Category: Social Audit

That the co-op continue to provide housing to a wide range of people of different ages, ethnic groups, incomes and occupations and that the intake of new members support the maintenance of this mix of people.

FlNDlNGS

1.  The age distribution in the co-op is:   19-29 (17%); 30-39 (38%); 40-49 (26%); 50-59 (10%); 60+ (9%).    The gender distribution is: male (32%), female (58%), and no answer (10%).

2. The individual income distribution is: less than $10M (19%); $10-19.9M

(12%); $20-29.91\11 (27%); $30-39.91\/1(19%); $40M+ (17%).

3. 84% of all members believe we have a good mix of members from different ethnic, cultural and national backgrounds.

4. Prior to joining  Woodsworth,  most  members (61%) lived  in  private rental housing; some (15%) owned homes, though these were mostly seniors;  some  (19%)  previously  lived  in  non-profit or other co-op housing.

5. The majority of members (64%) said private housing would be their ideal, if they could live anywhere, with co-op being the second most popular choice (19%) — though among those who have held elected office at Woodsworth, the co-op choice was higher (33%).   Not one member cited rental housing as the ideal.

6. The majority of members (62%) has lived here 7 years or longer. Approximately one in five (22%) have lived here three years or less.

7. Major  reasons cited for living  in  Woodsworth were: good neighbourhood (85%), low cost housing (78%), cannot afford to own (69%), security of tenure (66%).

8. 25% of the units at Woodsworth are provided with rent subsidies from government programs.  This is in line with other similar co-ops, except Windmill Line, which has managed to subsidize 44% of its units.

9. Compared to four similar co-ops, Woodsworth has the most sublet (5% of units) and allows the longest sublets (2 years). Windmill Line does not allow sublets.

10.    The membership process at Woodsworth is based on the following criteria:   commitment   to co-op principles, demonstrated   financial responsibility, indication of long-term commitment to co-op; likelihood to be a good member and neighbour and to maintain the home in good condition; household size and income meets requirements of co-op.

lMPLlCATlONS

The co-op has a mix of ages and income levels in the current membership.  However, in providing subsidized units for lower-income people, Woodsworth is doing only the minimum (25%) required by our regulators – when Windmill Line Co-op has managed to subsidize 440/c of their units.  Woodsworth could be doing more to provide housing for lower-income people.

Given the difficulty of phrasing a meaningful question, the Social Audit Questionnaire did not directly ask members for an ethnic identification. Instead, members were asked whether “Woodsworth has a good mix of members from different ethnic, cultural and national backgrounds”. 84% responded positively. While this response represents a high level of  unanimity  among  members,  one might question whether our community is as varied as we seem to think.

The membership approval process appears to be following the standards set by the Co-op by-law.  However, the current Woodsworth policy on sublets may be erring on the side of being “too generous” to sub-letters and unfair to people on the waiting list.

RECOMMENDED ACTlONS

The co-op should study how to increase its subsidy pool to allow more lower-income   people   to become members.  (See related recommendation under Objective 6: Pricing.)

The co-op should set aside another unit and sponsor a refugee family seeking a home in Toronto.

Given the housing crisis in Toronto and that all other housing co-ops studied have tighter policies, the Membership Committee should reexamine our sub-let policy and bring forward    recommendations to the members’ meeting as soon as possible.

To: Home page with table of contents for Social Audit 1989

That the broadest possible range of members be encouraged to run for elected office, and that the elected leadership generally reflect the mix of membership in the co-op.

FlNDlNGS

1.   40% of all members report having run for office.    Groups  with  low percentages running are: members under 30 (17%); seniors (23%); lower income (21%); single parents (24%) and newer members (13%).

2.  42%  of  those  who  have  run  for  the  Board  report  being  elected. Groups that seem to be least successful at being elected to the Board were: members under thirty (15%); seniors (25% lower income (21%); single parents (25%); and newer members (10%).   

Male candidates have been more successful getting elected to the Board than female candidates (46% to 37%).  The most successful groups are the higher income members (69%) and those in the 30-39 age group (57%).

3.  31% of the membership earns less than $20M, but only 11% of current and former Board members earn less than $30M.  Likewise, only 17% of the membership earn more than $40M, but 31% of current and former Board members are in that higher income bracket.

4.      Once elected, the Board elects their officers.  Over the past four years, three of the four Presidents have been women; all four of the VicePresidents have been women; while three of the four Secretaries and Treasurers have been men.

5.      61% of all those who have run for a committee position report being elected.   Groups with the lower success rates are members under thirty (36%), lower income members (39%), and single parents (20%). In committee elections, as opposed to Board elections, seniors seem to be much more successful (63%) and women do better than men (61% to 50%). Again, the  most successful candidate group is the higher income members (82%).

6.      About half the people running for office (46%) reported they did so for the first time during their first two years of residency.

Of those who have not run, the most common reason cited was preference for other types of involvement (38%), followed by a lack of time (25%) and not feeling qualified (22%). The groups most likely to say they were “not qualified” were seniors (42%) and single parents (30%).

8.      59%  of  those who have held elected office called it a positive experience.

9.      28% of the membership stated they anticipated running for office in the future.  However, the levels were quite low for lower income members (16%), single parents (12%) and seniors (9%).

IMPLICATIONS

The percentage of members (40%) who report having run for elected office is encouraging.   

Some groups of members seem to be over represented (higher income), while other groups of members are less likely to run and have historically been less likely to win when they do run (seniors, single parents, lower income members).

These same under-represented groups also seem to be the ones who expressed the least interest in running for office in the future. 

Those members who could cite reasons for not running, 63% said either they preferred other ways of participating or they said there were personal or circumstantial issues.

RECOMMENDED ACTlONS

1. The  Board  should see that a nominations  or  election  committee  is formed so that procedural support and/or an educational evening is organized to assist those members who would like to run for office.

2. Candidates are  not required to give speeches before  the  members’ meeting, and that practice should be continued.  However, the Board should ensure that a process is developed so that information on all candidates is circulated to all members prior to an election.

To: Home page with table of contents for Social Audit 1989

That the  Board  of  Directors  provide  leadership  in  long-term planning and fostering a co-operative community spirit within Woodsworth.

FlNDlNGS

Over the past five years, Woodsworth Boards have generally met twice each month with meetings usually running 2-3 hours.

71% of the current or former Board members said they felt too little Board time was spent on long-term planning and the development of our co-operative community.

All  of those  saying  too  little  time  was  spent  on  long-term  planning stated that the reason was “other issues were priorities”.

A review of Board minutes does not illustrate how past Board directed their time at meetings.  The current Board is keeping minutes that will indicate how much time is spent on what topics.  This will allow future study.

IMPLICATIONS

From the questionnaire answers, the great majority of current and former Board members felt that not enough time has been devoted to longer-term issues and planning.   Boards have traditionally spent a great deal of time on current operational and management matters.  It is unrealistic to expect these issues to decrease, so future Boards must determine how to decrease Board involvement in operational and management matters to free up more time for long-term planning and community development.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

Given the number of local co-ops, Woodsworth should ask CHFT to hold  an  annual  Board  training  program  in  the  St.  Lawrence neighbourhood.   Proper training will help Board members learn to differentiate its responsibilities and those of committees and staff.

The Board should immediately implement a strong Board/Committee liaison system so these groups can work together more effectively on longer term issues.

The members should ask the Board to leave more of the operational issues to staff in order to free up Board time to meet this social objective.

Given the workload placed on the Board, the membership should consider expanding the Board to nine members.

The Coordinator should be asked to place a copy of the most recent Board minutes on the bookshelf outside the office.

To: Home page with table of contents for Social Audit 1989