A new model for Peterborough: From managing homelessness to ending it
If the city keeps paying to respond to homelessness but the number of people experiencing it keeps rising, the system needs a different way to measure success.
I would build a model that treats homelessness as a problem the city must actively reduce—not simply a service category it must keep funding.
Peterborough already has a 10-year Housing and Homelessness Plan, a coordinated access system, and a Housing First approach. The opportunity is to make the next plan, covering 2027–2036, more focused on measurable exits from homelessness, permanent housing, prevention, and accountability.
The proposed model: The Peterborough Homeward Plan
1. Stop people from becoming homeless
Fund rapid help for rent arrears, utility bills, short-term rent gaps, landlord mediation, and people leaving hospitals, foster care, or correctional facilities. Preventing a housing loss should be a priority before someone needs a shelter bed.
2. Create a housing pathway—not one solution for everyone
Match people to the right option: affordable apartments, rent supplements, shared housing where appropriate, small modular homes, supportive housing, or temporary transitional accommodation. Your Kawartha Hill capsule-housing idea could be tested as one option, provided it meets building, fire, accessibility, sanitation, and tenancy requirements.
3. Give each person a route out
Assign a housing navigator who stays involved until the person is housed and settled. Some people mainly need an affordable room; others need ongoing mental-health, addiction, disability, employment, or daily-living supports. Housing First research supports matching housing assistance with appropriate support, rather than relying on emergency services alone.
4. Make the budget answer for results
Publish a quarterly public dashboard showing how many people entered homelessness, how many moved into stable housing, how many returned to homelessness, how long people waited, and the total cost per successful housing placement. Count lasting housing outcomes—not just shelter visits or money spent.
5. Fit it into the city budget without simply raising taxes
The City’s 2026 budget lists $29.23 million in combined Housing and Homelessness expenditures, with a net municipal requirement of about $9.10 million after the listed provincial/other revenues and County contribution. This is a combined category, not a homelessness-only budget. City staff also say the reserve cannot sustain ongoing homelessness service needs.
I would propose a Homeward Fund within that existing budget framework, with transparent new funding rather than an assumed tax increase.
Illustrative first-year pilot budget
A proposed planning scenario—not an approved City budget or a verified cost estimate.
| Prevention and emergency rent assistance | $150,000 |
| Housing placements and rent supplements | $250,000 |
| Small modular/capsule housing feasibility and pilot | $200,000 |
| Housing navigators and ongoing support | $150,000 |
| Data, evaluation, and public reporting | $50,000 |
| Total proposed pilot | $800,000 |
The modular-housing allocation would first establish actual land, construction, servicing, and operating costs. If $200,000 cannot deliver safe, code-compliant units, the City should use it for design, approvals, and site preparation rather than promise a number of homes it cannot afford.
Where would the money come from?
I would require staff to identify and publish a funding mix before approval:
-
Reallocate existing spending where a review finds duplicated administration or programs that are not producing housing outcomes.
-
Seek provincial and federal housing funds for eligible construction, rent supports, and services. Ontario permits eligible homelessness-prevention funding to support several kinds of housing and emergency response.
Ontario -
Invite private, nonprofit, and community partners to contribute land, construction, services, or sponsorships.
-
Use a phased pilot with clear spending limits and a public review before expanding it.
I would not promise that the entire $800,000 can be found through savings. The City would need to identify real available dollars and confirm which grants can be used for which costs.
6. Set targets that show whether the model is working
For a first-year pilot, Council could establish targets such as:
-
Every person on the active homelessness priority list has a documented housing plan and a named contact.
-
Every housing placement is followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months.
-
Publish the number of people housed, the number who remain housed, and the number who return to homelessness.
-
Report cost per person housed and compare it with the cost of the previous response.
-
Review the pilot after 12 months, including feedback from people who have experienced homelessness.
The targets should be finalized after staff review the current by-name list and local housing supply, so they are ambitious without being invented.
7. Put it into the plan already being updated
Peterborough and the County are developing their next 10-year Housing and Homelessness Plan for 2027–2036. That gives residents an opportunity to press for a measurable housing-delivery model rather than another plan that only describes the problem.
Your proposal could be called:
The Homeward Peterborough Model — A Home Is the Outcome, Not Just the Service.
Its central principle would be simple: emergency shelter remains essential, but it should be a bridge to stable housing, not the finish line.
The next practical step is to turn this into a formal proposal to Peterborough City Council with a funding plan, pilot design, accountability measures, and a specific request that it be considered during the 2027–2036 plan process.
How much could Peterborough save by changing the homelessness model?
The honest answer is that we cannot yet calculate a verified dollar saving for Peterborough. But Canadian research gives us a way to build a realistic estimate and test whether the new model pays off.
Peterborough recorded at least 932 people experiencing homelessness in 2025, up from 803 in 2024. The City’s 2026 budget lists $29.23 million for combined Housing and Homelessness services, but that includes social housing and other housing programs—not just homelessness response.
1. What the Canadian evidence tells us
A Canadian Housing First study found that for people with serious mental illness, the intervention’s costs were partly offset by lower spending on other services, including shelters and some health services. The average net cost was still about $6,311 per person per year in that study. So the evidence supports better housing outcomes at a relatively lower net cost—not a guarantee that every person housed saves money.
2. What that could mean for Peterborough
Here is a scenario using the study’s figures as a benchmark. These are illustrations, not predicted City savings.
Illustrative annual costs using the Canadian study’s historical figures
For every 100 people housed
Housing First program cost
$2.04M
Estimated offsets elsewhere
$1.41M
Estimated net additional cost after offsets
$631,100 per year
Calculated from $20,367 intervention cost and $14,056 in offsets per person in the study. These are historical study amounts, not current Peterborough prices.
The important distinction is that lower costs across the public system are not the same as money saved directly by City Hall. Some savings may occur in hospitals, policing, or provincial services, while the City pays for housing and support.
3. Test the proposed model at different scales
| People placed in housing | Illustrative program cost | Estimated offsets elsewhere | Net cost after offsets |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | $1,018,350 | $702,800 | $315,550 |
| 100 | $2,036,700 | $1,405,600 | $631,100 |
| 150 | $3,055,050 | $2,108,400 | $946,650 |
| 200 | $4,073,400 | $2,811,200 | $1,262,200 |
These figures assume every person has the same cost profile as the study participants. Actual costs would differ, and building new modular homes would add capital costs not included in this calculation.
Notice what the numbers say: the model may reduce the cost of responding to homelessness, but it does not automatically produce a cash surplus. Its value also comes from more days in stable housing, fewer people cycling through emergency services, and preventing future homelessness.
4. Where Peterborough could see immediate budget opportunities
The City approved a six-month winter shelter model with an annual operating budget of approximately $576,600, plus $20,000 in startup costs, for at least 30 beds.
That is an essential emergency service—not money I would simply cut. Instead, the City could track whether people using those beds move into permanent housing, and whether that reduces repeat shelter use in future winters.
For example, if a housing pathway helped reduce repeat shelter stays, the City could potentially avoid some future emergency costs. The amount would depend on how many shelter nights were actually avoided and what each night costs to operate.
5. The savings rule I would put into the proposal
Every year, calculate three separate totals:
-
City savings: shelter operations and other municipal expenses genuinely avoided.
-
Wider public savings: reductions in health care, policing, corrections, and other services—even when those savings accrue to another government.
-
Housing investment: the cost of rent supplements, housing operations, construction, and ongoing supports.
Then compare those totals against the current system over several years.
My recommendation is to begin with a 12-month pilot and an independent financial evaluation, rather than promise a specific dollar saving before Peterborough’s actual service costs are known.
The goal should be to make homelessness decline while reducing the cost of repeated emergency responses—not to claim that housing is free. That gives Council a measurable financial case for changing the model.