Changes from Phase 1 and 2:

The changes from phase 1 to phase 2 were a significant finding in the research. The first come, first served line up for relocation housing from phase 1 was criticized by key informants (TCHS, TCHA, CLE1). The need to line up for temporary relocation housing had negatively impacted those who were parents with small children, elderly, differently abled, and those who worked during the day (CLE1, TCHS, Schippling, 2007). After phase 1’s relocation and return had occurred, the TCH reflected on the issues regarding the first come, first served line ups. The implementation revealed that this system of relocation was not adequate. Consequences such as individuals lining up days before were not anticipated (TCHS). TCH revamped their system of relocation and return by creating a 10 step program of relocation and return. The 10 step relocation system allows tenants to participate in a random draw to assign their housing choices. The lottery system was a definite improvement. In their study of tenant relocation systems, Public-Interest (2004) stated that the use of a lottery system to designate housing choices was considered a best case practice. The lottery system was perceived to be far better than the line ups by key informants (TCHS, CLE1).

During phase 2 some tenants were able to move straight into their new units. The process building more units than were torn down, allowed some phase 2 tenants to move straight into their on-site replacement unit. These improvements to policy design aided tenants Right of Return. According to the Hollins (2011), tenants experience less stress when they are able to live and remain on-site. Furthermore, the front ending of construction in phase 2 ensured some tenants would only have to move once, from their old unit to their new replacement unit. In contrast, phase 1 tenants would move from their original unit to a relocation unit and finally, to their replacement unit. The changes that were made in phase 2 reduced the number of times some households. These changes have been attributed to mitigating the frustrations associated with multiple moves (Venkatesh and Celimli 2004).

When a tenant is able to move straight into their new unit from their previous home, the complexity of relocation and return is simplified.

Comparing the results of housing choices from phase 1 and phase 2, it appears that in phase 2 more residents were able return, and less residents opted to leave TCH RGI housing. The higher rate of return among tenants can be attributed to better communication on the part of TCH, as well as better policy design, which was mentioned above. Below is a breakdown of changes from phase 1 and 2, as well as relocation statistics for both phases to highlight the changes.

Table 7: Changes Between Phase 1 and 2

PHASE 1 PHASE 2

Relocation Line ups first come first serve Relocation lottery system

Communication Muddled and confusing Active dialogue with tenants, supportive

Return Off-site housing On-site return, moving straight into new

84

22%

18

5%

73

19%

207

54%

Moved out of TCH

Waiting to Return

Waived

Returned

19

4%

101

23%

33

8%

287

65%

Moved out of TCH

Waiting to Return

Waived

Returned

Figure 2: Relocation Statistics Phase 1

Figure 4: Relocation Statistics Phase 2

Phase 1: Numbers of Households Relocated= 381 Up to date as of November 19th_{, 2014}

Source: Toronto Community Housing (2014b) Regent Park Relocation Statistics

Figure 3: Relocation Statistics Phase 2Phase 1: Numbers of Households Relocated= 381 Up to date as of November 19th_{, 2014}

Source: Toronto Community Housing (2014b) Regent Park Relocation Statistics

Phase 2: Numbers of Households Relocated= 441 Up to date as of November 19th_{, 2014}

6.4.1 Organizational Learning in Toronto Community Housing

The change that occurred from phase 1 and phase 2 was largely attributed to the organizational learning that occurred after phase 1. Prior to redevelopment, the TCH (known then as TCHC) was a relatively new organization that had little experience with revitalization or the smooth relocation of tenants (TCHS, CLE1). When the TCH devised their relocation system they aimed to create a system that treated everyone equally, and was also simple to understand. This was done to ease the stress of relocation, but primarily to build trust with a community that was already skeptical of redevelopment (Meagher and Boston, 2003). The experience of implementing this system of relocation identified the deficiencies and

unforeseen circumstances of having people line up. The problems experienced by the TCH, led them to reflect on their processes, thus beginning the process of organizational learning (Levitt & March, 1988). The negative results associated with the first come, first served line up, prompted TCH to change the policy of relocation and return. This was the impetus that sparked the organizational learning that would take place in TCH between phase 1 and phase 2 (Levitt & March, 1988).

Contrasting between their goals and what happened on the ground, the TCH

discovered there was a disconnect between what was intended and what actually occurred in terms of tenant relocation (Levitt& March, 1988). After their negative experience, the TCH took an opportunity to evaluate the policy. They opted to change the policy so that it would better serve the goals of fair and easy to understand relocation (TCHS). The TCH engaged in intense public engagement and dialogue to gain perspective and understand the views of those people who participated in the original system of relocation. The TCH participated in hundreds of meetings that were both formal and informal. This was important to the

organizational learning because tenants could reflect on the process of relocation and how it has impacted them. Talking to tenants allowed the TCH to see how specifically the system failed, and how tenants perceived it (TCHS) (Levitt & March, 1988). This added an important dimension to the learning process because the TCH incorporated the views of additional stakeholders rather than focusing solely on the internal stakeholders. The TCH

took the experience of tenants into regard when retooling their relocation policy. The learning that did take place was attributed to the willingness of the TCH to actively engage with tenants. The literature has identified that stakeholder communication and openness to stakeholder participation represents an organizational culture which helps facilitate policy learning (Elkjaer, 2003; Huber, 1991; Levitt & March, 1988; Pedlar, et al, 1991).

The lottery system was viewed favourably among key stakeholders. Tenants also agree that the system of relocation has improved profoundly (TCHS, CLE1). The lottery is more in line with the initial goals of creating a simple and fair system of tenant relocation; it was random and treated all tenants equally. One’s ability or time to wait in line for unit selection was no longer the determining factor of the system of relocation. Instead the system gave two separate chances for individuals to potentially gain their first housing choice. Having a random draw when tenants selected their relocation unit and a separate draw for their replacement unit helped add a degree of fairness to the process.

Ultimately, working with tenants and facilitating communication was a strong aspect of the TCH organization. The issues of phase 1 were addressed mainly through direct

dialogue between tenants and the TCH. TCH allowed tenants to speak freely and help

contextualize the events that occurred in phase 1. The insiders view brought a new dimension to the analysis of the first phase of redevelopment. Working with tenants and having an open approach to learning allowed changes to better suit the TCH and align with their vision for relocation.