
may have been identified in duplicate categories.
Table 5.Housing Services Provided by Subcategories
Category Subcategory Program Type # of Programs
Housing Services
Community Support (14)
Advocacy 3
Capacity Development 2
Food Programs 2
Housing Registry 1
Health Services 1
Home Support 1
Information and Referral 2
Language Instruction 1
Homelessness (8)
Outreach -Homelessness 3
Prevention -Homelessness 1
Support -Homelessness 4
Housing (21)
Affordable Housing 1
Assisted Living 1
Community Living Services 4
Emergency Shelter 4
Rent Subsidy 3
Resettlement Assistance 1
Supportive Housing 6
Transitional Housing 1
Programs 43
Organizations 25
Maple Ridge Social Services
Delivery Research Report
DRAFT Technical Appendix C:Review of Evidence-
based Practices
July 2016
Table of Contents
1.0.Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1
2.0.Housing Case Study #1 -Sunshine Coast Housing Project..........................................................2
2.1.Summary of Challenges .......................................................................................................2
2.2.Overview of Approach .........................................................................................................2
2.3.Implementation Characteristics ...........................................................................................3
2.4.Evidence of Success and Lessons Learned .............................................................................4
2.5.Additional Resources ...........................................................................................................5
3.0.Housing Case Study #2 -Medicine Hat Plan to End Homelessness .............................................7
3.1.Community Profile ..............................................................................................................7
3.2.Organization Profile and Purpose.........................................................................................7
3.3.Summary of Challenges .......................................................................................................8
3.4.Overview of Approach .........................................................................................................9
3.5.Implementation Characteristics .........................................................................................10
3.6.Project Budget and Costs ...................................................................................................11
3.7.Evidence of Success and Lessons Learned ...........................................................................12
3.8.Additional Resources .........................................................................................................13
4.0.Housing Case Study #3 –London, Ontario: Homelessness Prevention System .........................14
4.1.Case Summary ..................................................................................................................14
4.2.Social Housing Stock in London, Ontario ............................................................................14
4.3.Summary of Challenges .....................................................................................................15
4.4.Overview of Approach .......................................................................................................15
4.5.Implementation Characteristics .........................................................................................17
4.6.Project Budget and Costs ...................................................................................................18
4.7.Evidence of Success and Lessons Learned ...........................................................................18
4.8.Additional Resources .........................................................................................................18
5.0.Mental Health Case Study #1 -Preventing Homelessness through Mental Health
Discharge Planning: Best Practices and Community Partnerships in British Columbia .............20
5.1.Case Summary ..................................................................................................................20
5.2.Summary of Challenges and Lessons Learned .....................................................................20
5.3.Overview of Approach .......................................................................................................21
5.4.Implementation Characteristics .........................................................................................22
5.5.Additional Resources .........................................................................................................23
6.0.Mental Health Case Study #2 -England’s Department for Communities and Local
Government Preventing Homelessness Project .....................................................................24
6.1.Case Summary ..................................................................................................................24
6.2.Summary of Challenges .....................................................................................................25
6.3.Overview of Approach .......................................................................................................25
6.4.Implementation Characteristics .........................................................................................26
6.5.Project Budget and Costs ...................................................................................................27
6.6.Evidence of Success and Lessons Learned ...........................................................................27
6.7.Additional Resources .........................................................................................................29
7.0.Substance Use Case Study #1 –Vancouver at Home / Chez Soi Project (Vancouver)................30
7.1.Summary of Challenges .....................................................................................................32
7.2.Overview of Approach .......................................................................................................32
7.3.Implementation Characteristics .........................................................................................32
7.4.Project Budget and Costs ...................................................................................................33
7.5.Evidence of Success and Lessons Learned ...........................................................................33
7.6.Additional Resources .........................................................................................................34
List of Tables
Table 1.Provincially and Federally-Funded Initiatives ..............................................................................12
Table 2.Affordable Housing Types in London, Ontario .............................................................................14
Table 3.Year 1: London, Ontario Activities ...............................................................................................17
Table 4.Year 2: London, Ontario Activities ...............................................................................................17
Table 5.Characteristics of the Treatment Groups for the Vancouver At Home Study .............................30
Table 6.Participants Demographics by Treatment Group for the Vancouver At Home Study .................31
List of Figures
Figure 1.Number of Rough Sleepers Counted in London .........................................................................28
Page |1
1.0.Introduction
To inform the City of Maple Ridge as to the best practices in research and innovative initiatives and
approaches to achieve coordination and streamlining between services, the following sections provide
an overview of six case studies in the areas of housing, mental health and substance use.
Documents were collected, analyzed,and summarized and resulted in the development of six case
studies each containing the following components for review:
1.Background Description of the Municipality
Location, population, economic and social service delivery profile, and other
relevant demographics.
2.Intervention Summary
Summary of the case study which briefly discusses identified challenges made by the
municipality and how challenges were identified. Case studies will have identified
challenges that align, to the greatest extent possible, to the three (3) priority areas
of Maple Ridge;
3.Intervention Approach
Discussion of the methodological approach or nature of intervention, who is
involved and the process (e.g., contracting and committee formation process);
4.Implementation Characteristics
Discussion of the intervention procedures, who is carrying out the procedures (i.e.,
roles of local government and committees), who are the participants, and who is
providing oversight and maintenance;
5.Project Budget and Costs;
Description of funding partners and budget for phases of work, and costs of
intervention phases/steps;
6.Evidence of Success and Lessons Learned;
Discussion of key findings, success, and lessons learned related to participant
outcomes, best practices in social service delivery and implic ations of intervention
on policies;
7.Additional Resources
A reference list of peer-reviewed, scholarly articles supporting the findings of best
practices identified, lessons learned, and other evidence of success.
Page |2
2.0.Housing Case Study #1 -Sunshine Coast Housing Project
The Sunshine Coast is a rural region in Southwestern British Columbia with a population over 28,000.
Many residents live in unincorporated areas within the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD). Others
live within municipalities such as the District of Sechelt or the Town of Gibsons. A smaller group lives
within the Sechelt Indian Government District.The population age trends older with six out of ten
residents being over the age of 45 while the median household income is comparable to other coastal
communities.
Since 2001, housing costs have increased by 130% on the Sunshine Coast with about half of all renters
paying nearly one-third of their income toward housing and one-third being in core housing need.Core
housing need is defined as a household that would have to spend 30% or more of its total before-tax
income to pay the median rent of alternative local housing that is acceptable and a household that falls
below at least one of the adequacy, affordability or suitability, standards defined by the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation.1
2.1.Summary of Challenges
Given the ongoing concerns that were reported on the Sunshine Coast, an Affordable Housing Study was
conducted with the purpose of assessing the extent and nature of the region’s need for affordable
housing and to provide a resource and affordable housing strategy for the Regional Affordable Housing
Strategy project and community members. The project had contributions from several volunteer
committees and agencies including the Housing Committee of the Sunshine Coast Social Planning
Council and a Technical Advisory Committee.
2.2.Overview of Approach
This study consisted of:
1.An analysis of demographic, economic, housing and income data to understand current
trends in the housing situation on the Sunshine Coast;
2.Key stakeholder interviews on local housing issues;
3.A presentation of the housing profile information and discussion of examples of affordable
housing initiatives and local government tools in support of affordable housing made with
the Housing Committee;
4.A needs assessment using available information and feedback gathered to identify the gaps
in affordable housing on the Sunshine Coast;
1 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation definition of ‘core housing need’:
http://cmhc.beyond2020.com/HiCODefinitions_EN.html#_Core_Housing_Need_Status
Page |3
5.Documentation of case studies of affordable housing created elsewhere along with a
description of various roles of local governments in facilitating affordable housing; and,
6.A review of governance options, utility of community land trust and housing trust funds,
potential sites for affordable housing on the Sunshine Coast and existing local government
policies and practices for affordable housing.
2.3.Implementation Characteristics
Leadership and coordination for the region in the area of attainable and affordable housing came
through a Housing Committee and was formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
signed by the Sunshine Coast Regional District, the Town of Gibsons, and the District of Sechelt.
A Terms of Reference guided the Housing Committee’s work which included:
1.Developing a forum for monitoring, advocacy and information exchange regarding
affordable housing needs on the Sunshine Coast;
2.Identifying a diversity of attainable type of housing possible with the aim of supporting
demographically balanced communities;
3.Facilitating partnerships and education regarding attainable housing on the Sunshine
Coast;
4.Educating Sunshine Coast communities on types of housing possible and needed on the
Sunshine Coast;
5.Developing a set of recommendations to the parties of the MOU on housing matters;
6.Advising local governments regarding decisions to be made on affordable housing;
7.Promoting collaboration between local governments, non-profit sector and for profit sector
in pursuing funding for affordable housing;
8.Providing a continued forum for the analysis of housing need and responses;
9.Supporting the region’s non-profit sector through advocacy and information-sharing; and,
10.Continuing to monitor the need for a housing authority.
The Housing Committee included two non-profit housing provider representatives, a representative
from the Social Planning Council, a representative from the fi nancial services sector, two representatives
from the development and building sector, a representative from the real estate sector, a staff
representative for each of the MOU signatories, and an elected official from each of the MOU
signatories.
The Housing Committee engaged in the following activities:
1.Monitored housing market and income trends;
2.Explored and acted on opportunities for senior government funding;
Page |4
3.Worked with local stakeholders (developers, builders, non-profit housing societies) to
facilitate their affordable projects; and,
4.Advised local government on housing related issues.
In 2009, Sechelt, Gibsons and the SCRD worked together with the City Spaces consulting firm to
investigate the feasibility of establishing a Housing Corporation for the on-going development of
affordable housing.
To help understand local perceptions of affordable housing needs and priorities, the consultants
interviewed thirty (30)community stakeholders from throughout the Sunshine Coast using a list
compiled by the Technical Advisory Group, with assistance from the project coordinator. Interviewees
were asked eight questions prepared in a guide. Twelve interviews (12)were conducted in person with
the remaining participants being interviewed by telephone.
These results were compiled into a report which incorporated the findings of a housing profile and
stakeholder interviews to identify priority affordable housing needs. The report also identified directions
and options to create housing for population groups that are experiencing affordability issues, examples
of affordable housing initiatives developed elsewhere and a review of potential local government roles.
Upon completion of the needs assessment and affordable housing options for the Sunshine Coast, the
Housing Committee commissioned additional work that included an examination of governance options
for moving forward, an investigation of the potential utility of land trusts and housing trust funds as
models that could be implemented on the Coast, the preparation of an inventory of potential sites for
affordable housing on the Coast, and a review of existing local government affordable housing policies
and initiatives.
2.4.Evidence of Success and Lessons Learned
Throughout the process, the Social Planning Council learned several important lessons including:
1.Take time to build support in the community;
2.Identify key individuals and institutions and ensure they are informed about what is
happening and engaged as the process develops;
3.Recognize the key role that a social planning council can play in relationship building,
communication among stakeholders, and advocacy to the larger community by bringing a
perspective that emphasizes the need for long-term solutions involving coordination and
collaboration among a range of community interests;
4.Municipal staff members are key stakeholders who should be involved early in the process
and kept updated as the project develops;
5.The ability of smaller communities to accumulate significant funds to create affordable
housing can prevent a challenge with regard to partnership building;
Page |5
6.Several interviewees identified a challenge due to the lack of municipally owned land close
to amenities and served by public transportation that could be used for affordable housing;
7.Requirements in rural areas for services such as a septic system can make it costly to build
affordable housing;and,
8.The approval process may be slow due to other pressures associated with growth.
Additional challenges identified through the project included funding and financing, the high costs of
land, rent, and construction to educating local governments on the need for affordable housing and the
public regarding on the benefits.
Some potential barriers to addressing these needs include:
1.Lack of capital;
2.Funding required to cover operating costs;
3.Potential neighbourhood resistance to increased density and non-market rental housing;
4.Challenges in creating partnerships and making them work;
5.Long development process;
6.High construction costs, including development cost charges; and,
7.Low wages hindering affordability.
The report cites evidence of success with a Community Land Trust which is a housing model most
prominent in the U.S. and includes a democratically controlled non-profit or charitable organization that
owns real estate in order to provide benefits to its local community and to make land and housing
available to residents who cannot otherwise afford them.
2.5.Additional Resources
1.Campbell, L. (2009). Sunshine Coast Affordable Housing Study -Update 2009: Final Report.
Eberle Planning and Research. Retrieved from:http://www.scrd.ca/Affordable-Housing
2.Eberle Planning and Research (2006). Sunshine Coast Affordable Housing Study: Final
Report.Eberle Planning and Research, Jim Woodward and Associates and Deborah Kraus
Consulting. Retrieved From:http://www.scrd.ca/Affordable-Housing
3.One Coast (July, 2012). Together in Nature, Culture and Community. Retrieved from:
http://www.onecoast.ca/files/File/2012-JUL-07%20OneCoast%20CurrentSitHousing~.pdf
4.SPARC BC News (2007). Focus on Momentum: Addressing Affordable Housing Issues on the
Sunshine Coast. Retrieved from:http://www.sparc.bc.ca
5.Thomson, M. (2014). Housing on the Sunshine Coast: Trends, Needs and Direction.M.
Thompson Consulting. Retrieved from:http://www.scrd.ca/Affordable-Housing
Page |6
6.Thomson, M. (n.d.) Homelessness and Risk on the Sunshine Coast: A Needs and Strengths
Assessment.Sunshine Coast Community Services Society and Human Resources and Skills
Development Canada.Retrieved from http://www.scrd.ca/Affordable-Housing
7.Wagler, J. (November, 2010) Forum highlights Coast Housing Problems. Coast Reporter:
Voice of the Sunshine Coast.Retrieved from:http://www.coastreporter.net/news/local-
news/forum-highlights-coast-housing-problems-1.1183114
8.Wake, T. (2007). Review of Best Practices in Affordable Housing. Sm art Growth B.C.
Retrieved from:
http://www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/Portals/0/Downloads/SGBC_Affordable_Housing_Report_
2007.pdf
Page |7
3.0.Housing Case Study #2 -Medicine Hat Plan to End
Homelessness
3.1.Community Profile
Medicine Hat is a small city of approximately 61,000 people located in Southeast Alberta,295 km
southeast of Calgary. The Medicine Hat census agglomeration area had a population of 72,807, which
includes Redcliff and Cypress Counties. Demographically, more than 89% of residents identified English
as their first language in the 2006 census. According to the municipal census in 2011, 7.2% of the
population within the census agglomeration area identified as foreign-born; 3,030 individuals belonged
to a visible minority group, and 4.6% of the population identified as Aboriginal.
As a community, Medicine Hat is said to pride itself as one of the more economical places to live in
Canada. Uniquely for the province, the city owns its gas utility and power generation plant, providing
low-cost power to the 24,729 dwellings within the city (2006 census).Medicine Hat enjoys a relatively
mixed economy with workers employed in oil and gas, construction, agriculture, manufacturing,and
retail sectors, along with employment via the Canadian Forces Base Suffield, located 50 km northwest of
the city. CFB Suffield has one of the largest military training areas in the western world with 2,690 km2
incorporating military training, defence research, agricultural use and oilfield reserves.
In May 2011, there were 36,845 people employed and 2,805 unemployed in the Medicine Hat area, with
an unemployment rate of 7.1%. The median employment income in Medicine Hat was $49,992; the
median after tax income of families was $70,291; the median for couple families was $75,866, and for
lone-parent families it was $42,884. Approximately 20.7% of the adult population had not completed a
high school or any post-secondary certificates, diplomas or degrees.
The Province of Alberta has jurisdiction over key policies and programs related to poverty reduction. The
previous Progressive Conservative Government increased the Assured Income for severely handicapped
by $400/month, along with capacity to earn more income without claw -backs in 2012. In April of the
same year, the PC government committed to a 10 year Plan to Reduce Poverty; alo ng with renewed
focus upon the province’s 5 year plan to end Child Poverty. In addition, the newly elected NDP (2015)
government in Alberta has introduced the Alberta Child Benefit (ACB) to support families earning less
than $41,220 per year with a maximum benefit of $1,100 for families with one child and up to $2,750 for
families with four or more children; along with an enhanced Alberta Family Employment Tax Credit
(AFETC) to support working families with children, with a maximum annual credit of $754 for families
with one child, and up to $1,987 for families with four children or more.
3.2.Organization Profile and Purpose
The Medicine Hat Community Housing Society (MHCHS) is the management body which oversees all
social housing programs within the City of Medicine Hat, for those in need of affordable housing
options. It operates as a Community Based Organization, and has been charged with leading and
implementing the local Plan to End Homelessness, through a number of different initiatives. As a
Page |8
charitable organization a portion of MHCHS’ budget is composed of community donations. MHCHS
provides housing and support services to nearly 1,000 low income households in Medicine Hat; in
addition to over 602 individuals and their 283 children out of homelessness.
In 2009 the municipality of Medicine Hat committed to ending homelessness using the housing first
approach, through discussions contributing to the release of Starting at Home in Medicine Hat: Our 5
Year Plan to End Homelessness (2010-2015); and more recently culminating in the At Home in Medicine
Hat: Our Plan to End Homelessness (2014 update). This approach prioritizes moving people experiencing
homelessness as quickly as possible into appropriate housing with supports rather than first dealing with
issues contributing to homelessness such as mental illness or addictions. This plan was consistent with
the seven principles established in the provincial Plan for Alberta: Ending Homelessness in 10 Years2. The
MHCHS has lead the implementation of the plan locally, serving a dual role within the community of
both managing federal Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS) and provincial Human Services Outreach
Support Services Initiative (OSSI) funds, while operating and subsidizing affordable rental housing
options for low income families, seniors, and people with special needs.
3.3.Summary of Challenges
According to the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) about 13% of people in Medicine Hat are living
in poverty; above that of the Alberta rate of 10.7%. Notably, however, not all people living in conditions
of poverty are at risk of homelessness. A recent study for the Calgary Homeless Foundation found that
there are several risk factors at within societal structures, and at the level of individual, which are
present for those at risk of being homeless, and homeless populations, including:
1.An imbalance in income and housing costs;
2.Chronic health issues, particularly mental health, disabilities and physical health;
3.Addictions;
4.Experiences of abuse and trauma; and,
5.Interaction with public systems (particularly correctional and child intervention services).
The study also identified protective factors, which guard against risk for homelessness, including healthy
social relationships, education, access to affordable housing and adequate income.
Building on the work by the Calgary Homeless Foundation, MHCHS identified a set of emerging trends in
Medicine Hat in 2014, based on a review of Statistics Canada data (across Census period between 1991
and 2006), analysis of the 2011 National Household Survey, and CMHC reports on housing market
fundamentals.
2 1 Everyone has access to safe, affordable, accessible, permanent housing. 2 Addressing root causes of homelessness is
essential to ending homelessness. 3 Preventing and ending homelessness is a shared responsibility of all orders of government,
the community, the corporate sector, service providers, and citizens. 4 Programs and services are evidence-informed in their
planning, and demonstrate measurable outcomes. 5 Current essential services and supports are maintained during the
transition to permanent housing. 6 Goals and initiatives are program participant-centered and community driven. 7 Funding is
long-term, predictable, and aligned with a community plan to end homelessness.
Page |9
Trends identified include the following:
1.Declining vacancy rates, and rising rents, due to strong labour market opportunities
drawing more people into the Medicine Hat area. The limited rental stock saw more
pressure as a result of the flood in Southern Alberta in 2013, and due to the fact that few
new rental units have been added in the last several years;
2.In 2011, one out of every five households in Medicine Hat was paying more than 30% of
their income on shelter costs for a total of 6,560 households; and,
3.For every person who becomes homeless, there are up to two others who are at risk of
homelessness due to persistent housing affordability challenges.
MHCHS estimated in 2014 that there were 1700-1800 individuals at imminent risk of homelessness, a
group identified as the target of prevention measures to mitigate against such risk. In addition, MHCHS
estimated in 2014 the number of unique shelter users within the system to be approximately 850
annually; with 35% of these chronically homeless and another 40% episodically homeless.
3.4.Overview of Approach
Medicine Hat’s plan to end homelessness (2010-2015) had the overall goal of ending homelessness, so
that no-one in the community would have to live in an emergency shelter or ‘sleep rough’ for more than
10 days before they had access to stable housing and associated supports. Associated milestones
included:
1.Housing 290 homeless people by March 2015, of which 240 would be chronically or
episodically homeless;
2.Ensuring that no more than 10% of those served by housing first programs return to
homelessness by 2015;
3.Eliminating 50% of 2013 emergency shelter beds by 2015 (a 30 bed reduction);
4.Reducing the average length of stay in emergency shelters to 10 days by March 2015;and,
5.Decreasing the flow into homelessness from jails and hospitals.
The MHCHS used a systems planning approach towards ending homelessness and a reorientation
towards a ‘housing first’ philosophy. This approach required all key players to follow the same vision.
Embedded within the plan were several strategies and associated goals:
1.Incorporating a System-Wide Planning
Focusing on long-term chronic and episodically homeless that meet the needs of
youth, women, families, seniors and Aboriginal people while enhancing access
across the system.
2.Maximizing Housing and Supports
Maximizing use of affordable housing stock
Page |10
Increasing capacity for the development of permanent supportive housing; and,
Enhancing Permanent Supportive Housing capacity, among other goals.
3.Systems Integration and Prevention
Enhancing access to appropriate levels of income assistance;
Working with the education system to reduce homelessness risk among young
people;
Enhancing the system’s ability to end discharging (of medical patients) into
homelessness;
Exploring integration options between the family violence and homeless serving
systems;and,
Supporting the development of a poverty reduction strategy,among other goals;
4.Data and Research Acquisition and Maintenance
Acquiring and maintaining data and research on the homeless-serving system.
5.Leadership and Sustainability
Increasing public awareness and engagement in ending homelessness in Medicine
Hat;
Developing and advancing policy priorities to support the plan to End Homelessness;
and,
Providing leadership to end homelessness in Alberta and Canada, among other
goals.
3.5.Implementation Characteristics
MHCHS used several key elements of systems planning in the implementation of housing first
programming. As the backbone organization, MHCHS lead the implementation of the plan and related
systems planning activities.Roles played by MHCHS included planning lead,system planner, information
system manager, funder, evaluator, innovator, community facilitator, researcher and knowledge leader
and advocate. MHCHS has also worked to establish a transparent community engagement process, to
help identify gaps and priorities for planning and investment by working with the Community Council on
Homelessness (CCH), made up of 22 community stakeholders. More recently, CCH has shifted its role to
a systems planning function by being an active participant in the priority setting process for community
investments.
After the launch of the Plan to End Homelessness in 2010, a range of housing first services were
introduced, including the following:
1.Intensive Case Management -provides program participants with high intensity wrap
around supports and rent assistance to move individuals to independent living or
permanent housing with supports (this program houses approximately 120 program
participants annually);
Page |11
2.Rapid Housing -these programs provide targeted and time-limited financial assistance and
supportive services to individuals and families experiencing homelessness with the goal of
quickly exiting the shelter system and obtaining (and retaining) rental housing (these
programs house 35 program participants per year);
3.Outreach services focused on youth;
4.Financial administrator program;
5.Graduate Rent Assistance Initiative: preventative support; and,
6.MHCHS Housing stability program (preventative support).
MHCHS and funded agencies (including but not limited to Canadian Mental Health Association, Medicine
Hat Women’s Shelter, and Medicine Hat Family Service) have agreed upon standards, policies and
protocols in place to guide program and system functioning,which MHCHS monitors on an ongoing
basis in alignment with provincial and federal requirements. Performance measurement expectations
have been articulated through common system and program benchmarks which align with the
community plan and funder requirements.
A coordinated intake (triage) and housing assessment process has been established together with a
Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (SPDAT) to ensure consistent intake and program referrals
in order to meet needs. Plans to implement a Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) to
align data collection, reporting, coordinated intake, assessment, referrals and service coordination are
currently underway. MHCHS has also developed a technical assistance and capacity building program for
Homeless-Serving agencies, with a focus on building housing first case management capacity, supporting
HMIS uptake and introducing system planning at the level of programs and agencies. MHCHS and CCH
are working to build a comprehensive research strategy intended to embed evidence in decision making
on an ongoing basis. Lastly,MHCHS has worked to further integrate the Homeless Serving System within
public services (justice, child intervention, health) through development of protocols on shared
priorities.Case managers are encouraged to collaborate with partners to further program participant
outcomes.
3.6.Project Budget and Costs
Overall, the Alberta Secretariat for Action on Homelessness estimates that it costs $6.65 billion to
manage homelessness for 11,000 people in direct and indirect costs (if no new plans are implemented).
This equates to $134,000 per individual. In comparison, the Secretariat estimates it would cost $3.3 2
billion to end homelessness for 11,000 people, including $34,000 to house and support each individual.
Homelessness initiatives in Medicine Hat are funded through the MCHCS Homeless and Housing
Development Department through outcomes-based grants provided by federal and provincial
governments, as well as donors. MHCHS has a yearly operating budget of $370,000 and allocates $2.6
million in annual grant money to the community ($2.3M Provincial & $319K Federal).
The Graduate Rental Assistance Initiative (GRAI) provides financial supports to participants that have
Page |12
graduated from the Housing First and Rapid Re-Housing Programs. As of January 31, 2014, 73 individuals
have been helped by GRAI with 45 individuals currently in the program. As of 2013, interim housing was
introduced to ensure that participants of housing first programs are not returning to shelters. As of
January 31st, 2014, 9 individuals were on the waitlist for Housing First and 15 individuals were on the
waitlist for Rapid Re-housing. Since 2009, 742 formerly homeless individuals have been housed.
Community partners working in concert with MHCHS receive a mixture of federal and provincial funding
(see Table 1).
Table 1.Provincially and Federally-Funded Initiatives
Provincially Funded Federally Funded
Canadian Mental Health Association Canadian Mental Health Association
Medicine Hat Women’s Shelter Society McMan
MHCHS Outreach Department MHCHS Outreach Department
Medicine Hat Family Service Miywasin Society of Aboriginal Services
McMan Youth Family and Community Services
MHCHS reports that additional funding is required to help end homelessness in Medicine Hat, including
the following:
1.A one-time capital investment of $7.5M to create 50 units of Permanent Supportive
Housing shared between government and community at a 70/30 split; on an ongoing basis,
operating these units will cost approximately $1.7M; and,
2.An additional investment of $1.3M annually until the end of 2016 fiscal to double our
Intensive Case Management and increase Rapid Rehousing capacity by 50%. This would
total $3.4M from 2014-2016 fiscal.
Evidence of Success and Lessons Learned3.7.
Since 2012, MHCHS has provided rental support (through the Graduate Rental Assistance Initiative) to
105 individuals who have successfully completed either Housing First or Rapid Re-Housing Program. Via
Housing Assessment and Triage, 36 individuals were diverted from shelters in 2014 -2015. Since April
2009, 175 landlords and property management companies have provided homes to 602 formerly
homeless adults and their 283 children. 73% of housing first participants successfully completed the
program; 63% live in market housing and 28% live in subsidized housing.
On October 16th, 2014 MHCHS along with partners conducted a Point in Time Homeless Count (first time
ever in Alberta). On that night, 64 people were counted, 5 of whom were on the street and 59 of whom
were in an emergency shelter or short-term supportive housing. Since 2009, Medicine Hat has seen a
45% reduction in shelter usage; and 42 % of service participants who entere d a housing first program
were employed.
Page |13
3.8.Additional Resources
1.Medicine Hat Community Council on Homelessness (2015). At Home in Medicine Hat:Our
Plan to End Homelessness Five Year Progress Report.Retrieved from:
http://production.mhchs.ca/static/main-site/files/housing-development/Year-5-Progress-
Report.pdf
2.Medicine Hat Community Housing Society Housing First Steering Committee (2009).
Starting at Home in Medicine Hat: Our 5 Year Plan to End Homelessness (2010-2015).
Retrieved from:
http://www.mhchs.ca/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=OdOftycFCm0%3D&tabid=693 .
3.Medicine Hat Community Housing Society (2014).At Home in Medicine Hat: January 2014
Update. Retrieved from:
http://homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/At%20Home%20In%20Medicine%20Hat.%20Our
%20Plan%20to%20End%20Homelessness.pdf
4.Tutty, L., Bradshaw, C., Worthington,C., MacLaurin, B., Waegemakers-Schiff, J.,Hewson,
J.,… &McLeod, H. (2009) Risks and Assets for Homelessness Prevention: A Literature
Review for the Calgary Homeless Foundation.Retrieved from:
http://calgaryhomeless.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/HART-Report.pdf
5.Tutty, L., Bradshaw, C., Worthington, C., MacLaurin, B., Waegemakers,Lee, C.R., & A. Briggs
(2013).Moving From Charity to Investment: Reducing the Cost of Poverty in Medicine Hat
Alberta.Vibrant Communities Calgary.Retrieved from:http://www.city.medicine-
hat.ab.ca/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=9204
6.Turner, Alina (2015).Ending Homelessness in Medicine Hat: A Case Study in Innovative
Social Change.Medicine Hat Community Housing Society.
Page |14
4.0.Housing Case Study #3 –London,Ontario: Homelessness
Prevention System
4.1.Case Summary
The city of London is located in Southwestern Ontario, approximately halfway between Toronto and
Detroit, Michigan. The city is the county seat of Middlesex County. The population of London (2011
Canadian Household Survey) is 366,151. The average age of Londoners is 38.2 years, and approximately
13.7 % of the population is of retirement age.
London’s economy is largely based on medical research, insurance (London Life Insurance),
manufacturing and information technology. The University of Western Ontario plays a large role in the
economy, particularly in life science and bio-technology fields.
The poverty rate in the London Metropolitan Area (CMA) in 2010 was 12.3%, compared to 8.8% in
Ontario overall. 17% of London families live below the Low Income Cut-Off (LICO), with 46% of single
parents, 20% of children and one in two immigrants living below the poverty line. In 2013 the
unemployment rate in London was 9.2%, and approximately 11,000 households received Ontario Works
Assistance in 2011.
London has a shortage of affordable renting housing in relation to need. In 2013, there were a total of
8,085 units of social housing; 5,939 of which offered rent-geared-to-income. Affordable housing types
are listed in the chart below.
4.2.Social Housing Stock in London,Ontario
Table 2.Affordable Housing Types in London, Ontario
Type Ownership # of groups # of projects # of units
Public Housing London Middlesex
Housing Corporation
1 31 3,282
Private Non-Profit Owned by Sponsor
Organizations
27 37 1,815
Co-op Non-Profit Owned by Sponsor
Organizations
20 27 1,357
Rent Supplement Program Private Market 25 484
There are three emergency shelters operated by non-profits in London including Mission Services of
London, the Salvation Army Centre of Hope and the Unity Project. There are also three violence-against-
women focused services including Women’s Community House, Zhaawanong Shelter and Women’s
Rural Resource in Strathoy, Ontario.
There are two main outcomes guiding the overall purpose of the City of London’s efforts regarding
homelessness. Firstly, the City wants to see individuals and families experiencing homeless, obtain and
retain housing. Secondly, they want to see individuals and families at risk of homelessness, remain
Page |15
housed. The overall focus is upon housing stability, with other sectors (i.e.,health, education,and
justice) sharing responsibility for homelessness prevention. London employs a “Housing First” approach,
whereby homeless individuals and families are first found housing;after which other issues (e.g.,mental
health, substance use,etc.) are addressed through supports.
4.3.Summary of Challenges
Through a large-scale community engagement process, the City of London identified a set of strengths
and limitations existing within the current (2013) housing and homeless prevention system. Overall, the
City described the previous system as fragmented because service provision was dependent upon point
of intake. As individuals and communities entered the service system at different po ints, programming
response tended to be uneven and inefficient.
The City also identified gaps in the shelter system, including the following:
1.Lack of centralized intake;
2.Individuals moving from shelter to shelter without a consistent support approach;
3.Limited diversion to support individuals and families from entering shelter;
4.Limited support and warm transfer to more appropriate services upon discharge;
5.No integrated information management system;
6.Limited rapid housing options are available once someone is in shelter;
7.Limited support options are available, once housed;and,
8.Lack of a homeless prevention system has allowed shelters to be the first response to a
situation.
4.4.Overview of Approach
In 2011 the introduction of Ontario’s Housing Services Act, required all Municipal Service Managers to
develop a council approved 10-year plan to address housing and homelessness3. In response to this Act,
the City of London developed two separate plans, based on a ‘housing first’ approach: the London
Community Housing Strategy (2010), and the Community Plan on Homelessness (2010). The City’s
approach focused upon assisting individuals and families by seeking the right housing, at the right time,
in the right place with the right level of approach. These plans were developed through extensive
consultation, including a community roundtable, a youth focus group and reviews on emerging
3 Such plans needed to include the following considerations: Plan is focused on achieving positive outcomes for individuals and
families and includes a goal of ending homelessness; Addresses the housing needs of individuals and families in order to help
address other challenges they face; Has a role for non-profit corporations and non-profit housing cooperatives; Has a role for
the private market in meeting housing needs; Provides for partnerships among governments and others in the community;
Treats individuals and families with respect and dignity; Is coordinated with other community services; Is relevant to local
circumstances; Allows for a range of housing options to meet a broad range of needs; Ensures appropriate accountability for
public funding; Supports economic prosperity; and Is delivered in a manner that promotes environmental sustainability and
energy conservation.
Page |16
directions.
In 2012, the City also engaged in a comprehensive approach to revising its Official Plan, called “ReThink
London”, a significant focus of which was upon homelessness strategies and policies. Finally, in 2013,
the City introduced the Homeless Prevention System: a 3-year implementation plan outlining a
coordinated and outcome oriented approach to reducing and preventing homelessness in London.
This implementation plan was developed through a series of community forums, and included monthly
community advisory group meetings.
London’s Homeless Prevention System contains four areas of focus, including:
1.Securing housing;
2.Providing housing with supports;
3.Housing stability; and,
4.Reduced pressure on emergency shelter use.
The first two areas are addressed through the Neighbourhood Housing Support Centre (NHSC). NHSC
functions as both a physical and virtual hub for homeless individuals, along with those at risk of
becoming homeless. NHSC proactively connects those in need with appropriate services.The
functionality of the Centre is dependent upon collaboration between the NHCS, community service
providers the City of London and other stakeholders. Such co-operation between stakeholders and
partners is tantamount to the integration of a preventative system, to be achieved through working
groups, accountability agreements, common assessment and performance measurement tools, an
integrated information system, case management and service practices, communication protocols and
collaborative governance. NHSC operates a centralized emergency shelter intake services to help find
immediate housing when required, and to find transfer to shelters.
The third area of focus,housing stability, is addressed through implementation of the Housing Stability
Fund. This fund offers grants and loans to low income residents to assist with needs such as rental
assistance,emergency energy assistance,and moving assistance. The overall goal of the fund is to offer
financial assistance to low income Londoners who may be at risk of homelessness by helping them
obtain and retain housing.
The fourth area of focus,reduced pressure on emergency shelter use,is addressed developing strategies
to divert individuals from entering shelters in the first place. Diversion is addressed through short-term
case management,conflict mediation,connection to services outside homeless service sector,provision
of financial, utility and or rental assistance,and increasing availability of different types of housing
options.
The Centre has also articulated a fifth area of focus, Strategy, Competency and Capacity, intended to
strengthen community ties and achieve the actions of the Implementation Plan.
Page |17
4.5.Implementation Characteristics
The City of London undertook implementation of the Homelessness Prevention System, through a
phased approach based on continuous monitoring and evaluation. An implementation team was formed
in early 2013, responsible for reviewing and advising on draft materials and plans developed by internal
and external working groups. Working groups consisted of the following: Neighbourhood Centres,
Furniture Bank, Shelter Operations, Community Plans and Information Systems. Throughout the phased
approach, the implementation team and stakeholders planned to enhance capacity through training,
case management and ongoing program monitoring. Additionally, throughout the implementation, the
team planned to continuously work with other funders to align strategies and leverage opportunities.
The first phase of work (2010) was focused on building the foundation for the system, and included the
forums and community review mentioned previously, framework development,and council review. The
secondary transition phase (2014-20106), included the bulk of implementation of the strategic plan and
action projects in collaboration with stakeholders and the community. In this phase, types of
implementation activities have been identified by year (see Table 3 and Table 4).
Table 3.Year 1:London, Ontario Activities
YEAR 1
Securing Housing
Introduction of Neighbourhood Housing Support Centres
Initiate ‘Jail to Home’ through collaborative work with courts,
police and services
Initiate ‘Hospital to Home’ through collaboration with hospital and
community agencies
Enhance the rent bank (Last month’s rent program)
Establish a moving service
Establish a “new” furniture bank
Housing With Supports Introduce an integrated homeless information and cast
management system
Shelter Diversion Focus on reducing pressures on emergency shelter use
Explore shelter specialization
Table 4.Year 2:London, Ontario Activities
YEAR 2
Securing Housing Strengthen outreach efforts to focus on housing First with street
involved individuals
Housing With Supports Strengthen crisis response
Housing Stability
Link the emergency utility program and rent bank program to
Neighbourhood Housing Support Centres
Introduce peer support and mentoring programs
Introduce collaborative leisure and recreation programs
Shelter Diversion Establish a coordinated intake for individuals and families
Explore shelter specialization
Page |18
In the third ‘focus’phase (2017-2020) the implementation team plans to identify areas to leverage, to
build further capacity, and to implement training. Additionally in this phase, the City of London plans to
identify sustainability components, and new opportunities and challenges through implementation of a
consultation and engagement process to renew the plan. In the fourth “Anchoring Housing Stability”
phase (2020-24) the City plans undertake an evaluation of progress made, to gain a more thorough
understanding of the system at work.
4.6.Project Budget and Costs
Housing with support for individuals and families experiencing homelessness is supported by various
levels of government through several programs and initiatives:
1.Provincial funding:
Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI)for Consolidated Municipal
Service Managers (CMSM).
2.Federal Funding:
Homelessness Partnering Strategy.
3.Municipal Funding:
The Heat and Warmth Program; and,
Mayors Anti-Poverty Action Group.
In 2006 the City of London in partnership with the Salvation Army, established the Centre of Hope
Housing Services, consolidating the Energy Emergency Fund and Rent Bank programs through a single
agreement.In addition, the Salvation Army works with private sector services and funders including
London Hydro and Union Gas, in delivering a continuum of supports from homelessness prevention to
home security.
The City of London serves as the Community Entity for the federal Homelessness Partnering Strategy,
funds which are allocated by the city under contract with the Federal government and in accordance
with local priorities established through the Community Plan on Homelessness.
4.7.Evidence of Success and Lessons Learned
In 2017, the City of London plans to undertake an evaluation of the implementation of the plan to date.
No new statistics on the homeless population are currently available.
4.8.Additional Resources
1.City of London, ON (2014).Business Plan:Homelessness Prevention.Retrieved from:
https://www.london.ca/city-hall/budget-business/business
planning/Documents/2014/48%20Homelessness-Prevention-2014.pdf
Page |19
2.City of London, ON (2013).Homeless Prevention and Housing Plan, 2010 –2024.Retrieved
from https://www.london.ca/residents/Housing/Housing-
Management/Documents/HomelessPreventionandHousingPlan.pdf
3.City of London, ON (2013 DRAFT) A Homeless Prevention System for London Ontario (A
Three Year Implementation Plan).Retrieved from:
http://homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/London%27s%20Homeless%20Prevention%20Sy
stem%20Draft.pdf
Page |20
5.0.Mental Health Case Study #1 -Preventing Homelessness
through Mental Health Discharge Planning: Best Practices
and Community Partnerships in British Columbia
5.1.Case Summary
Previous studies of the health of the homeless population in communities in BC have identified a
definitive relationship between homelessness, mental illness, and substance use disorders (Krauz, 2009).
In addition, research has shown that a key component in preventing homelessness is integration of
community service organizations within the process of discharge planning, so that patients can be better
transitioned back into the community (Patterson et al, 2008).
The purpose of this study was to identify policies, practices, and resource requirements for discharging
residents and patients from mental health facilities in BC that prevent homelessness by working in
partnership with community service providers.
5.2.Summary of Challenges and Lessons Learned
This study identified characteristics of a successful discharge, including: a patient who shows clear
positive change over the course of treatment; has a long term treatment plan; and has a strong support
network.
Researchers found that successful discharge planning is contingent on a number of identified best
practices, including:
1.Appropriate housing resources;
2.Appropriate community support services;
3.Partnerships across health care providers, community service agencies and peers;
4.Information sharing agreements between hospitals and community service agencies;
5.Early identification of discharge needs;
6.Clearly established ‘home’ for discharge planning within the hospital unit;
7.Discharge planning is adapted to patient needs;
8.All partners ‘buy-in’ to the discharge process;
9.Discharge planning has long term focus for housing and services;and,
10.Discharge planning is culturally sensitive.
The research also identified barriers to successful discharge planning, specific to British Columbia,
including the following service gaps/ factors:
1.Clients who show no improvement, avoid long term planning and have no support network
are more likely to have poor long term housing outcomes;
Page |21
2.There’s no formal involvement of community services agencies and peer support networks
in discharge planning;
3.Rural locations tend to lack appropriate resources for mental health patients;
4.Clients with concurrent disorders are challenging to discharge because of the significant
gap in housing available to appropriately support them;
5.Individuals with behavioural problems are difficult to house;
6.There’s a significant gap in appropriate affordable housing option across the spectrum in
BC;
7.The overall cost of housing and the low amounts provided to individuals on income
assistance aggravate the situation;
8.Community services are lacking in rural locations, and overburdened in urban areas; and in
many cases lack capacity in dealing with the volume of clients accessing resources due in
part to cuts in federal and provincial funding;and,
9.There’s no formal mechanism for involving community service organizations in the
discharge process despite the fact that they play a significant role in the extended support
networks of clients.
5.3.Overview of Approach
Research was undertaken using a community-based qualitative approach. A research advisory
committee guided the research4. Research was composed of several phases including a review of
relevant literature on discharge planning from Canada, the US, Europe,and Australia. The purpose of
the literature review was to identify best practices in discharge planning to prevent homelessness, a s
well as barriers to success.
In addition, four mental health care facilities in BC were selected for a review of case studies, from a mix
of rural and urban communities.
These facilities included the following:
1.St. Mary’s Hospital: Psychiatric In-Patient (Sunshine Coast);
2.Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital: Psychiatric In-Patient Unit and Tertiary Residential
Care (Trail and area);
3.Lions Gate Hospital: Acute Psychiatric In-patient Unit (North Shore of Vancouver); and,
4.Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addictions: Provincial facility for individuals with
both substance use and mental health issues (BC-wide; focus of case study on Vancouver).
Six interviews were conducted in each case study:three with health care workers (i.e., unit staff
including social workers, psychiatrists, patient care coordinators, and staff from community mental
health units); and three with community service organizations (i.e.,housing providers, community
4 Dave MacIntyre (MPA Society); Dave Brown (Lookout Society); Sue Flagel (CMHA Kootenays); Elizabeth Stanger
(VCH); Michael Goldberg (Community Researcher) and Judy Graves (Homeless Advocate).
Page |22
service workers and staff from organizations who work with the homeless). In addition, discharge and
readmission statistics were requested from Vancouver Coastal Health for Lion’s Gate and St. Mary’s
Hospitals. Follow-up vignettes describing individuals with concurrent disorders were also sent to health
care staff to identify how someone who is difficult to find housing for, would move from the hospital
back into the community.
A cross-case analysis was conducted to find similarities and differences in effective discharge planning
practices; relationships between residential mental health care facilities and other community service
organizations in discharging clients; local conditions (including housing costs) affecting succes s;
availability of local support services (mental-health and broader community services) and analysis of
where case study agencies stand in relation to best practices identified in literature review.
5.4.Implementation Characteristics
This section provides a few statistics on each of the case study communities, including the facility size,
population, average monthly rent, proportion of households in core housing need (2006), and the total
homeless counted (2014) summary of each of the case study communities,and their related facilities.
1.Vancouver, Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addiction
100 bed provincial facility for individuals with both substance use issues and mental
illness
Population: 603,502
Average monthly rent: $1089
Proportion of households in core housing need (2006): 20.6 % (City of Vancouver)
Total homeless counted (2014): 1798
2.North Shore, Vancouver, Lion’s Gate Hospital Psychiatric Inpatient Unit
26 bed Acute Psychiatric Inpatient Unit
Population: 175,302
Average monthly rent: $1,126-$1558
Proportion of households in core housing need (2006): 17 % (Metro Vancouver)
Total homeless counted (2014): 119
3.Sunshine Coast, St Mary’s Psychiatric Inpatient Unit
6-bed Psychiatric Inpatient Unit
Population: 28,618
Average monthly rent: $986
Proportion of households in core housing need (2006): 16.5%
Shelter nights open (2013-14): 126; number of stays:758
4.Trail, Kootenay-Boundary Regional Hospital Acute Psychiatric Inpatient Unit
12-bed acute psychiatric inpatient unit
Population: 7,681
Average monthly rent: $646
Page |23
Proportion of households in core housing need (2006): 12.2%
Individuals who accessed extreme weather shelter (2014): 25
5.5.Additional Resources
1.Krauz, Michael. 2011.British Columbia Health of the Homeless Survey Report.Vancouver:
University of British Columbia. Available at:http://pacificaidsnetwork.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/07/BC-Health-of-the-Homeless-Survey-FINAL1.pdf
2.Patterson, Michael et al. 2008. Housing and Support for Adults with Severe Addictions and/
or Mental Illness in BC. Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction.
Burnaby: Simon Fraser University. Available at:
http://www.carmha.ca/publications/documents/Housing-SAMI-BC-FINAL-PD.pdf
3.Thomson, M. (2014).Preventing Homelessness through Mental Health Discharge Planning:
Best Practices and Community Partnerships in British Columbia (PowerPoint). Available At:
4.http://www.caeh.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/LP2_ThomsonM.pdf
5.Thomson, M. (2014).Preventing Homelessness through Mental Health Discharge Planning
Volume 1: Overview and Cross Case Analysis. Available At:
http://www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/Vol1_%2520OverviewAndCrossCase.pd f
6.Thomson, M. (2014).Preventing Homelessness through Mental Health Discharge Planning
Volume 2: Case Studies. Available at:
http://www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/Vol2_CaseStudies.pdf
7.Thomson, M. (2014).Preventing Homelessness through Mental Health Discharge Planning
Volume 3: Literature Review. Available at:
http://www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/Vol3_LiteratureReview.pdf
Page |24
6.0.Mental Health Case Study #2 -England’s Department for
Communities and Local Government Preventing
Homelessness Project
6.1.Case Summary
The City of London,England is the most populous city in the United Kingdom, with a population of
8,173,941 (2011 census). Situated on the River Thames, the ancient core has a 1.12 square mile radius;
yet since the 19th century the term London has also referred to the metropolis around the core forming
the Greater London area. London is governed by a Mayor and the London Assembly. Greater London
covers an area of 1,579 square kilometers. In 2014 London was said to have the largest number of
billionaires in the world, with 72 residing within the city; it is consistently ranked as one of the most
expensive cities in the world.
The Department for Communities and Local Government’s mandate includes: building regulations,
community cohesion, decentralization, fire services, housing, local government,planning, race equality
the Thames Gateway and urban regeneration.The Department recently began a process of review to
determine the costs of homelessness on various levels of government in the UK. Overall, the
Department estimated annual costs per person experiencing homelessness to government to be in the
range of £24,000 -£30,000 annually.English local authorities’ expenditure on homelessness (2010-11)
was approximately £345m.
In 2008, the Mayor of London committed to ending ‘rough sleeping’ in the Greater London area by the
end of 2012.The Mayor’s office was given new responsibilities to this end, and £34m of Government
investment from the Department of Communities and Local Government. The London Delivery Board,
composed of representatives from NHS London, the probation service, the Metropolitan Police, local
authorities and the homelessness sector lead the work, and defined such an end to rough sleeping: “By
the end of 2012, no one will live on the streets of London, and no individual arriving on the streets will
sleep out for a second night’. The Department for Communities and Local Government expanded this
initiative across the country in 2012, with the publication of “Vision to end rough sleeping: No Second
Night Out nation-wide”, which includes the following commitments:
1.Helping people off the streets;
2.Helping people to access healthcare;
3.Helping people into work;
4.Reducing bureaucratic burdens;
5.Increasing local control over investment in services; and,
6.Devolving responsibility for tackling homelessness.
On the prevention front, HM Government initiated “Make Every Contact Count: A Joint Approach to
Preventing Homelessness” in August 2012, spearheaded by the Department of Communities and Local
Page |25
Governments. Such an approach relies upon collaboration and co-operation among departments,
agencies, and organizations servicing populations at-risk of homelessness. In particular, this approach
makes the following commitments:
1.Tackling troubled childhoods and adolescence;
2.Improving health;
3.Reducing involvement in crime;
4.Improving access to financial advice, skills and employment services; and,
5.Pioneering innovative social funding mechanisms for homelessness.
6.2.Summary of Challenges
In CHAIN’s (Combined Homelessness and Information Network)Street to Home Annual Report No
Second Night Out, rough sleep is defined as “people seen by outreach or building based teams in the
year –rough sleeping or contacted either on the streets or in services.”In 2010, 3,975 people were seen
rough sleeping in London, up from 3,673 the year previous. The borough with the highest number of
rough sleepers was Westminster, with 1905 counted in 2010.
The Department for Communities and Local Government estimates that in London, 52% of rough
sleepers have alcohol abuse issues, 32% have drug addiction issues, and 39% have mental health
challenges. Many have had extensive contact with the state: 37%had previously been in prison, 12%in
care and 3%in the UK Armed Forces.
Government homelessness statistics show that, in percentage terms, the immediate homelessness
triggers for families and vulnerable single people housed by local authorities have remained fairly
consistent in over the years. In 2011/12, the main cause was eviction by parents, relatives or friends at
34%. In 19% of cases, households were unable to find alternative accommodation when their tenancy
ended.
6.3.Overview of Approach
England’s homelessness policies were updated in 2011-12 through the release of two sets of policy
commitments by HM Government, outlined in “Vision to End Rough Sleeping: No Second Night Out”;
and “Making Every Contact Count”. Combined, these two policy documents outline the Government’s
vision in both supporting people who are homeless, and also, preventing vulnerable populations from
becoming homeless.
Through No Second Night Out, the Government planned to create a new Homeless Transition Fund to
support the delivery of services for people sleeping rough by working with voluntary sector partners to
identify and disseminate good practices in helping people off the streets. Included within this
commitment was support for local authorities to reconnect migrant rough sleepers with their home
countries, and a 24 hour help line and website so that members of the public (including emergency
services and homeless people themselves) can report and refer rough sleepers throug h dispatch of
Page |26
outreach worker.
Through No Second Night Out, the Government committed to helping people who are homeless both
access health care, and find work. On the healthcare front, the Department committed to finding ways
to ensure that health care services are more inclusive of the needs of people who are homeless,
including highlighting the role that specialists have in the diagnosing and treating individuals with co-
occurring mental health and substance use challenges, and ensuring medical professionals discharging
patients who are homeless know who to approach for help finding appropriate housing needs. The
Department committed to offering early access to the Work Programme for homeless people who are
claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance, in addition to prioritizing access to further education and skills services
for the most disadvantaged (including people who are homeless).
Through Making Every Contact Count,the Government has committed to tackling troubled childhoods
and adolescence through helping schools, and other local partners to support vulnerable young people
at risk of homelessness, and through funding youth homelessness charities to promote use of the youth
accommodation pathway. The Government intended to produce an evidence -based document of local
approaches used in preventing youth homelessness. The Department also committed to working to
support 300 schools in a three year exclusion trial to improve the education of students permanently
excluded.
The Department also committed to reducing involvement in crime through a number of different
measures, including: commissioning a national homeless charity (Crisis) to develop guidance for prison
and probation practitioners on ways to improve offender access to private rented sector
accommodations; through highlighting homeless prevention measures to new Police and Crime
Commissioners; and by helping prisoners from becoming homeless on release from custody by keeping
prisoner’s housing in payment for those serving sentences of six months or less. The Department also
committed to helping to improve skills, employment and management of rent payments through
demonstration projects focused on managing budget and manage rent payments; piloting of community
learning trusts; and exploring a payment by results approach for those some distance from labour
market.
6.4.Implementation Characteristics
Within these two policy documents, the Government identified a few implementation-type
commitments which will help support broader outcomes-based commitments (such as improving access
to health care and helping to get homeless populations off the street). The Governmen t committed to
increasing local control over investment in homeless services through helping communities identify
where investment in homelessness prevention can best be made and working together with local
governments to develop proposals for the use of community-based budgets for homeless adults with
complex needs.
The Government also committed to reducing bureaucratic burdens on community organizations, in part,
through discontinuing the practice of requiring local authorities and agencies to submit ongoing data
returns regarding services provided; and through the establishment of a red tape taskforce finding ways
Page |27
to reduce the impact of bureaucracy on charities, social enterprises and voluntary organizations.
The Government also set up a Ministerial Working Group to bring together eight departments with
responsibility for the issues that affect homeless people, and has made prevention, and stable
accommodation a central element of cross-government strategies, including the following:
1.The new Mental Health Strategy which focuses on promoting good mental health and early
intervention;
2.The Drugs Strategy which sets out an ambition for anyone dependent on drugs or alcohol
to achieve recovery;and,
3.The offender sentencing and rehabilitation green paper which focuses on more effective
sentencing and rehabilitation to break the cycle of crime and re-offending.
The Government also committed to devolving responsibility for tackling homelessness: the London
Mayor has been given new responsibilities to help end rough sleeping in the capital by the end of 2012.
The Government also launched the world’s first homelessness Social Impact Bond, designed to attract
social investment into service agencies supporting the homeless population by rewarding providers who
can find appropriate housing (with supports) for homeless individuals.
6.5.Project Budget and Costs
1.£400m made available to local authorities and voluntary sector through Preventing
Homelessness Grant (over 4 years);
2.£20m to Homeless Link for a new Homelessness Transition Fund to support roll out of No
Second Night Out and delivery of accommodation services;
3.£10m to Crisis (2010-2013) to fund voluntary sector in improving access to private rental
accommodations for single people who are homeless;
4.£37.5m between 2012-13 and 2014-15 through Homeless Change Programme to help
people move directly into rental housing;
5.£34m given to London Mayor, along with new responsibilities to help end rough sleeping in
capital by 2012;and,
6.£5m Social Impact Bond in partnership with the Mayor of London to help deliver sustained
long term outcomes for London’s most frequent rough sleepers.
6.6.Evidence of Success and Lessons Learned
The Department reported improving access to private rental market for single homeless people (via £10
million fund) through creation of 1370 tenancies in the first year, and 76% of which were sustained for
at least six months. Overall goal was to create 8000 tenancies by 2014. Other successes described by the
Department, included:
1.Announcement of a national rough sleeper reporting line, and website (2012) enabling
concerned members of the public to report the details of rough sleepers, information
referred to the appropriate authorities for action;
Page |28
2.Published report by Government regarding on how hospital admission and discharge can
be improved for homeless people;and,
3.Working with five local authorities in funding ‘Homeless Link’to explore improving
outcomes for homeless people with co-occurring mental health and substance use
challenges.
Despite efforts made by the City of London in concert with the Department of Communities and Local
Governments, the number of rough sleepers counted between 2011 and 2014 continued to rise
annually within London. This was reported by Combined Homelessness and Information Network’s
(CHAIN) annual reports which include a count of rough sleepers within London, numbers for which are
illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1.Number of Rough Sleepers Counted in London
3017
3472
3673
3975
5678
6437 6508
2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014# of rough sleepers
Page |29
6.7.Additional Resources
1.CHAIN Street to Home Annual Report 2010-11, and 2013-14.
2.Department for Communities and Local Government (2008). Statutory Homelessness in
England: the experiences of families and 16-17 year olds.
3.Department for Communities and Local Government (2011). Vision to End Rough Sleeping:
No Second Night out Nationwide.
4.Department for Communities and Local Government (2011). Laying the Foundations: A
Housing Strategy for England.
5.Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). Making Every Contact Count:
A Joint Approach to Preventing Homelessness. London, England.
6.Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). The Costs of Homelessness: A
Summary.
7.Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). Allocation of
Accommodation: Guidance for Local Housing Authorities in England.
8.Fitzpatrick, S., Bramley, B. & Johnsen, S. (2013). Pathways into Multiple Exclusion
Homelessness in Seven UK Cities.Urban Studies.
http://usj.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/07/27/0042098012452329
Page |30
7.0.Substance Use Case Study #1 –Vancouver at Home /
Chez Soi Project (Vancouver)
The At Home/Chez Soi project was a housing research initiative addressing homelessness for Canadians
with mental health issues that took place in five Canadian cities including Moncton, Montréal, Toronto,
Vancouver, and Winnipeg (Goering et al., 2014; Macnaughton, Nelson, Piat, Curwood, & Egalité, 2010).
The purpose of the multi-year intervention was to identify promising practices, costs, participant
benefits,and environmental contexts related to Housing First (HF) services, an intervention model that
provides immediate and permanent housing and wrap-around supports to Canadians who are homeless
and have mental health issues (Goering et al., 2014; Macnaughton et al, 2010).
The $110 million,federally-funded and random controlled trial was an initiative meant to generate
knowledge about effective approaches to address homelessness among Canadians experiencing mental
health issues (Goering et al., 2014; Macnaughton et al, 2010; Zabkiewicz, Patte rson, Somers, & Frankish,
2012) and to assess the effectiveness of different housing interventions that were modeled on the
needs of participants (Zabkiewicz et al., 2012). Intervention characteristics are provided in Table 5.
Table 5.Characteristics of the Treatment Groups for the Vancouver At Home Study
Treatment Groups Characteristics
Housing First (HF)
Immediate access to independent housing and support services;
Psychiatric treatment or period of sobriety to obtain housing is not
mandatory;
Weekly tenant/case worker meeting; and,
Philosophy of consumer choice.
Intensive Case
Management (ICM)
Case manager team provides supportive care who broker specialized
services to agencies existing in the community;
Client/staff ratio of 16:1;
Workers accompany clients to appointments; and,
Centralized assignment and weekly case conferences.
HF & Assertive
Community
Treatment Groups
(ACT)
Trans-disciplinary team, including psychiatrist, nurse, occupational
therapist, substance abuse specialist, and peer specialist;
Client/staff ratio of 9:1;
Program staff are closely involved in hospital admissions and
discharges; and,
Daily team meetings to review caseload.
Congregate Housing
& Supports (CONG)
Self-contained units in a single building with common areas and meals
provided;
Client/staff ratio of approx.12:1; and,
Onsite support staff, including psychiatrist, social worker, nurse, peer
support, pharmacy and activity planning.
Treatment as Usual
(TAU)
No housing or supports provided;and,
Some participants received housing and support through other
programs and agencies.
* Adapted from Zabkiewicz et al., 2012, p. 2
Page |31
The Vancouver At Home study included 497 participants aged 19 years or older living with mental health
issues and lacked stable housing (Currie, Moniruzzaman, Patterson, & Somers, 2014; Zabkiewicz et al.,
2012). Participants were recruited from an array of institutional settings (including emergency homeless
shelters, hospitals, drop-in centres,and outreach organizations)to evaluate the effects of the HF model
(Currie et al., 2014; Zabkiewicz et al., 2012). Table 6 provides a summary of the participants for each
treatment group.
Table 6.Participants Demographics by Treatment Group for the Vancouver At Home Study
Moderate Needs (n = 200)High Needs (n =297)
Treatment
Group
HF & ICM n = 100 HF & ACT n = 90
TAU n = 100 CONG n = 107
TAU n = 100
Gender Male 29%Male 74%
Female 71%Female 26%
Ethnicity
White 55%White 57%
Aboriginal 16%Aboriginal 15%
All Other 29%All Other 28%
Functional
impairment
Severe Disability 5%Severe Disability 34%
Moderate Disability 20%Moderate Disability 66%
Little Disability 75%Little Disability 0%
Mental Health
Major Depression 52%Major Depression 32%
Mania or Hypomania 15%Mania or Hypomania 23%
PTSD 33%PTSD 21%
Panic Disorder 23%Panic Disorder 20%
Mood disorder w/
psychotic features 14%Mood disorder w/
psychotic features 19%
Psychotic Disorder 26%Psychotic Disorder 71%
Alcohol Dependence 25%Alcohol Dependence 24%
Substance
Dependence 53%Substance Dependence 62%
* Source: Zabkiewicz et al., 2012.
Page |32
7.1.Summary of Challenges
Between September, 2008 and January, 2009, a multi-disciplinary team of community service providers
and researchers in Vancouver developed a study methodology and proposal responding to the Mental
Health Commission of Canada’s (MCHH) Request for Applications (RFA) for a research demonstration
project on mental health and homelessness (Patterson, Schmidt, & Zabkiewicz, 2010).
Challenges during the convening, developing, and planning phases for the Vancouver site initiative were
identified through semi-structured interviews and developed into a report (Patterson et al., 2010;
Schmidt & Patterson, 2011). Initially, the fragmented nature of the social service sector and research
organizations working in silos posed a challenge and led to a sense of disorganization and poor
leadership, while power dynamics between community organizations and university researchers led to
tension (Nelson, Macnaughton, Curwood, Egalité, Piat, & Goering, 2011).
Timeframe constraints posed a large challenge which limited opportunities for fully engaging
stakeholders and people with lived experience, restricting creativity in the proposal development phase,
and transparency in the decision-making process (Patterson et al., 2010). Stakeholders found the RFA
both vague and rigid which led to a less-developed project vision and clarity around team roles
(Patterson et al., 2010). Challenges also included maintaining consistent staffing levels, participants who
were difficult to engage or had personal challenges that led to evictions and were difficult to rehouse, as
well as meeting participants’ housing preferences (Patterson, 2012; Schmidt & Patterson, 2011).
7.2.Overview of Approach
Researcher and service provider stakeholders representing non-profit housing and services sector,
municipal and provincial government, the health authority, police and corrections agencies, and local
universities in Vancouver took part in an information session on the five -site project in the Summer of
2008, a project coordinator was put in place in August of 2008,with the first local consortium being held
the following month (Nelson et al., 2011; Patterson et al., 2010).
7.3.Implementation Characteristics
Research participants were randomly assigned to one of three possible study groups including ACT with
HF independent housing;congregate (CONG) housing in the Bosman hotel with ACT-like onsite supports,
or TAU. Participants in the HF+ACT group received supports from the multidisciplinary RainCity Housing
ACT team, which included a peer support worker and other professionals. Collectively the team
managed the emergent needs of the 90 HF+ACT participants.
The local organizations selected to provide services within Vancouver at Home were chosen through a
competitive “request for proposals” process. Applications were reviewed by a panel of senior individuals
drawn from homelessness research, management of services, and community granting agencies.
Assessment was made on the basis of organizational experience, implementation plan, and budget.
Service providers received specific training in the principles and delivery of HF, and the HF programs
underwent fidelity assessments by external review teams at two points during the study. Fidelity
Page |33
assessments were intended to ensure that the principles and procedures of the HF model were being
appropriately upheld and carried out by Vancouver at Home service providers. Services were based on
the model defined by Pathways to Housing [15-17], including expertise that anticipated the needs of
local clients (e.g., addiction severity), and configured to support participants in both scattered and
congregate housing settings. Participants randomized to HF were transitioned to a case manager within
two days of study entry.
The Coast Mental Health Foundation ran the intensive case management team while services were
delivered by case managers with assigned caseloads of participants.
7.4.Project Budget and Costs
Results from the Vancouver project revealed that the HF intervention cost $28,282 per person per year
on average for high needs participants and $15,952 per person per year for moderate need participants
(Currie et al., 2014). Costs included front-line staff salaries, supervisors, program expenses (travel, rent,
utilities), and rent supplement provided by the MHCC grant (Currie et al., 2014). T he costs of HF services
provided to high needs participants throughout the duration of the project resulted in an average
reduction of $24,190 per person in the costs of all other related services (e.g., visits to psychiatric
hospitals, medical units of general hospitals, hospitalizations, overnight stays in emergency shelters,
etc.) while an overall increase of $2,667 for moderate need participants was found (Currie et al.,
2014).This translated to a savings of $8.55 for every $10 invested for high needs participants and a $1.67
increase in spending for every $10 invested for moderate need participants.
7.5.Evidence of Success and Lessons Learned
Much of the initial struggles and tension the Vancouver team faced were reduced once roles were
clearly established for researchers and service providers, a Site Coordinator had been hired to facilitate
equality among team members and move the project forward, and with time, relationships and trust
could develop and team member commitments and transparency had improved (Nelson et al., 2011).
Stakeholders learned that small committees to address front-line problems in a prompt manner to be of
high importance rather than relying on higher-level meetings (Patterson, 2012) and that a Research
Coordinator and Field Research Manager supported the development of research protocols and the
planning that was required to recruit participants (Patterson et al., 2010).
The major themes that were crucial to the short-and long-term success of the project at the Vancouver
site include building relationships and trust between stakeholders at all levels in order to build
consensus around a common vision for the project and drawing in the right partners who represent
both disenfranchised groups and organizations committed to inclusivity and parity of participation
(Nelson et al., 2011).
Page |34
7.6.Additional Resources
1.Currie, L. B., Moniruzzaman, A., Patterson, M. L., & Somers, J. M. (2014). At Home/Chez Soi
Project:Vancouver Site Final Report.Calgary, AB: Mental Health Commission of Canada.
Retrieved from:
http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/system/files/private/document/At%20Ho
me%20Report%20Vancouver%20ENG.pdf
2.Fleury, M. J., Grenier, G., Vallée, C., Hurtubise, R., & Lévesque, P. A. (2014). The role of
advocacy coalitions in a project implementation process: The example of the planning
phase of the At Home/Chez Soi project dealing with homelessness in Montreal.Evaluation
and Program Planning, 45, 42-49.
3.Goering, P. N., Streiner, D. L., Adair, C., Aubry, T., Barker, J., Distasio, J., ... & Zabkiewicz, D.
M. (2011).The At Home/Chez Soi trial protocol: A pragmatic, multi-site, randomised
controlled trial of a Housing First intervention for homeless individuals with mental illness
in five Canadian cities.BMJ Open, 1(2), e000323. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000323.
4.Goering, P., Veldhuizen, S., Watson, A., Adair, C., Kopp, B., Latimer, E., … & Aubry, T. (2014).
National At Home/Chez Soi Final Report.Calgary, AB: Mental Health Commission of
Canada.Retrieved from:
http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/system/files/private/document/mhcc_at
_home_report_national_cross-site_eng_2.pdf
5.Macnaughton, E. L., Goering, P. N., & Nelson, G. B. (2012). Exploring the value of mixed
methods within the At Home/Chez Soi Housing First project: A strategy to evaluate the
implementation of a complex population health intervention for people with mental illness
who have been homeless.Canadian Journal of Public Health/Revue Canadienne de Sante'e
Publique, S57-S62.
6.Macnaughton, E., Nelson, G., Piat, M., Curwood, S. E., & Egalité, N. (2010). Conception of
the Mental Health Commission of Canada’s At Home/Chez Soi Project: Cross-Site Report.
Mental Health Commission of Canada.Retrieved from:
http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/system/files/private/document/Housing_
at_Home_Qualitative_Report_Conception_Cross_Site_ENG.pdf
7.Nelson, G., Rae, J., Townley, G., Goering, P., Macnaughton, E., Piat, M., & Tsemberis, S.
(2012).Implementation and Fidelity Evaluation of the Mental Health Commission of
Canada’s At Home/Chez Soi Project: Cross-Site Report.Mental Health Commission of
Canada.Retrieved from:
http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/system/files/private/document/Housing_
At_Home_Qualitative_Report_Implementation_Fidelity_Cross_Site_ENG.pdf
Page |35
8.Nelson, G., Macnaughton, E., Caplan, R., Macleod, T., Townley, G., Piat, M., ... & Goering, P.
(2013).Follow-up Implementation and Fidelity Evaluation of the Mental Health
Commission of Canada’s At Home/Chez Soi Project: Cross-Site Report.Mental Health
Commission of Canada.Retrieved from:
http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/system/files/private/document/Housing_
At_Home_Qualitative_Report_Follow-
up_Implementation_Fidelity_Evaluation_Cross_Site_ENG.pdf
9.Nelson, G., Macnaughton, E., Curwood, S. E., Egalité, N., Piat, M., & Goering, P. (2011).
Planning and Proposal Development for the Mental Health Commissions of Canada’s At
Home/Chez Soi Project: Cross-Site Report.Mental Health Commission of Canada.Retrieved
from:
http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/system/files/private/document/Housing_
At_Home_Qualitative_Report_Planning_Proposal_Development_Cross_Site_ENG.pdf
10.Patterson, M. (2012). The At Home/Chez Soi project: Year two project implementation at
the Vancouver,BC site.Vancouver: Faculty of Health Sciences,Simon Fraser University.
Retrieved from:
http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/system/files/private/document/Housing_
At_Home_Qualitative_Report_Vancouver_Year_Two_Project_Implementation_ENG.pdf
11.Patterson, M., Moniruzzaman, A., Palepu, A., Zabkiewicz, D., Frankish, C. J., Krausz, M., &
Somers, J. M.(2013). Housing First improves subjective quality of life among homeless
adults with mental illness: 12-month findings from a randomized controlled trial in
Vancouver, British Columbia.Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 48(8), 1245-
1259. DOI 10.1007/s00127-013-0719-6.
12.Patterson, M. L., Moniruzzaman, A., & Somers, J. M. (2014). Community participation and
belonging among formerly homeless adults with mental illness after 12 months of Housing
First in Vancouver, British Columbia: a randomized controlled trial.Community Mental
Health Journal, 50(5), 604-611. DOI 10.1007/s10597-013-9672-9.
13.Patterson, M. L., Rezansoff, S., Currie, L., & Somers, J. M. (2013). Trajectories of recovery
among homeless adults with mental illness who participated in a randomised controlled
trial of Housing First: A longitudinal, narrative analysis.BMJ Open, 3(9), e003442.
14.Patterson, M., Schmidt, D., & Zabkiewicz, D. (2010). The At Home/Chez Soi Project: A
review of the proposal development and planning phase in Vancouver, BC.Vancouver:
Faculty of Health.
15.Sciences, Simon Fraser University and the Mental Health Commission of Canada.Retrieved
from:
http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/system/files/private/document/Housing_
Page |36
At_Home_Qualitative_Report_Vancouver_Review_Proposal_Development_Planning_Phas
e_ENG.pdf
16.Russolillo, A. L. (2013). Emergency department utilization among formerly homeless adults
with mental disorders after 1-year of housing first: a randomized controlled trial (Doctoral
dissertation,Health Sciences: Faculty of Health Sciences).
17.Schmidt, D., & Patterson, M. L. (2011). The At Home/Chez Soi Project: Implementation at
the Vancouver, BC Site.Vancouver: Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University and
the Mental Health Commission of Canada.Retrieved from:
http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/system/files/private/document/Housing_
At_Home_Qualitative_Report_Vancouver_Implementation_ENG.pdf
18.Somers, J. M., Patterson, M. L., Moniruzzaman, A., Currie, L., Rezansoff, S. N., Palepu, A., &
Fryer, K.(2013). Vancouver At Home: Pragmatic randomized trials investigating Housing
First for homeless and mentally ill adults.Trials, 14(1), 365. Retrieved from:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1745-6215-14-365.pdf
19.Somers, J. M., Rezansoff, S. N., Moniruzzaman, A., Palepu, A., & Patterson, M. (2013).
Housing first reduces re-offending among formerly homeless adults with mental disorders:
Results of a randomized controlled trial.PloS one, 8(9), e72946. Retrieved from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3762899/pdf/pone.0072946.pdf
20.Zabkiewicz, D., Patterson, M., Somers, J., & Frankish, J. (2012). The Vancouver at Home
Study: Overview and methods of a housing first trial among individuals who are homeless
and living with mental illness.Journal of Clinical Trials, 2(4), 123. DOI:10.4172/2167-
0870.1000123. Retrieved from:
http://www.habitation.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/internet/centredoc/CC/NS23364.pdf
Maple Ridge Social Services
D Delivery Research Report
DRAFT Technical Appendix D:Consultation
Workshops Summary Report
July 2016
Table of Contents
1.Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1
2.Maple Ridge Community Network (February 1, 2016)..................................................................2
2.1.Workshop Summary ........................................................................................................2
2.2.How Information Was Gathered ......................................................................................2
2.3.Issues Most Frequently Mentioned Priorities Identified in Each Focus Area .......................2
2.3.1.Mental Health Priority Areas ........................................................................................2
2.3.2.Substance Use Priority Areas ........................................................................................3
2.3.3.Housing Priority Areas...................................................................................................4
2.4.Priority Areas and Recommendations Identified ...............................................................5
2.4.1.Identified Recommendations for Mental Health Priority Areas ...................................5
2.4.2.Identified Recommendations for Substance Use Priority Areas ...................................6
2.4.3.Identified Recommendations for Housing Priority Areas .............................................7
3.0.Maple Ridge City Council (February 1, 2016)................................................................................8
3.1.Workshop Summary ........................................................................................................8
3.2.How Information Was Gathered ......................................................................................8
3.3.Issues Most Frequently Mentioned in Each Priority Area ..................................................8
3.3.1.Mental Health Priority Areas ........................................................................................8
3.3.2.Substance Use Priority Areas ........................................................................................9
3.3.3.Housing Priority Areas...................................................................................................9
3.4.Priority Areas and Recommendations Identified .............................................................10
3.4.1.Identified Recommendations for Mental Health Priority Areas .................................10
3.4.2.Identified Recommendations for Substance Use Priority Areas .................................11
3.4.3.Identified Recommendations for Housing Priority Areas ...........................................11
4.0.Maple Ridge City Youth Advisory Council (March 8, 2016)..........................................................12
4.1.Workshop Summary ......................................................................................................12
4.2.How Information Was Gathered ....................................................................................12
4.3.Issues Most Frequently Mentioned for Each Priority Area ...............................................12
4.3.1.Mental Health Priority Areas ......................................................................................12
4.3.2.Substance Use Priority Areas ......................................................................................13
4.3.3.Housing Priority Areas.................................................................................................13
4.4.Priority Actions and Recommendations Identified ..........................................................14
4.4.1.Identified Recommendations for Mental Health Priority Areas .................................14
4.4.2.Identified Substance Use Recommendations .............................................................15
4.4.3.Identified Housing Service Recommendations ...........................................................15
5.0.Alouette Heights Supportive Housing (Alouette Home Start Society) (March 22, 20 16)...............16
5.1.Workshop Summary ......................................................................................................16
5.2.How Information Was Gathered ....................................................................................16
5.3.Issues Most Frequently Mentioned in Each Priority Area ................................................16
5.3.1.Mental Health Priority Areas ......................................................................................16
5.3.2.Substance Use Priority Areas ......................................................................................17
5.3.3.Housing Priority Areas.................................................................................................18
5.4.Identified Recommendations for the Three Priority Areas...............................................18
5.4.1.Identified Mental Health Service Recommendations .................................................18
5.4.2.Identified Substance Use Service Recommendations .................................................19
5.4.3.Identified Housing Service Recommendations ...........................................................19
6.0.Maple Ridge Community Network, Session 2 (April 25, 2016)....................................................20
6.1.Workshop Summary ......................................................................................................20
6.2.How Information Was Gathered ....................................................................................20
6.3.Most Frequently Mentioned Priorities Identified for Each Focus Area .............................20
6.3.1.Mental Health Priority Areas ......................................................................................20
6.3.2.Substance Use Priority Areas ......................................................................................21
6.4.Identified Recommendations for the Three Priority Areas ...............................................22
6.4.1.Identified Mental Health Service Recommendations .................................................22
6.4.2.Identified Substance Use Service Recommendations.................................................23
6.4.3.Identified Housing Service Recommendations ...........................................................23
6.4.4.Identified Potential Partners .......................................................................................24
7.0.Maple Ridge Local Action Team Youth Representatives (May 3, 2016).......................................27
7.1.Workshop Summary ......................................................................................................27
7.2.Process for Gathering Information .................................................................................27
7.3.Most Frequently Mentioned Priorities Identified for Each Focus Area .............................27
7.3.1.Mental Health Priority Areas ......................................................................................27
7.4.Identified Recommendations for All Focus Areas (Local Action Team Workshop).............29
List of Tables
Table 1.Consultation Workshops ...............................................................................................................1
Table 2.Frequently Mentioned Mental Health Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop,
Session 1)......................................................................................................................................2
Table 3.Frequently Mentioned Substance Use Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop,
Session 1)......................................................................................................................................3
Table 4.Frequently Mentioned Housing Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop,
Session 1)......................................................................................................................................4
Table 5.Recommendations for Mental Health Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop,
Session 1).......................................................................................Error!Bookmark not defined.
Table 6.Recommendations for Substance Use Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop,
Session 1).....................................................................................................................................6
Table 7.Recommendations for Housing Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop, Session
One)..............................................................................................................................................7
Table 8.Frequently Mentioned Mental Health Priority Areas (Maple Ridge City Council
Workshop)....................................................................................................................................8
Table 9.Frequently Mentioned Substance Use Priority Areas (Maple Ridge City Council
Workshop)....................................................................................................................................9
Table 10.Frequently Mentioned Housing Priority Areas (Maple Ridge City Council Workshop)................9
Table 11.Recommendations for Mental Health Priority Areas (Maple Ridge City Council
Workshop)..................................................................................................................................10
Table 12.Recommendations for Substance Use Priority Areas (Maple Ridge City Council
Workshop)..................................................................................................................................11
Table 13.Recommendations for Housing Priority Areas (Maple Ridge City Council Workshop)..............11
Table 14.Frequently Mentioned Mental Health Priority Areas (Youth Advisory Council Informal
Session).......................................................................................................................................13
Table 15.Frequently Mentioned Substance Use Priority Areas (Youth Advisory Council Informal
Session).......................................................................................................................................13
Table 16.Frequently Mentioned Housing Priority Areas (Youth Advisory Council Informa Session)........13
Table 17.Recommendations for Mental Health Priority Areas (Youth Advisory Council Informal
Session).......................................................................................................................................14
Table 18.Recommendations for Substance Use Priority Areas (Youth Advisory Council Informal
Session).......................................................................................................................................15
Table 19.Recommendations for Housing Priority Areas (Youth Advisory Council Informal Session).......15
Table 20.Frequently Mentioned Mental Health Priority Areas (Alouette Home Start Residents
Workshop and Poster Session)...................................................................................................17
Table 21.Frequently Mentioned Substance Use Priority Areas (Alouette Home Start Residents
Workshop and Poster Session)...................................................................................................17
Table 22.Frequently Mentioned Housing Priority Areas (Alouette Home Start Residents
Workshop and Poster Session)...................................................................................................18
Table 23.Recommendations for Mental Health Priority Areas (Alouette Home Start Residents
Workshop and Poster Session)...................................................................................................18
Table 24.Recommendations for Substance Use Priority Areas (Alouette Home Start Residents
Workshop and Poster Session)...................................................................................................19
Table 25.Recommendations for Housing Priority Areas (Alouette Home Start Residents
Workshop and Poster Session)...................................................................................................19
Table 26.Frequently Mentioned Mental Health Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop,
Session 2)....................................................................................................................................20
Table 27.Frequently Mentioned Substance Use Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop,
Session 2)....................................................................................................................................21
Table 28.Frequently Mentioned Housing Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop,
Session 2)....................................................................................................................................21
Table 29.Recommendations for Mental Health Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop,
Session 2)....................................................................................................................................22
Table 30.Recommendations for Substance Use Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop,
Session 2)....................................................................................................................................23
Table 31.Recommendations for Housing Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop,
Session 2)....................................................................................................................................23
Table 32.Frequently Mentioned Priorities Across All Three Focus Areas (Local Action Team
Workshop)..................................................................................................................................27
Table 33.Recommendations for All Focus Areas (Local Action Team Workshop).....................................29
Page |1
1.Introduction
In order to supplement and enhance the material already collected, a series of consultation workshops
were held between February and early May of 2016.An estimated 115 individuals took part in these
sessions and represented the City of Maple Ridge, community service organizations, and a variety of
people with lived experiences of issues related to homelessness, mental health, and problemat ic
substance use and addictions (see Table 1).
Table 1.Consultation Workshops
Workshop Methods Used Date Estimated
Attendance
1 Maple Ridge Community
Network (Session 1)
Presentation
Brainstorm
Priority Identification
February 1, 2016 25
2 Maple Ridge City Council
Presentation
Brainstorm
Priority Identification
February 1, 2016 12
3 Youth Advisory Council
Consultation Stations
Brainstorm
Priority Identification
March 8, 2016 20
4
Alouette Home Start
Residents (Workshop)
Brainstorm
Priority Identification March 22,2016 16
Alouette Home Start
Residents (Poster)
Consultation Stations
Priority Identification March 22 –29, 2016 15
5 Maple Ridge Community
Network (Session 2)
Presentation
Discussion Tables
Priority identification
April 25,2016 20
6 Maple Ridge Local Action
Team Youth Representatives
Brainstorm
Priority Identification May 3, 2016 7
TOTAL 115
The workshop format was varied to take into account the specific n eeds of the participants. For some
workshops, presentations and small group discussions were used to gather information and identify
priority issues, short-term actions (i.e., within two years), and/or potential partners. Some workshops
included a community meal followed by a discussion and brainstorm session and in some cases, posters
were used to gather comments and responses to questions about priority issues. These methods were
used to ensure confidentiality for those sharing parts of their lived experiences.
The following sections also provide a detailed summary of issues discussed and priorities identified at
each workshop. Brackets (e.g. 1X, 2X, etc.) are used to indicate the number of participants who
identified each issue as a priority issue.
Page |2
2.Maple Ridge Community Network (February 1, 2016)
2.1.Workshop Summary
This workshop was intended to enlist the help of the Community Network in identifying priority issues to
be explored during the subsequent workshops.Approximately 30 participants attended this session.
Below is a summary of priorities identified.
2.2.How Information Was Gathered
The agenda for this session included a presentation summarizing information gathered to date followed
by a discussion and brainstorm session with the full group to identify potential priority areas.
Participants then used dots to identify areas they considered to be most important.
2.3.Issues Most Frequently Mentioned Priorities Identified in Each Focus Area
2.3.1.Mental Health Priority Areas
The top three mental health priority areas discussed included outreach and advocacy, co-occurring
disorders,and maintaining wellness.Participants most often discussed outreach and advocacy for
mental health issues among: (1) families experiencing multiple barriers and issues; (2)youth (19 –24
years) transitioning out of care; (3)people with disabilities (e.g., those with brain injuries); and,(4) those
transitioning out of corrections facilities.As part of this outreach, participants discussed the need to
advocate and support these individuals needing access to resources.The second most mentioned theme
included the need for addressing people with both mental health issues and substance a buse issues and
who are simultaneously living in poverty.The third most often discussed priority area included then eed
for maintaining wellness through community support such as recreation, coaching support,and ‘point of
contact’services.
A breakdown of the mental health priority areas are provided in Table 2 along with the frequency with
which those priority areas were discussed.
Table 2.Frequently Mentioned Mental Health Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop,Session 1)
Top 3 Mental Health Priority Areas Frequency
Outreach and Advocacy 35
Co-Occurring Disorders 15
Maintaining Wellness 7
Other Mental Health Priority Areas Frequency
Upstream Work 6
Accessibility 2
Page |3
2.3.2.Substance Use Priority Areas
The top three mental health priority areas discussed included access to detox facilities, the need to
establish a sobering centre, and, more generally,treatment strategies and programs.Participants most
often discussed the need for greater access to detox facilities for those who wish to address substance
use and addiction issues. The second most mentioned priority area involved the establishment of a
sobering centre that provides a safe place for intoxicated individuals to stay overnight but does not
include hospitals or jails. The third most mentioned priority area included a broader discussion of the
range of treatment options needed in Maple Ridge including 2nd stage treatment facilities to support
those who have completed detox and who need support in their transition back into the community as
well as new facilities that support parents and children so that the decision between sobriety and
children does not remain a barrier to receiving treatment.
Other priority areas included outreach for youth who are at risk or in need of support to address
substance use issues and establishing a Substance Use Advisory Committee.Additionally,delivering
harm reduction strategies to communities were discussed including education for first responders,
service providers, and community centres.Community education was a priority area discussed, including
the need to explore the development of new models of education and prevention relevant to those at
risk and support such strategies within a harm reduction model that is intended to reduce the negative
consequences associated with substance use.
A breakdown of the substance use priority areas are provided in Table 3 below along with the frequency
with which those priority areas were discussed.
Table 3.Frequently Mentioned Substance Use Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop, Session 1)
Top 3 Substance Use Priority Areas Frequency
Access to Detox Facilities 18
Establish Sobering Centre 15
Treatment 8
Other Substance Use Priority Areas Frequency
Outreach 7
Substance Use Advisory Committee 7
Harm Reduction 5
Community Education 2
Page |4
2.3.3.Housing Priority Areas
The top three housing priority areas discussed included affordable housing, prevention, and an updated
Housing Action Plan.Participants most often discussed affordable housing and the need for maintaining
a range of housing options for Maple Ridge residents as a preventative measure including those options
that address the increasing cost of housing. A Housing Action Plan that is updated and revitalized to
identify goals and strategies for addressing many of the housing issues was the second most discussed
priority area. The third most often discussed priority were maintaining and updating housing subsidies
for those who are at risk of losing their homes or who are homeless and seeking accommodation.
Other priority areas that were less mentioned but important to note included the need to maintain and
update rent subsidies for those at risk of losing their homes, or who are homeless, and seeking
accommodations.Community education was also discussed with regard to landlord and tenant
education and access to support, general public awareness of who homeless people, where they are
homeless, and where they are from, as well as report outlining success stories and progress. Participants
discussed the need to develop and/or sustain programs including the establishment of new shelters and
sustaining the Community Connections Program. During the discussion, it was noted that incentives
were a priority for building low-cost rental housing and that there is a need for prevention strategies to
address the needs of youth, ensure there is support for at-risk populations and address issues of
transportation and mobility issues among youth to ensure access to support.
A breakdown of the housing priority areas are provided in Table 4 below along with the frequency with
which those priority areas were discussed.
Table 4.Frequently Mentioned Housing Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop,Session 1)
Top 3 Housing Priority Areas Frequency
Affordable Housing 12
Prevention 12
Housing Action Plan 10
Other Housing Priority Areas Frequency
Rent Subsidies 9
Community Education 7
Develop and/or Sustain Programs 3
Incentives 2
Support for At-Risk Populations 3
Transportation and Mobility Barriers Among Youth 2
Page |5
2.4.Priority Areas and Recommendations Identified
2.4.1.Identified Recommendations for Mental Health Priority Areas
Table 5 provides the recommendations that have been identified for mental health priority areas which
were discussed.
Mental Health
Priority Areas Recommendations
Outreach and
Advocacy
Establish an Assertive Case Management Team modeled on existing
initiatives in Abbotsford and Surrey.
Ensure support for those who have been in the foster care system and who
are entering adulthood.
Support agencies to work together to address common issues.
Provide outreach to families experiencing multiple barriers and issues.
Address issues related to people with brain Injury including education for
service providers.
Address issues related to people coming out of corrections.
Support for individuals needing to access resources.
Co-Occurring
Disorders
Address the needs of people with both mental health issues and substance
use issues, especially those living in poverty.
Maintaining
Wellness
Community support for those who have utilized services and who need to
maintain progress (includes recreation, coaching support, welcoming
community, educating “points of contact” about community services
available).
Upstream Work Address issues such as employment and housing which have long-term
impacts on mental health.
Accessibility
Improve support for youth needing to access services.
Ensure access to services outside normal business hours (e.g., the 4pm to
6pm time period between the end of the school day and the supper hour).
Page |6
2.4.2.Identified Recommendations for Substance Use Priority Areas
Table 6 provides the recommendations that have been identified for substance use priority areas which
were discussed.
Table 5.Recommendations for Substance Use Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop, Session 1)
Substance Use
Priority Areas Recommendations
Access to Detox
Facilities
Facilities for those who wish to address substance use and addiction issues
with an emphasis on facilities geared towards youth who wish to address
substance use and addiction issues.
Establish Sobering
Centre
Safe location (besides hospital or jail) for overnight stays by intoxicated
individuals.
Treatment
Ensure a full range of treatment options.
Support the development of new facilities that will be accessible to parents
and children so that there is no longer and need to choose between
children and sobriety.
2nd stage treatment facilities to support those who have completed detox
and who need support to return to the community.
Outreach Outreach for youth who are at risk or in need of support to address
substance use issues.
Substance Use
Advisory
Committee
Improve support for youth needing to access services.
Ensure ongoing support for this subcommittee of the Community Network.
Harm Reduction
Ensure that Narcan Kits and education are available through the community
including first responders, service providers, and community centres.
Support strategies based on harm reduction models intended to reduce the
negative consequences associated with substance use.
Community
Education
Explore the development of new models of education and prevention
relevant to those at risk.
Page |7
2.4.3.Identified Recommendations for Housing Priority Areas
Table 7 provides the recommendations that have been identified for housing priority areas observed
which were discussed.
Table 6.Recommendations for Housing Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop, Session One)
Housing Priority
Areas Recommendations
Affordable
Housing
Maintain a range of housing options for Maple Ridge residents including
those that address the increasing cost of housing.
Prevention
Address recent closure of the Youth Safe House.
Address needs of youth (18-24 years).
Provide programs that connect youth to life support.
Provide programs that support youth to establish sustainable income.
Housing Action
Plan
Update and revitalize the existing Housing Action Plan which identifies goals
and strategies for addressing many of the housing issues mentioned.
Rent Subsidies
Maintain and update housing subsidies for those who are at risk of losing
their homes or who are homeless and seeking accommodation.
Review the current 12 month time limit for those who have received
subsidies.
Community
Education
Education for landlord and tenants.
Ensure landlords have access to information and support.
Education for general public about where people who are homeless are
from.
A yearly report outlining success stories and progress.
Develop and/or
Sustain Programs
Develop shelter based on the model of the 3030 Gordon Avenue Project
(Coquitlam).
Ensure the sustainability of the Community Connections Program.
Incentives Review current zoning laws to ensure incentives for building low-cost rental
housing.
Support for At-Risk
Populations Ensure support for people who are in housing but who are at risk.
Transportation and
Mobility Barriers
Among Youth
Address issues of transportation and mobility for youth to ensure access to
recreation, support, and services.
Page |8
3.0.Maple Ridge City Council (February 1, 2016)
3.1.Workshop Summary
This workshop was intended to work with the Mayor and City Council to identify gaps in social services
in Maple Ridge within three priority areas (mental health, substance use, and housing).
3.2.How Information Was Gathered
The agenda for this session included a presentation summarizing information gathered to date followed
by a discussion and brainstorm session with the full group to identify potential priorities.
3.3.Issues Most Frequently Mentioned in Each Priority Area
3.3.1.Mental Health Priority Areas
The top three mental health priority areas discussed included at risk populations and mental health
service needs,mental health service delivery model,and coordination and collaboration among agencies.
At risk populations include young people and the need for greater disability assessments, seniors living
in isolation, and LGBTQ services related to mental health and addictions. Coordination and collaboration
was a priority area that included the need for work with senior levels of government to access funding,
inter-agency partnerships, and improving coordinated services. The service delivery model was
discussed in regards to strengthening the focus on outcomes and not just outputs and re -thinking the
service delivery model in the three focus areas.Another priority area included mental health resources
and stigma including increasing the number of psychiatric beds and developing programs that de-
stigmatize mental health services.
A breakdown of the mental health priority areas are provided in Table 8 below along with the frequency
with which those priority areas were discussed in the workshop.
Table 7.Frequently Mentioned Mental Health Priority Areas (Maple Ridge City Council Workshop)
Top 3 Mental Health Priority Areas Frequency
At Risk Populations and Mental Health Service Needs 7
Service Delivery Model 7
Coordination and Collaboration 6
Other Mental Health Priority Areas Frequency
Mental Health Resources and Stigma 3
Page |9
3.3.2.Substance Use Priority Areas
The top three substance use priority areas discussed included service delivery model, at risk populations
and mental health resources,and barriers to accessing services.Participants most often discussed the
need for a service delivery model that has a regional approach to addiction service needs, to re-think the
three focus areas including more harm reduction approaches, addressing performance measures and
using terminology and language that expresses more accurately the types of services delivered in the
community.The second most mentioned priority area was concerned with substance use services
focused on children and youth, with emphasis on residential care services for youth.The third most
mentioned priority area included addressing barriers to accessing substance use services and simplifying
how people with drug addictions can access help.
A breakdown of the substance use priority areas are provided in Table 9 below along with the frequency
with which those priority areas were discussed in the workshop.
Table 8.Frequently Mentioned Substance Use Priority Areas (Maple Ridge City Council Workshop)
Top 3 Substance Use Priority Areas Frequency
Service Delivery Model 10
At Risk Populations and Mental Health Resources 7
Barriers to Accessing Services 7
3.3.3.Housing Priority Areas
The top three housing priority areas discussed included program delivery,programming for target
populations,and issues with the homeless count.Participants most often discussed program delivery
with regards to integrating mental health services within housing services as well as centralizing housing
resources within one organization.The second most discussed priority area included at target
populations including families and the need for more three bedroom housing for families, more units for
low-income seniors, and improved housing services for members of the LGBTQ community.The third
area discussed included the homeless count which was seen as flawed by a participant.
A breakdown of the housing priority areas are provided in Table 10 below along with the frequency with
which those priority areas were discussed in the workshop.
Table 9.Frequently Mentioned Housing Priority Areas (Maple Ridge City Council Workshop)
Top 3 Housing Priority Areas Frequency
Program Delivery 12
Programming for Target Populations 3
Homeless Count 1
Page |10
3.4.Priority Areas and Recommendations Identified
3.4.1.Identified Recommendations for Mental Health Priority Areas
Table 11 provides the recommendations that have been identified for mental health priority areas which
were discussed in the workshop.
Table 10.Recommendations for Mental Health Priority Areas (Maple Ridge City Council Workshop)
Mental Health
Priority Areas Recommendations
At Risk
Populations and
Mental Health
Resources
Address issues of social isolation among low income seniors.
The specific mental health and addictions service needs of LGBTQ people are
not well known and should be better understood.
Develop strategies to address the lack of disability assessments for young
children
Support for youth who are transitioning out of the foster care system .
Improve support for youth needing to access services.
Service Delivery
Model
The service delivery model in the three focus areas needs to be re -thought.
Strengthen the focus on achieving outcomes not only outputs.
Develop a regional approach to mental health service needs.
Coordination
and
Collaboration
Support efforts to coordinate services, improve information sharing, and to
develop a coordinated approach to funding.
Address the issue of organizations not sharing information with one another.
Address issues in the referral process for people seeking assistance with
mental health challenges.
Address the competitive nature of grant applications and service contacting
by finding new ways to encourage groups to work together.
Develop strategies to improve communication with senior levels of
government about the need for community support services.
Mental Health
Resources and
Stigma
Develop programs that de-stigmatize mental health services.
Increase the number of psychiatric care beds.
Page |11
3.4.2.Identified Recommendations for Substance Use Priority Areas
Table 12 provides the recommendations that have been identified for substance use priority areas
which were discussed in the workshop.
Table 11.Recommendations for Substance Use Priority Areas (Maple Ridge City Council Workshop)
Substance Use
Priority Areas Recommendations
Service Delivery
Model
Develop a regional approach to addictions and mental health service needs.
The service delivery model in the three focus areas needs to be re -thought.
Develop consistent performance measures in order to improve evaluation
and measurement of services
Develop a stronger focus on harm reduction approaches to addressing
addictions.
Develop strategies to monitor and improve the quality of private sector
addictions services.
At Risk
Populations and
Mental Health
Resources
Mental health and addiction prevention programs need more focus on
children and youth (0-12) with an emphasis on ages 6-12.
Increase the number of residential care services for youth with addictions.
Barriers to
Accessing
Services
Remove barriers that youth (13-17 in particular) face when trying to access
addictions services.
Develop strategies to improve access to methadone treatment.
Simplify how people with drug addictions access help by developing
strategies to streamline access to addiction support services.
3.4.3.Identified Recommendations for Housing Priority Areas
Table 13 provides the recommendations that have been identified for housing priority areas which were
discussed in the workshop.
Table 12.Recommendations for Housing Priority Areas (Maple Ridge City Council Workshop)
Housing Priority
Areas Recommendations
Program
Delivery
Improve the integration of mental health services within housing.
Develop a centralized approach to the provision of housing services
Programming for
Target
Populations
Develop more specialized housing for specific populations (e.g., three
bedroom rental housing, housing units for low-income seniors).
Improve services for members of the LGBTQ community in need of housing
and mental health support.
Homeless Count Work to improve the homeless count to ensure that it provides a complete
picture of homelessness in Maple Ridge.
Page |12
4.0.Maple Ridge City Youth Advisory Council (March 8, 2016)
4.1.Workshop Summary
This workshop was held on Tuesday, March 8 of 2016 at the Greg Moore Youth Centre following the
regular monthly meeting of the Youth Advisory Council.Approximately 20 participants took part in this
activity.
4.2.How Information Was Gathered
This was an informal session that utilized posters and written feedback techniques to gather information
from participants about issues that were important to them. Following refreshments and a meal,
participants were invited to circulate through three participation areas related to the topic areas of
Housing, Mental Health, and Addiction Services and Substance Use. Under each area, participants were
asked to prioritize key barriers that prevented access to services, to provide impres sions in the form of
Graffiti on the subject area, and to identify key actions.
Posters included the following questions:
1.Housing: What does home mean to me?
2.Mental Health: What makes me happy and healthy?
3.Substance Use: What’s my addiction and substance use story?
4.What prevents you/others from finding a home?
5.What prevents you/others from finding support around mental health issues?
6.What prevents you/others from finding help for addiction and substance use issues?
7.Who needs to do what? What needs to happen and who needs to do it?
4.3.Issues Most Frequently Mentioned for Each Priority Area
4.3.1.Mental Health Priority Areas
The top three mental health priority areas discussed included shame and stigma,such as confidentiality
concerns or having a perception of personal problems being invalid or trivial, as well as awareness about
how local services can help including availability of information about such services. Another top priority
area discussed included location of services/transportation.
A breakdown of the mental health priority areas are provided in Table 14 below along with the
frequency with which those priority areas were discussed as part of the informal session.
Page |13
Table 13.Frequently Mentioned Mental Health Priority Areas (Youth Advisory Council Informal Session)
Top 3 Mental Health Priority Areas Frequency
Shame and Stigma 26
Confidentiality 8
Location of Services/Transportation 4
4.3.2.Substance Use Priority Areas
The top three substance use priority areas discussed included personal attitudes such as not thinking it
will work or unwilling to make changes, as well as shame and stigma,and compounding issues (e.g.,
money, housing, etc.).Another priority area discussed included location of services/transportation.
A breakdown of the substance use priority areas are provided in Table 15 below along with the
frequency with which those priority areas were discussed as part of the informal session.
Table 14.Frequently Mentioned Substance Use Priority Areas (Youth Advisory Council Informal Session)
Top 3 Substance Use Priority Areas Frequency
Personal Attitudes 12
Shame and Stigma 10
Compounding Issues (e.g., money, housing, etc.)9
Other Substance Use Priority Areas Frequency
Location of Services/Transportation 4
4.3.3.Housing Priority Areas
The top three housing priority areas discussed included rental costs (including damage deposit costs and
finding a roommate to share in the costs),proximity to transportation,and waiting lists.Another priority
area discussed included landlord willingness to rent.
A breakdown of the housing priority areas are provided in Table 16 below along with the frequency with
which those priority areas were discussed as part of the informal session.
Table 15.Frequently Mentioned Housing Priority Areas (Youth Advisory Council Informa Session)
Top 3 Housing Priority Areas Frequency
Rental Costs 21
Proximity to Transportation 9
Waiting Lists 6
Other Housing Priority Areas Frequency
Landlord Willingness to Rent 4
Page |14
4.4.Priority Actions and Recommendations Identified
4.4.1.Identified Recommendations for Mental Health Priority Areas
Table 17 provides the recommendations that have been identified for mental health priority areas which
were discussed as part of the informal session.
Table 16.Recommendations for Mental Health Priority Areas (Youth Advisory Council Informal Session)
Mental Health
Priority Areas Recommendations
1.Shame and
Stigma
Develop innovative youth-friendly strategies to inform youth about
available services.
Develop strategies to promote community understanding and to address
the stigma associated with seeking help for mental health issues.
Provide training for front line staff to ensure that youth feel welcomed and
included in support services.
2.Awareness
About How
Local Services
Can Help
Develop strategies to ensure that counseling services are available to youth
when needed.
Develop strategies to support transition to independent living for youth
turning 19.
Improve participation in decision making by people with mental health
issues so that their voices are heard.
Provide training for front line staff to ensure that youth feel welcomed and
included in support services.
Develop innovative youth-friendly strategies to inform youth about
available services.
Develop strategies to reduce stress for those in high school.
3.Location of
Services/
Transportation
Develop strategies to improve access to mental health specialists and to
low-cost mental health services (psychiatrists, therapists).
Develop strategies to ensure that those who wish access to mental health
services can access services when and where they need it.
Page |15
4.4.2.Identified Substance Use Recommendations
Table 18 provides the recommendations that have been identified for substance use priority areas were
discussed as part of the informal session.
Table 17.Recommendations for Substance Use Priority Areas (Youth Advisory Council Informal Session)
Substance Use
Priority Areas Recommendations
1.Personal
Attitudes
Provide training for front line staff to ensure that those with substance use
issues feel welcomed and included in support services.
2.Shame and
Stigma
Develop strategies to promote community understanding and to address
the stigma associated with seeking help for substance use issues.
3.Compounding
Issues (e.g.,
money,
housing, etc.)
Develop strategies to provide more support for people who struggle with
substance use issues and other compounding issues.
4.4.3.Identified Housing Service Recommendations
Table 19 provides the recommendations that have been identified for housing priority areas were
discussed as part of the informal session.
Table 18.Recommendations for Housing Priority Areas (Youth Advisory Council Informal Session)
Housing Priority
Areas Recommendations
Rental Costs Develop strategies to ensure that youth are able to find safe, affordable
housing in Maple Ridge.
Page |16
5.0.Alouette Heights Supportive Housing (Alouette Home
Start Society) (March 22, 2016)
5.1.Workshop Summary
This workshop involved residents of Alouette Heights Supportive Housing, a 45 unit housing complex
opened in 2012 and operated by the Alouette Home Start Society. Residents are individuals who have
lived or have a connection to Maple Ridge or Pitt Meadows and who are in need of affordable housing
and support services.Approximately 28 residents took part in one of two components to the workshop.
5.2.How Information Was Gathered
This workshop had two components. First, a group dinner and discussion was held with 13 residents of
the Alouette Heights Supportive Housing complex. The first component of the workship included a
conversation and brainstorm session focused on key questions regarding our three priority areas
(housing, mental health, and problematic substance use and addictions) including:
1.What is working?
2.What are the gaps?
3.What should be the priority actions?
4.How do we measure success?
In addition, participants were asked to offer feedback to questions posed on posters located around the
common area. The posters were left up for a week to allow for participation by those residents who
were not able to take part in the discussion session. An estimated 15 additional participants took part in
this activity. Posters included the following questions:
1.Housing: What does home mean to me?
2.What prevents you/others from finding a home?
3.What prevents you/others from finding support around mental health issues?
4.Mental Health: What makes me happy and healthy?
5.Substance Use: What’s my addiction and substance use story?
6.What prevents you/others from finding help for addiction and substance use issues?
7.Who needs to do what? What needs to happen and who needs to do it?
5.3.Issues Most Frequently Mentioned in Each Priority Area
5.3.1.Mental Health Priority Areas
The top three mental health priority areas discussed included shame and stigma, location of
services/transportation,and being unaware if services can help.Shame and stigma was related to not
Page |17
wanting others to know that they have a mental health issue and feeling invalid and seeing their
problems as unimportant. Other priority areas discussed included pets and the need to address distinct
categories of mental health issues (Nimby Syndrome, recent Quality Inn issue, etc.).
A breakdown of the mental health priority areas are provided in Table 20 below along with the
frequency with which those priority areas were discussed.
Table 19.Frequently Mentioned Mental Health Priority Areas (Alouette Home Start Residents Workshop
and Poster Session)
Top 3 Mental Health Priority Areas Frequency
Shame and Stigma (Poster)9
Location of Services/Transportation (Poster)7
Unaware if Services Can Help (Poster)5
Other Mental Health Priority Areas Frequency
Pets (Poster)3
Address Distinct Categories of Mental Health Issues (Workshop)1
5.3.2.Substance Use Priority Areas
The top three substance use priority areas discussed included compounding issues (e.g., money, housing,
etc.), shame and stigma such as a fear of being teased or harassed,and being unsure if services can help.
Other priority areas discussed included information about local services,being unwilling to make
changes,and the need for expanded treatment options and supports such as second stage treatment
options for those who are not on income assistance (e.g., those who have a regular job and home but
must take a leave from work and maintain monthly rent payments while in treatment). There is also a
need to ensure availability of housing with a “sober living” philosophy to support those in recovery.
A breakdown of the substance use priority areas are provided in Table 21 below along with the
frequency with which those priority areas were discussed.
Table 20.Frequently Mentioned Substance Use Priority Areas (Alouette Home Start Residents Workshop
and Poster Session)
Top 3 Substance Use Priority Areas Frequency
Compounding Issues (e.g., money, housing,etc.)(Poster)10
Shame and Stigma (Poster)7
Unsure if Services Can Help (Poster)5
Other Substance Use Priority Areas Frequency
Information About Local Services (Poster)2
Unwilling to Make Changes (Poster)2
Expanded Treatment Options and Support (Workshop)2
Page |18
5.3.3.Housing Priority Areas
The top three housing priority areas discussed included landlords won’t rent out to the person,
affordability and damage deposits,and availability, income assistance, and waitlists.Other priority areas
discussed included supportive housing and safety, policies and amenities (e.g., pets, laundry, personal
space),and supportive housing provides community, inclusion and trust.A breakdown of the housing
priority areas are provided in Table 22 below along with the frequency with which those priority areas
were discussed.
Table 21.Frequently Mentioned Housing Priority Areas (Alouette Home Start Residents Workshop and
Poster Session)
Top 3 Housing Priority Areas Frequency
Landlords Won’t Rent Out To the Person (Workshop)31
Affordability and Damage Deposits (Workshop)20
Availability, Income Assistance, and Waitlists (Workshop)14
Other Housing Priority Areas Frequency
Supportive Housing and Safety (Poster and Workshop)8
Policies and Amenities (e.g., pets, laundry, personal space)(Workshop)7
Supportive Housing Provides Community, Inclusion and Trust (Poster)5
Finding a Suitable Roommate (Workshop)4
Supportive Housing Provides Foundation Important Life Changes (Poster)1
Transportation as a Barrier (Poster)1
Landlord and Tenant Education (Poster)1
5.4.Identified Recommendations for the Three Priority Areas
5.4.1.Identified Mental Health Service Recommendations
Table 23 provides mental health service recommendations that have been identified as part of the
workshop and poster sessions.
Table 22.Recommendations for Mental Health Priority Areas (Alouette Home Start Residents Workshop
and Poster Session)
Mental Health Recommendations
Workshop
Support the development of effective programs to provide job training and
experience for people who are homeless.
Utilize outreach programs to support the development of a voice for those
who are homeless in Maple Ridge.
Poster Session
Restore bus pass subsidies for people with disabilities.
Ensure that services are accessible for people with pets.
Ensure that mental health services are comprehensive and adequate to meet
the needs of Maple Ridge residents.
Page |19
5.4.2.Identified Substance Use Service Recommendations
Table 24 provides substance use recommendations that have been identified as part of the workshop
and poster sessions.
Table 23.Recommendations for Substance Use Priority Areas (Alouette Home Start Residents Workshop
and Poster Session)
Substance Use Recommendations
Workshop Continue to support the development of programs that treat addiction as a
medical issue.
Poster Session
Ensure access to treatment is available for all those who need it.
Expand services to ensure that once people have completed treatment they
are able to address issues such as housing, income, and social needs.
5.4.3.Identified Housing Service Recommendations
Table 25 provides the housing recommendations that have been identified as part of the workshop and
poster sessions.
Table 24.Recommendations for Housing Priority Areas (Alouette Home Start Residents Workshop and
Poster Session)
Housing Recommendations
Workshop
Purchase buildings to provide shelter and support for vulnerable people in
Maple Ridge.
Examine best practise models from around the world to address
homelessness (e.g., Netherlands).
Work to address the stigma and misconceptions that some in the community
have around supported housing.
Support the development of political will to address housing issues in Maple
Ridge.
Work to provide support in three inter-related areas (education,
employment, and housing).
Poster Session
Support the development of affordable housing in the community.
Advocate for the restoration of funding for federal cooperative housing
programs.
Provide incentives to ensure that private developers contribute to the
development of social housing.
Ensure access for pets in affordable housing.
Ensure that housing providers are accountable to the residents they serve.
Page |20
6.0.Maple Ridge Community Network , Session 2 (April 25,
2016)
6.1.Workshop Summary
A second workshop was held with social service stakeholders in order to give participants and
opportunity to review the Working List of Priorities for action in the three priority areas (mental health,
substance use, and housing). The workshop included a summary presentation about the project steps to
date and information about the Working List of Priorities that have been selected by Mayor and Council
and leaders in the social service sector. In addition, participants took part in small and large group work
to discuss, and revise where needed, the Working List of Priorities and identify specific short term that
can help with the implementation of the selected priorities.
6.2.How Information Was Gathered
Small groups were formed around the selected short term priorities. The small groups were asked to
address two questions: (1) What specific short terms actions (within 2 years) should happen in the
selected priority area?; and,(2) What types of partnerships are needed for these actions to be
successful?
6.3.Most Frequently Mentioned Priorities Identified for Each Focus Area
6.3.1.Mental Health Priority Areas
The top three mental health priority areas discussed included coordination and collaboration,education
and resources,and increased supports and programs for specific populations.
A breakdown of the mental health priority areas are provided in Table 26 along with the frequency with
which those priority areas were discussed.
Table 25.Frequently Mentioned Mental Health Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop,Session
2)
Top 3 Mental Health Priority Areas Frequency
Coordination and Collaboration 13
Education and Resources 4
Increase Supports and Programs for Specific Populations 4
Page |21
6.3.2.Substance Use Priority Areas
The top three substance use priority areas discussed included coordination and collaboration,access to
safe programs/location of programs,and being community education.
A breakdown of substance use priority areas are provided in Table 27 along with the frequency with
which those priority areas were discussed.
Table 26.Frequently Mentioned Substance Use Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop,Session
2)
Top 3 Substance Use Priority Areas Frequency
Coordination and Collaboration 12
Access to Safe Programs/Location of Programs 11
Community Education 11
6.3.3.Housing Priority Areas
The top three housing priority areas discussed included improved housing transition services,access to
safe programs/location of programs,and coordination and collaboration.Another priority area
discussed included education and resources.
A breakdown of housing priority areas are provided in Table 28 along with the frequency with which
those priority areas were discussed.
Table 27.Frequently Mentioned Housing Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop,Session 2)
Top 3 Housing Priority Areas Frequency
Improved Housing Transition Services 13
Access to Safe Programs/Location of Programs 11
Coordination and Collaboration 10
Other Housing Priority Areas Frequency
Education and Resources 3
Page |22
6.4.Identified Recommendations for the Three Priority Areas
6.4.1.Identified Mental Health Service Recommendations
Table 29 provides mental health service recommendations that have been identified as part of the
workshop.
Table 28.Recommendations for Mental Health Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop,Session
2)
Priority Areas Recommendations
Coordination and
Collaboration
Develop a Mental Health working group/committee with membership from
Housing, Community, MHSU, organizations
Build linkages between the Resiliency Initiative and the CYMHSU
Collaborative; the Middle Childhood Matters Standing Committee; and, the
Provincial MCFD and Fraser Health/Ministry of Health Planning.
Establish a network of service providers who can support youth with life
skills, personal development, continuing education and continuing
employment goals.
Work with services in community that will assist in reuniting families and
working towards providing family support.
Establish an Outreach and Support position providing: entry to other more
specialized supports; advocacy; interpretation; and facilitation of
coordination between multiple service providers.
Education and
Resources
Increased education in schools (and other places?) around mental health,
and around what services are available and how to access them.
Improved education on FASD, Autism, and other disabilities.
Increased opportunities and understanding of Emerging Adults
Needs/Resources.
Focus more on upstream approaches and health promotion (e.g., how do
we create more compassionate communities?).
Increase Supports
and Programs for
Specific
Populations
Improve support for emerging adults transitioning out of care.
Improve services and supports for individuals with P.T.S.D.
Determine if individuals have disabilities that can be addressed and may
qualify for Community Living Services or have medical needs which have
not been indefinite (e.g., chronic pain issues).
Establish an Aboriginal Hub where Aboriginal people and services can come
together smoothly.
Page |23
6.4.2.Identified Substance Use Service Recommendations
Table 30 provides substance use service recommendations that have been identified as part of the
workshop.
Table 29.Recommendations for Substance Use Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop,Session
2)
Priority Areas Recommendations
Coordination and
Collaboration
Provide mental health services at same space as addictions.
Improve the mental health service referral process.
Look to work with SD 42 to support MCFD/CYMH (e.g., FRIENDS Program)
on prevention efforts.
Access to Safe
Programs/Location
of Programs
Increase outreach services for vulnerable populations with substance use
and mental health issues.
Develop a “Sobering Centre” (i.e., a safe location for overnight stays by
individuals who are intoxicated).
Community
Education
Provide public education for substance use issues.
Increase education and prevention activities for youth and families.
6.4.3.Identified Housing Service Recommendations
Table 31 provides housing service recommendations that have been identified as part of the workshop.
Table 30.Recommendations for Housing Priority Areas (Community Network Workshop,Session 2)
Priority Areas Recommendations
Improved Housing
Transition Services
Improved care and housing for people once they leave residential
treatment
Work to create a Landlord Network in Maple Ridge
Coordination and
Collaboration
Build on existing housing options in Maple Ridge –working with landlords
and property management
Provide support to existing Aboriginal Housing Societies to expand their
services into the Maple Ridge area (i.e., Kekinow Native Housing Society
and similar organizations).
Access to Safe
Programs/Location
of Programs
Improve Access to Safe Programs/Location of Programs
Develop safe program/location for youth at risk (safe house)
Improve access to community services for all needs of those living in
subsidized, supportive housing.
Establish an emergency shelter for youth 13-18.
Education and
Resources
Provide education and information about Housing First for the community.
Provide City Staff with resources to implement the Housing Action Plan.
Increase market rental housing in the community.
Page |24
6.4.4.Identified Potential Partners
The following list of actions below provides a list of potential partners recommended from the workshop
participants:
1.Develop a “Sobering Centre” (i.e., a safe location for overnight stays by individuals
who are intoxicated). Potential Partners include:
City of Maple Ridge: by-laws, engineering, social development;
City of Maple Ridge: Inventory of available houses;
City of Maple Ridge: Community education and consultation; and,
Community: Identify lead agency.
2.Develop strategies to support difficult to find housing (e.g., sober living (long term
drug and alcohol free housing), second stage housing, etc.). Potential Partners
include:
City of Maple Ridge: Investigate financial sources for difficult to find housing
options (estimated budget $10 Million);
City of Maple Ridge: Advocate bringing appropriate agencies into the
community;
City of Maple Ridge: Advocate for the development of Second Stage Housing;
City of Maple Ridge: Rent/lease houses to non-profits for nominal amount to
enable additional housing options;
Community organizations: Identify non-profit to run “sober living”;
Community organizations: Develop cost-recovery models based on client
contributions for rent, etc.; and,
Community organizations: Improve care and housing for people once they
leave residential treatment.
3.Support the development of a wraparound model of service delivery for individuals
and families including a wide range of partners. In addition, agencies are
encouraged to support client centred approaches.
4.Enhance support for the ongoing work of the Substance Misuse and Prevention
Committee by ensuring that this subcommittee of the Community Network is
resources to implement needed community supports. Develop a Mental Health
working group/committee with membership from Housing, Community, MHSU,
organizations
5.Develop a Safe House (including emergency housing and programs) to address the
needs of Youth at Risk. Actions include:
Define how other communities are funding “Safe houses” without
government funding?–private community funding:
Page |25
What is the model? How does it work?;
Research existing safe houses and funding?;
Think outside the “government funding” box;
Environmental scan around existing youth safe houses in the region;
and,
Encourage partnerships in order to access a full range of services.
6.Work to create a Landlord Network in Maple Ridge to engage in activities that
include:
A contact list of landlords in the community;
Connected to the Friendly Landlord network1;
Presentation by housing organizations (e.g., Tenant Resource and Advisory
Centre (TRAC));
Provide a forum for ongoing discussion and education to address fears and
concerns;
Develop incentives to support rentals to high risk/vulnerable populations
(not only financial); and,
Encourage ongoing community education about housing issues (including
tenant education, housing readiness).
Potential partners include:
Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation;
Employment programs (e.g., Triangle Community Resources, Work BC,
etc.);
Housing Planning Table; and,
BC Housing, MLAs,MPs, City of Maple Ridge.
7.Develop strategies to increase outreach services for vulnerable populations
addressing issues related to mental health and problem substance use. Potential
actions include:
Improve access to transit-bus passes;
Identify and address barriers to access;
Utilize strategies to meet people where they meet and gather;
Streamline access to services so that people are not discouraged by
“criteria”;
Use H.F. as a model to reduce barriers;
Encourage drop-in programs and after hours services;
Potential partners include:
1 Source:http://auntleahs.org/support-us/be-a-landlord/friendly-landlord-network/
Page |26
Service Providers;
School District #42 (Registered Nurses in the Schools); and,
RCMP Programs.
8.Develop strategies to improve existing housing options. Potential actions include:
Integrated case management approach;
Reduce barriers for landlords/clients;
Encourage landlord appreciation;
Develop a process to provide rental supplements; and,
Develop strategies to encourage subsidized housing.
Potential partners include:
Outreach for medical services; and,
Fraser health (e.g.,Home health care, Mobile clinics, etc.).
9.Examine alternative strategies to improve coordination between Mental Health
services and services addressing problem substance use and addictions (e.g., co -
location of services, improved referral process). Potential actions include:
Develop a shared vision for working collaboratively together; and,
Develop ongoing communications in order to identify and address services
gaps and to develop ongoing evaluation of the engagement.
Potential partners include:
Front line staff;
Executive directors and managers; and,
Families and decision makers.
10.Ensure ongoing public education on all three issues (homelessness, mental health,
and problem substance use and addictions. Potential actions include:
Work with the media;
Develop understanding of the issues, personal and human interest stories,
etc.;
Support professionals to communicate clearly in jargon-free language;
Gather community feedback on an ongoing basis to support the
development of future strategies and actions; and
Support the development of platforms that are welcome to difference voices
(e.g., land lords) including forums, surveys, websites, etc.
Possible partners include:
Internet resources; and,
People with lived experience.
Page |27
7.0.Maple Ridge Local Action Team Youth Representatives
(May 3, 2016)
7.1.Workshop Summary
The Ridge Meadow Local Action Team is a part of the Child and Youth Mental Health and Substance Use
(CYMHSU) Collaborative, a provincial initiative funded by Doctors of BC and the BC Provincial
Government. The Local Action Team works to develop a network of mental health and substance -use
service providers, stakeholders, and youth and families from the local community to support actions
aimed at addressing systemic barriers in the community.
Youth members of the Maple Ridge Local Action Team met for a discussion on May 3, 2016. Five youth
and two adults (the LAT coordinator and an Executive Director of a Maple Ridge non-profit) participated
in the discussion.
7.2.Process for Gathering Information
A group dinner was held followed by a conversation and brainstorm session focused on key questions
regarding the three priority areas (housing, mental health, and problematic substance use and
addictions) including:
1.What is working?
2.What are the gaps?
3.What should be the priority actions?
4.How do we measure success?
7.3.Most Frequently Mentioned Priorities Identified for Each Focus Area
7.3.1.Mental Health Priority Areas
The top three mental health priority areas discussed included education for those working with youth,
access to and navigation of services,and build capacity and coordinate services.Another priority area
discussed included indicators and measures.A breakdown of housing priority areas are provided in
Table 32 along with the frequency with which those priority areas were discussed.
Table 31.Frequently Mentioned Priorities Across All Three Focus Areas (Local Action Team Workshop)
Top 3 Priorities Frequency
Education for those Working with Youth 6
Access to and Navigation of Services 6
Build Capacity and Coordinate Services 4
Other Top Priority Frequency
Indicators and Measures 2
Page |28
The following are high level points discussed during the workshop related to mental health services:
1.Some doctors are making appropriate referrals for youth but there is a need to
ensure this level of awareness is spread more widely among medical personnel.
2.There is a need for low or no barrier youth programs with no waitlists are effective
in addressing the needs of youth (e.g., Go Figure Youth-led Support Group)
3.There is a need for more education for adults who work with youth in a variety of
settings to improve communication skills, knowledge about relevant services,
understanding about youth needs and culture, etc.
4.School counsellors were seen as importance sources of information and referral
5.Participants noted that Ridge Meadows Hospital (RMH) Psychiatric Unit does not
offer a youth friendly environment. It was stated that many youth perceive that
staff members are not trained to address youth issues and concerns. Surrey Hospital
is seen as a more youth-friendly environment, but there is a long waitlist and a need
for referral from RMH.
6.Many programs and services require that there be a psychiatric assessment prior to
referral.
7.Youth noted that as they make their way through the service and support system
they are frequently asked to start from square one repeating
8.Many support services (e.g., counselling, etc.) stop at 19 years of age under the
Child and Youth Mental Health Plan. This can create interruption in support
processes.
The following are high level points discussed during the workshop related to substance use services:
1.Youth who wish to access services and support are often asked to repeat their
stories over and over again as they make contact with new service providers.
The following are high level points discussed during the workshop related to housing services:
1.There is a need for life-skills education (e.g., budgeting, cooking, etc.) for youth who
taking part in the Agreements with Young Adults program or who are living alone.
Page |29
7.4.Identified Recommendations for All Focus Areas (Local Action Team Workshop)
Table 33 provides the recommendations that have been identified as part of the Local Action Team
workshop.
Table 32.Recommendations for All Focus Areas (Local Action Team Workshop)
Recommendations
Ensure that adults who work with youth are educated on how to work with youth (including
listening and support skills, knowledge about services, etc.).
Improve access to psychiatric support.
Implement an advocate position that can help youth navigate the various services available to
them.
Include support for those transitioning from foster care into independent living.
Develop strategies to improve the capacity of the RMH Psychiatric Unit to address youth issues.
Develop strategies to ensure that community based services are working in coordination with
clinical services.
Develop strategies to ensure continuity of care for youth turning 19 so they are not faced with a
sudden loss of all support services.
Provide expanded support for no/low barrier programs and services
Maple Ridge Social Services
Delivery Research Report
DRAFT Technical Appendix E:Measuring and
Monitoring Results Summary Report
July 2016
Table of Contents
1.0.Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1
2.0.Framing of Contributions and Desired Results .............................................................................2
2.1.Programs and Services..................................................................................................................2
2.2.Knowing the Performance Measures ...........................................................................................3
2.3.Mapping the Desired Results........................................................................................................4
2.4.Focusing on “What Needs to be Measured”................................................................................6
3.0.Advancing Potential Performance Measures ...............................................................................8
4.0.Look Forward ...........................................................................................................................18
List of Tables
Table 1.Perspective of the Community Members in Need .......................................................................6
Table 2.Perspective of Community Service Facilities ................................................................................7
Table 3.Perspective of Community Service Providers ...............................................................................7
Table 4.Perspective of Community Collaborations ...................................................................................7
Table 5.Number of Clients Served: Mental health, Substance Use, and In Need of Housing...................8
Table 6.Number and Percentage of Clients Cycling Services: Mental Health and Substance Use ...........9
Table 7.Number and Percentage of Clients Transitioning to Supportive Housing and Returning
to Work .......................................................................................................................................10
Table 8.Number and Percentage of Clients Connecting Within the Community including
Libraries,Recreation, and Other Services...................................................................................11
Table 9.Prevalence and Description of Shared Physical Space Accessible in the Community ................12
Table 10. Average Ratings of Citizen Awareness of Elements of Homelessness, Faced Trauma,
Mental Health Stigma, and Other Aspects .................................................................................13
Table 11. Average Ratings Among Parents Related to Access to Services, Continuity in Care, and
Barriers Faced by Children and Youth ........................................................................................14
Table 12. Average Client ratings of the Suitability of Services, Means to Advocate on Their Own
Needs, and Ability to Adapt to Circumstances ...........................................................................15
Table 13. Average Client Ratings of Safety, Sense of Belonging, Access to Social and Recreational
Experiences, Access to Food, and Ability to Work......................................................................16
Table 14. Periodic Evaluation (with GVRSC, Fraser Health and/or Housing BC) of Capacity,
Addressing Cultural Differences, State of Collaboration and Other Aspects .............................17
Page |1
1.0.Introduction
The following proceedings is based on two facilitated workshops that contribute to the broader Maple
Ridge Service Delivery Research Project by providing facilitated feedback on the means by which
progress as well as results can be monitored, evaluated and reported on relative to the three focus
areas of housing for vulnerable populations, mental health, and problem substance use and addictions.
Participants in the workshops included members of the Community Network and representatives of the
City of Maple Ridge. This proceedings provides a summary of the framing of current contributions and
desired results as they relate to the three focus areas, a review of known performance measures
followed by specifically identifying what needs to be measured, polling results and discussion points on
the meaningfulness and practicality for potential performance measures, and a brief synopsis on a
discussion dealing with next steps.
Page |2
2.0.Framing of Contributions and Desired Results
This section presents the highlights of discussions on the current state of efforts to address the three
focus areas, the desired results of these efforts, and potential performance measures. It begins by
identifying a subset of the programs and services currently being provided, then moving to the existing
performance measures in place, and finally, shifts to a mapping of the desired results.
2.1.Programs and Services
This is an initial, and only partial, listing of the types of programs and services that are available in the
region1. The early dialogue with the workshop participants was on providing enough context for what
followed in terms of describing the results that are desired.The programs and services currently being
provided include:
Housing
Alouette Heights: Outreach, youth services, and transition in a supportive
housing environment;
Salvation Army: Shelter, outreach, nurse practitioner support, and meals;
Rain City: Temporary shelter; and,
Corrections Housing: Outreach.
Mental Health
Club House:Support for securing employment, making connections in the
community, and gaining life skills for clients with mental health issues;
Blue Door;Support group for youth with mental health issues;
Local Action Team; Youth wellness centre; and,
Child and Youth Mental Health Program: Outreach to youth, families, and
groups.
Problem Substance Use and Addictions
Key Worker –outreach, monthly family support group, and caregiver support for
individuals that support youth that have prenatal substance exposure;
Alouette Addictions –outreach, problematic substance use, and harm reduction
supports;
Genesis Program –transitional housing for people struggling with addictions;
Asante Centre: Support services for people with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
and Autism Spectrum Disorder; and,
1 See Appendix B: Backgrounder for Inventory of Maple Ridge Social Services for additional information on service
providers in Maple Ridge.
Page |3
Corrections Housing: Outreach.
2.2.Knowing the Performance Measures
This following list of measures was prepared on the basis of conducted research and then presented to
participants to confirm that they were aware of this information being available in the region. During
the first workshop, the participants built on this part of the session in terms of discussing the results that
are desired.
The existing performance measures as presented to participants include:
Number of homeless people (and percentage sheltered) in Maple Ridge and Pitt
Meadows2
Number (percentage) of homeless reporting:3
Addictions, medical conditions, mental illness, and disabilities;
Being sheltered and unsheltered (by gender, age, Aboriginal,etc.);
Turned away from shelters, safe houses, and transition houses;
Barriers to housing (sheltered and unsheltered);
Sources of income (sheltered and unsheltered);
Incidences of one of more health conditions;
Length of time being homeless; and,
Use of services by type.
Prevalence of mental illness in the adult population: mild, moderate, and severe
Number of:4
Adults in need of withdrawal management and/or treatment services for
substance abuse;
Mental health and substance use services available to individuals (including
Maple Ridge);
Mental health rehabilitation programs (youth, adult); and,
Client transitions from MHSU tertiary facilities to more independent settings.
Repeat usage of shelters5
2 2011 Figures, Maple Ridge housing Action Plan, Situation Report, January 2014
3 2014 results of the 2014 homeless Count in the Metro Vancouver Region, Greater Vancouver Regional Steering
Committee on Homelessness
4 BC Fraser Health Authority statistics and publications
5 BC Housing review (study)
Page |4
2.3.Mapping the Desired Results
Participants were asked to describe, in their own words, the differences that the current programs and
services they are aware of are making in terms of: the lives of those in the community in need, the
availability of community facilities, the nature of along with the means of providing community services,
and the state of collaboration that is taking place. From there, the approach moved to addressing the
question of “if these types of results were to be achieved, then what would be hoped for over the longer
term?” The product of this dialogue is presented in Figure 1, in summary format.
In the discussions that followed in the second session, those taking part raised points on how the
statements of desired results can be further refined, and added to.
Quality of Life:In describing an improved quality of life, this should include
employment and other economic considerations, as well as more broadly a
definition that reflects the current “social determinants of health”.
Proactive Approaches:To achieve the longer term results, there should be
proactive approaches taken toward helping those in need and also assisting them in
understanding along with navigating what services and supports are available.
Community Driven:Relating to awareness and networking, it is important to take a
grass roots approach in the community, and to focus on communication using as
many traditional and non-traditional networks as possible.
Mobility:Transportation was mentioned as an important factor for developing
connectedness and the ability to access services and supports.
Engagement of Seniors:In describing increased access to services and supports for
children and youth, attention should also be paid to seniors.
Integration:When discussing expanded outreach on the supports that are available
to people, when and where needed, this should follow more of an “integrated
wraparound” approach that builds on the “value” and capabilities of many service
providers.
Information Sharing:It was mentioned that a key factor of success is to establish
the necessary, shared protocols for sharing information on clients.
Using the Right Language:An important point of discussion was on ensuring that all
documents and performance measures use proper, respectful language, for
example refraining from the term “homeless people” and instead referring to
“people who are homeless”.
Page |5
Figure 1.Differences in the Effects Current Programs and Services Have on the Community
Page |6
2.4.Focusing on “What Needs to be Measured”
To help further structure the dialogue on possible, new measures of performance, participants looked at
all of the draft statements of desired results, and began circling those that would better lend to
measurement based on their strategic priority, broader applicability to community program and service
providers, and suitability including the availability of data. In the process, key terms were also
highlighted for the purposes of refining their meaning. Below is the summary of this part of the session,
separated into different perspectives.
Table 1.Perspective of the Community Members in Need
What differences are these programs and services making in the
lives of those in the community who are in need?
Resilience
Adapting and responding to circumstances, to survive.
This desired result includes the increased resilience of those in the community.
Need to consider both resilience among those in need along with their quality of life
within the community(s).
Capacity
Greater capacity within communities is a desired result.
Skills and connections in the community(s) to serve more, enable choices for those
receiving services and being housed, and to take preventative approaches.
Access
Access to health and harm reduction services along with supports including housing
and other spaces.
Associated with this result is fewer barriers to access to services, access to space,
reduced cost of services, and sharing of information along with other supports .
Increased access to stable and affordable housing is linked to this desired result.
If achieved, there should be an accompanying decrease in people who are
homelessness.
Increased access to health care, mental health supports, and harm reduction
services is part of this result.
Collaboration Working together to provide action that is meaningful and includes facilities.
Increased community respect is an associated aim.
Awareness &
Voice
Extent of understanding and awareness in the community(s).
This desired result includes both listening to, and understanding, the voices of the
vulnerable and those with lived experiences.
More empowerment and recognition along with increased community respect
accompanies this result.
Page |7
Table 2.Perspective of Community Service Facilities
What differences are these programs and services making
in the lives of those in the community who are in need?
Responses
Remove the barriers to access to services (e.g., physical location).
Expand hours of operation.
Increase community activities for people to enjoy and get involved.
Table 3.Perspective of Community Service Providers
What differences are these programs and services makingin the range in,
and ways in which, community services are provided?
Responses
Greater recognition to cultural difference around mental health, housing, trauma,
etc.
Increased awareness of the trauma by refugees and Canadian-born.
Greater outreach to populations.
Reduction of the stigma on homelessness and mental health substance use issues.
Table 4.Perspective of Community Collaborations
What differences are these programs and services making in the
state of collaboration, within and outside of the community?
Responses
Greater, meaningful collaboration within and across the community, across sectors,
and with the Province (need a better model for collaboration, breaking down the
silos for funding).
Parents are better able to understand and access support for children and youth.
Vulnerable populations (and those with lived experiences) can better advocate and
voice (being heard in a meaningful way) their needs.
Broader public understanding of the many aspects of homelessness (e.g., seniors).
Page |8
3.0.Advancing Potential Performance Measures
Following the first session, descriptions of potential performance measures were prepared, and brought
into the second session, using polling software. Each participant was given a remote keypad to conduct
the rating of the potential performance measures on two scales, meaningfulness and practicality. Each
person selected their response, with the consolidated results be presented in “real time”, enabling
further sharing of views and opinions which in some cases led to a re-polling. The following are the
results for the assessed meaningfulness and practicality for each possible performance measure as well
as supporting comments to the responses.
Table 5.Number of Clients Served: Mental health, Substance Use, and In Need of Housing
Meaningful Data Responses Count
This measure is very meaningful to those relying on it
This measure is somewhat meaningful for those relying on it
This measure is less meaningful to those relying on it
Total
Practicality of Data Sourcing Responses Count
This measure is very practical in sourcing the data and reporting
This measure is somewhat practical in sourcing data and reporting
This measure is less practical to report on
Total
Supporting Comments:
In addition to tracking the number of clients served, this measure could report on the
percentage of those clients served who are dealing with mental health, substance use, or in
need of housing.
The term “served” needs to be defined, which could include those clients receiving support.
This measure is not directly linked to the desired results, and is more of an “output” metric.
In reporting on this measure, it will be important to account for seasonal variations.
5
7
0
12
3
5
4
12
Page |9
Table 6.Number and Percentage of Clients Cycling Services: Mental Health and Substance Use
Meaningful Data Responses Count
This measure is very meaningful to those relying on it
This measure is somewhat meaningful for those relying on it
This measure is less meaningful to those relying on it
Total
Practicality of Data Sourcing Responses Count
This measure is very practical in sourcing the data and reporting
This measure is somewhat practical in sourcing data and reporting
This measure is less practical to report on
Total
Supporting Comments:
This measure can inform decisions on efficacy and value from the service provider perspective.
Agencies might be able to report on their individual clients who are repeatedly accessing or
drawing upon programs and supports, but this data would then need to be aggregated to
report on some grouping of mental health services as well as separately some grouping of
services dealing with substance use and addictions.
It will be important to define “service”, and the term “cycling”; for example is this someone
who accesses a service and then leaves, only to return six months later, a year later, etc.
12
2
6
4
12
2
7
3
Page |10
Table 7.Number and Percentage of Clients Transitioning to Supportive Housing and Returning to Work
Meaningful Data Responses Count
This measure is very meaningful to those relying on it
This measure is somewhat meaningful for those relying on it
This measure is less meaningful to those relying on it
Total
Practicality of Data Sourcing Responses Count
This measure is very practical in sourcing the data and reporting
This measure is somewhat practical in sourcing data and reporting
This measure is less practical to report on
Total
Supporting Comments:
Service agencies are already tracking clients in terms of their labour force attachment at three,
six, and twelve months.
The term “transition” would need to be further defined as to what it means in this context.
There are five categories for return to work that are being used by service providers, and
which could be provided through the Community Network.
In regards to housing,there is “coming in and out” tracking in place,however it will be critical
to also state the variety of influencing factors on this measure. A process to help identify these
influencing factors could include descriptions of the reasons people are coming in and leaving.
11
2
3
6
2
7
0
9
Page |11
Table 8.Number and Percentage of Clients Connecting Within the Community including Libraries,
Recreation, and Other Services
Meaningful Data Responses Count
This measure is very meaningful to those relying on it
This measure is somewhat meaningful for those relying on it
This measure is less meaningful to those relying on it
Total
Practicality of Data Sourcing Responses Count
This measure is very practical in sourcing the data and reporting
This measure is somewhat practical in sourcing data and reporting
This measure is less practical to report on
Total
Supporting Comments:
The term “connecting” would need to be defined. Some examples may include being aware of,
understanding, and then participating in what a community offers.
The term “other” in the performance measure should be expanded to include faith based
agencies and safe harbours.
This measure should also include descriptions to gain a sense of the community
connectedness and prevalence of welcoming environments and means of access (e.g. transit,
money, etc.).
12
7
5
0
9
1
11
1
Page |12
Table 9.Prevalence and Description of Shared Physical Space Accessible in the Community
Meaningful Data Responses Count
This measure is very meaningful to those relying on it
This measure is somewhat meaningful for those relying on it
This measure is less meaningful to those relying on it
Total
Practicality of Data Sourcing Responses Count
This measure is very practical in sourcing the data and reporting
This measure is somewhat practical in sourcing data and reporting
This measure is less practical to report on
Total
Supporting Comments:
It should be noted that what is being measured could take the form of a facility which co-
locates several community services, akin to a “hub” model.
In addition to reporting on the number of such shared spaces, and describing them, it would
be important to include any examples of the realized benefits, such as efficiencies in how
people are referred to or provided with services.
12
11
0
3
8
1
6
5
Page |13
Table 10.Average Ratings of Citizen Awareness of Elements of Homelessness, Faced Trauma, Mental
Health Stigma, and Other Aspects
Meaningful Data Responses Count
This measure is very meaningful to those relying on it
This measure is somewhat meaningful for those relying on it
This measure is less meaningful to those relying on it
Total
Practicality of Data Sourcing Responses Count
This measure is very practical in sourcing the data and reporting
This measure is somewhat practical in sourcing data and reporting
This measure is less practical to report on
Total
Supporting Comments:
There are many different forms of trauma and stigma. This performance measure would need
to further identify and define the various traumas and stigmas.
It is important to include the “why” of these considerations such as, “why are people
homeless?”
The Community of Wood Buffalo would serve well as a case study for this particular measure.
To increase the accuracy of measuring awareness, it would be helpful to identify the different
levels of engagement as well as use branching questions to further identify the level along
with the different forms of awareness.
In addition this measure would need to separate data and analysis based on the demographics
of the respondents.
12
6
3
12
0
9
2
4
Page |14
Table 11.Average Ratings Among Parents Related to Access to Services, Continuity in Care, and Barriers
Faced by Children and Youth
Meaningful Data Responses Count
This measure is very meaningful to those relying on it
This measure is somewhat meaningful for those relying on it
This measure is less meaningful to those relying on it
Total
Practicality of Data Sourcing Responses Count
This measure is very practical in sourcing the data and reporting
This measure is somewhat practical in sourcing data and reporting
This measure is less practical to report on
Total
Supporting Comments:
This type of surveying already exists with early childhood development.
It would be helpful to describe potential barriers and/or use examples within the measure of
what might be some potential barriers parents may have faced.
The term “continuity of care” would need to be further defined for clarity .
Multiple methods of administering a survey would need to be followed:
o In-person/intercept
o Mail
o Electronic
1
11
11
2
2
3
7
7
Page |15
Table 12.Average Client ratings of the Suitability of Services, Means to Advocate on Their Own Needs,
and Ability to Adapt to Circumstances
Meaningful Data Responses Count
This measure is very meaningful to those relying on it
This measure is somewhat meaningful for those relying on it
This measure is less meaningful to those relying on it
Total
Practicality of Data Sourcing Responses Count
This measure is very practical in sourcing the data and reporting
This measure is somewhat practical in sourcing data and reporting
This measure is less practical to report on
Total
Supporting Comments:
Further work with this survey is required, with the expectation being that the actual
questionnaire would only have three to four questions.
It is important to consider “client readiness”in some way; and, for those facing fundamental
health “issues” including seniors, the circumstances shown in this measure may be too difficult
to record.
12
12
9
2
1
6
1
5
Page |16
Table 13.Average Client Ratings of Safety, Sense of Belonging, Access to Social and Recreational
Experiences, Access to Food, and Ability to Work
Meaningful Data Responses Count
This measure is very meaningful to those relying on it
This measure is somewhat meaningful for those relying on it
This measure is less meaningful to those relying on it
Total
Practicality of Data Sourcing Responses Count
This measure is very practical in sourcing the data and reporting
This measure is somewhat practical in sourcing data and reporting
This measure is less practical to report on
Total
Supporting Comments:
The measure seems to be too broad in its questioning, whereas focusing more on particular
aspects of quality of life would enhance its practicality.
Putting this measure into practice is a point for further consultation with the municipalities of
Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows
Questions for this measure will need to be framed very carefully, and the survey condensed to
only a few questions with easy response options (e.g.,“Yes”, “No” or a five-point scale
system).
There will need to be an efficient and effective means of aggregating the responses for this
measure as it includes a variety of topics.
10
10
0
0
4
6
2
8
Page |17
Table 14.Periodic Evaluation (with GVRSC, Fraser Health and/or Housing BC) of Capacity, Addressing
Cultural Differences, State of Collaboration and Other Aspects
Meaningful Data Responses Count
This measure is very meaningful to those relying on it
This measure is somewhat meaningful for those relying on it
This measure is less meaningful to those relying on it
Total
Practicality of Data Sourcing Responses Count
This measure is very practical in sourcing the data and reporting
This measure is somewhat practical in sourcing data and reporting
This measure is less practical to report on
Total
Supporting Comments:
A detailed evaluation framework including questions will be imperative for this measure.
A “gap analysis” could be conducted in some ways between the expressed needs of citizens
(community) and available services to identify where needs are being met as well as where
improvements could be made.
10
10
4
2
3
3
1
7
Page |18
4.0.Look Forward
The second session concluded with a discussion on what needs to be considered in moving forward with
the refinement and the early implementation of the performance measures. Two suggestions were
raised as key factors going forward; the potential for service provider and agency engagement, and
timelines for targets and benchmarking. Through the Community Network, there is the opportunity for
service providers and agencies to be engaged in submitting needed data, as long as the means by which
this is done are as efficient as possible and do not require substantial time or effort. For example, where
measures are reliant on a survey, the actual questionnaire should have as few a number of questions as
possible, and ideally use fixed response options (e.g., a scale, check-boxes, etc.), versus all open ended.
Secondly, in regards to timelines, for the first one to two years, it’s a matter of creating the tools like a
survey(s), and agreeing to the methods of sourcing, consolidation, interpreting and then reporting on
the measure data. Following in the second to third year, baselines can be established and discussions
initiated on how to begin analyzing any trends along with possibly comparing results across jurisdictions
or relative to other benchmarks.
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 11, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Update on the Interim Modular Shelter and
Permanent Purpose Built Shelter Process
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City of Maple Ridge has been working to address ongoing issues related to homelessness that
have impacted the community for several years. Part of the approach has been to engage BC
Housing to identify short and long term strategies that will increase access to shelter, housing and
support services. On March 29, 2016, the Province cancelled the impending purchase of the Quality
Inn which would have provided approximately 60 units of supportive housing with clinical supports.
Concurrently, BC Housing announced the offer to provide approximately $15M in capital and
operating funding for a permanent purpose built shelter and housing facility in the City of Maple
Ridge.
On May 2, 2016 Council received a report outlining the process for the construction of a permanent
built shelter and housing facility. The following resolution was endorsed:
That staff be directed to work with BC Housing to develop a detailed process
regarding the construction of a permanent purpose built shelter and housing facility in the
City of Maple Ridge.
Meanwhile, Council has received correspondence from BC Housing dated May 26, 2016 identifying a
three-pronged proposal that includes [1] an extension to the temporary shelter, [2] the construction
of an interim modular shelter facility that would bridge a period of approximately three years, and [3]
the construction of a purpose built shelter and supportive housing development.
On June 20, 2016 Workshop, the following resolutions were endorsed:
That Council endorse the extension of the lease of the temporary shelter located
at 22339 Lougheed Highway and assign the lease to BC Housing on the condition
that BC Housing receives the permission of the City of Maple Ridge for an extension of the
lease;
That staff be directed to work with BC Housing to select a site for an interim modular
shelter, using BC Housing’s site selection criteria of size, servicing and location, and
Policy 4-33 in the Official Community Plan; AND,
That the process identified in the report dated June 20, 2016, entitled Interim Modular
Shelter Land Use Criteria and Process be endorsed.
5.2
2
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on the process for the establishment
of both an interim modular shelter and the permanent purpose built shelter and housing facility and
to provide detailed information on the community consultation process as requested in the May 2,
2016 resolution. It should be noted that the preliminary phases of the process will occur
concurrently with related activities that Council has endorsed including the extension of the
operation of the temporary shelter, the establishment of a Neighbourhood Advisory Committee (NAC)
for the Temporary Shelter and the proposed Speaker’s Series and Community Dialogue.
The first phase of the process is partially completed as a result of Council’s endorsement of the site
location criteria and the review of proposed sites. On July 4, 2016, Council also endorsed the Terms
of Reference for a sub-committee of the Social Policy Advisory Committee (SPAC) whose role will be
to develop a platform for community dialogue on homelessness. This sub-committee will
contemporaneously provide opportunities for community engagement on the broad topic of
homelessness.
Council also endorsed recommendations to address and minimize impacts on the neighbourhood in
the area of the temporary shelter located at 22239 Lougheed Highway. As such, a Neighbourhood
Advisory Committee has been established to support the neighbourhood around the temporary
shelter throughout the nine month extension of the operation. A number of key community partners
including BC Housing, Fraser Health, RCMP, Fire and the City are members of this committee and will
likely extend their mandate to the NAC for the interim modular and permanent purpose built shelter
and housing facility. The establishment of a permanent NAC will take place once a site is chosen.
The members of this committee will be an integral part of the ongoing consultation and future
operation of the interim modular and permanent purpose built shelters. Their input will provide an
opportunity to address potential challenges along the process.
The process to achieve an interim modular shelter and permanent purpose built shelter will take
approximately three years. Embedded in the process are significant opportunities to engage with
community stakeholders. The engagement process and communications plan have been designed
to be both flexible and responsive ensuring meaningful input and clarity around information and
decision making.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council endorse the updated process outlined in the report dated July 11, 2016.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
The process to achieve an interim modular shelter and permanent purpose built shelter will take
approximately three years. The original recommendation noted in a report brought to Council on
June 20, 2016 was for BC Housing to apply for a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) for the interim
modular shelter. The property that staff recommends as an interim site will proceed with a full
rezoning process. As such, the detailed process outlined in Appendix A has been adjusted to
reflect this change.
The first phase of the process is partially completed as staff has been directed to review
proposed sites using the endorsed criteria. Once the site is acquired there will be a number of
steps related to land use approvals and re-zoning for both the interim modular and permanent
3
purpose built shelters. Appendix A provides a detailed diagram of the approval process and re-
zoning application including the public consultation processes.
Diagram 1:
The above diagram provides a framework for the proposed four phases of the process to
achieve an interim modular shelter and permanent purpose built shelter. Foundational to
each phase within the process is significant community engagement, communication to the
community as a whole and regular Council updates. Additional detail regarding community
engagement and communications is provided on the first phase of the process below.
1.Community Engagement:
Community Meeting
Host a meeting to provide the public with information on the project.
BC Housing, City of Maple Ridge and community partners to host the meeting.
Speakers Series and Community Dialogue – SPAC Sub-Committee
Select the Sub-Committee members.
Conduct a Speakers’ Series and Community Dialogue - 5 topic areas.
Activate a social media platform to provide information to the community and
encourage dialogue around the chosen topics.
Neighbourhood Advisory Committee
Monthly meetings are in process for the NAC for the Temporary Shelter.
July 18, 2016 first meeting of the NAC for the Temporary Shelter.
Approval of the composition of the NAC for the Interim Modular and Purpose Built
Shelter and creation of the NAC will be established in Phase I.
Activation of the NAC.
Public Hearings:
Development Information Meeting.
Public Hearings.
Refer to Appendix A for additional information.
4
2.Communications:
Develop a press release after the site is acquired and the sign is placed on the
property.
Provide notification of public hearings related to the development process.
Create press releases regarding the Speakers Series and Community Dialogue.
Provide press releases before each presentation within the Speakers Series.
Social media platform to provide information around the Speakers Series.
Press releases after each report to Council.
3.Council Updates:
The first report on the result of the site acquisition will be available to Council on July
25 in a closed meeting.
A report regarding the SPAC Sub-Committee will be provided to Council on August 29,
2016 at workshop.
A report to update Council on the first phase of the process will be provided on
August 29, 2016 at workshop.
Subsequent updates would take place monthly coinciding with different phases of
the process. If the development application and re-zoning are approved, staff will
provide Council with a detailed process for Phase II. This report would be scheduled
for October.
As noted above, if the applications are approved, a report detailing the next phases of the
project would come forward for Council’s endorsement.
b)Desired Outcome:
That the interim modular shelter and permanent purpose built shelter process be endorsed
by Council and that the next steps outlined in the process move forward.
c)Strategic Alignment:
There is strategic alignment with the Housing Action Plan, particularly with Goal 3 of the
Housing Action Plan (HAP) which is To increase the opportunity for low income residents and
those with unique needs to access appropriate housing and supports.
d)Citizen/Customer Implications:
Access to shelter, housing and supports benefits those individuals living in homelessness
and those at risk of homelessness. The entire community benefits when individuals who are
vulnerable receive the supports and services that they require.
e)Interdepartmental Implications:
There will be implications for community services, planning, communications, buildings,
permits and bylaws, fire, police and finance.
f)Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The current business plan does not include this work. The Speaker’s Series is funded
through SPAC’s budget.
5
CONCLUSIONS:
The process to achieve an interim modular shelter and permanent purpose built shelter will take
approximately three years. The engagement process and communications plan have been designed
to be both flexible and responsive ensuring meaningful input and clarity around information and
decision making. The objective to provide additional shelter, housing and supports for individuals
who are homeless or at risk of homelessness will significantly impact citizens who are vulnerable
and the community as a whole.
“Original signed by Shawn Matthewson”
Prepared by: Shawn Matthewson, Social Policy Analyst
“Original signed by Chuck Goddard”
Approved by: Chuck Goddard, Manager of Development and
Environmental Services
“Original signed by Kelly Swift”
Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager,
Community Development, Parks & Recreation Services
“Original signed by Ted Swabey”
Concurrence: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
:sm
Attachment – Appendix A
Draft
Early & Ongoing
Consultation
Social
Policy
Advisory
Sub-
Committee
Neighbourhood
Advisory
Committee
Demolition
Permit
Building Permit
Preliminary
Review
Site Prep Work
to Begin
Apply for
Tree Cutting
Permit,
Sediment
Erosion
Control
Following Sign
Installation:
Following Public
Hearing:
Estimated
Timeframe
Approvals
Land Use Approvals Phase
Application Submitted
Sign placed on the property
First Reading 2. Development
Information
Meeting
Second Reading
2. Public Hearing
Third Reading
Final Reading
1. OCP Amendment,
Rezoning,
DVP, DP &
Subdivision 2 Weeks
Advisory
Design
Panel
3.Review Technical
Studies
MOTI Approval Watercourse
Development
Permit
Securities & Agreements
Building Permit Application
Purpose Built
Permanent Structure
Temporary Modular
Structure
Priority Review
Occupancy
2. Consultation
3. Technical Reports: Geotechnical, Environmental, Traffic, Stormwater Mgmt, Aborist, Erosion & Sediment Control
Building Permit
Issued
Site Aquisition, Building & Site Design
1. Complete application including supporting reports
6 - 8 Weeks
2 Weeks
1 Week
8 Weeks
8 - 10 Weeks
Total: 27 - 30 Weeks
Consultant Reports
to be submitted as
available
Commencing
August 2016
Completion
March 2017
Preliminary Draft
Building Plans to
be submitted early
in process
Concurrent Processes
Page 1 of 6
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 11, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Environmental Management Strategy Implementation –
Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw (No. 5763 -1999) Review
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the November 24, 2015 Council Meeting, Council directed staff to initiate a review of the Maple
Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw No. 5763-1999 (the Bylaw). Council’s direction follows the
endorsement of the short term high priority action items identified in the report entitled
“Environmental Management Strategy (EMS) Implementation Report – Short Term High Priority
Implementation Recommendations” and referral of the EMS report to the Environmental Advisory
Committee.
The purpose of this report is two-fold:
1.to provide Council with an update of the concerns related to soil deposit projects that have
been raised to date by residents and staff; and,
2.to outline the proposed public consultation program to engage Maple Ridge residents and
stakeholders on updating and enhancing soil deposit practices in Maple Ridge and on
subsequent amendments to the Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw.
The City’s current Bylaw identifies how the depositing of soil and fill is to occur in Maple Ridge. It
also provides protection for residents, infrastructure and agricultural lands through the requirements
for professional studies and reports, through securities, and through enforcement direction
(including fines). Over the past 5 years, residents and staff have identified areas of the Bylaw that
need to be reviewed and updated.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw Review process outlined in the staff report entitled
“Environmental Management Strategy Implementation – Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation
Bylaw (No. 5763 -1999) Review” dated July 11, 2016 be endorsed.
BACKGROUND:
Soil deposit activities have been regulated in the municipality since 1991. The original Maple Ridge
Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw (No. 4569-1991) was replaced with the current Maple Ridge Soil
Deposit Regulation Bylaw (No. 5763-1999) in 1999. The review and revision of the Soil Deposit
Regulation Bylaw was one of the recommended actions in the Environmental Management Strategy
and the review and revision of the Bylaw was identified in the 2016 Planning Department Business
Plan.
5.3
Page 2 of 6
Enabling Legislation
The Community Charter (Section 8(3)) provides Council with the authority to regulate or prohibit the
deposit of soil on any land within the municipality. For lands that are located within the Agricultural
Land Reserve, the authority to regulate or prohibit soil deposit activities are also provided through
the Agricultural Land Commission Act (Section 25(3)).
Issues:
An increase in soil deposit activity (permitted and unpermitted) in recent years is due to the increase
in development and building projects occurring all across the Lower Mainland. These projects are
occurring on greenfield areas as municipalities expand as well as on brownfield areas as urban
areas are revitalized and repurposed. Receiving sites for this material are primarily the agricultural
areas of lower mainland municipalities, including Maple Ridge. An Agricultural Land Commission
Officer commented that material deposited in Maple Ridge has come from as far away as North
Vancouver.
As a result of the volume of development activity, an industry has formed around the removal and
deposit of soil. Contractors and land owners at the soil deposit locations are able to charge for the
deposit of soils. It has been reported that deposit rates ranged from $50 to $150 per truck load
depending on the type of material being deposited. Therefore, sites that would not normally require
soil for ongoing maintenance or management are now receiving soil. This activity is commonly
referred to as “fill-farming”.
The Planning Department has undertaken an initial assessment of Maple Ridge’s Soil Deposit
Regulation Bylaw (5763 -1999) and existing soil deposit permit process to identify opportunities for
amending the bylaw.
1.Permit Approval Process and Public Notification
Residents have informed staff on various occasions that a public notification should be required for
soil deposit projects so that residents have the opportunity to comment on the projects prior to a
decision on approval. Residents have suggested that notification could be made by requiring the
posting of a sign on the property during the permit application review period. Further consultation
will explore opportunities for public notification.
2.Impacts to Properties
Site Contamination
The concern over the deposition of contaminated soils is the direct health impact to residents and
animals directly from the soil as well as nearby wells and watercourses that may be receiving areas
for runoff from the contaminated materials. The subsequent costs for residents to remove the
contaminated material are substantial and property values can be significantly impacted. As an
example, three truck loads of contaminated material that our Operations Staff had removed from
one of the City’s roads (the result of an illegal roadside dump) cost the City $5,795.00 to dispose the
material at an approved contaminated waste receiving facility. This cost does not include the cost
for professional oversight from the contaminated sites professionals, nor staff time and equipment.
Page 3 of 6
Invasive Species
Invasive species such as Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus
discolor), morning glory (Convolvulus arvensis), and scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) have been
spread to various properties through permitted and unpermitted soil deposit activities. These
species spread quickly and are difficult and costly to remove once established. The presence and
spread of these species can impact sensitive natural areas as they displace diverse native
vegetation communities, agricultural potential of farm properties as they displace crops and grazing
areas, and in the case of Knotweed, have the potential to impact municipal and private
infrastructure and building structures. Knotweed has been recognized by the provincial government
as a noxious weed requiring residents to manage the species on their properties to prevent its
spread.
Avoidance of contamination for any invasive species in the first place is considered the best
management practice and requires additional diligence and effort to ensure that source materials,
tools, vehicles and machinery are free from contamination.
Drainage Impacts (wells, septic, and surface water)
Residents and staff have expressed concern over the potential impacts of soil deposition on the
hydrology of adjacent properties, natural features (watercourses), as well as larger neighbourhood
areas. Soil deposition results in altered soil regimes that change the capacity of the soils to retain,
hold, or drain surface and ground water. Soil deposit activities also elevate landscapes changing
surface water flow patterns. Soil deposition has the potential to negatively impact septic fields,
groundwater aquifers and wells, nearby watercourses and wetlands, and floodplain drainage
capacity and patterns. Considerable resources in terms of staff time have been allocated to
addressing these concerns. Residents have expressed concern over importation of clay on
properties and the potential impacts to local hydrology (runoff and groundwater) and subsequently
on adjacent septic systems, wells and to farm animal safety (settling of land, hoof rot, etc.).
Aesthetics
Property owners in the vicinity of soil deposit sites have complained about the impact to local
aesthetics based on the significant changes to grades and the wide scale removal of vegetation on
soil deposit sites. With the adoption of the City’s Tree Management Bylaw in January (2016), there is
some protection against wide scale clearing of properties as well as, along property boundaries. For
neighbouring properties, residents have been concerned with significant grade changes that have a
visual impact on their properties and have expressed concern over resale value of their property as a
result.
Agricultural Potential
Farm use is dependent on many landscape factors including grades, angle of exposure, groundwater
and surface water and soil stratigraphy. Soil Deposit Permit applications are often to amend one or
more of these conditions either to improve access or to improve growing potential. Although soil
deposition is able to assist in improving site conditions it can also be detrimental to the growing
potential of agricultural lands. Site grading and compaction from machine use can disrupt site
drainage, topsoil can be lost as it is mixed in with other structural soil material or buried,
contaminants in the soils such as heavy metals or Hydrocarbons can be deposited on site
unknowingly as can biological contaminants in the form of noxious or invasive plant species.
Without the necessary assessments for proposed soil deposit sites (and source locations) and
Page 4 of 6
without ongoing monitoring, the agricultural potential for soil deposit sites can be significantly
impacted.
Rural residents have expressed concern over the potential for “fill-farming” in the rural agricultural
lands. They are concerned that filling is occurring in order to gain revenue from the soil deposition at
the expense of the agricultural potential of the lands. Residents have commented that Soil Deposit
Permit applications that are proposed for farm improvements should only be approved for those
parcels of agricultural land that have a history of farming and for property owners who have owned
and farmed the land for a period of time. Residents have also commented that property owners
should be required to submit a farm plan as part of their application and that the owners should be
required to prove farm use following the completion of soil deposit projects that are justified as farm
improvements.
3.Road Conditions and Safety
Residents have expressed concern over truck volumes, road safety, and damage to roads and road
shoulders with truck traffic on rural residential roads. Most sites that are proposed for soil
deposition are large acreages that are situated in rural areas and are often zoned as Agricultural.
Residents have complained of damage they have observed to road shoulders such as rutting as well
as the tracking of mud and other debris onto the road surfaces. Residents have noted at times that
traffic is not managed at high use sites and poses a potential danger to both vehicle traffic and
pedestrians.
4.Enforcement
When Staff receive concerned calls from residents they attend the sites in question and inspect the
properties for Bylaw and permit compliance. In many instances Staff were unable to address the
concerns through enforcement as the existing Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw does not require studies
or land surveys for all sites and provides limited prescriptions for filling.
The Bylaw requires land surveys and Professional Engineering reports for fill sites where soil deposit
depths are 1 metre or greater, on slopes greater than 30%, or on properties within a floodplain.
Many soil deposit projects propose final grades that result in less than 1 metre in elevation gain,
however, the overall disturbance across the properties are extensive and can significantly impact
drainage or slopes. In many circumstances, staff has had limited information to assess site changes
and permit compliance.
The Bylaw requires $1,000.00 refundable security for every hectare of land disturbed. Several of the
permitted sites where more than 10,000 m3 of soil material (approximately 1,450 trucks worth of
material) was deposited required a refundable security in the amount of $1,000 to $3,000. The
value of this security, considering the revenue generated from the soil deposit operations, provides
little incentive to remain within permitting requirements.
Page 5 of 6
Soil Deposit Bylaw Review Process
The following process is intended to provide residents and other stakeholders with an opportunity to
express their concerns and values and to provide comments and recommendations on a new bylaw.
It is important that staff work with all stakeholders to ensure that the Bylaw reflects Council’s and
the Community’s goals and objectives for the protection of residents, agricultural land and practices,
private property, and municipal infrastructure.
Staff are proposing a 4 step Review Process as follows.
Table 1. Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw Review Process
Step I – Council Endorse Review Process
Council to endorse the Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw review and
consultation process
July 11, 2016
Step II – Open House with Questionnaire
Consultation with residents, neighbourhood groups, professional
engineers, contractors, development consultants, environmental
stewardship groups, and environmental and agricultural professionals.
Consultation update to Council and Draft Soil Deposit Bylaw submitted
to Council
September through
November 2016
Step III –Open House with Questionnaire
Proposed Draft Soil Deposit Bylaw to be provided to residents and
circulated to local professional engineers, contractors, development
consultants, environmental stewardship groups, and environmental
and agricultural professionals.
Consultation update to Council
December 2016
through February
2017
Step IV - Council Consideration of Bylaws for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd reading and
final Adoption
Formal referrals to Agencies (Agricultural Land Commission, Ministry of
Agriculture, Metro Vancouver)
Amended Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw
Amended Soil Deposit Fee Bylaw
1st Quarter 2017
It is proposed that various notification methods be used to assist in the consultation awareness
initiative including use of newspaper ads, written invitations, email lists, social media, front counter
handouts, and information posted on the municipal website in order to engage the community and
facilitate ongoing dialogue throughout the planning process. The intent is to increase the
effectiveness and efficiency of public engagement that will help strengthen the relationship between
the municipality and the community.
Inter-Departmental Implications and Legal Review
Staff from Parks, Bylaws, Building, Engineering, Operations and others will continue to be included in
the consultation process. Any proposed Bylaw amendments and subsequent revisions will require
review by the City Solicitor prior to presentation of the Bylaw to Council for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Readings.
Page 6 of 6
Inter-Governmental Implications
Agricultural Land Commission
The Agricultural Land Commission will be consulted to ensure that the amended Bylaw is in
alignment with the Agricultural Land Commission Act and Regulations. In addition, Section 46 of the
Agricultural Land Commission Act notes that Local Governments cannot enact a Bylaw that is
inconsistent with the Agricultural Land Commission Act. A formal referral will be sent to the
Agricultural Land Commission as a component of the Step IV – Council Consideration of Bylaws.
Ministry of Agriculture
The Ministry of Agriculture will be consulted to ensure that the amended Bylaw supports viable farm
practices and protects agricultural lands.
Metro Vancouver
Metro Vancouver will be consulted as part of an ongoing collaborative effort to protect farm land and
in managing soils and the disposal of fill throughout the Lower Mainland.
CONCLUSION:
The Maple Ridge Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw needs to be reviewed and updated. This report
outlines some of the issues that need to be addressed as part of that review. Specifically this report
recommends a thorough process in undertaking the review including consultation with residents,
neighbourhood groups, professional engineers, contractors, development consultants,
environmental stewardship groups, and environmental and agricultural professionals.
Following this consultation, an update will be provided to Council in the form of a proposed Bylaw
and the Bylaw would be presented for First, Second, and Third Readings.
“Original signed by Mike Pym”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Mike Pym, M.R.M, MCIP, RPP
Environmental Technician
“Original signed by Chuck Goddard” for
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by E.C. Swabey”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
1 of 3
CityCityCityCity of Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridgeof Maple Ridge
TO:TO:TO:TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETINGMEETINGMEETINGMEETING DATE:DATE:DATE:DATE: 11-July-2016
and Members of Council FILE NO:FILE NO:FILE NO:FILE NO:
FROM:FROM:FROM:FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING:MEETING:MEETING:MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECTSUBJECTSUBJECTSUBJECT: Remaining 2016 Community Grant Budget
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the June 28, 2016 Council meeting, staff was directed to provide a report outlining options for the
allocation of funds remaining in the 2016 Community Grants budget. The request followed a
discussion regarding funding for the Maple Ridge Community Foundation’s Donor Recognition
project.
The Foundation has reached out to the Public Art Steering Committee to consider options for an
integrated public artwork in the Town Centre to recognize community builders, and the work of the
Foundation and service clubs in Maple Ridge.
The Donor Recognition project is eligible, as a one-time item, for support under Council’s Community
Grant policy.
While the installation will take place in 2017, staff suggests allocating $10,000 of the unallocated
2016 Community Grant budget to the project to create some certainty about the available budget for
the Donor Recognition project. This would leave $1,400 available to support any further requests
that Council may receive this year.
Staff has submitted an application for funding under the Canada 150 program to support the
project. Should that application be successful, funding from the Public Art Program and the
Community Grants Program would be combined with the Canada 150 funding to complete the
installation in 2017.
RECOMMENDATION(S):RECOMMENDATION(S):RECOMMENDATION(S):RECOMMENDATION(S):
That an allocation of $10,000 for a Donor Recognition project from the 2016 Community Grants That an allocation of $10,000 for a Donor Recognition project from the 2016 Community Grants That an allocation of $10,000 for a Donor Recognition project from the 2016 Community Grants That an allocation of $10,000 for a Donor Recognition project from the 2016 Community Grants
Budget be approved.Budget be approved.Budget be approved.Budget be approved.
DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION:
At the June 28, 2016 Council meeting, Council passed a resolution directing staff to provide a report
outlining options on the allocation of funds remaining in the Community Grants budget. This report
responds to that direction.
The available budget for Community Grants for 2016 was $44,400. On June 28, Council approved
an allocation of $33,000 to various community groups, leaving $11,400 available to support future
requests.
5.4
2 of 3
Policy No. 5.56 “Community Grants” identifies the following as eligible requests for funding under
the program:
• requests to fund one-time items or events, or
• requests for bridge funding while an organization works to secure long-term stable funding,
or
• requests that will allow a community group to leverage additional funding from other
agencies, or
• organizations denied a permissive tax exemption will be eligible to apply for a community
grant or
• requests for services that are not duplicated in the private sector
Council discussed allocating a portion of the remaining budget envelope to the Maple Ridge
Community Foundation’s (The Foundation) Donor Recognition project. This project is eligible, as a
one-time item, for support under Council’s Community Grant policy.
The Foundation was established in 1976 and has been helping community groups for 40 years. For
the past 25 years, they have been celebrating the significant contributions of individuals through the
Citizen of the Year event. The Foundation is interested in exploring opportunities for a legacy project
to recognize community builders and the work of the Foundation and service clubs in Maple Ridge.
They have reached out to the Public Art Steering Committee to consider options for an integrated
public artwork in the Town Centre with the spirit and intention of recognizing those community
builders. Staff has submitted an application for funding under the Canada 150 program to support
the project. Should that application be successful, funding from the Public Art Program and the
Community Grants Program would be combined with the Canada 150 funding to complete the
installation in 2017.
The City has previously supported the Maple Ridge Community Foundation by contributing a total of
$75,000 to the Foundation’s endowment fund between 2003 and 2008.
a)a)a)a) Desired ODesired ODesired ODesired Outcome(s):utcome(s):utcome(s):utcome(s):
To support the installation of a community recognition project commemorating the efforts of
individuals, service clubs, and the Foundation in building the community.
b)b)b)b) Business Plan/Financial Implications:Business Plan/Financial Implications:Business Plan/Financial Implications:Business Plan/Financial Implications:
A contribution of $10,000 to the Foundation’s Donor Recognition project from the Community
Grants budget could be accommodated within the remaining 2016 budget envelope, leaving
$1,400 available to support any further requests that Council may receive this year
c)c)c)c) Alternatives:Alternatives:Alternatives:Alternatives:
As the Donor Recognition project is unlikely to proceed until 2017, Council could opt to consider
funding for the project as part of the 2017 Community Grants allocation discussion. There is no
way to predict the volume of requests that will be received for 2017, and as there is funding
available from the 2016 budget envelope, committing funding to the project now would help to
create some certainty around the available budget for the Donor Recognition project.
CONCLUSIONS:CONCLUSIONS:CONCLUSIONS:CONCLUSIONS:
The Community Grants budget for 2016 is $44,400. On June 28, Council approved an allocation of
$33,000, leaving $11,400 available to support future requests. At the same meeting, in response
to a discussion regarding funding for the Maple Ridge Community Foundation’s Donor Recognition
project, staff was directed to bring back a report outlining options for allocating the remaining 2016
budget.
3 of 3
While the installation would take place in 2017, staff suggests allocating $10,000 of the unallocated
2016 Community Grant budget to the project to create some certainty about the available budget for
the Donor Recognition project. This would leave $1,400 available to support any further requests
that Council may receive this year.
Staff has submitted an application for funding under the Canada 150 program to support the
project. Should that application be successful, funding from the Public Art Program and the
Community Grants Program would be combined with the Canada 150 funding to complete the
installation in 2017.
“Original signed by Catherine Nolan”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Catherine Nolan, CPA, CGA
Manager of Accounting
“Original signed by Kelly Swift”“
______________________________________________
Approved by: Kelly Swift
GM, Community Development, Park & Recreation
“”Original signed by Ceri Marlo for Paul Gill”Original signed by Dane Spence”
_____________________________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA
GM, Corporate and Financial Services
“Original signed by E. C. Swabey”“Original signed by Jim Rule”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: E.C. SwabeyE.C. SwabeyE.C. SwabeyE.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative OfficeChief Administrative OfficeChief Administrative OfficeChief Administrative Officerrrr