Community experience indicates that similar concerns are also voired about uniicensed facilities.
Use of the term “unlicensed” appears to create a perception irs public's mind that these
facilities are unregulated and therefore likely to be unsupervise rf accoun23ie. This often
heightens neighbourhood concems for safety and security andin: 2s oppes:ion to these type
of facilities. In addition, a range of juvenile, rehabilitation, and :way homes funded through
the Ministries of Social Service, the Attorney General, and Alec. .t and Drvg Programs do not
require a Community Care Facility Licence. The Social Issues Comminese suggests that a
common “performance contract” for such facilities could be considered as a means of monnoring
and ensuring that standards are met and that the contract be shared with municipalities so that
they can assure neighbours expressing concerns.

Local residents, businesses and community groups have expressed a wide renge of concerns
about licensed group home facilities. These include fears abcut vandalism and concern for
personal safety, as well as fears that property values will decrease in neighbous:.oods where such
facilities are located. Often local Councils hear concerned individuals express their support for
the need for such facilities but "not-in-my-neighbourhood". Opposition appears to be
particularly strong in the case of mental health, juvenile, and alcohol and crug rehabilitation
residences. Committee members who have worked with sponsoring groups end area residents
note that their appears to be a lack of information about and fears about grozp home residents
which must be overcome if acceptance and integration is ultimately to occur.

Some municipalities have addressed these issues by establishing group home policies and
procedures, including locational criteria and ‘good neighbour policies’. Locational policies are

intended to ensure that group hozies are distributed throughout a community and not
concentrated in one neighbourhood. A minimum distante between group homes ensures that this
concentration does not occur. Good neighbour policies are intended to set out procedures for
group home operators to follow to facilitate posit.ve integration and interaction with local
neighbours. Procedures inclu“ providing information about the group home, licensing and a
contact person to call if concems arise. .

However, the Committee notes that in addition to these policies and procecures, much more
focused, community-wide education on group homes is needed to deal directiy with fears and

concerns of residents. The Committee has developed a list of components which would form
the basis of such a community education program. In particular, the Committee feels the
process which is used is very important. Those community education progzems which appear
to be “public relations” campaigns, particularly if sponsored by any level of government, often
are distrusted and not accepted by local residents. The Committee, therefore. suggests that the
idea of developing a local community committee, or working with establishec committees where
they exist, such as a Mental Health Co-ordinating Committee, would be a useful starting point
for discussing the details of a community education program for 2 particular community. Some
ideas include using unique approaches such as theatre groups cr socia event as a means to
snform and to break down barriers. A pilot project could be considered.

(TEM | PA