Acknowledgements

The Canadian Centre on Disability Studies (CCDS) gratefully acknowledges the contributions of several individuals without whom the successful completion of the Aging and Disability: Livable and Inclusive Communities project would not have been possible.

A participatory action research and true collaboration is only possible when individuals selfishly devote their time and energy for a common purpose. Special acknowledgements go to the Regional Team Leaders for their extensive time commitment and leadership abilities of the coordination and implementation of community evaluation and planning in each of the six participating communities: Fort St. John and 100 Mile House, British Columbia; Selkirk and Rossburn, Manitoba; Waterloo and Woolwich Township, Ontario. In addition, the richness of the information collected is attributed to the generous contributions and sharing of knowledge by the Community Working Group members in each of the communities.

Special thanks go to Gina Sylvestre, John Spina and Arthur Ladd of the Institute of Urban Studies for conducting a case study on seniors with disabilities and transportation; Laurie Ringaert of CCDS for conducting a case study on seniors with disabilities and housing; and Eleanor Smith of Concrete Change for sharing her expertise on visitable housing.

And finally, CCDS is greatly appreciative of the efforts of Sue Mackenzie from the Active Living Coalition for Older Adults in Manitoba (ALCOA) for facilitating the Think Tank session and whose talents significantly contributed to the success of the event.

Disclaimer

This project is partially funded by the Government of Canada's Social Development Partnerships Program. The opinions and interpretations in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Government of Canada.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1

II. Project Goal, Outcomes and Activities to Achieve Outcomes.................................... 1

III. Project Methodology........................................................................................................ 4

A. Project Governance....................................................................................................... 4

B. Community Selection and Overview............................................................................. 4

C. Provincial Project Partners............................................................................................ 6

D. Regional Team Leaders................................................................................................ 6

E. Community Working Groups......................................................................................... 7

IV. Livable and Inclusive Communities Defined................................................................. 8

V. Livable and Inclusive Communities Model.................................................................... 8

A. Foundation for the Model............................................................................................... 8

B. Principles....................................................................................................................... 9

C. Elements...................................................................................................................... 10

VI. Livable and Inclusive Communities Evaluation Tool and Process.......................... 12

A. Evaluation Tool............................................................................................................ 12

B. Evaluation Process...................................................................................................... 14

C. Evaluation Results....................................................................................................... 14

VII. Livable and Inclusive Communities Planning Tool and Process............................. 16

A. Planning Tool............................................................................................................... 16

B. Planning Process........................................................................................................ 17

C. Community Planning Results...................................................................................... 17

VIII. Case Studies: Application of Livable and Inclusive Communities Model in Transportation and Housing............................................................................................................................ 20

A. Transportation Case Study.......................................................................................... 20

B. Housing Case Study.................................................................................................... 21

IX. Project Evaluation Methodology and Findings........................................................... 22

A. Training........................................................................................................................ 22

B. Livable and Inclusive Communities Model................................................................... 23

i. Definitions.............................................................................................................. 23

ii. Language............................................................................................................... 23

iii. Principles............................................................................................................... 24

iv. Elements................................................................................................................ 24

v. Visual Aids............................................................................................................. 24

vi. Process................................................................................................................. 24

C. Evaluation Tool............................................................................................................ 25

i. Indicators............................................................................................................... 25

ii. Challenges in Measuring....................................................................................... 25

iii. Evaluation Tool Form............................................................................................. 25

D. Evaluation Process...................................................................................................... 26

E. Planning Tool............................................................................................................... 26

i. Planning Tool Introduction..................................................................................... 26

ii. Planning Tool Form............................................................................................... 26

F. Planning Process........................................................................................................ 27

G. Think Tank................................................................................................................... 27

X. Blue Print for Action: Long Term Priorities and Broad Planning for Livable and Inclusive Communities.................................................................................................................... 28

A. Long Term Priorities.................................................................................................... 28

B. Blue Print for Action..................................................................................................... 33

XI. Resource Guide.............................................................................................................. 35

XII. Next Steps........................................................................................................................ 35

Appendix A: Community Evaluation Tool................................................................................ 37

Appendix B: Community Evaluation Findings........................................................................ 67

Appendix C: Community Planning Tool................................................................................... 92

Appendix D: Community Planning Results........................................................................... 102

Appendix E: Think Tank Report............................................................................................. 127

I. Introduction

The Aging and Disability project, initiated by the Canadian Centre on Disability Studies (CCDS) and funded by the Office of Disability Issues (Human Resources and Social Development Canada) was undertaken in response to the growing population of seniors (age 65 and over) in Canada and the corresponding increase in the number of individuals experiencing disabilities. The term ‘disability’ is defined as “physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.”[1] The Aging and Disability project is based on the core value that seniors with disabilities should be included and fully participate in the community, and the environmental, social and attitudinal barriers that prevent people with disabilities from full participation in society are removed.

Using the social model of disability as the basis, the goal of this project was to examine how the community environment can become more conducive to full participation of seniors with disabilities by identifying the principles and elements that comprise a livable and inclusive community for seniors with disabilities. Working in partnership with six pilot communities in three provinces, the CCDS Project Team developed and tested a Livable and Inclusive Communities model as well as evaluation and planning tools and processes that were designed for the purpose of assisting communities to identify the strengths, challenges and priority areas for action to improve the inclusiveness of seniors with disabilities in the community.

The Report summarizes the results of the project, with a particular focus on the feedback received from the participating communities on the effectiveness of the project processes, Livable and Inclusive Communities model, evaluation and planning tools and processes. The last section in the Report outlines the next steps CCDS intends to pursue in incorporating the feedback received and improving upon the model and tools developed.

II. Project Goal, Outcomes, and Activities to Achieve Outcomes

PROJECT GOAL:

The goal of the project as originally envisioned was to contribute to the development of livable and inclusive communities by piloting and testing an innovative and comprehensive model in three provinces: British Columbia; Manitoba; and Ontario. Outlined below are the outcomes achieved in the project and the completed project activities that led to the outcome.

Outcome 1:

Developed and tested collaborative and innovative tools, evaluation methods (indicators) and mechanisms that will assist in the development of inclusive and livable communities for seniors with disabilities in three pilot regions.

Output 1.1: Increased awareness and knowledge regarding planning and developing of livable communities that are inclusive of seniors with disabilities.

Activity 1.1.1: Conducted an environmental scan of Canadian and international inclusive and livable community initiatives, policies and evaluation guides

Activity 1.1.2: Conducted a literature review on livable communities and aging and disability strategies

Activity 1.1.3: Conducted an analysis of national and provincial frameworks on aging

Activity 1.1.4: Developed an inventory of promising practices in the area of inclusive and livable communities for seniors with disabilities

Activity 1.1.5: Conducted Case Studies demonstrating best practice in transportation and housing as it relates to the elements of livable and inclusive communities

Output 1.2: Developed evaluation and community planning instruments and associated processes for establishing livable and inclusive communities

Activity 1.2.1: Developed pilot “Livable and Inclusive Communities” evaluation tool and associated process to measure point-in-time status of communities regarding the extent to which they are livable and inclusive of seniors with disabilities

Activity 1.2.2: Developed pilot “Livable and Inclusive Communities” planning tool and associated process to assist communities in transforming the evaluation findings into action.

Output 1.3: Tested evaluation and planning tools and process in communities

Activity 1.3.1: Introduced through site visits to communities the evaluation tool and associated process.

Activity 1.3.2: Introduced communities to planning tool and associated process using Internet communication methods, i.e. Skype.

Outcome 2:

Increased capacity of policy makers, service providers, industry and community groups from disability and senior sectors as well as the general municipal and province levels to plan, initiate and deliver integrated accessible and affordable housing, transportation and support services and related information that promote inclusion and participation of seniors with disabilities.

Output 2.1: Increased knowledge and ability of stakeholders to contribute to the development of livable and inclusive communities

Activity 2.1.1: Trained Regional Team Leaders and Community Working Groups in applying the evaluation tool and process through in-person sessions delivered in each of the communities

Output 2.2: Increased collaboration between senior and disability sectors resulting in integrated strategies, joint plan and activities in Community Sites

Activity 2.2.1: Established Community Working Groups in each of the test communities with representation from disability and senior sectors, led by Regional Team Leaders

Activity 2.2.2: Trained Regional Team Leaders and Community Working Groups in applying the planning tool and processes

Activity 2.2.3: Provided ongoing coaching and support from the Project Team

Output 2.3: Improved communication, information sharing and networking capacities of the stakeholders

Activity 2.3.1: Community Working Groups invited input from a variety of sectors and build relationships with industry, planners, builders, etc. as they work with the evaluation and planning tools

Activity 2.3.2: Members of the Community Working Groups, led by the Regional Team Leaders, met regularly over the testing period to implement evaluation and planning activities

Outcome 3:

Improved system of development and delivery of integrated and accessible services to seniors with disabilities.

Output 3.1: Improved capacity of selected communities to address the needs of seniors with disabilities in an inclusive way.

Activity 3.1.1:Received feedback from the Regional Team Leaders and Community Working Groups in the selected communities regarding the pilot tools, processes, and resources.

Activity 3.1.2: Convened a Think Tank of the Project Team, Regional Team Leaders and selected members of the Community Working Groups to present on progress made and conduct a group evaluation of the pilot tools and processes.

Output 3.2: Increase access to and availability of innovative tools, resources and collaborative mechanisms that contribute to the development of livable communities inclusive of seniors with disabilities.

Activity 3.2.1:Developed a “Blueprint for Action” on livable communities based upon evaluation phase.

Activity 3.2.2: Developed a Resource Guide to provide communities with accessible information regarding the elements of livable and inclusive communities as well as funding sources for planned initiatives to address the needs of seniors with disabilities.

Outcome 4:

Increased awareness on livable and inclusive communities and the impact on seniors with disabilities.

Output 4.1: Improved ability of key stakeholders to communicate and promote knowledge on livable and inclusive communities to relevant sectors and the public.

Activity 4.1.1: Delivered presentations and media interviews regarding the community’s evaluation findings and planning results.

Output 4.2: Disseminated project related information including Case Studies, tools, processes, and resources.

Activity 4.2.1: Published articles on the project

Activity 4.2.2: Delivered presentations at conferences on the project

Activity 4.2.3: Established a collaborative web-site to disseminate knowledge, and provide a forum for sharing and networking

Activity 4.2.4: Completed final reports

III. Project Methodology

A. Project Governance

The governance structure of the CCDS Livable and Inclusive Communities for Seniors with Disabilities Project served to provide a forum for project accountability; project leadership in each of the six chosen communities; involvement of key project partners in each of the three provinces; and participation of individuals on a Community Working Group representing key sectors within each of the communities. The CCDS Project Team is responsible for the development of evaluation and planning tools and processes, provision of evaluation and planning process training, design and delivery of the Think Tank, and creation of reporting documents. The CCDS Project Team consisted of:

Dr. Olga Krassioukova-Enns – Project Manager

Christine Ogaranko - Project Lead

Laura Rempel - Project Coordinator

Colleen Watters - Research Assistant

Laurie Ringaert - Project Consultant

B. Community Selection and Overview

The Livable and Inclusive Communities model was tested in two pilot sites, one rural and one urban, in three provinces for a total of six pilot communities: 100 Mile House and Fort St. John, British Columbia; Rossburn and Selkirk, Manitoba; and Waterloo and Woolwich, Ontario.

The six pilot sites were chosen based on the following criteria:

Communities with higher percentage of seniors compared with other communities
Population Size

· One rural community in each province (less the 5000 population)

· One urban community in each province (5000 – 50,000 population)

Ethnically diverse – presence of visible minorities, immigrants, and Aboriginal people
Presence of a seniors and/or disability network or organization
Potential partners within the municipal government or a non-government disability/seniors organization
Indication that the community is interested in promoting disability and/or seniors issues, such as the presence of seniors/disability initiatives

Overview of Communities

Fort St. John, British Columbia

Population: 25,136

Senior Demographic: 1585 (6%)

Overview: Fort St. John is an urban community in the northeastern part of British Columbia. It is known as the ‘Energetic City’ due to its resource base of oil, natural gas, forestry and agriculture as well as the vitality of its residents. Fort St. John is a hub, servicing 64,000 people in outlying areas. The community had previously participated in the Measuring Up the North initiative.

100 Mile House, British Columbia

Population: 1,885

Senior Demographic: 430 (23%)

Overview: 100 Mile House is a rural community in the Central Interior with many lakes and beautiful scenery. Although it is a small centre it acts as a hub to a larger rural service area of about 20,000 people. 100 Mile house is an industry-based town focused on forestry, agriculture and tourism. It is a highly active area consisting of a high population of retired people and many caring volunteers. The community had previously participated in the Measuring Up the North initiative.

Waterloo, Ontario

Population: 97,475

Senior Demographic: 10875 (11%)

Overview: Waterloo is an urban centre that has evolved from an agriculture-based community to a telecommunications and technology hub. The Kitchener/Waterloo Social Planning Council has hosted a series of events based on community engagement and inclusion called Focus on Inclusion - Waterloo Community Action Forum. They also have an active Disabilities and Human Rights Group.

Township of Woolwich, Ontario

Population: 19,658

Senior Demographic: 2,850 (14.5%)

Overview: Woolwich is comprised of an extensive rural area and 15 residential settlements, 5 industrial/commercial areas and 3 open space areas. It is located in South-western Ontario, in the northeast section of Waterloo Region. The township vision is: “The Township of Woolwich will continue to meet our community’s needs through particular focus on managing growth, roads and infrastructure, human resources, community health and safety and quality services while being recognized as a leader in the provision of municipal services.”

Selkirk, Manitoba

Population: 9,515

Senior Demographic: 1,870 (19.6%)

Overview: Selkirk is a growing urban centre directly north of Winnipeg and its economy is derived from agriculture, manufacturing, tourism, culture and heritage. Major employers include Manitoba Hydro, Selkirk Mental Health Centre, Gerdeau MRM Steel Mill and several personal care homes. Selkirk is a regional hub for rural municipalities of St. Clements, East St. Paul and West St. Paul with a population of about 40,000 people.

Rossburn, Manitoba

Population: 546

Senior Demographic: 205 (37%)

Overview: Rossburn is a rural community situated close to Riding Mountain National Park. Its predominant economic activities include agriculture, mixed farming, ranching and recreational activities. Rossburn is a hub for 3000 people in the surrounding areas. The community is actively involved with the Age-Friendly Communities initiative in Manitoba.

Source: 2006 Community Profiles statistics retrieved from Statistics Canada http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-591/index.cfm?Lang=E

C. Provincial Project Partners

The role of the provincial project partners was to work in close collaboration with the CCDS Project Team and act as a link between the Project Team and the initiatives, organizations, and individuals at the community level. The project partners were the recipients of the project funding to be used for the implementation of the project activities within the community and were required to submit accounting reports to the CCDS Project Team. The project partners are as follows:

100 Mile House, British Columbia - District of 100 Mile House

Fort St. John, British Columbia - Measuring Up the North Community Liaison and the Fort St. John Association for Community Living

Rossburn, Manitoba - Rossburn Seniors Drop-in Centre

Selkirk, Manitoba - City of Selkirk

Waterloo and Woolwich, Ontario - Social Planning Council of Kitchener-Waterloo

D. Regional Team Leaders

The Regional Team Leaders were responsible for leading the development of the Community Working Groups and providing overall coordination of the Working Group activities as well as liaising with the Project Team. Key responsibilities included:

Ø Facilitating the meetings of the Community Working Groups including arranging meeting space, inviting representatives, and disseminating meeting agendas.

Ø Participating in meetings with other Team Leaders to share progress and challenges

Ø Participating in the training for the evaluation, protocol and planning tools (2 sessions)

Ø Overseeing the implementation of the evaluation tool and process within the community

Ø Facilitating planning sessions with the Working Group based on the results of the evaluation

Ø Providing feedback on the evaluation, protocol and planning tools

Ø Attending a Think Tank in March 2009 to participate in the development of a broader Blue Print for Action

The Regional Team Leaders representing the six pilot communities were:

100 Mile House, British Columbia - Joanne Doddridge, Planner, District of 100 Mile House and Shelly Somerville, Measuring Up the North Committee Member

Fort St. John, British Columbia - Lori Slater, Measuring Up the North Liaison and Cindy Mohr, Executive Director, Fort St. John, Association of Community Living

Rossburn, Manitoba - MaryAnn Grassinger and Ed Zimmerman, Rossburn Seniors Drop-in Centre

Selkirk, Manitoba - Mayor David Bell, City of Selkirk and Jennifer Ferguson, Selkirk and District Planning Area Board

Waterloo and Woolwich, Ontario - Trudy Beaulne, Executive Director, Social Planning Council of Kitchener-Waterloo and James Hunsberger, Board Member

E. Community Working Groups

There was one Community Working Group in each of the six chosen communities with members representing a range of sectors. There were a total of 57 individuals who participated in the Community Working Groups with some individuals representing more than one sector. The sector representation is as follows:

Ø Individuals with lived experience as a senior and or person with disability – 23

Ø Family members with lived experience - 2

Ø Municipal government - 4

Ø Municipal planning office - 3

Ø Health services - 10

Ø Transportation - 2

Ø Universal design - 3

Ø Leisure/Recreation - 6

Ø Spiritual /Cultural - 1

Ø Employment /Jobs - 3

Ø Aboriginal/First Nation community - 4

Ø Community organizations – 13 (e.g. Social Planning Council, MS Society, Planned Lifetime Networks, Human Rights and Disabilities Group, Association of Community Living (support adults with developmental disability), Save Our Northern Seniors)

The Community Working Groups were responsible for participating in training sessions related to the evaluation and planning tools and processes; measurement of the elements related to livable and inclusive communities; participation in the planning sessions to address the evaluation findings; and some selected members participated in the Think Tank towards the end of the project.

IV. Livable and Inclusive Communities Defined

The core purpose of this project is to assist communities in evaluating the elements necessary to ensure that the community is livable and inclusive of seniors with disabilities, and to facilitate a community planning process to identify what steps the community can take to achieve this outcome. Before describing the model developed to address this purpose, it is important that the concepts of livable and inclusive communities are clearly defined.

The term “livable and inclusive community” is premised on the values:

Every community, whether rural, urban or northern, should offer the same opportunities for all of its citizens regardless of their abilities, and,
A community’s social and physical environments have a direct correlation to its citizen’s overall health, well-being and quality of life and should be addressed in tandem in order to meet citizens’ needs.

Livable communities are assessed by the level of quality of life it offers to their citizens, including a place that fosters good schools, housing, public transit, and jobs; takes a sustainable approach to environmental, cultural, and human resources; encourages a broad range of physical, cultural, social, and economic opportunities; and, it takes a context-sensitive approach to planning and development impacts. (Montgomery County Planning Department, 2003)

An “inclusive community” by definition is one that is open to individuals of all identities (for example, age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, ability/disability, ethnic origin, family status, etc.), and that these same individuals are able to actively take part in the community as they feel safe and empowered to do so; their voices are heard; and, their contributions are acknowledged and valued by the community. (McMaster University, N.D.) Participatory planning and decision-making are at the heart of an inclusive community. (Maxwell, G., 2007)

When these values and definitions are applied to seniors with disabilities, the result is a community that actively involves and includes seniors with disabilities and that the businesses, programs, and services that make up a community are planned and established with the needs of seniors with disabilities in mind.

V. Livable and Inclusive Communities Model

A. Foundation for the Model

The Livable and Inclusive Communities model is based on the premise that there is a direct correlation between citizens’ overall health, well-being and quality of life and the political, social, physical and economic environments, and in order to develop communities that are truly livable and inclusive for all citizens, the four environments must be addressed in tandem. In other words, the extent to which the political, physical, economic and social environments are inclusive of individuals’ needs is reflective of a livable and inclusive community.

Figure 1: Foundation for Livable and Inclusive Communities

Furthermore, the concepts of private and public, and policy and practice are applied to each of the four environments and act as a lens through which the model is applied and used as a measurement of Livable and Inclusive Communities. These concepts are reflected in the principles, elements and indicators that form the model.

B. Principles

The principles in the Livable and Inclusive Communities model are a collection of standards that act as a guide in the evaluation of a community. The principles represent the core of the model and lay the foundation upon which the elements are built. They are broad statements that, in this pilot version of the model, have been written to reflect the focus on seniors with disabilities and are as follows:

Participation – Seniors with disabilities actively participate in community planning, design, decision-making and implementation. Furthermore, seniors with disabilities fully participate in all aspects of the community.

Community Connections – Opportunities exist and the physical surroundings support the interaction between seniors with disabilities and other community members, organizations, and surrounding communities.

Leadership – The community as a whole requires leadership to ensure that communities are inclusive of seniors with disabilities, and in addition, opportunities exist for seniors to build capacity to develop and exercise leadership roles within the community. Evidence such as existing policies show that community leaders have prioritized the needs of their constituents.

Sustainability - A constant process of evaluation and adaptation is necessary to seek balance in the social, economic and environmental components of a community to meet the changing needs of seniors with disabilities ensuring that the ability of future generations lead active lives in the community.

Universal Design - Universal Design is the practice of planning and designing environments that accommodates individuals’ changing needs over time. It applies to accessing services, landscapes, buildings and information to young and old, with or without disabilities regardless of life circumstances. (Source: www.winnipeg.ca/ppd/Universal_Design.stm)

Affordability - The cost of programs, services and amenities are relative to an individual’s income and do not act as a barrier to access necessary services or negatively affect an individual’s quality of life.

C. Elements

Based on a review of the literature, a review of existing provincial disability and senior sector frameworks, and previous research conducted by CCDS, the CCDS Project Team determined that there are ten interrelated elements that are part of livable and inclusive communities. The elements represent the common aspects of a community that all members of the community rely upon or access. In a livable and inclusive community, each of the six principles listed above is reflected in each of the ten elements. Also, each of the elements is interrelated, so if one element changes than that affects or subsequently changes one or more other elements. For example, if accessible housing (element) for seniors with disabilities are built on the outskirts of a community, then reliable transportation (element) needs to be available in order to use necessary support services (element). If appropriate transportation is not developed, than that will negatively impact a person’s ability to participate (principle) and remain connected to the community (principle).

The ten elements of the pilot Livable and Inclusive Communities model are described below:

Housing - Available housing stock consists of a range of options including public (subsidized) and private housing, assisted living accommodations, co-housing, and life lease accommodations.

Transportation - Public transportation is available and affordable, and can accommodate individuals with different abilities. Public transportation refers to taxis, buses, trains, airplanes, and assisted transportation such as Handi-Transit. Private transportation such as the use of a car is supported.

Support Services – Supportive services are made available by the formal service system and informal caregivers to provide assistance in a flexible manner to individuals to carry out the activities of daily living and facilitate the person’s ability to interact in a person’s home and the community. Examples include: home care, respite care, housekeeping, home maintenance, and meal preparation.

Health and Well-being – Programs and services are available that promote physical health and mental well-being. Examples include formal health services, alternative health resources, counselling services and peer support groups. Access to healthy food is fundamental to good physical and mental health and is influenced by factors such as local availability, affordable prices, and gardening options.

Education & Training – Formal opportunities for learning are available which include post-secondary, continuing education, and skill training programs that promote access to life-long learning opportunities for adults and seniors. Also, informal learning opportunities are available such as mentorship programs for youths and seniors.

Spiritual/ Cultural - Spiritual refers to individual or group-based participation in worship, exploration of doctrines and beliefs, fellowship, and community outreach, as well as meditation and yoga. Culture refers to a common language, history, art forms shared among a group of people.

Leisure/Recreation – Leisure/recreation refers to activities including physical exercise programs and community gatherings, such as social activities to promote interaction among community members of all ages. Available and affordable programs targeting seniors should be adapted for people with different abilities. Furthermore, information is made centrally available to the community regarding leisure program options in an accessible format.

Outdoor Environment – The outdoor environment refers to public space that includes green spaces, e.g. public parks, gathering spaces, and sidewalks. These areas should be pedestrian-friendly, e.g. clear of hazards, sheltered from adverse weather where possible, accessible, integrated into residential areas, well-lit for safety sake, easily navigated with adequate signage, and offer access to seating and public toilets.

Employment/Jobs – Flexible employment options are available such as job sharing, part-time work, and various retirement options. Retraining opportunities in new or existing skill areas is available, e.g. computer skills training.

Volunteerism – Volunteer opportunities are available and individuals are encouraged to participate in the community as volunteers with organizations, schools, boards, etc. A registry exists in the community of available individuals with skill sets for the purpose of matching to potential volunteer opportunities. Individuals are valued, recognized, and utilized by the community for their knowledge and lived experience.

Figure 2 below illustrates the pilot Livable and Inclusive Communities model.

Figure 2: Livable and Inclusive Communities Model – Principles and Elements

VI. Livable and Inclusive Communities Evaluation Tool and Process

A. Evaluation Tool

The CCDS Project Team developed a pilot evaluation tool as a means of measuring the extent to which the principles of the Livable and Inclusive Communities model are reflected in the communities’ ten elements; that is the extent to which the communities are inclusive of seniors with disabilities. The means of measuring or evaluating the presence or absence of the principles and elements in communities is through the indicators that have been developed and incorporated into the evaluation tool reflecting each of the principles for all ten elements. The expected data to be collected for each of the indicators is also outlined in the evaluation tool. There are a total of sixty indicators in the evaluation tool; six indicators for each of the ten elements reflecting both quantitative and qualitative data. The indicators for this pilot tool have been written to reflect the target group of seniors with disabilities; however the indicators can be revised to reflect other target groups.

Table 1 below outlines the indicators and data to be collected for the element of housing. This format is repeated for all ten elements. For the complete Evaluation Tool, refer to Appendix A.

Table 1: Housing Element – Indicators and Data to be Collected

Principle	Indicators	Data to be Collected
Participation	A policy exists at the municipal level requiring the participation of seniors with disabilities in the housing development planning process.	· Identify, count, and describe existing policies · Count the number of seniors with disabilities that are currently involved in municipal planning processes
Community Connections	The location of the housing occupied by seniors with disabilities is within a 5 minute walk, 10 minute drive by car, or 15-20 minute ride using public transportation to core amenities.	· Measure the time taken to travel by walking, by car or public transportation between seniors housing and a grocery store and pharmacy
Leadership	Government and non-government leadership in the community formally acknowledges and addresses the housing needs of seniors with disabilities. E.g. strategic planning and community planning processes that highlight the different housing options for seniors with disabilities.	· Count and describe the strategic planning and other community planning processes at the municipal level that have occurred over the past 5 years that address the housing needs of seniors with disabilities. · Identify and describe the planning documents that specifically mention these needs
Sustainability	The community conducts pre and post evaluation activities to ensure a balance between the social, economic and environmental factors in the development of housing.	· Identify and describe the evaluation and decision-making process (i.e. what factors are taken into account) undertaken by the community/ municipality when reviewing a housing development proposal
Universal Design	Policy exists to guide the planning of new housing construction (private and public) that ensures basic accessibility (no step entrance, wider doorways, and main floor bathroom).	· Identify and describe existing policy to incorporate universal design principles in new construction. · Identify and describe the types of assistance available to individuals who require adaptations to their existing home.
Affordability	The percentage of individuals in the community age 65 and over that spend more than 30% of their income on housing. The number of seniors subsidized housing units in the community in proportion to the number of individuals age 65+ that spend more than 30% of their income on housing.	· Obtain statistical information (CMHC, Statistics Canada) that indicate the number of individuals age 65 and over in the community that spend more that 30% of their income on housing. · Count the number of subsidized housing units in the community allocated for seniors.

B. Evaluation Process

The process to implement the evaluation was participatory and multisectoral in nature. The activities of the evaluation, i.e. the measurement of the elements based on the indicators, were conducted by a Community Working Group that consisted of members that were representative of the key elements of livable and inclusive communities. Alternatively, expert community members were also engaged to provide specific knowledge and are not part of the core group. Examples of sector representation include:

Ø Consumers with lived experience – seniors with disabilities

Ø Local government

Ø Municipal planning office

Ø Health services

Ø Transportation

Ø Housing

Ø Universal design

Ø Recreation

Ø Environment

The Community Working Group were led by a Regional Team Leader that coordinated the Group’s activities through regularly scheduled meetings. The Community Group’s initial focus was to implement the evaluation tool. Each Community Working Group received on-site training on the use of the tool. Once the training was completed, the Regional Team Leader engaged the Working group in one of two processes: 1) the Team Leader assigned each element and the corresponding indicators to the individual Working Group member whose knowledge matched the element. Each Working Group member was responsible for collecting the information related to the indicators for that element and reporting the findings to the Group at the scheduled meetings; 2) the Working Group worked through each of the indicators as a group and if information was not available within the Group, then the required information was gathered and brought back to the group. Once the Community Working Groups completed the information gathering process as it related to the indicators, the Groups engaged in a large group discussion, led by the Regional Team Leaders, to identify the strengths, challenges, and areas for action based on the information gathered for each indicator. All information gathered as well as the identified strengths, challenges and areas for action were entered into the evaluation tool document which was then submitted to the Project Team for synthesis and analysis.

C. Evaluation Results

A summary of the areas for action identified as part of the evaluation process for all participating communities are outlined below. The detailed evaluation findings for each community are located in Appendix B.

Housing

Increased affordable and accessible housing options for seniors with disabilities
Involve seniors with disabilities in municipal planning related to housing development
Develop an affordable housing plan
Determine the needs of seniors with disabilities as it relates to housing in the community

Transportation

Increased transportation options and availability in rural and urban areas
Training available for transportation operators regarding assistance provided to seniors with disabilities
Availability of affordable transportation options
Increased awareness of transportation options

Support Services

Improved access to information regarding available support services in the community, i.e. resource guides
Establish supports for caregivers
Increased availability of support services in general and affordable support services

Health and Well-being

Increased awareness of health services available and not available in the community
Improved access to information regarding the type of health and well-being services available in the community
Increased availability of services particularly in the rural area, e.g. help-line
Provision of healthy living workshops in the community
Increased input from seniors with disabilities in health service planning

Education and Training

Increased education and training opportunities for seniors with disabilities
Increased awareness of available education and training opportunities
Availability of courses specific to the needs of seniors with disabilities, e.g. driver training
Available services to support access to education and training, i.e. transportation

Spiritual and Cultural

Increase in accessible facilities for spiritual and cultural activities
Involve seniors with disabilities on the boards of spiritual/cultural organizations as a means of raising awareness of needs

Leisure and Recreation

Coordination among existing leisure/recreational activities
Increased availability of affordable recreational options
Increased knowledge of the leisure/recreational preferences of seniors with disabilities
Increased availability of information regarding leisure/recreation options
Increased availability of accessible leisure/recreation options
Develop supports that would facilitate participation in leisure/recreation programs, e.g. flexible transportation, weather shelters in park areas

Outdoor Environment

Improved walkways, signage throughout the community and in public green spaces
Improved maintenance of outdoor walkways in winter months
Involve seniors in planning outdoor spaces in the community
Provision of accessible washrooms and bench areas in outdoor spaces
Improved crossings at street intersections

Employment and Jobs

Increased awareness of employment options for seniors with disabilities
Assess needs of seniors with disabilities as it relates to employment and jobs
Advocate for businesses/organizations to hire seniors with disabilities
Increased accessible working environments

Volunteerism

Increased awareness of available volunteer opportunities
Develop a ‘senior friendly registry ‘ for individuals wanting to volunteer
Educate the public regarding the needs of seniors with disabilities

VII. Livable and Inclusive Communities Planning Tool and Process

A. Planning Tool

The pilot Community Planning Tool was developed by the CCDS Project Team for the purpose of guiding the participating communities through a planning process that would transform the priority areas identified in the community evaluation process into action.

Within the Planning Tool there are nine (9) categories of information required for each element. The definition of each category and the corresponding instructions for completion of the Tool are outlined below. Refer to Appendix C for the Planning Tool in its entirety.

Three (3) Priority Areas

Refers to the priority areas the Community Working Groups identified during the evaluation phase for each of the ten elements.

Related Principles

With a check mark (√) in the box, indicate the principle(s) that the priority area addresses. More than one principle may be applicable.

Short Term/ Long Term

For each of the three priority areas indicated, place a check mark in the box to indicate if the priority area is to be addressed in the short term (within one year) or in the long term (within 2-3 years).

Actions for Short Term Priority Areas

For the short term priority areas only, list the actions to be taken for each. In order for the action steps to be feasible, a maximum of 5 actions is recommended. If the priority area has been identified as long term, then leave this and the remaining categories blank.

Individual(s) Responsible

List the names and affiliations (i.e. indicate if the individual is a member of the Working Group and the organization they represent, if applicable) of individuals that are responsible for leading each action.

Potential Partners

List the individuals and/or organizations that will be invited to take part in the action identified. For example, the Seniors Centre may partner with the local health service in establishing accessible transportation for medical appointments.

Funding Required and Source

Estimate of the funding required to undertake the action along with the source of the funding. For example, if the action is to establish a list of the seniors’ recreation opportunities available in the community, then the anticipated costs (financial and in-kind) in doing so are identified.

Anticipated Start and Finish Dates

Indicate the day/month/year it is anticipated that the action will start and finish.