RENOVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. Evaluation Report September 2009

Transcription

1 RENOVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Evaluation Report

2 CMHC Home to Canadians Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has been Canada s national housing agency for more than 60 years. Together with other housing stakeholders, we help ensure that the Canadian housing system remains one of the best in the world. We are committed to helping Canadians access a wide choice of quality, environmentally sustainable and affordable homes homes that will continue to create vibrant and healthy communities and cities across the country. For more information, visit our website at You can also reach us by phone at or by fax at Outside Canada call or fax to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation supports the Government of Canada policy on access to information for people with disabilities. If you wish to obtain this publication in alternative formats, call

3 renovation assistance programs Evaluation Report

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CMHC would like to thank R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd who completed the data collection for the evaluation study of the Renovation Assistance Programs. CMHC would also like to express its appreciation to all agencies and organizations who provided assistance with the research for this evaluation, and to those who gave generously of their time to complete and return the surveys.

5 Section A - Introduction Table of Contents Purpose of the evaluation...1 Evaluation Scope...1 Evaluation issues...2 Evaluation Methods...3 Program Descriptions and Activity...4 Section B - The Rationale for the RRAP Issue 1: Is there a continuing rationale for public renovation assistance and are the programs a suitable response?...7 Section C - Targeted Households Issue 2: To what extent are the programs successfully targeted to households in need?...12 Section D - Success and Impacts of RRAP Issue 3: To what extent have the programs addressed major deficiencies to the structure and systems of the dwelling and what are the implications for the occupants?...16 Issue 4: To what extent have the programs preserved or added to the affordable housing stock?...19 Issue 5: To what extent have the programs provided accessible housing for low-income persons with a disability and seniors?...22 Issue 6: Do the programs impact homelessness?...24 Issue 7: Do the programs encourage uptake of energy efficient technologies and produce environmental benefits?...25 Issue 8: Do the programs have an impact on economic activity and employment?...25 Section E - Program Design and Delivery Issues Issue 9: Did increasing the maximum RRAP assistance amounts and removal of repayment provisions allow more eligible clients to access the programs and fully renovate in accordance with programs standards?...27 Issue 10: Are there more cost-effective ways of delivering the existing program?...28 Section F - Summary of Findings and Conclusions Continued Relevance to the Program...30 Targeting...30 Program Results: Objectives Achievement...31 Program Results: Additional Impacts and Effects...32 Program Design and Delivery Issues...32

6 Section A Introduction protected Section A introduction Purpose of the evaluation Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) provides financial assistance to homeowners and landlords through a suite of renovation assistance programs to address the following objectives: repair or rehabilitate units occupied by low-income households to address major deficiencies to the structure and systems; preserve and add to the stock of affordable housing; and improve the accessibility of units occupied by low-income seniors and persons with disabilities. The National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act give CMHC the legal authority to fund these programs. Since the introduction of the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) in 1973, the suite of renovation programs has been expanded and programs have been added. The previous RRAP evaluation, conducted in 2002, and public consultations resulted in program policy changes and enhancements in 2003 aimed at improving the accessibility and effectiveness of the programs. The 2008 evaluation was conducted to examine these changes and to fulfill accountability requirements for the renovation programs with Treasury Board Canada. EVALUATION SCOPE Focus of the Evaluation The evaluation assessed the rationale and impact of the programs. It examined the extent to which intended impacts have occurred for the period 2003 through 2007 by employing multiple lines of socialeconomic research. The evaluation also reports on unintended outcomes, to provide a comprehensive and balanced view of program success. The evaluation also sought to determine whether program changes introduced in 2003 had achieved their intended outcomes. These changes included raising maximum assistance amounts and removing the requirement for clients to repay a portion of their assistance. The intent was to improve access to the program for very low-income households, to encourage more completeness in renovations and to take account of cost increases. The 2008 evaluation of the renovation assistance programs (collectively referred to as RRAP throughout this report) include the following: Homeowner RRAP, Rental/Rooming House RRAP (including Secondary/Garden Suites), Emergency Repair Program, and Home Adaptations for Seniors Independence, Conversion RRAP and RRAP for Persons with Disabilities. The two renovation programs not covered in this evaluation are the Shelter Enhancement Program (SEP) and On-Reserve RRAP. SEP was evaluated in 2008 and a report issued in On-Reserve RRAP is part of an evaluation being undertaken in concert with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in 2009 and Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report 1

7 Protected section A introduction Federal, Provincial and Territorial Delivery and Evaluations Since 1985, provinces and territories have been invited to cost-share (minimum 25%) and deliver the federal investment in renovation programs. Most provinces and territories have opted to do so, and CMHC delivers in the remaining five jurisdictions. In one jurisdiction, the province cost shares but CMHC delivers. Table 1 presents a summary of the Federal cost-sharing and delivery arrangements with Provinces and Territories (P/T). Table 1 RRAP Cost-Sharing and Delivery Agreements P/T cost shares and delivers CMHC delivers federal programs Federal programs Federal and equivalent P/T programs P/T cost shares No cost-sharing Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Northwest Territories, Nunavut Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon Provinces and territories may also deliver the federal programs or their own equivalent programs. Three provinces deliver federation renovation funding through their own equivalent provincial programs. In these instances, their funding agreements require them to evaluate their own programs. Quebec delivers and evaluates all renovation programs delivered in the province. Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick deliver funding for Homeowner RRAP (HO RRAP), Emergency Repair Program (ERP), RRAP for persons with disability (RRAP-D) and Home Adaptations for Seniors Independence (HASI) through provincial programs. Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec have submitted their evaluation reports, and the one from New Brunswick is pending. EVALUATION ISSUES This evaluation addressed the following ten key evaluation questions: Continued Relevance of the Programs 1. Is there a continuing rationale for public renovation assistance and are the programs a suitable response? Targeting 2. To what extent are the programs successfully targeted to households in need? Program Results: Objectives achievement 3. To what extent have the programs addressed major deficiencies to the structure and systems of the dwelling and what are the implications for the occupants? 4. To what extent do programs preserve or add to the affordable housing stock? 5. To what extent have the programs provided accessible housing for low-income persons with a disability and seniors? 2 Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report

8 Section A Introduction protected Program Results: Additional Impacts and Effects 6. Do the programs impact homelessness? 7. Do the programs encourage uptake of energy efficient technologies and produce environmental benefits? 8. Do the programs have an impact on economic activity and employment? Program Design and Delivery Issues 9. Did increasing the maximum RRAP assistance amounts and removal of repayment provisions allow more eligible clients to access the programs and fully renovate in accordance with program standards? 10. Are there more cost-effective ways of delivering the existing program? EVALUATION METHODS Multiple lines of evidence were used to support the evaluation findings. Quantitative data were drawn from surveys, dwelling assessments, administrative data files, published data and literature reviews. Qualitative data were drawn from literature reviews and expert opinion. Surveys The evidence for measuring program impact is based on the following surveys: Client surveys were conducted with 1,184 homeowners and 271 landlords who had received renovation program funding between April 2003 and December 2007, and had their forgivable loan period, where applicable, starting during this period. Homeowners included HO-RRAP, ERP, RRAP-D and HASI clients. Surveys were also conducted with 210 tenants in RRAP rental units (Rental/Rooming House RRAP, Conversion and Secondary/Garden Suites) that had been renovated or created under RRAP between April 2003 and December In order to assess program impact, the evaluation included surveys with three comparison groups comprised of occupants and landlords who had not participated in RRAP: 268 low-income homeowners; 50 landlords of low income rental projects; and 296 low-income tenants. Statistical tests and multiple regressions were applied to the survey results as appropriate to determine what impacts had occurred. Dwelling Assessments Building inspectors assessed the need for further repairs in 270 homes renovated under HO-RRAP and 180 rental buildings and 527 rental/rooming house units renovated under Rental/RH-RRAP. Occupational therapists assessed the need for further accessibility improvements in 190 homes modified under RRAP-D and HASI. Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report 3

9 Protected section A introduction Government Officials and National Stakeholders In order to examine certain program rationale, delivery and cost-effectiveness issues, the evaluation surveyed 21 senior F/P/T housing officials, 56 program delivery staff and agents and five national associations. Secondary Data Data for program relevance and cost-effectiveness included program administrative and financial data, published data from such sources as Statistics Canada, CMHC and elsewhere, and literature reviews. PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS AND ACTIVITY Program Descriptions Program assistance is in the form of a forgivable loan. The maximum amount provided depends on the geographical location, with larger amounts available for more remote, northern areas. Homeowners Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (HO- RRAP) This program helps low-income homeowners living in substandard housing to undertake repairs to address deficiencies to the structure and systems (electrical, heating, plumbing and fire safety) in keeping with local building regulations and the provincial or National Building Code. These repairs must be completed with the view to extend the useful life of a dwelling for a further 15 years. Overcrowding is another aspect that may be addressed by modifying or expanding the existing dwelling. Depending on location of the unit, maximum assistance varies from $16,000 to $24,000 per household. All mandatory repairs must be undertaken to access assistance. RRAP funding in the form or a forgivable loan is provided where all mandatory repairs are undertaken. Repair costs exceeding the amount of assistance provided by RRAP must be covered by the homeowner with their own or other non-rrap funds. Energy conservation improvements, such as high-efficiency furnaces, energy-efficient doors and windows, and draft proofing are eligible for funding under RRAP where they are made in connection with eligible repairs and as long as their cost does not exceed 15% of the total amount provided by RRAP. Emergency Repair Program (ERP) ERP helps low-income homeowners or occupants in rural areas to undertake emergency repairs required for the continued safe occupancy of their homes. The repairs are intended to address urgent repairs to ensure the safe occupancy of the dwelling. They are not intended to extend the life of the building by 15 years. Assistance is available for households in rural areas, as it is recognized that fewer housing options are available than in urban areas. Modifications to alleviate overcrowding are not eligible under ERP, nor are improvements for energy efficiency. Maximum assistance ranges from $6,000 to $11, ERP is not available in urban areas or On-reserve. 4 Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report

10 Section A Introduction protected Rental/Rooming House, and Secondary and Garden Suite RRAP (Rental/RH, Suite) Rental/RH RRAP provides assistance to landlords of affordable housing for repairs to units and rooms occupied by low-income tenants. As for HO RRAP, these are repairs required to address deficiencies in the structure or systems, alleviate overcrowding or extend the useful life of a building. Depending on the location, maximum assistance varies from $24,000 to $36,000 per unit, or $16,000 to $24,000 per bed for rooming houses. Pre- and post-renovation rents must be at or below the median market rent for the local area. Beginning in 2005, Rental/RH RRAP may be used to create secondary and garden suites on existing residential properties, as a means of providing affordable rental housing for low-income seniors and adults with disabilities. The maximum amount ranges between $24,000 and $36,000. The term secondary suite or suite throughout the report refers to both suites within a dwelling and garden suites. Conversion RRAP This program allows for conversion of a non-residential property into units or beds to create affordable housing for low-income households. Maximum assistance varies depending on geographic location of the project from $24,000 to $36,000 per unit, or $16,000 to $24,000 per bed. RRAP for Persons with Disabilities (RRAP-D) RRAP-D provides assistance to homeowners and landlords to modify dwellings occupied or intended for occupancy by low-income persons with disabilities in any of the following areas: visual, hearing, cognitive, mobility, and allergies or environmental hypersensitivity. Modifications are to be permanent and improve the accessibility of dwellings and occupants ability to carry out daily activities, such as entering and exiting a dwelling, moving around indoors, and using kitchen, bathroom and laundry facilities. For homeowners and rooming houses, assistance varies depending on the location of the property from $16,000 to $24,000, and for rental units, from $24,000 to $36,000 per unit. To be eligible, a household must be of low income, one of the occupants must have a permanent disability or functional limitation that restricts the person s ability to perform activities of daily living. The structure must not need major repairs to the structure or systems; however, if these repairs are required, assistance under the HO-RRAP or Rental may be available. Home Adaptations for Seniors Independence Initiative (HASI) HASI provides assistance up to $3,500 for minor home adaptations to help low-income seniors with daily living activities in the home. Adaptations must be permanent and improve access to basic facilities. Examples include handrails, easy to reach work and storage areas, lever handles on doors and grab bars in bathrooms. To be eligible, an occupant must be 65 years of age or older, be of low income and have difficulties with daily living due to a loss of ability brought on by aging. Program Activity Funding commitments for the programs covered by this evaluation, for all provinces and territories from 2003 through 2008, totaled $716 Million. These funds contributed to renovating and creating 109,070 units and 2,990 beds. Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report 5

11 Protected section A introduction Table 2 Federal/Provincial/Territorial Expenditure Commitments ($000) Total HO-RRAP 40,568 58,501 47,736 49,093 57,506 64, ,004 Rental/RH RRAP 18,648 42,577 37,106 28,696 24,147 31, ,163 RRAP-D 12,010 16,836 15,537 16,603 14,967 17,075 93,028 ERP 6,701 7,802 7,341 7,676 8,582 8,850 46,952 Conversion 5,947 6,549 4,655 12,399 3,795 7,065 40,410 HASI 4,806 5,824 6,875 5,283 6,172 5,488 34,448 Total 88, , , , , , ,005 Source: CMHC, Canadian Housing Statistics, Table 3 Households Served in All Provinces and Territories Total HO-RRAP 5,625 7,650 5,800 5,550 6,854 7,478 38,957 Rental/RH units 3,475 7,175 6,000 3,235 4,028 5,005 28,918 RRAP-D 1,375 1,650 1,525 1,915 1,342 1,586 9,393 ERP 2,975 3,175 3,000 2,740 2,795 2,862 17,547 Conversion units ,887 HASI 1,750 2,100 2,600 1,945 2,063 1,910 12,368 Sub-total units 15,475 22,075 19,150 16,030 17,225 19, ,070 Rental/RH beds ,405 Conversion beds RRAP-D beds Sub-total beds ,990 Total 16,000 23,025 19,550 16,560 17,359 19, ,060 Source: CMHC, Canadian Housing Statistics, Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report

12 Section b The rationale for the RRAP protected Section B THE RATIONALE FOR THE rrap Issue 1: Is there a continuing rationale for public renovation assistance and are the programs a suitable response? The core objectives of the program are as follows: repair or rehabilitate units occupied by low-income households to address major deficiencies to the structure and systems; preserve and add to the stock of affordable housing; and improve the accessibility of units occupied by low-income seniors and persons with disabilities. These have remained the core rationales for the programs, although evolving policy priorities have, over time, also connected the programs to reduction of homelessness, promotion of energy-efficient technologies, employment generation and neighbourhood revitalization. Need Adequacy, Suitability and Affordability Need In Canada, the federal government employs the following three standards to determine whether or not housing is acceptable: Adequacy - Dwellings are considered inadequate if they are in need of major repairs to address defective plumbing, heating, wiring or structure, or to address a fire hazard. Adequacy relates to the health and safety of the occupants. Suitability - Housing is substandard if it is crowded according to the National Occupancy Standard. Research has shown that the amount of space available in a dwelling can affect both physical and mental health. Affordability - A household spending 30% or more of its annual gross income on shelter is considered to have a housing affordability problem. In the context of RRAP, eligibility is based on household income and housing being below adequacy and suitability standard. Households with incomes below established thresholds for a given geographic area and below adequacy and suitability standards are considered to be in core housing need, that is they have insufficient income to afford acceptable housing in their area. Households with incomes above the threshold are considered to have sufficient income to solve their housing problem(s). To measure the extent to which housing falls below the three standards, Statistics Canada surveyed households in the 2006 Census about their housing situation. Of the 3.6 million Canadian households with housing problems in 2006, approximately 1.5 million were in core housing need as shown in the Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report 7

13 Protected Section B The Rationale for the RRAP table below. While affordability is the main problem for this population, adequacy and suitability problems prevail for 421,635 households representing 28% of the households in core need. Ten years before, in 1996, a total of 478,545 core need households had adequacy and suitability problems. While the absolute number has dropped, the share of core need households with suitability and adequacy problems increased slightly from 26% to 28%. (ref Evaluation) Table 4 Application of Housing Standards to the Canadian Housing Stock All households (% of total households) Households in core housing need Total private households in Canada (2006) 11,766,145 (100%) Meet housing standards 8,177,025 (69.5%) Below housing standards 3,589,120 (30.5%) 1,494,395 (100%) Affordability problem only 2,124,745 1,072,760 (71.8%) Affordability and other housing problem (adequacy and/or suitability) Adequacy and suitability problems without affordability (who pay less than 30% of income towards housing) Total households with a housing problem beyond affordability 391, ,420 (17.8%) 1,072, ,215 (10.4%) 1,464, ,635 (28.2%) Source: CMHC, Custom Tabulation C9, from Statistics Canada, 2006 Census The more than 400,000 Canadian households with housing problems beyond affordability represent the main potential clientele for the RRAP programs. While roughly the same number of households in core housing need have either an adequacy or a suitability problem, a different distribution emerges if we look at homeowners and renters separately. Two-thirds of all homeowners have an adequacy problem compared to slightly more than a third of all renters. A third of owners have a suitability problem compared to slightly more than half of renters. Housing Problem Table 5 Households in Core Need by Tenure and Housing Problem All 421,635 Homeowners 133,790 (32%) Renters 287,845 (68%) Adequacy, with or without affordability 194,235 (46%) 84,565 (63%) 109,670 (38%) Suitability, with or without affordability 197,325(47%) 43,415 (32%) 153,910 (53%) Adequacy and suitability, with or without affordability Source: CMHC, Custom Tabulation C9, from Statistics Canada, 2006 Census 30,075 (7%) 5,810 (4%) 24,265 (8%) 8 Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report

14 Section b The rationale for the RRAP protected Accessibility Needs The tables above do not cover low-income people with accessibility needs. In 2009, CMHC published data on persons with mobility and agility disabilities who are in core housing need (2001 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey: Issue 1 Profile of the Housing Conditions of Canadians Aged 15 Years and Older with a Mobility and/or an Agility Disability). Of the approximately 98,000 persons with a disability affecting mobility who need special features and who are living in a household in core housing need, 68% have all the features they need, 9% report they have some features and need more, and 23% reported that they have none of the features they need. Hence, the number of persons with a mobility/agility disability living in core housing need with unmet needs for special features is approximately 30,000. This data, however, may under represent need, as the Statistics Canada data indicates that people who are not in core housing need may still not be in a position to afford the necessary modifications to their homes. National Stakeholders Perspective Five national associations representing the market and non-profit housing sectors were surveyed. They were asked whether they see a need for continuing government involvement to address the three objectives of RRAP (repair or rehabilitate to minimum standards, preserve and add to the affordable housing stock, and improve accessibility). Despite their different perspectives with regard to government involvement and public assistance, all five indicated their support for government renovation programs. Demand From 2003 through 2008, expenditure commitments for the RRAP programs totaled $716.0 M and the number of households served was 112,060. In the absence of consistent approaches across all jurisdictions to compiling and maintaining waiting lists or even having them, the evaluation estimated unmet demand in a different way. 2 The evaluation surveyed delivery staff and agents to estimate the total number of applications received in 2007 and the number that could not be processed with existing funding. Demand was reported to exceed the available budget for an estimated 51 to 57% of applications to the homeowner programs and 28 to 42% of landlord applications. These are rough estimates which do not account for the number of homeowners and landlords who may not have applied for assistance in the delivery year as budgets were fully committed. Nevertheless, they provide an indication that demand for program assistance exceeds available budget. Table 6 Percentage of Applications Not Processed Due to Insufficient Program Funds HO-RRAP ERP RRAP-D HASI Rental Rooming House Conv Source: RRAP Evaluation 2008, Delivery Staff/Agent Survey Suite 2 For example, one province said that its municipalities (as the program delivery agents) wipe out their waiting lists April 1, at the start of the fiscal year. Those who were previously on the list need to reapply. For the purposes of a fairly accurate analysis, waiting lists would need to include only those applicants who have qualified for assistance, not everyone who has applied and is waiting for their application to be processed. Consistency or inconsistency from one jurisdiction to another with respect to other procedures concerning intake and the maintenance of waiting lists may also have a significant bearing on the general reliability of waiting lists. Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report 9

15 Protected Section B The Rationale for the RRAP The evaluation asked CMHC and P/T delivery staff and agents whether they thought demand for the renovation programs had increased or decreased between 2003 and According to the responses, demand increased for all programs, albeit to varying degrees. Demand was perceived as having increased by 78% on average for HO-RRAP, Rental/RH RRAP and RRAP-D, the three main renovation programs, and by 60% for ERP and HASI. A lower increase in demand of 38% on average was reported for Secondary Suites (which was introduced in 2005), Conversion and Rooming House RRAP. Program Design and Ability to Address Existing Adequacy, Suitability and Accessibility Housing Problems of Low-Income Households Three of the renovation programs are intended to address adequacy and suitability problems: RRAP for Homeowners (HO RRAP), Rental/Rooming House RRAP (Rental/RH RRAP) and Conversion RRAP. Adequacy and suitability problems are aligned with the first two objectives of the renovation programs. Two other programs are intended to address accessibility problems: RRAP for Persons with Disabilities and Home Adaptations for Seniors Independence. While the requirements for the remaining program included in this evaluation, the Emergency Repair Program (ERP), do not include bringing housing to minimum levels of health and safety nor is it intended to preserve housing stock, it is appropriate to have a program to address emergency repair needs that seriously compromise occupant safety. ERP serves households that reside in rural areas where alternative housing options are non-existent or limited. Note about Suitability The evaluation examined the incidence of crowding by applying National Occupancy Standards (NOS) to information on household and dwelling characteristics obtained from occupant surveys. Although the overall suitability need in the population with core housing need problems is equivalent to the adequacy need (see Table 5), the evaluation found that overcrowding among RRAP beneficiaries is virtually nonexistent, occurring mainly in Rental/RH RRAP and then only in 4% of these households. Among the beneficiaries of RRAP-D, HASI and ERP overcrowding was not reported as an issue. Only 2% of dwellings in all three groups are less than suitable according to NOS. Additions or extensions were undertaken by 7% of RRAP clients (homeowners and landlords). Although households with crowding problems are targeted by RRAP, these results indicate that RRAP is not being used extensively to address overcrowding. In fact, this result especially as it concerns rental housing is not surprising. Further research and analysis would be necessary to understand; however, it is possible that limitations external to the RRAP program related to physical design (e.g. feasibility of adding rooms to existing apartments especially in mid or high rise buildings), municipal and other regulatory requirements and landlords willingness to make additions are all factors that make it difficult for public renovation programs to address crowding. Findings and Conclusions Since the last evaluation, the share of Canadian households with suitability and adequacy problems increased slightly from 26% to 28% of households in core housing need. This represents more than 400,000 households which constitute the main potential clientele for the RRAP programs. It is estimated that the number of persons with a mobility/agility disability living in core housing need with unmet needs for special features is approximately 30, Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report

16 Section b The rationale for the RRAP protected CMHC and Provincial/Territorial (P/T) RRAP delivery staff and agents have reported that demand has increased significantly between 2003 and 2007 and that demand is not being met with the existing budget. The suite of RRAP programs is well aligned to address the overall objectives of RRAP. The evaluation, however, notes that possibly due to external constraints rather than program design, renovation programs appear to be better at addressing adequacy than suitability problems, particularly for rental housing, and, in fact RRAP is not extensively used to address suitability problems. Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report 11

17 Protected Section c Targeted households Section C TARGETed households Issue 2: To what extent are the programs successfully targeted to households in need? This section looks at who has benefited from the RRAP programs based on information from surveys of tenants, landlords and homeowners in RRAP-renovated housing. The renovation programs are targeted to households who reside in inadequate or unsuitable housing and have incomes at or below established thresholds for a given geographic area. The target clients of RRAP-D and HASI are households with incomes at or below established thresholds for a given geographic area who have an occupant with, in the case of RRAP-D, a permanent disability or, in the case of HASI, a functional limitation that restricts the senior s ability to perform daily living activities. The profiles that are being provided of beneficiaries serve two purposes. Income data allow the evaluation to draw certain general conclusions with regards to the programs targeting low-income households. The other characteristics that come up from the socio-economic profiles show whether or not there have been shifts among RRAP clienteles from the last evaluation that are worth noting. Profile of Beneficiaries Income Fifty three percent of all RRAP households (homeowners and tenants) surveyed reported having an annual income of $18,000 or less at the time of the evaluation. However, a larger percentage of rental households as compared to homeowners are in this category: 67% and 51% respectively. Close to 25% of homeowner households have annual incomes between $18,001 and $24,000, compared to 15% of rental households. HO- RRAP Table 7 Annual Household Income Percentage of RRAP beneficiaries in each income range ERP RRAP- D HASI Rental/ RH Conv. Suite Ave. for Tenants 18, Ave. for Homeowners 18,001-24, , Source: RRAP Evaluation 2008, Resident Surveys 12 Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report

18 Section c Targeted households protected Source of Income The majority, or 65%, of all RRAP households reported pensions as their sole source of income. Among the homeowners (HO RRAP, ERP, RRAP-D and HASI) the proportion is 71%. For two thirds of the tenants (Rental/RH, Conversion and Secondary/Garden Suite), the source of income is either pension or welfare with the other third having paid employment or another source. Paid employment HO RRAP % ERP % Table 8 Major Source of Household Income RRAP- D % HASI % All Homeowners % Rental/ RH % Conv. % Suite % All Tenants % Pensions Welfare Other Source: RRAP Evaluation 2008, Resident Surveys Income to Shelter Ratio Seventy three percent of all Rental/RH, Conversion and Suite tenants have a shelter cost to income ratio (STIR) equal to or greater than 30%. For Conversion, 93% of tenants have an affordability problem, followed closely by 82% of Suite tenants and finally 65% of Rental/RH RRAP tenants. The average STIR is 71% for Conversion tenants and about 50% for Suite and Rental/RH tenants. By comparison, 37% of HO-RRAP, ERP and RRAP-D households and 22% of HASI have an affordability problem. The average STIR for HO RRAP, ERP and RRAP-D households is 34% and for HASI 24%. Average Yearly Shelter Cost ($) Average Yearly Income ($) Average shelter cost to income ratio (%) Percentage with STIR m 30% HO RRAP Source: RRAP Evaluation 2008, Resident Surveys Table 9 Shelter to Income Ratio ERP RRAP-D HASI Rental/ RH Conv. Suite 5,250 5,598 6,518 4,230 6,526 13,027 6,225 18,310 20,646 21,894 20,356 18,505 18,155 12, Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report 13

19 Protected Section c Targeted households Presence of Children The majority of RRAP households are without children, either single adults living alone or couples without children. These comprised about 75% of all RRAP homeowner and tenant households. The percentage of households with children for HO RRAP, ERP and RRAP-D was very similar for all three at about 25%. Compared to the 2003 evaluation, the percentage of HO RRAP households without children has increased by 10%, and for ERP, by 22%. Household composition for RRAP-D and HASI has remained virtually the same. Aboriginal People Off-reserve Aboriginal peoples (North American Indian, Métis or Inuit) comprised an average of 14% of HO-RRAP, ERP, Rental/RH RRAP and Suite respondents. Some 4% of RRAP-D and HASI respondents were Aboriginal people. HO RRAP remains unchanged from the 2003 evaluation, keeping it slightly higher than the 1995 evaluation (8%). ERP Aboriginal respondents at 19% were down from 28% in both of the two previous evaluations. Location Seventy two percent of RRAP-D, HASI and Rental/RH RRAP respondents are concentrated in urban areas, and 28% live in small communities (those having a population of less than 2,500) and rural areas. In comparison, 59% of Conversion occupants live in urban areas and 41% are in small communities and rural areas. About a third of HO-RRAP and Suite clients live in urban areas and about two-thirds are in small communities and rural areas. There has been little change in the location of HO-RRAP clients since the 2003 RRAP evaluation. However, there are notable shifts for RRAP-D and Rental/RH RRAP. More RRAP-D clients are in urban areas compared to 2003, increasing from 51% to 67%. Conversely, fewer Rental/RH RRAP tenants are in urban areas compared to 2003, declining from 93% to 80%. Urban Small communities and rural HO RRAP Source: RRAP Evaluation 2008, Resident Surveys Table 10 Dwelling Location ERP RRAP-D HASI Rental/ RH Conv. Suite Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report

20 Section c Targeted households protected Type of Disability among RRAP-D and HASI Clients For the clients of RRAP-D and HASI, the prominent disability or limitation is mobility. Table 11 Profile of Disabilities Among RRAP-D and HASI Clients RRAP-D HASI Mobility Seeing Cognitive Allergies Hearing Other Source: RRAP Evaluation 2008, Resident Surveys Findings and Conclusions The RRAP programs are well targeted overall to low-income households. RRAP-D and HASI are well-targeted to households where occupants have mobility or other problems that can be addressed by home modifications offered under the RRAP-D and HASI programs. The typical RRAP household is a single adult or a couple without children. The household head receives a pension. Income is low, with 67% of RRAP tenant households and 51% of RRAP homeowner households having an annual income of $18,000 or less and the proportion of income spent on shelter is high. About a third of HO RRAP and Suite residents live in urban areas, whereas about 60 to 80% of RRAP-D, HASI, Rental/RH and Conversion residents are in urban areas. Profiles of clients on the whole are similar to those in the previous evaluation. The most notable changes are a decline in HO-RRAP and ERP households with children and an increase in the percentage of RRAP-D homeowners living in urban areas. Further research and analysis would be required to explain these changes. Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report 15

21 Protected Section d Success and impacts of rrap Section d SUCCESS AND IMPACTS OF rrap Main impacts Issue 3: To what extent have the programs addressed major deficiencies to the structure and systems of the dwelling and what are the implications for the occupants? This was assessed by: looking at the type of repairs carried out by homeowners and landlords through the program; determining through physical inspections the extent to which major repairs exist at the time of the evaluation; looking at occupant self-assessments for remaining repair needs; and, looking at occupants perceived benefits resulting from the renovations. Types of Renovations Survey data provide an indication of the key areas of work being done through HO RRAP and Rental/RH RRAP for repairs to address deficiencies to the dwelling and through ERP to permit continued occupancy. Table 12 Percentage of respondents having done renovations covered by the programs HO-RRAP ERP Rental/RH Landlords Foundation walls, roof or other structural work Windows and doors Bathroom and toilet * Interior finishes Heating Electrical Exterior finishes Plumbing Site or grounds Kitchen space and cabinets Modifications to improve accessibility * Insulation and ventilation Addition, extension or conversion Fire protection Elevator/chair lifts accessibility * * eligible where Homeowner RRAP is combined with RRAP-D Source: RRAP Evaluation 2008, Resident and Landlord Surveys 16 Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report

22 Section d Success and impacts of rrap protected As Table 12 shows structural repairs top the list in all three programs. Repairs or replacements to window and doors were undertaken by half to two-thirds of HO-RRAP and Rental/RH RRAP clients. Over 50% of landlords also undertook repairs to interior finish, electrical, plumbing, and bathroom and toilet repairs. Assessment of Repairs Assessment by Building Inspectors Professional building inspectors surveyed a sample of buildings renovated under HO-RRAP and Rental/RH RRAP. As part of their inspection, they rated the overall condition of the buildings and found that 92% of HO RRAP and 95% of Rental/RH dwellings did not have major deficiencies to the structure and systems of the dwellings. The inspectors found that major repairs for one or more components were required in 8% of HO- RRAP dwellings and 16% of Rental/RH RRAP buildings. The inspectors estimated the cost of eligible RRAP repairs for HO-RRAP dwellings at $3,242 and for Rental/RH buildings at $951per unit. Assessment by Occupants HO RRAP and Rental/RH RRAP occupants were asked their opinion as to whether their dwelling needed regular maintenance only or major repairs. Some 40% of HO-RRAP clients said their home is in need of major repairs, compared to 7% for Suite and Rental/RH RRAP tenants and none for Conversion. The evaluation also examined the perceived incidence of major repair need among beneficiaries of RRAP-D, HASI and ERP 3. As for HO-RRAP, about a third of RRAP-D occupants reported that their dwelling requires major repairs, while 28% of HASI and 61% of ERP clients reported the same. Benefits for the Occupants Resulting from the Renovation The evaluation assessed various factors to determine the potential benefits the RRAP renovations had on households. The following areas were investigated: occupant satisfaction with dwelling performance including security from crime, air quality, temperature control, maintenance costs and safety security of tenure health social interaction overall quality of life The assessment involved surveying program beneficiaries (homeowners, landlords and tenants) and people in corresponding comparison groups. It is important to understand that when differences emerge between the program beneficiaries and the comparison groups, the evaluators can say that the programs had an impact. Also, responses are statistically analyzed (regression analysis) to determine whether changes (in satisfaction or reported improvements in this case) are attributable to the renovation 3 All repairs to address deficiencies to the structure and systems must be undertaken to be eligible for RRAP-D dwellings at the time of modifications. This is not a program requirement for HASI or ERP. Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report 17

23 Protected Section d Success and impacts of rrap programs or possibly to other factors. In this case, for occupants, the other factors assessed were household income, location, household type, major repairs undertaken other than through RRAP, age of the survey respondent and length of residence. Among the factors assessed for landlords were type of ownership (e.g. private), location of the rental property, age of the building, length of ownership, number of units, rental rate and vacancy rate. With this analysis, some clear evidence of impact emerged and these are reported here. The renovation programs had a more pronounced impact on rental dwellings and tenants than on homeowners. Rental/RH RRAP landlords reported a positive impact on building performance in the following eight areas: security from crime; ventilation or air quality; moisture, dampness and mould; temperature control; level of noise; utility costs; maintenance costs; and safety from accidents or fires. The results also suggest that Rental/RH RRAP landlords made more comprehensive renovations than those in the comparison group. Rental/RH RRAP and Conversion renovations contributed to tenants overall satisfaction with their dwelling and with ventilation or air quality. As well, Rental/RH RRAP tenants reported greater satisfaction with security from crime as a result of the RRAP renovations, and Conversion tenants reported increased satisfaction with moisture, dampness and mould control. Rental/RH RRAP tenants are less likely to move within the year than those in the comparison group. HO-RRAP and ERP homeowner satisfaction with their dwelling is attributable to whether or not major repairs are required. ERP clients were less satisfied than those in the comparison group with some aspects of their dwelling. Otherwise, HO RRAP and ERP client satisfaction was similar to the comparison group. Length of residence or the age of the respondent typically emerged as the influencing factor in a few other instances. There is no statistical evidence of RRAP having an impact on household health, occupants long-term plans to stay (tenure), social interaction, children s development or economic skills. A quarter of ERP clients surveyed reported improvement in their community involvement which, from the statistical analysis, is attributable to the program. Findings and Conclusions The programs addressed deficiencies to the structure and systems of the dwellings. Structural repairs top the list of repairs done in all three HO RRAP, ERP and Rental/RH programs. The inspectors rated the overall condition of the buildings and found that 92% of HO RRAP and 95% of Rental/RH dwellings did not have deficiencies to the structure or systems. Major repairs for one or more components were required in 8% of HO RRAP dwellings and 16% of Rental/RH RRAP buildings. In terms of implications for the occupants, based on statistical analysis of results with the RRAP households and comparison groups, it appears that the renovation programs had a more pronounced impact on tenants and rental properties than on homeowners. Rental/RH RRAP landlords reported a positive impact on building performance that is directly attributable to the program. The results also suggest that Rental/RH RRAP landlords made more comprehensive renovations than those in the comparison group. Rental/RH RRAP renovations contributed to tenants overall satisfaction with their dwelling and with security from crime. Rental/RH RRAP tenants are less likely to move within the year than those in the comparison group. 18 Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report

24 Section d Success and impacts of rrap protected HO RRAP and ERP homeowner satisfaction with their dwelling is similar to the comparison group on a number of aspects, although ERP clients were less satisfied in some instances. A quarter of ERP clients surveyed reported improvement in their community involvement which is attributable to the program. Issue 4: To what extent have the programs preserved or added to the affordable housing stock? Renovations financed by RRAP affect the supply of affordable housing by extending the useful life of buildings from abandonment or demolition and encouraging landlords to retain the buildings for rental purposes rather than converting them to condominiums or owner occupancy. RRAP assistance also helps minimize the impact of renovation on shelter cost. Within the RRAP suite of renovation programs, the Conversion program allows for conversion of a non-residential property into units or beds for low-income households and, since 2003, the Rental/RH RRAP may be used to create secondary and garden suites on existing residential properties. Both components add units to the existing affordable housing stock. Program Activity From 2003 through 2008, the renovation programs contributed to renovating and creating 109,070 units and 2,990 beds, for a total of 112,060. As shown in Table 12, 44% of the $716. million in funding for this period went to HO RRAP, followed by 26% for Rental/RH RRAP, 13% for RRAP-D, and about 6% to each of ERP, Conversion and HASI. In terms of units/beds, HO RRAP represents 35% of the total, Rental/RH RRAP 28%, ERP 16%, RRAP-D and HASI each about 10%, and Conversion 2%. On an annual basis, HO RRAP, Rental/RH RRAP and Conversion RRAP funded the repair or creation of 12,035 units, ERP repaired 2,920 units, and RRAP-D and HASI contributed to make 4,015 units more accessible. Table 13 Distribution of Funds and Units Renovated/Created Funding ($000) % Units/Beds HO RRAP 318, , Rental/RH 183, RRAP-D 93, ,918 units 2,405 beds 9,393 units 524 beds ERP 46, , Conversion 40, ,887 units 61 beds HASI 34, , Total 716, , Source: CMHC, Canadian Housing Statistics, % Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report 19

25 Protected Section d Success and impacts of rrap Impact on Property Owners Decisions Analysis of client survey data confirms that the renovation programs have influenced homeowners decisions to undertake repairs. For example, the two main programs, HO RRAP and Rental/RH RRAP, completely influenced 44% of HO RRAP homeowners and 30% of Rental/RH Landlords to undertake renovations and partly influenced 38% of homeowners and 55% of landlords. In other words, the programs influenced more than 80% of property owners altogether to renovate. In the absence of RRAP funding, these people would either not have done any of the renovations or would have done less or at a later date which could have negatively affected the stock of affordable housing. Plans for Rental Properties over the Next 10 Years Ninety percent of Rental/RH RRAP, Conversion and Suite landlords plan to maintain their rental properties as is for low-income rental purposes over the next 10 years. About 10% plan to convert to upscale rental, redevelop (demolish and build anew), sell or pursue other plans for their properties. Results for the comparison group results are similar which indicates that RRAP, per se, did not influence landlords to behave differently than other landlords in similar groups but with no RRAP funding. Impact on Useful Life Repairs done under HO RRAP and Rental/RH RRAP, but not ERP, are required to extend the useful life of a building by at least 15 years. Professional building inspectors assessed the physical condition of RRAP-renovated dwellings, which included estimating the overall remaining useful life of the buildings and of individual building components. According to the inspectors, although half of the homeowner dwellings and 38% of rental buildings had one or more components with a remaining useful life of less than 15 years, nearly all, 98% of HO RRAP dwellings and 99% of Rental/RH buildings, had an overall estimated remaining useful life of at least 15 years, assuming normal maintenance. Affordability of Units The affordability of RRAP units is another factor that was assessed to determine the extent to which the renovation programs contribute to affordable housing. While the renovation programs cannot directly address affordability problems, it is intended that the cost of renovating should not adversely affect shelter costs. A comparison of RRAP rents with median market rents is presented in the following table. Based on this evidence, RRAP rents are in accordance with program guidelines. Generally, rents for RRAP units were lower than median market rents for similar units by 20%. Only bachelor Conversion RRAP rents were similar to the median market rent. Conversion RRAP rents for 1- and 2-bedroom units were lower by about 14%. Rental/RH RRAP and Suite rents were lower on average by about 25% across all unit types. 20 Renovation Assistance Programs Evaluation Report