Housing Ontario

WAITING LISTS SURVEY 2013
OCTOBER 2013
ONPHAS REPORT ON WAITING LISTS STATISTICS FOR ONTARIO
ONPHA | Waiting Lists Survey 2013
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to the service manager staff that completed this years
survey and responded to follow-up inquiries. We sincerely appreciate
your time and effort.
Thanks also to Kerry Hobbs of York Region, Ishbel Solvason-Wiebe
of The Social Housing Registry of Ottawa, Shelly Upton and Denis
Desmeules of the City of Greater Sudbury, Carol Barber of the Cochrane
District Social Service Administration Board, and Peter Altobelli of YARDI
for their input into the revision of the questionnaire, the data collection
process, and the content of the report.
This years Waiting Lists Survey was conducted by SHS Consulting on
behalf of ONPHA.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Introduction
Survey Results
Conclusion
4
5
6
16
APPENDIX A: Methodology
APPENDIX B: Glossary of Terms
APPENDIX C: Service Manager Level Data
APPENDIX D: Response Matrix
17
19
20
30
LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES
FIGURE 14: Percentage of total cancelled applications by applicant status, 2012
6
6
7
7
8
9
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
TABLE 1: Local priority categories and the number of service managers offering priorities in each, 2011 and 2012
10
FIGURE 1: Number of households on Ontario waiting lists, 2003-2012

FIGURE 2: Percentage change in active households on waiting lists year-over-year, 2003-2012
FIGURE 3: Percentage of Ontario households on waiting lists for RGI housing, 2003-2012
FIGURE 4: Number of active households on waiting lists and Ontario unemployment rate, 2003-2012
FIGURE 5: Percentage of total active households on waiting lists by senior versus non-senior status, 2003-2012
FIGURE 6: Percentage of total active households on waiting lists by applicant status, 2012
FIGURE 7: Weighted average Ontario wait times in years, overall and by applicant status, 2012
FIGURE 8: Percentage of total households housed by seniorversus non-senior status, 2012
FIGURE 9: Percentage of total households housed by applicant status, 2012
FIGURE 10: Percentage of total applications received by senior versus non-senior status, 2012
FIGURE 11: Percentage of total new applications received by applicant status, 2012
FIGURE 12: Percentage of total cancelled applications by senior versus non-senior status, 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Access to most rent-geared-to-income (RGI) housing1 in Ontario is
managed by 47 provincially-designated municipal service managers2,
each of which operates its own waiting list. Since 2004, ONPHA has
conducted an annual survey of service managers to document the
number of households waiting for RGI housing. By drawing attention
to the number of households waiting for RGI housing, our goal is to
educate and empower governments and communities to work together
to address Ontarios growing affordable housing crisis.
158,445 households were waiting for RGI housing as of December
31, 2012. Thats 3.05 per cent of households in Ontario. The number
and percentage of Ontario households on waiting lists are the highest
they have been since 2004. It is encouraging, however, that 2011 to
2012 saw the lowest year-over-year growth in waiting households since
the 2008-09 recession (1.3 per cent).
18,378 households moved into RGI housing in 2012. Just over 11 per
cent of households on the waiting lists were housed.
For every household housed, more than two households exited
waiting lists in 2012. Across Ontario, 40,074 applications for RGI
housing were cancelled.
For every household housed, more than three new applications
were received in 2012. 62,094 new households applied for RGI housing
in communities across the province.
Households housed in 2012 waited an average 3.2 years
Actual wait times vary significantly depending on location, household
type, and priority status. Some households were housed in a month,
while others waited close to 10 years. Average wait times were far
shorter for applicants with Special Priority Policy (SPP) designation or a
local priority status.3
As the population ages, the demand for RGI seniors housing is

growing. The number of seniors waiting for RGI housing has grown
steadily and reached 45,385 households (29 per cent of waiting
households) in 2012.
Service managers are offering more local priorities. Service
managers have been encouraged by the Province to designate local
priorities, conditions under which households could gain access to
RGI housing more quickly. As a result, the RGI housing system is
increasingly focused on housing sub-populations in need and not lowand-moderate income Ontarians.
Housing is not being built to meet the need. Federal-provincial social
housing production programs ended in 1995. Modest investments by
Federal and Provincial governments since then have created some
affordable housing units in Ontario. This investment has taken some
pressure off waiting lists but has not stemmed their growth. Not enough
new affordable housing is being built and, in most cases, rents for these
new units are unaffordable for households waiting for RGI housing.
Ontario communities cannot address the crisis alone.
Across Ontario, demand for affordable housing far exceeds supply.
Service managers are now responsible for planning and delivering
affordable housing in their communities, and local commitment to
affordable housing is important. But, service managers do not have
the resources they need to meet the challenge alone. The success of
local design and delivery will depend on robust provincial and federal
funding.
1 Rent-geared-to-income (RGI) assistance refers to the financial assistance received by households which enables them to pay rent based on 30 per cent of their gross income. RGI housing is provided by non-profit
housing providers, local housing corporations and co-operative housing corporations, and through rent supplements which subsidize market rents in non-profits, co-ops, and private rentals.
2 Service manager refers to both Consolidated Municipal Service Managers and District Social Services Administration Boards (DSSABs). See Appendix B for a full definition.
3 SPP is a Provincial policy which grants priority status to individuals who have experienced domestic violence.
INTRODUCTION
The Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association (ONPHA) has conducted its
Waiting Lists Survey annually since 2004. The survey enables us to report
on the number of households on waiting lists for rent-geared-to-income
(RGI) housing4 in Ontario and the duration of their wait for housing. This
report summarizes activity on waiting lists in 2012.
Under provincial legislation, each service manager5 in Ontario must
maintain a waiting list for RGI housing. Waiting lists are administered
locally through co-ordinated access systems. Centralized waiting lists
capture those households that have applied for RGI housing in each
service manager area.
Waiting lists for RGI housing provide one measure of the need for
affordable housing in Ontario. Waiting lists include only those households
that know about RGI housing, have chosen to apply, and have kept their
application current by responding to service manager requests to update
information. As a result, waiting list numbers substantially underestimate
the total number of households in need of affordable housing in Ontario.
4 Rent-geared-to-income (RGI) assistance refers to the financial assistance received by households which allows them to pay rent based on 30 per cent of their gross income. RGI housing is provided by non-profit
housing providers, local housing corporations and co-operative housing corporations, and through rent supplements which subsidize market rents in non-profits, co-ops, and the private rental market.
5 Service manager refers to both municipal service managers and District Social Services Administration Boards (DSSABs). See Appendix B for a full definition.
SURVEY RESULTS
HOW MANY HOUSEHOLDS ARE WAITING?
FIGURE 1: Number of households on Ontario waiting lists, 2003-2012
There were 158,445 households on waiting lists for RGI housing

in Ontario as of December 31, 2012.7 In comparison, there are
approximately 186,000 RGI units in Ontario.
Figure 1 includes households that either submitted new applications in
2012, or maintained their existing application by keeping in contact with
the local coordinated access system during that time. These waiting
households are commonly referred to as active households.
Change in the number of active households on waiting lists
The waiting lists total increased by 2,067 households, or 1.3 per cent,
between 2011 and 2012. Local waiting lists grew in 26 of the 47 service
manager areas in 2012, compared to 33 of 47 in 2011 and 30 of 47 in 2010.
From 2003 to 2006, the number of waiting households decreased
gradually. Since then, the total number of waiting households has
increased annually. There were large increases in 2009 and 2010,
reflecting the impact of the 2008-09 recession. The number of
households on waiting lists has not returned to pre-recession levels, but
it is encouraging that 2012 saw the smallest year-over-year increase since
the recession.
FIGURE 2: Percentage change in active households on

waiting lists year-over-year, 2003-2012
Percentage of Ontario households on waiting lists
The percentage of Ontario households on a waiting list for RGI housing

increased from 2006 to 2012 and 2012 saw the largest increase to
date (3.05 per cent). The need for affordable housing continues to grow
faster than the rate of household formation and population growth.
ONPHA WAITING LISTS SURVEY REPORTS 2004-2013.
7 This number represents applicants recorded in a service managers database as eligible, active or on offer. 2012 data is based on responses from 45 of the 47 service managers, with substitutions used for the
remaining two service managers (their 2011 figures were inflated based on the province-wide rate of waiting list growth between 2011 and 2012: 1.3 per cent). Post-inflation, these two service managers waiting list
totals cumulatively account for only one per cent of the total provincial figure of 158,445. See Appendix D for further details and response rates by survey question. Seven service managers reported that their data
represented May of 2013, when it was pulled, instead of December 31, 2012, as their systems were not capable of retrieving data from the earlier requested date of December 31, 2012.
Before the 2008-09 recession, 2.6 per cent of Ontario households were
waiting for RGI housing. That figure is now consistently higher. The
increased demand can be attributed to an aging population, as well as
low vacancy rates and high market rents in much of the province.
FIGURE 3: Percentage of Ontario households on waiting lists

for RGI housing, 2003-2012
The affordability gap what low-income tenants can afford versus

what they actually pay has deepened over the last decade. One in five
Ontario tenants is now in Persistent Core Housing Need, the highest
proportion in Canada.8
Unemployment and the waiting lists
Employment growth weakened in 2012 as fewer jobs were created

compared to 2011 and the economy slowed considerably in the second
half of the year.9 The unemployment rate remained steady between 2011
and 2012 at 7.8 per cent. Though down from the 2009 recessionary peak
of 9.0 per cent, the unemployment rate remains higher than in the five
years prior to the recession. Change in the number of active households
on waiting lists for RGI housing tends to track the unemployment rate, as
shown in Figure 4.
ONPHA WAITING LISTS SURVEY REPORTS 2004-2013, STATISTICS CANADA POPULATION

ESTIMATES, 2013, AND STATISTICS CANADA CENSUSES 2001, 2006, AND 2011
FIGURE 4: Number of active households on waiting lists and Ontario

unemployment rate, 2003-2012
However, a declining and then moderating unemployment rate from

2010 to 2012 has not caused a drop-off in households waiting for
RGI housing. This may be in part because of a discouraged worker
phenomenon. A discouraged worker is one who stops looking for work
and, as a result, is no longer considered unemployed because they are no
longer counted as part of the labour force.10 But, many of these workers
could still experience the economic challenges that drove them to apply
for RGI housing, resulting in their remaining active on waiting lists.
The possible disconnect between the unemployment rate and change in
the number of households waiting for RGI housing may also be driven by
population aging. Population aging is causing an increase in demand for
RGI housing that is not as clearly linked to economic conditions.
ONPHA WAITING LISTS SURVEY REPORTS 2004-2013 AND STATISTICS CANADA, LABOUR
FORCE ESTIMATES, 2013
8 ONPHA. (2013). Wheres Home 2013: Looking Back and Looking Forward at the Need for Affordable Housing in Ontario. Page 46.
9 Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. (2013). Labour Market Bulletin: Ontario, Annual Edition 2012.
10 Goar, Carol. (August 16 2013). Canadas job numbers dont tell the real story. The Star. Accessed September 5th from http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/08/16/canadas_job_numbers_dont_tell_the_
real_story_goar.html
WHO IS WAITING?
The waiting list totals are not just numbers. They represent peopleour
neighbours, family, and friends. This section looks at who is waiting and
their status on the lists.
FIGURE 5: Percentage of total active households on waiting lists by senior

versus non-senior status, 2003-2012
Seniors versus non-seniors
It is common for waiting list administrators to differentiate applicants

based on their age, specifically whether or not they are seniors. The
minimum age for senior designation ranges from 50 to 65 years of age.
The age criterion varies between service manager areas and can also
vary between buildings within a service managers portfolio. Sometimes
there are cascading age policies, where first consideration goes to those
aged 65 years and over, then to younger age cohorts.
The number of non-senior households on waiting lists has fluctuated in
recent years. It rose between 2009 and 2011, likely due to the recession,
and then decreased by three per cent in 2012. Last year there were
111,806 non-senior households on waiting lists, representing 71 per
cent of the total number of households waiting.
In contrast, the number of senior households on waiting lists has
steadily increased over time. In 2012, there were 45,385 senior
households on waiting lists, comprising 29 per cent of the total.
In 2012, the number of seniors on local waiting lists increased by 15
per cent. It is important to note, however, that this years survey asked
respondents to identify all applicants that had been designated as
seniors. In the past, our survey had asked for the number of applicants
waiting for units in seniors-only buildings. This change likely contributed
to the pronounced change the ratio of senior to non-senior applicants
seen in 2012. And, while the change makes this years survey results
less comparable to the results of past surveys, it does provide a more
accurate picture of the age profile of waiting households.
ONPHA WAITING LISTS SURVEY REPORTS 2004-2013. NOTE: 2012 DATA IS BASED ON
RESPONSES FROM 45 SERVICE MANAGERS ACCOUNTING FOR 157,191 HOUSEHOLDS, 99%
OF TOTAL WAITING HOUSEHOLDS.
housing option. Demand is likely to continue to grow as baby boomers

transition to retirement and supply is further constrained by reduced
unit turnover, as current RGI tenants remain in their RGI housing longer.
As the population ages, demand for RGI housing will continue to
grow. Additionally, population growth and challenges resulting from
changes in the economy will add their own demand pressure unless a
comprehensive and robust supply program is initiated.
Still, Figure 5 shows a clear trend. Since 2003, the proportion of

senior households on waiting lists has steadily increased as Ontarios
population ages. For seniors with lower incomes who do not own their
homes or cannot afford to keep them, RGI housing is an important
Status on the list
All applicants fit into one or more of the following categories:

Chronological: Applicants are ranked by their date of application for

housing and qualify solely based on their income
Special Priority Policy (SPP): Applicants are experiencing domestic

violence and are given high priority access to housing.
Local priority: Applicants qualify for locally-identified priority

statuses, such as homelessness. Service managers may create local
priorities and can include rules that limit local priority applicants to a
proportion of openings (e.g. one in 10 openings).
FIGURE 6: Percentage of total active households on waiting lists

by applicant status, 2012
Figure 6 shows the percentage of total waiting households in each

category in 2012.
The vast majority of households waiting for RGI housing are chronological
applicants. Senior and non-senior households may fit into any of these
categories. A household in any of these categories may also be waiting for a
modified unit,11 which puts them in a separate, additional category on the
waiting list.
Note: Figure is based on responses from 41 service managers accounting for

152,770 households, 96% of total waiting households. Includes responses from
service managers that provided data for all three categories (SPP, local priority, and
chronological) or that did not have local priority active households.
11 Following the Housing Services Act definition, a modified unit is, a unit that has been modified so as to be accessible to an individual with a physical disability or so as to allow an individual with a physical
disability to live independently. There were 1,534 active households waiting for a modified unit in 2012 in the 29 service manager areas that reported this data.
12 The other category includes critical priority applicants with extraordinary and unusual costs that make the payment of market rent unreasonable, special needs, ground floor for medical reasons, severe
economic hardship, and tenants of supportive housing.
Local priorities
Thirty-two service managers had one or more local priorities in 2012,

up from 26 in 2011. Table 1 outlines local priority categories and the
number of service managers that implemented local priorities in these
categories in 2011 and 2012.
The Housing Services Act increased service manager flexibility and was part
of a series of changes that further empowered service managers to create
local housing solutions. In this context, service managers have increasingly
chosen to implement local priorities. In total, 76 individual local priorities
were offered by service managers in 2012, compared to 59 in 2011.
More than half of service managers that have set local priorities include a
homeless or urgent priority for households who need housing

immediately to avoid homelessness13 or who are currently homeless.
The number of service managers offering urgent or homeless priorities
increased in 2012, in line with the Provincial mandate to adopt a housing
first approach to ending and preventing homelessness. It is anticipated
that, with the implementation of local housing and homelessness plans,
the number of local priorities offered will continue to increase.14
Creating local priority categories is an approach for best utilizing scarce
housing resources. In the absence of a sufficient supply of affordable
housing, service managers are doing their best to direct housing to
those most in need in their communities.
Table 1: Local priority categories and the number of service managers offering priorities in each, 2011 and 2012
Number of service
managers in 2011
Number of service
managers in 2012
Homeless
13
15
Medical (including terminally ill and release from facility)
14
12
In-situ market tenants
Health and safety (including substandard/condemned/uninhabitable or destroyed housing)
In-situ tenants (example: market rent to RGI)
Urgent
Families that have been, or may be, separated due to lack of housing
Newcomer
Youth
Victims of violence in need of supportive housing
Other
59
76
LOCAL PRIORITY CATEGORIES
Total number of local priorities
ONPHA 2012 WAITING LISTS REPORT AND CURRENT
13 For more information on housing first in Ontario see: ONPHA. 2013. focusON Housing First
14 Each service manager is required by the Province to implement a local housing and homelessness plan by January, 2014.
10
MOVEMENT ON THE WAITING LIST

While the number of waiting households continues to grow each year,
many Ontario households opened a door to a new affordable home in
2012. This section looks at how long households waited to be housed,
who was housed, who applied for housing, how many applications were
cancelled, and what impact this movement has overall.
Wait times
Wait times for housing varied from one month to nearly ten years in
2012.15 Average wait times were calculated by service managers, who
were asked to average the amount of time that all households housed
in 2012 had waited between the date they applied housing and the date
they were housed.
The wait times reported are averages. Within service manager areas,
wait times can vary widely between properties. While averages provide
a clear overview, they cannot show the nuances that exist within service
manager areas in which very long and much shorter wait times can exist
simultaneously for different applicants.
designed to rapidly house those most in need of housing. All waiting

households are in need housing and it is the lack of supply of RGI housing
that necessitates the development of strategies for allocating housing
resources to those deemed to be most in the greatest need.
At 3.37 years, the average wait time for seniors is up 34.8 per cent from
2011, when it was 2.5 years. As the population ages and the proportion
of seniors on waiting lists grow, it is likely that seniors wait times will
continue to grow as well.
FIGURE 7: Weighted average Ontario wait times in years,

overall and by applicant status, 2012
The average wait time for all households housed in Ontario in 2012 was
3.2 years.16 Figure 7 shows average wait times by applicant status and
overall. Appendix C presents service manager level data.
Overall, long wait times are driven by the lack of RGI housing. Service
managers reported that applicants refusing the first unit they were
offered, seniors waiting for seniors-only housing, and low unit turnover
also contributed to wait times. Applicants requiring housing located close
to family members, needed services or employment often face far longer
than average wait times.
SPP and local priority applicants had shorter wait times than waiting
households overall. Together, local priorities and SPP are programs
Note: Provincial weighted averages were calculated by weighing each service managers average
wait times - by applicant category - by their proportion of total Ontario households housed in these
applicant categories: overall, SPP, and local priority.
15 Wait times for households newly housed is one approach to gauging the performance of access systems for RGI housing. Different results would be obtained if we examined the length of time from date of
application to the current date for households still waiting, or if we considered theoretical wait times, which calculate how long it would take to house all the active households on the waiting lists at current rates.
16 This is a weighted average, as are the averages presented in figure 7.
11
Households housed
In 2012, 18,378 households were housed in RGI housing. This number is

driven by turnover in RGI units and, to a lesser extent, by changes in the
total number of RGI units in Ontario.
FIGURE 8: Percentage of total households housed by senior

versus non-senior status, 2012
Figure 8 shows the percentage of households housed by senior versus

non-senior status in 2012.
The proportion of seniors versus non-seniors housed roughly reflects
their proportions of total active households waiting for RGI housing (71
for non-seniors versus 29 per cent for seniors).
Figure 9 shows the proportion of households housed by applicant status.
SPP and local priority applicants were far more likely to be housed than
chronological applicants:

SPP applicants made up three per cent of the active households on

waiting lists, but were 26 per cent of households housed.
Local priority applicants made up three per cent of active
households on waiting lists, but were 16 per cent of households
housed.
Note: Figure is based on responses from 45 service managers accounting for

17,924 households housed, 98% of total households housed in 2012.
FIGURE 9: Percentage of total households housed by applicant status, 2012
Chronological applicants made up 94 per cent of active households

on the waiting lists, but only 58 per cent of households housed.
While the priorities system drives this outcome, the underlying flaw
in the system is the lack of a sufficient quantity of RGI housing and a
realistic Provincial plan to serve waiting households.
New applicants
There were 62,094 new applications for RGI housing in 2012. In nine
service manager areas, the number of new applications received in
2012 was greater than the number of active applicants on the waiting
lists at the end of 2011, signaling drastic growth in the need for RGI
housing and an additional source of pressure on service managers
already struggling to meet community needs.
Note: Figure based on responses from 41 service managers accounting for 17,083
households, 93% of total households housed in 2012. Seven service managers did not
provide data for chronological applicants, but figures were imputed for five based on
their total, local priority and SPP figures.
12
FIGURE 10: Percentage of total applications received by senior

versus non-senior status, 2012
Figure 10 shows the proportion of total applications by household type

(senior versus non-senior).
The proportion of total new applications by senior versus non-senior
status roughly aligns with the senior versus non-senior proportion of
total households waiting for housing (29 per cent versus 71 per cent)
and the proportion of senior versus non-senior households housed (26
per cent versus 74 per cent).
Figure 11 shows the proportion of new applications received by
applicant status.
The proportion of new applications received by applicant status
shows that the vast majority of applicants for RGI housing fall in the
chronological category. As discussed above, the same is not reflected
in households housed. SPP and local priority applicants are housed in
greater proportion and far more quickly.
Note: Figure based on responses from 41 service managers accounting for

56,032 households, 90% of total new applications in 2012.
FIGURE 11: Percentage of total new applications received by applicant status, 2012
Cancelled applications
Applications can be cancelled for a number of reasons. A household

may ask to be removed from the list. Service managers may also cancel
applications for any one of the following reasons:

applicant deemed ineligible (e.g. no status in Canada, not meeting

income or asset limits)
applicant submitted incomplete application and did not respond to

requests for missing information
applicant did not respond to service managers annual or bi-annual

update request
applicant refused three offers of housing
In total, 40,074 applications were cancelled in 2012.
Note: Figure based on responses from 39 service managers accounting for 55,029 households,
89% of total new applications in 2012. Ten service managers did not provide data for chronological
applicants, but figures were imputed for six based on their total, local priority and SPP figures.
13
FIGURE 12: Percentage of total cancelled applications by senior versus

non-senior status, 2012
Figure 12 shows the proportion of cancelled applications by household

type (senior versus non-senior).
The senior versus non-senior proportion of total cancelled applications
roughly aligns with senior versus non-senior proportions of total active
households (29 per cent versus 71 per cent), total housed households
(74 per cent versus 26 per cent), and total new applications (77 per cent
versus 23 per cent). Seniors applicants do not appear to be cancelled in
greater proportion than what would be expected.
Figure 13 shows the proportion of total cancelled applications by
applicant status.
The proportion of total cancelled applications by applicant status roughly
aligns with the proportion of total active households and total new
applications by applicant status. As noted, total housed households by
applicant status is the outlier in this regard.
households, 94% of total cancelled applications in 2012.
households, 94% of total cancelled applications in 2012.
14
The waiting lists at a glance
For every one household housed, two applications were cancelled and
three new applications were received. Figure 14 shows this 1:2:3 ratio.
18,378 households were housed in 2012 compared to 40,074 applications
cancelled and 62,094 new applications received.
Sadly, the most likely outcome for the 158,445 households on Ontarios
waiting lists is not ultimately accessing RGI housing. Rather, it is exiting the
waiting list, likely without an alternative affordable home.
For every household housed, two have their applications cancelled.
Applications are often cancelled when applicants fall out of touch with
service managers during lengthy waiting periods. Applicants may give up
and cease to supply requested information, or may change addresses
and lose track of their application process. People struggling with
unaffordable housing and housing insecurity often move frequently.
The need for affordable housing is acute. While far fewer households on
the waiting lists will ultimately be housed than will have their applications
cancelled, growing numbers of new applicants continue to flock to the
system in search of affordable housing. Ontario does not have a plan to
address this crisis.
HOUSED
CANCELLED
APPLIED
15
CONCLUSION
The total number of households on Ontarios waiting lists continues to
grow. As of December 31, 2012, 158,445 households, or 3.05 per cent of
all of Ontario households, were waiting for a home they could afford.
While rate of growth of waiting lists slowed in 2012, the number
of waiting households continues to grow and has not returned to
pre-recession levels, even as economic conditions have moderately
improved. This is due, in part, to population aging, which will continue
to place increased pressure on Ontarios finite RGI housing stock.
Future growth will also be driven by changes in the economy and the
growth of Ontarios population.
Behind the numbers is a quiet crisis: the ongoing struggle of low
income Ontarians to find affordable housing.
Housing opens doors. Affordable housing plays a vital role in the
success of every Ontario community. It helps low-income Ontarians
be healthier, better educated and enables them to find and maintain
employment. Its an investment that saves money, reduces poverty,
creates jobs, and helps to ensure the long-term success and prosperity
of our province. The expenditures required to ensure a sufficient
supply of adequate, secure, affordable housing for Ontarians should
be view as investments, not as costs.
Ontarios service managers have been directed by the Provincial
government to manage local housing systems and develop local
housing and homelessness solutions. But, they have not been given
resources commensurate with their substantial responsibilities
and the level of need in their communities. Service managers need
committed, on-going assistance from their senior government
partners to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing in their
communities. They cant address the crisis alone. Ontarios non-profit
housing sector stands ready to work with service managers and
senior levels of government to address Ontarios increasing affordable
housing shortage.
16
APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY
METHOD
The waiting lists survey was conducted on behalf of ONPHA by SHS

Consulting. Prior to sending out the survey, consultations were
conducted with select key informant service managers involved in RGI
housing waiting list administration and policy to gather input on possible
improvements to the survey, data collection process, and report and how
the waiting lists survey could better reflect key data and trends related to
rent-geared-to-income housing waiting lists across the province.
Interviews were held in March and April 2013 with Kerry Hobbs of
York Region, Ishbel Solvason-Wiebe of the Ottawa Housing Registry,
Shelly Upton and Denis Desmeules of the City of Greater Sudbury, and
Carol Barber of the Cochrane District Social Services Administration
Board. Peter Altobelli of Yardi17 was also consulted on the feasibility of
developing a tool to automate statistical report generation. The survey
questionnaire was then revised to incorporate the suggestions provided
by those consulted.
The revised questionnaire asked service managers questions about
the active applicants on their local waiting lists for RGI housing as of
December 31, 2012, including number of active households, household
type and applicant status for eligible applicants on the waiting lists, new
applications received, applicants housed, and applications cancelled in
2012. This year, we also added requests for waiting list and wait time
data by unit size for non-senior households, as well as reasons for the
cancellation of applications and why current rent-geared-to-income
housing residents are on the waiting list, as this was highlighted as
important data that should be collected by those consulted.
Other additional questions added as a result of the consultations
included asking service managers how often applicants on their waiting
list are contacted to update their information and status; whether they
are considering incorporating Choice Based Letting into their waiting list;
whether they plan to conduct research on how applicants are coping

while waiting for RGI housing and/or how their situation has improved
since being housed; whether their area has implemented new policies
that may affect the waiting list; and whether they would be willing to give
permission to YARDI to run de-identified aggregate statistical reports for
the ONPHA Waiting Lists Survey in the future. These questions help us to
explore changes to the waiting lists beyond tracking the total.
Not all information collected through the survey process is contained in
this report. Some information is reported in the data tables in Appendix C
which contains service manager level information, but not in the body of
this report.
Survey questionnaires were sent out by e-mail in early May, 2013 to the
47 service manager areas in Ontario. We received completed surveys
from 45 service managers during the period from May to July 2013.
Responses were not received from the City of Cornwall and the County
of Oxford due to changes to their waiting list system and database this
year that prevented data reporting. Their data for total number of new
applications received, total number of households housed, and total
number of applications cancelled from the 2012 survey was used in the
data analysis. For the purpose of calculating the total provincial waiting
lists number, the provincial increase in 2012 of 1.3 per cent was applied
to their 2011 numbers.
This year we also provided updated guidelines for both YARDI and nonYARDI users to extract the requested data from their statistical reports
in Excel, in order to address issues in data collection and consistency
highlighted by those consulted. In previous years, some service managers
had used different definitions of an eligible applicant or a cancelled
application for example, or different processes for calculating wait
times, resulting in data from service managers that varied in what it
represented. The guidelines attempt to help all service managers provide
17 Yardi is the most commonly used property management database system by service managers to manage all aspects of their rent-geared-to-income housing database.
17
the same sets of data. A few service managers provided a range for
some wait times this year; for the purpose of aggregating the data we
calculated the midpoint of the range.
This year, service managers were also asked to verify any data set that
showed a significant change from the previous year. The purpose of this
process was to ensure that no mistakes were made in data collection, as
well as to gain insight into changes in the waiting list and the effect the
data collection guidelines had.
throughout the province, as well as varying approaches to pulling data

from these systems, the same method of data collection could not be
used by every service manager. Furthermore, some service managers
underwent changes that affected their data collection process. Therefore,
while we have done our best to verify and clarify the data provided, in the
absence of a unifying data system for social housing in Ontario, there will
inevitably be comparability challenges between service managers.
We have encountered the following specific data limitations:
Additionally, in order to address the absence of reported data in some

cases, figures were imputed, when possible, from other reported data.
LIMITATIONS
Service managers central waiting lists provide an indication of the

need for affordable housing in Ontario. However, waiting lists do not
capture all households that need affordable housing across the province.
Centralized waiting lists capture those households that have applied for
RGI housing in each service manager area. Waiting lists do not include
applicants for all affordable housing options, such as affordable home
ownership or affordable units built under the Canada-Ontario Affordable
Housing Program, unless those units have RGI rent supplements attached
to them.
Waiting lists include only those households that know about RGI housing,
have chosen to apply, and keep their application current by responding
to service manager requests and updating information. Thus the waiting
lists survey does not capture people who need affordable housing, but
do not know about RGI housing or how to apply. It also does not capture
those in need who choose not to apply or do not keep their application
current, due to long wait times, location of housing, moves due to
housing instability, or other reasons.
Given these limitations, the waiting lists survey results may be viewed
as one indicator of affordable housing need in Ontario, alongside other
indicators, such as low-income data and Core housing Need.
Seven service managers reported that their data represented when

it was pulled (May of 2013) as their systems were incapable of
retrieving the waiting list totals requested from December 31, 2012.
Some service managers expressed concerns that outliers in their
data could affect calculations and result in inaccurate representation,
in particular for wait times. We have emphasized that as averages,
the wait times reported can cover-over substantial differences within
service manager areas.
Some service managers experienced large increases/decreases
in their data this year or last year due to moves, either physical or
database-related, that affected their data collection and update
process, or undertook large waiting list clean ups in 2011 or 2012
that resulted in a large change in numbers, such as a large number of
cancellations.
Across service manager areas, the precise meaning of the statuses
of transfer, pending, cancelled, housed or hold are often
different and these differences can impact the ways in which service
managers responded to survey questions.
In previous surveys ONPHA asked service managers to report as
seniors only households waiting for designated seniors buildings.
This year, service managers were asked to apply their local age
criteria. This likely had the effect of inflating this years count of senior
households relative to the past.
Wait times may not include households that have been waiting for
years, as calculations only include wait times for those housed.
DATA LIMITATIONS
There are some limitations regarding how representative the data

presented in this report are of waiting lists in Ontario. Considering the
different database management systems used by service managers
18
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Active households: Households on the waiting lists which have been deemed
eligible for rent- geared-to-income (RGI) housing, including those currently on
offer for a unit. Active households include households that have submitted new
applications between January 1 and December 31, 2012, and households that have
maintained their application by responding to any service manager requests for
information.
Applicant: A household, consisting of one individual living alone or two or more
individuals living together, that has applied for RGI housing.
Consolidated Municipal Service Manager / District Social Services

Administration Board (DSSAB): A Consolidated Municipal Service Manager,
generally referred to as a service manager, is a designated municipality that is
the service delivery agent for affordable and social housing and certain other
programs within its area. CMSMs may be upper-tier governments (regional
or county) or may be cities. In the north (other than Greater Sudbury), District
Social Services Administration Boards (DSSABs), bodies created through
Provincial legislation, carry out service manager duties. Both are referred to in
this report as service managers.
Applicant Category/Status: Applicant status refers to categories used to rank

applicants on centralized waiting lists. There are three main categories:
Eligible Applicants: Those applicants that are recorded in a service managers

database as eligible, active or on offer.
Special Priority Policy (SPP) Legislated first under the Social Housing
Reform Act and now under the Housing Services Act, the Special Priority
Policy gives priority status to households with a member who has been a
victim of domestic violence.
Local Priority Service managers are allowed to create Local Priority
categories for RGI housing. These priority categories are based on identified
local needs households that are homeless, newcomers, or youth, or require
medical transfer). Applicants with Local Priority status are housed after
Special Priority Policy applicants, but before Chronological applicants. In
some cases, service managers may create additional rules, reserving every
one in 10 openings for households with Local Priority.
Chronological Applicants who are ranked on the centralized waiting list
based on their date of application.
Average Wait Times: For the purposes of this survey, wait times are calculated
as the average length of time between the date of application and the date
housed for those households housed in 2012.
Cancelled applications: Household applications that have been cancelled in
2012, even if they may be later re-instated. Applications may be cancelled by the
applicant, or may be cancelled or made inactive by the service manager.
Centralized Waiting List: The combined waiting lists for all housing providers
of RGI housing that are required to participate in centralized waiting lists. This
list may not include alternative housing providers (those who house the hardto-house and homeless) or supportive housing providers.
Household: An individual who lives alone or two or more persons who live
together.
Household Type: Households are grouped into three types:
Senior The criterion for senior households varies by service manager
area and, in some cases, may also vary depending on the mandate of local
seniors housing providers. While some areas or providers define seniors
as 55 and over, most areas define senior households as 60 or 65 years and
over. Households may be allowed to apply earlier (e.g. in their 59th year
where criterion is 60) given wait times of over one year.
Non-Senior Households consisting of an individual or a couple eligible
for a bachelor or one bedroom unit that do not yet meet the criterion for
seniors housing.
Housed Households: Households that were housed in social or RGI housing
during 2012.
New applications: New applications received in 2012, which are deemed
eligible.
Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) Housing: Rent-geared-to-income (RGI)
assistance refers to the financial assistance received by households which
allows them to pay rent based on 30 per cent of their gross income. RGI
housing is provided by non-profit housing providers, local housing corporations
and co-operative housing corporations, and through rent supplements which
subsidize market rents in non-profits, co-ops, and private rentals.
19
APPENDIX C: SERVICE MANAGER LEVEL DATA

Service manager level data reported in this appendix includes some information, such as breakdowns by unit type for non-seniors, which is not reported at
the Provincial level in the body of this report.
TABLE 1: ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS ON RGI WAITING LISTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2004 TO 2012
Service
Manager
Active
HH 2012
Active
HH 2011
Active
HH 2010
Active
HH 2009
Active
HH 2008
Active
HH 2007
Active
HH 2006
Active
HH 2005
Active
HH 2004
Active
HH 2003
Algoma
695
700
310
291
247
255
209
240
248
260
Brantford
947
899
877
907
1,233
1,257
1,022
1,232
971
1,415
Bruce
264
311
203
180
140
166
189
137
119
137
Chatham Kent
304
371
321
305
308
235
277
216
150
228
Cochrane
1,458
1,720
1,944
1,772
1,840
1,615
1,717
1,225
1,020
727
Cornwall
86018
860
792
764
792
755
667
588
519
472
Dufferin
462
427
511
387
433
467
516
470
440
454
Durham
4,751
4,348
4,260
3,926
3,922
3,650
3,644
4,543
4,188
3,775
Grey County
653
795
679
741
713
630
652
652
656
588
Halton
3,398
3,153
2,140
1,931
1,888
1,906
2,054
1,606
1,702
2,333
Hamilton
4,762
6,062
5,364
5,045
4,166
3,904
3,817
4,375
4,863
4,362
Hastings
1,315
1,359
1,519
1,366
1,235
946
855
855
1,065
855
Huron
214
342
226
237
172
183
309
190
143
145
Kawartha Lakes
579
531
531
444
546
498
600
683
560
604
712
Kenora
358
451
382
546
452
621
494
499
640
Kingston
1,176
1,156
1,169
1,070
1,090
1,012
1,062
956
952
1,001
Lambton
466
537
508
529
453
483
434
403
378
265
Lanark
414
237
472
411
510
345
276
304
319
302
Leeds and Grenville
461
527
483
424
679
480
435
468
464
469
Lennox & Addington
373
304
407
224
427
572
731
644
489
439
London
2,172
3,090
4,037
4,265
3,852
3,377
3,440
3,963
3,735
4,451
Manitoulin-Sudbury
619
274
310
214
180
226
174
161
142
91
Muskoka
620
599
523
463
430
361
313
281
263
248
18 Due to changes to their waiting list system, the City of Cornwall was unable to provide data this year. In order to show a comprehensive list of active households on waiting lists in Ontario, Cornwalls number of
active households from last years report was included here
20

TABLE 1 (CONT.) : ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS ON RGI WAITING LISTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2004 TO 2012
Service
Manager
Active
HH 2012
Active
HH 2011
Active
HH 2010
Active
HH 2009
Active
HH 2008
Active
HH 2007
Active
HH 2006
Active
HH 2005
Active
HH 2004
Active
HH 2003
Niagara
5,831
5,567
5,543
4,611
4,247
4,264
4,743
4,201
4,049
3,870
Nipissing
1,032
1,028
980
1,057
987
923
900
1,114
1,088
992
405
Norfolk
266
271
280
277
279
186
297
272
304
Northumberland
353
285
202
212
230
251
279
238
248
277
Ottawa
9,717
10,097
10,502
10,235
9,692
9,370
10,055
9,922
10,516
11,461
Oxford
67019
670
297
241
160
171
140
215
237
197
Parry Sound
387
374
374
430
382
417
385
331
341
335
Peel
12,850
12,853
15,341
14,436
13,328
13,564
12,389
14,101
14,361
13,457
Peterborough
1,550
1,697
1,589
1,468
1,142
1,495
1,488
1,502
1,502
1,539
Prescott and Russell
511
1,055
430
388
407
324
403
365
244
318
Rainy River
113
110
29
37
24
44
52
52
76
71
Renfrew
911
877
699
680
560
552
619
569
551
620
Sault Ste. Marie
1,168
1,103
1,049
1,063
983
597
473
459
374
374
Simcoe
2,725
2,482
2,665
3,245
3,224
3,317
3,048
2,479
2,160
2,489
Stratford
149
123
147
182
155
133
188
185
189
267
St. Thomas
218
300
267
272
245
222
185
254
287
231
Sudbury
Thunder Bay
Timiskaming
Toronto
Waterloo
Wellington
Windsor
1,476
1,790
526
72,696
3,162
1,147
2,360
1,885
1,420
459
69,342
3,280
1,320
2,019
1,941
1,226
565
66,460
2,737
1,261
1,899
1,396
1,127
314
60,197
3,015
1,531
2,094
2,154
610
457
52,257
3,100
1,280
1,809
1,878
446
266
49,468
3,235
1,370
2,031
1,634
640
276
47,930
3,448
896
2,031
1,357
620
310
48,041
2,529
989
2,168
1,312
813
182
49,329
3,238
1,584
2,007
1,230
441
170
50,218
3,454
2,018
1,747
York
9,496
8,688
7,626
6,685
5,833
5,564
5,340
5,462
5,767
5,589
Totals
158,44520
156,358
152,077
141,635
129,253
124,032
121,726
122,426
124,785
126,103
Change from
Previous Year
1.3%
2.8%
7.4%
9.6%
4.2%
1.9%
-0.6%
-1.9%
-1.0%
19 Due to changes to their database this year that no longer allows the type of data collection requested for this survey, the County of Oxford was unable to provide data this year. In order to show a comprehensive
list of active households on waiting lists in Ontario, Oxfords number of active households from last years report was included here.
20 Since the City of Cornwall and County of Oxford were unable to provide data this year, for the purpose of calculating the Ontario total, the total number of households on their waiting lists for 2012 was estimated
by applying the provincial increase in households on waiting lists in 2012 (1.3%) to their 2011 total number of households. This inflation is not shown for Cornwall and Oxfords individual 2012 active household
counts, which are simply carried forward from 2011.
21

TABLE 2: ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS ON RGI WAITING LISTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, PROPORTION OF TOTAL ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS, AND PER CENT CHANGE FROM
PREVIOUS YEAR, 2012 & 2011
Service Manager
Active HH 2012
% of Total
Active HH
% Change
2011 to 2012
Active HH 2011
% of Total
Active HH
% Change
2010 to 2011
125.8%
Algoma
695
0.4%
0.7%
700
0.4%
Brantford
947
0.6%
5.3%
899
0.6%
2.5%
Bruce
264
0.2%
-15.1%
311
0.2%
53.2%
Chatham Kent
304
0.2%
-18.1%
371
0.2%
15.6%
Cochrane
1,458
0.9%
-15.2%
1,720
1.1%
-11.5%
Cornwall
860
0.5%
n/a
860
0.6%
8.6%
Dufferin
462
0.3%
8.2%
427
0.3%
-16.4%
Durham
4,751
3.0%
9.3%
4,348
2.8%
2.1%
Grey County
653
0.4%
-17.9%
795
0.5%
17.1%
Halton
3,398
2.1%
7.8%
3,153
2.0%
47.3%
Hamilton
4,762
3.0%
-21.4%
6,062
3.9%
13.0%
Hastings
1,315
0.8%
-3.2%
1,359
0.9%
-10.5%
Huron
214
0.1%
-37.4%
342
0.2%
51.3%
Kawartha Lakes
579
0.4%
9.0%
531
0.3%
0.0%
Kenora
358
0.2%
-20.6%
451
0.3%
18.1%
Kingston
1,176
0.7%
1.7%
1,156
0.7%
-1.1%
Lambton
466
0.3%
-13.2%
537
0.3%
5.7%
Lanark
414
0.3%
74.7%
237
0.2%
-49.8%
Leeds and Grenville
461
0.3%
-12.5%
527
0.3%
9.1%
Lennox and Addington
373
0.2%
22.7%
304
0.2%
-25.3%
London
2,172
1.4%
-29.7%
3,090
2.0%
-23.5%
Manitoulin-Sudbury
619
0.4%
125.9%
274
0.2%
-11.6%
Muskoka
620
0.4%
3.5%
599
0.4%
14.5%
Niagara
5,831
3.7%
4.7%
5,567
3.6%
0.4%
Nipissing
1,032
0.7%
0.4%
1,028
0.7%
4.9%
Norfolk
266
0.2%
-1.8%
271
0.2%
-3.2%
Northumberland
353
0.2%
23.9%
285
0.2%
41.1%
Ottawa
9,717
6.1%
-3.8%
10,097
6.5%
-3.9%
Oxford
670
0.4%
n/a
670
0.4%
125.6%
Parry Sound
387
0.2%
3.5%
374
0.2%
0.0%
Peel
12,850
8.1%
0.0%
12,853
8.2%
-16.2%
22

TABLE 2 (CONT.) : ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS ON RGI WAITING LISTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, PROPORTION OF TOTAL ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS, AND PER CENT CHANGE
FROM PREVIOUS YEAR, 2012 & 2011
Service Manager
Active HH 2012
% of Total
Active HH
% Change
2011 to 2012
Active HH 2011
% of Total
Active HH
% Change
2010 to 2011
Peterborough
1,550
1.0%
-8.7%
1,697
1.1%
6.8%
511
0.3%
-51.6%
1,055
0.7%
145.3%
Rainy River
113
0.1%
2.7%
110
0.1%
279.3%
Renfrew
911
0.6%
3.9%
877
0.6%
25.5%
Sault Ste. Marie
1,168
0.7%
5.9%
1,103
0.7%
5.1%
Simcoe
2,725
1.7%
9.8%
2,482
1.6%
-6.9%
Stratford
149
0.1%
21.1%
123
0.1%
-16.3%
St. Thomas
218
0.1%
-27.3%
300
0.2%
12.4%
Sudbury
1,476
0.9%
-21.7%
1,885
1.2%
-2.9%
Thunder Bay
1,790
1.1%
26.1%
1,420
0.9%
15.8%
-18.8%
Timiskaming
526
0.3%
14.6%
459
0.3%
Toronto
72,696
45.9%
4.8%
69,342
44.3%
4.3%
Waterloo
3,162
2.0%
-3.6%
3,280
2.1%
19.8%
Wellington
1,147
0.7%
-13.1%
1,320
0.8%
4.7%
Windsor
2,360
1.5%
16.9%
2,019
1.3%
6.3%
York
9,496
6.0%
9.3%
8,688
5.6%
13.9%
Totals
158,445
100.0%
1.3%
156,358
100.0%
2.8%
23

TABLE 3: APPLICANT STATUS OF ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2012
Active Households by Applicant Status
Average Wait Time in Years
Service Manager
Special Priority
Policy (SPP)
Local Priority
Modified
Chronological
Algoma
Brantford
Bruce
Chatham Kent
Cochrane
Cornwall
Dufferin
Durham
Grey County
Halton
Hamilton
Hastings
Huron
Kawartha Lakes
Kenora
Kingston
Lambton
Lanark
Leeds and Grenville
London
Manitoulin-Sudbury
Muskoka
Niagara
Nipissing
Norfolk
Northumberland
Ottawa
Oxford
5
36
5
9
11
n/r
19
276
11
126
146
33
4
18
42
61
9
30
14
10
31
3
11
146
31
16
15
130
n/r
n/r
84
n/r
28
45
n/r
n/r
4
0
352
155
31
6
52
30
102
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
599
4
79
735
55
n/r
0
1,115
n/r
n/r
31
n/r
8
n/r
n/r
2
59
6
48
n/r
n/r
n/r
16
1
16
12
43
n/r
3
25
n/r
6
n/r
n/r
1
10
190
n/r
690
791
259
259
1,402
441
4,412
636
2,872
4,762
1,176
204
493
285
997
445
341
447
360
1,517
616
524
4,427
946
250
338
8,282
Special Priority
Policy (SPP)
Local Priority
1.0-0.5
0.083-1
0.24
0.20
0.87
n/r
1.07
0.97
0.21
0.60
0.70
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.28
0.69
n/r
0.29
0.21
0.38
0.60
0.33
0.51
0.50
0.63
0.25
0.30
0.30
n/r
1.0-2.0
1.0-5.0
n/r
0.58
1.08
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
1.80
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.48
1.24
1.25
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
1.34
1.42
1.73
n/r
0.61
n/r
n/r
0.70
n/r
24

TABLE 3 (CONT.) : APPLICANT STATUS OF ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2012
Active Households by Applicant Status
Service Manager
Special Priority
Policy (SPP)
Local Priority
Modified
Chronological
Special Priority
Policy (SPP)
Local Priority
Peel
Peterborough
Rainy River
Renfrew
Sault Ste. Marie
Simcoe
Stratford
St. Thomas
Sudbury
Thunder Bay
Timiskaming
Toronto
Waterloo
Wellington
Windsor
York
845
33
22
5
32
161
161
9
7
3
57
1
1,784
27
25
67
133
135
n/r
9
0
n/r
n/r
n/r
16
2
0
303
0
6,678
160
10
186
12
161
85
16
2
n/r
32
n/r
0
0
51
64
5
551
68
n/r
21
n/r
11,870
1,432
480
106
879
975
2,564
124
209
1,422
1,366
520
63,683
2,975
1,112
2,086
9,351
1.28
0.60
0.34
0.14
0.50
0.25
0.46
0.17
0.25
0.10
0.57
0.17
0.70
0.22
0.31
0.20
1.58
2.90
n/r
1.59
n/r
n/r
1.00
n/r
0.50
0.00
0.04
1.29
n/r
0.70
0.54
0.76
0.89
1.37
Totals
4,625
10,987
1,534
139,713
25

TABLE 4: HOUSEHOLD AND BEDROOM TYPE OF ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2012
Active Households by Household and Bedroom Type
Service Manager
Algoma
Brantford
Bruce
Chatham Kent
Cochrane
Cornwall
Dufferin
Durham
Grey County
Halton
Hamilton
Hastings
Huron
Kawartha Lakes
Kenora
Kingston
Lambton
Lanark
Leeds and Grenville
London
Manitoulin-Sudbury
Muskoka
Niagara
Nipissing
Norfolk
Northumberland
Seniors
Seniors
Non-Seniors Non-Seniors Non-Seniors
(All Bedroom
(All Bedroom
1 Bedroom 2-3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom
Sizes)
Sizes)
57
222
108
129
651
n/r
206
993
209
977
692
564
30
206
71
80
80
74
171
27
230
194
131
2,116
303
75
78
388
431
104
99
363
n/r
141
1,623
316
976
1,699
341
130
266
134
724
268
216
166
270
1,131
268
319
1,675
479
124
191
238
294
50
71
398
n/r
92
1,628
128
1,016
1,662
353
52
98
115
326
91
112
121
71
232
143
161
2,040
250
59
66
12
inc. in 2-3
2
5
46
n/r
23
507
inc. in 2-3
431
709
57
2
9
38
46
27
25
3
5
579
14
9
inc. in 2-3
inc. in 2-3
8
15
1.0-2.0
1.5-2.5
1.00
0.60
2.70
n/r
2.43
3.73
2.00
2.50
2.20
1.50
0.75
1.27
1.41
2.05
n/r
2.46
1.05
1.70
2.08
1.52
2.28
3.70
1.34
0.75
1.40
1.0-3.0
5.0-9.0
0.36
0.56
2.67
n/r
6.00
4.74
2.20
4.40
2.70
1.30
1.50
2.25
3.00
2.02
1.50
1.08
1.32
4.20
2.02
0.77
3.85
7.40
2.83
5.00
1.85
1.0-2.0
2.0-5.0
0.74
0.40
1.49
n/r
1.53
4.31
2.50
3.20
3.50
2.30
1.00
1.50
1.09
1.87
1.17
1.01
0.92
1.50
2.05
0.92
1.61
4.00
1.66
0.50
0.66
1.0-3.0
3.0-5.0
0.47
0.77
1.19
n/r
1.13
5.31
1.75
2.30
4.80
1.50
2.00
2.35
1.85
1.74
0.67
0.67
0.79
n/r
2.51
1.00
2.35
5.00
n/r
0.25
0.00
26

TABLE 4 (CONT.) : HOUSEHOLD AND BEDROOM TYPE OF ACTIVE HOUSEHOLDS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2012
Active Households by Household and Bedroom Type

Service Manager
Seniors
Seniors
(All Bedroom
(All Bedroom
Sizes)
Sizes)
Ottawa
Oxford
Parry Sound
Peel
Peterborough
Rainy River
Renfrew
Sault Ste. Marie
Simcoe
Stratford
St. Thomas
Sudbury
Thunder Bay
Timiskaming
Toronto
Waterloo
Wellington
Windsor
York
1,939
n/r
86
3,044
501
189
68
209
225
557
13
32
308
390
323
22,709
320
417
447
4,934
3,516
n/r
216
3,345
681
131
13
412
792
1,467
92
67
818
790
131
25,234
1,332
355
1,031
1,791
2,753
n/r
85
5,486
279
181
30
370
349
686
26
107
298
514
59
22,218
1,331
287
749
2,130
1,509
n/r
inc. in 2-3
975
89
10
2
42
27
15
18
12
77
96
13
2,447
179
88
133
641
Totals
45,385
55,056
47,805
8,945
3.70
n/r
2.90
7.20
3.24
1.66
0.55
1.70
1.00
4.20
1.50
0.73
2.08
0.96
5.00
5.00
1.94
2.40
0.57
4.95
4.50
n/r
2.20
9.80
2.13
2.25
0.53
1.90
1.00
2.30
1.50
1.02
2.37
0.58
2.50
8.00
5.60
1.67
1.00
7.79
4.60
n/r
2.30
8.50
1.64
1.59
0.22
1.40
1.50
2.70
1.75
0.51
0.78
1.10
1.50
6.00
2.57
1.71
0.96
6.69
6.30
n/r
n/r
11.10
1.91
0.77
n/r
0.70
2.00
n/r
1.50
0.29
0.83
0.66
5.75
6.00
3.11
3.01
2.78
2.59
27

TABLE 5: HOUSEHOLDS HOUSED, NEW AND CANCELLED APPLICATIONS, JANUARY 1 DECEMBER 31, 2012
Number of Households
Number of Households
Service Manager
Housed
New
Applications
Cancelled
Applications
Algoma
Brantford
Bruce
Chatham Kent
Cochrane
Cornwall21
Dufferin
Durham
Grey County
Halton
Hamilton
Hastings
Huron
Kawartha Lakes
Kenora
Kingston
Lambton
Lanark
Leeds and Grenville
London
Manitoulin-Sudbury
Muskoka
Niagara
Nipissing
107
240
171
244
278
304
50
358
188
430
782
378
79
122
167
230
280
100
142
87
849
68
62
616
169
335
892
368
785
432
895
190
1,575
549
1,622
2,795
523
260
224
190
456
726
287
207
54
722
225
188
2,243
757
186
338
255
389
880
482
206
1,152
605
1,963
125
596
134
195
230
399
327
322
395
38
1,666
53
140
1,413
678
Service Manager
Housed
New
Applications
Cancelled
Applications
Norfolk
Northumberland
Ottawa
Oxford22
Parry Sound
Peel
Peterborough
Rainy River
Renfrew
Sault Ste. Marie
Simcoe
Stratford
St. Thomas
Sudbury
Thunder Bay
Timiskaming
Toronto
Waterloo
Wellington
Windsor
York
169
65
1,831
160
32
870
260
133
69
191
414
287
142
138
619
377
139
3,890
726
288
746
331
291
143
4,610
785
159
5,376
712
171
38
453
1,000
1,454
385
110
2,030
503
308
19,935
2,039
430
925
2,737
142
28
2,093
240
113
5,128
942
256
47
197
532
924
128
118
1,115
105
87
10,284
1,363
706
778
1,581
Totals
18,378
62,094
40,074
21 Due to changes to their waiting list system, the City of Cornwall was unable to provide data this year. In order to show a comprehensive list of households housed, new applications, and cancelled applications in
Ontario, Cornwalls numbers for these categories from last years report were included.
22 Due to changes to their database this year that no longer allows the type of data collection requested for this survey, the County of Oxford was unable to provide data this year. In order to show a comprehensive
list of households housed, new applications, and cancelled applications in Ontario, Oxfords numbers for these categories from last years report were included.
28

TABLE 6: WEIGHTED OVERALL WAIT TIMES, AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2012
Weighted averages by service manager

area were calculated by weighing
average wait times in each applicant
category by the total number of
households housed in that category
within the service manager areas. The
categories included were: seniors, and
non-seniors by 1, 2-3, and 4+ bedroom
units. Local priority and SPP housed
households are included within these
categories.
Service Manager
Weighted
Overall Wait
Time (years)
Algoma
Brantford
Bruce
Chatham Kent
Cochrane
Cornwall
Dufferin
Durham
Grey County
Halton
Hamilton
Hastings
Huron
Kawartha Lakes
Kenora
Kingston
Lambton
Lanark
Leeds and Grenville
London
Manitoulin-Sudbury
Muskoka
Niagara
Nipissing
1.67
5.44
0.69
0.50
2.14
n/r
2.80
4.20
2.29
3.04
3.08
1.77
1.27
1.73
1.52
1.92
1.30
1.22
1.14
2.33
2.09
1.01
2.65
4.27
1.84
Service Manager
Weighted
Overall Wait
Time (years)
Norfolk
Northumberland
Ottawa
Oxford
Parry Sound
Peel
Peterborough
Rainy River
Renfrew
Sault Ste. Marie
Simcoe
Stratford
St. Thomas
Sudbury
Thunder Bay
Timiskaming
Toronto
Waterloo
Wellington
Windsor
York
2.58
1.13
4.52
n/r
2.50
8.45
2.23
1.69
0.46
1.52
1.29
3.00
1.58
0.69
1.33
0.90
3.46
5.00
3.69
2.04
0.91
5.79
29
APPENDIX D: RESPONSE MATRIX

The following table contains the number of responses received by question for 2012 and 2011. Notes are also included to explain when
substitutions were used for missing data.
Number of
Responses in 2012
Number of
Responses in 2011
32
26
Total Eligible Active Households
45*
47
Senior Active Households
45
47
Non-Senior Active Households for 1 Bedroom Units
45
n/a
Non-Senior Active Households for 2-3 Bedroom Units
45
n/a
Non-Senior Active Households for 4+ Bedroom Units
45
n/a
SPP Active Households
45
44
Local Priority Active Households
27
23
Modified Active Households
29
n/a
Chronological Active Households
41***
44
Total New Applicants
45**
44
New Senior Applicants
41
41
New Non-Senior Applicants for 1 Bedroom Units
38
n/a
New Non-Senior Applicants for 2-3 Bedroom Units
39
n/a
New Non-Senior Applicants for 4+ Bedroom Units
37
n/a
New SPP Applicants
43
41
New Local Priority Applicants
26
20
New Modified Applicants
24
n/a
New Chronological Applicants
37***
38
Question
Presence of Local Priorities
Active Households
New Applicants
* The City of Cornwall and County

of Oxford were unable to provide
data this year, and therefore,
for the purposes of reaching a
provincial total, the total number
of households on their waiting lists
for 2012 was estimated for the
report by applying the provincial
increase in households on waiting
lists in 2012 (1.3%) to Cornwall and
Oxfords 2011 numbers.
** The City of Cornwall and
County of Oxford were unable
to provide data this year, and
therefore, for the purposes of
reaching a provincial total for each
category, their total number new
applications, households housed,
and cancelled applications from
2011 were included in the report.
*** Not all service managers
provided data on the total
number of chronological
applicants. Therefore, for those
service managers that did not
provide data on the total number
of chronological applicants but did
provide the numbers of SPP, local
priority, and modified applicants
on their waiting list, chronological
figures were imputed based on
this information and their waiting
list totals.
30
Question
Number of
Responses in 2012
Number of
Responses in 2011
Applicants Housed
Total Applicants Housed
45**
46
Housed Senior Applicants
45
44
Housed Non-Senior Applicants for 1 Bedroom Units
44
n/a
Housed Non-Senior Applicants for 2-3 Bedroom Units
44
n/a
Housed Non-Senior Applicants for 4+ Bedroom Units
39
n/a
Housed SPP Applicants
45
45
Housed Local Priority Applicants
28
25
Housed Modified Applicants
24
n/a
Housed Chronological Applicants
40***
44
Cancelled Applications
Total Cancelled Applications
45**
46
Cancelled Senior Applications
41
38
Cancelled Non-Senior Applications for 1 Bedroom Units
40
n/a
Cancelled Non-Senior Applications for 2-3 Bedroom Units
40
n/a
Cancelled Non-Senior Applications for 4+ Bedroom Units
38
n/a
Cancelled SPP Applications
36
36
Cancelled Local Priority Applications
22
20
Cancelled Modified Applications
18
n/a
Cancelled Chronological Applications
35***
36
All Housed Applicants
36
45
SPP
44
40
Local Priority
28
22
Seniors
44
38
Non-Seniors for 1 Bedroom Units
45
n/a
Non-Seniors for 2-3 Bedroom Units
45
n/a
Non-Seniors for 4+ Bedroom Units
40
n/a
* The City of Cornwall and County

of Oxford were unable to provide
data this year, and therefore,
for the purposes of reaching a
provincial total, the total number
of households on their waiting lists
for 2012 was estimated for the
report by applying the provincial
increase in households on waiting
lists in 2012 (1.3%) to Cornwall and
Oxfords 2011 numbers.
** The City of Cornwall and
County of Oxford were unable
to provide data this year, and
therefore, for the purposes of
reaching a provincial total for each
category, their total number new
applications, households housed,
and cancelled applications from
2011 were included in the report.
*** Not all service managers
provided data on the total
number of chronological
applicants. Therefore, for those
service managers that did not
provide data on the total number
of chronological applicants but did
provide the numbers of SPP, local
priority, and modified applicants
on their waiting list, chronological
figures were imputed based on
this information and their waiting
list totals.
Wait Times
31

Housing Ontario

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Housing Ontario

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Housing Ontario

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WAITING LISTS SURVEY 2013

ONPHA | Waiting Lists Survey 2013

ONPHA | Waiting Lists Survey 2013

LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES

FIGURE 14: Percentage of total cancelled applications by applicant status, 2012

FIGURE 1: Number of households on Ontario waiting lists, 2003-2012

ONPHA | Waiting Lists Survey 2013

As the population ages, the demand for RGI seniors housing is

ONPHA | Waiting Lists Survey 2013

ONPHA | Waiting Lists Survey 2013

FIGURE 1: Number of households on Ontario waiting lists, 2003-2012

There were 158,445 households on waiting lists for RGI housing

Change in the number of active households on waiting lists

FIGURE 2: Percentage change in active households on

Percentage of Ontario households on waiting lists

The percentage of Ontario households on a waiting list for RGI housing

ONPHA WAITING LISTS SURVEY REPORTS 2004-2013.

ONPHA | Waiting Lists Survey 2013

FIGURE 3: Percentage of Ontario households on waiting lists

The affordability gap what low-income tenants can afford versus

Unemployment and the waiting lists

Employment growth weakened in 2012 as fewer jobs were created

ONPHA WAITING LISTS SURVEY REPORTS 2004-2013, STATISTICS CANADA POPULATION

FIGURE 4: Number of active households on waiting lists and Ontario

However, a declining and then moderating unemployment rate from

ONPHA | Waiting Lists Survey 2013

FIGURE 5: Percentage of total active households on waiting lists by senior

Seniors versus non-seniors

It is common for waiting list administrators to differentiate applicants

housing option. Demand is likely to continue to grow as baby boomers

Still, Figure 5 shows a clear trend. Since 2003, the proportion of

ONPHA | Waiting Lists Survey 2013

Status on the list

All applicants fit into one or more of the following categories:

Chronological: Applicants are ranked by their date of application for

Special Priority Policy (SPP): Applicants are experiencing domestic

Local priority: Applicants qualify for locally-identified priority

FIGURE 6: Percentage of total active households on waiting lists

Figure 6 shows the percentage of total waiting households in each

Note: Figure is based on responses from 41 service managers accounting for

ONPHA | Waiting Lists Survey 2013

Thirty-two service managers had one or more local priorities in 2012,

homeless or urgent priority for households who need housing

Medical (including terminally ill and release from facility)

In-situ market tenants

Health and safety (including substandard/condemned/uninhabitable or destroyed housing)

In-situ tenants (example: market rent to RGI)

Victims of violence in need of supportive housing

LOCAL PRIORITY CATEGORIES

Total number of local priorities

ONPHA 2012 WAITING LISTS REPORT AND CURRENT

ONPHA | Waiting Lists Survey 2013

MOVEMENT ON THE WAITING LIST

designed to rapidly house those most in need of housing. All waiting

FIGURE 7: Weighted average Ontario wait times in years,

ONPHA | Waiting Lists Survey 2013

In 2012, 18,378 households were housed in RGI housing. This number is

FIGURE 8: Percentage of total households housed by senior