Audit and Evaluation Services Evaluation of the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program 2002

Program Overview Objective –rehabilitate housing occupied by low-income households to minimum levels of health and safety –improve accessibility for disabled occupants –maintain affordable housing stock Program volume –650,000 units, $ 3 billion since 1973 –82,000 units, $ 515 million from 1995 to 2001

Program Overview (continued) Program components –home owners –rental and rooming house dwellings –disabled occupants –rural dwellings in need of emergency repair –conversion of non-residential buildings –dwellings on Indian Reserves

Evaluation Issues Rationale Who benefits (targeting) ? What are stock impacts? What are occupant impacts? What are impacts on neighbourhoods? What are economic impacts?

Methodology Occupant surveys –owners, emergency repair units –tenants –disabled owners and tenants Landlord surveys –rental, rooming house, conversions, disabled rental units Comparison group surveys –owners, tenants, landlords Building inspections

Methodology (continued) Document and literature reviews Senior federal and provincial housing staff interviews Case studies: areas where RRAP delivery was concentrated in neighbourhoods Delivery staff

Rationale Findings over 475,00 core need households with adequacy or suitability problems 65% renters, 36% owners Need consists of families, senior, and non- family households Need varies by tenure 35% of households on Indian reserves have adequacy or suitability problems (equivalent figure is 11% off reserve)

Targeting Findings Rehabilitation loans well targeted to low income households, especially on reserves –85% to 98% below income thresholds Accessibility units continue to be occupied by households with disabled person –65% to 90% Aboriginal households receive 10% of off reserve homeowner loans

Stock Impacts Participation has influenced decisions to renovate for homeowners and landlords Renovations improved building conditions –however - up to 30 % of buildings would re-qualify 5 years after renovation Renovations have extended dwelling life Increased incidence of partial rehabilitation Post rehabilitation rents remain below market average

Occupant Impacts Renovations have removed health and safety threats –no association found between improved housing condition and health symptoms Loans to disabled households had significant impacts on accessibility of units –clients more satisfied with dwellings –improved participation in daily activity Significant numbers of clients have unmet modification needs

Homelessness Rooming house projects most likely to house previously homeless people Rooming house and rental projects house people homeless in past five years RRAP delivery in combination with other initiatives has had impacts on homelessness –Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI) within National Homelessness Initiative

Neighbourhoods/Employment Evidence of neighbourhood improvement –where RRAP activity has been targeted –where coordination with other programs E.g. Supporting Community Partnership Initiative Economic impact modest but proportional to expenditure –GDP and employment growth –Slight contribution to deficit and inflation

Evaluation Team Audit and Evaluation Services, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation –Anthea English, Director –Graham Murray, Manager –Clarke Wilson, Evaluator –Patricia Streich, Evaluator –Eva Berringer, Special Advisor R. A. Malatest and Associates, Victoria, BC –Robert Malatest, Project Leader –Joanne Barry, Project Manager Auguste Solutions and Associates, Chelsea, QC –Auguste Barrieau, Project Leader