Skip to content
You are here > Home > Your Ministry > Local Government > Community Hubs > Minister’s Forums on Integrated Planning for Community Hubs

Link to Follow usFollow us

Minister’s Forums on Integrated Planning for Community Hubs

Email this page

Community Hub Forum Report

Minister’s Forums on Integrated Planning for Community Hubs [PDF]

Hosted by Ted McMeekin, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
(June 24, 2014 to June 13, 2016)

Table of Contents

  1. Message from the Minister
  2. Message from the Special Advisor on Community Hubs
  3. Overview
  4. Forum Themes
  5. In Summary
  6. Next Steps


  1. Forum Speakers
  2. Breakout Session Questions

Message from the Minister

Ted McMeekinCommunity hubs are about bringing services together and using public spaces to better serve Ontarians.  We are committed to working with our partners and stakeholders to develop a clear government policy on community hubs. 

To achieve this goal, we need to understand the barriers that prevent the effective delivery of vital community services and the development of community hubs.  We also need to look at the neighbourhoods and municipalities that have established successful community hubs, and the best practices that led to this success.

That’s why I brought together government and non-government experts and leaders for a discussion on improving access to services and planning for community hubs through a series of forums between November 30th and December 18th, 2015. Community hub forums were held in Toronto, London, Barrie, Kingston, Sudbury and Thunder Bay.

The forum attendees represented a wide spectrum of service providers and communities. Despite different backgrounds and client groups, it was clear to me that everyone was dedicated to providing the best services possible to the residents in their communities.

Throughout the forums, we heard that Ontarians are interested in using community hubs, and that our government must provide leadership to remove barriers to accessing important community services through hubs. This view is consistent with the recommendations outlined in Community Hubs in Ontario: A Strategic Framework and Action Plan, a report issued last summer by the Premier’s Community Hubs Advisory Group.

While many of the barriers need to be addressed to help develop thriving and accessible hubs, we also recognize that many of the existing models and practices will lay the groundwork for the future.

The forums enabled experts, leaders and champions at the local and provincial level to work together on a complex issue, towards a mutual goal. There was no shortage of valuable insights, experiences and success stories exchanged. 

Some key themes emerged, like local decision-making powers and adequate access to planning resources. The following summary report illustrates these and other themes, and the creativity and depth of conviction that forum participants brought to their task.  

I want to thank the government’s Special Advisor, Karen Pitre, forum panel members and all of the participants who attended and contributed to these meaningful discussions.

I look forward to continued collaboration with our partners to create hubs that expand access to important services in our communities – services that put clients first. 

Ted McMeekin
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Message from the Special Advisor on Community Hubs

Karen PitreI would like to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for championing integrated planning and service delivery and Ontario’s vision for supporting the development of community hubs. The level of engagement at each of the forums across the province is further evidence that now is the time to mobilize and make changes to better serve Ontarians. I found it encouraging to see so many municipalities, school boards, Local Health Integration Networks, agencies, non-profit organizations, and other service providers coming together to find common solutions to the barriers that hinder a cohesive approach to service planning and community hub development.

Over the last year, I have been privileged to meet with people and groups all across the province, to learn from practitioners, experts and leaders and to see firsthand the passion of service providers and local champions who value a better way to integrate the best of what communities can deliver.  The forums provided a key opportunity for these ideas to come together and focus on tangible steps the province can take to integrate service delivery and build on the promise of community hubs.

I have learned that there is not a single solution for enabling community hub development. Nor is there a single model that works for all communities. Through the Minister’s forums, we were able to meet with the service providers who know their communities best. Their local expertise was key in the solution-oriented discussions that took place. I am pleased that this report captures many ideas and solutions – including ways to empower community members and share information – that have real potential to further integrate planning towards client-focused service delivery and community hub development.

Community hubs mean different things to different people, but our common commitment to integrated service delivery that serves the user’s needs was evident in the discussions that took place in the forums across the province.  The responses, ideas, and wealth of expertise from the forum participants will surely help advance the important work that is being undertaken across government, and will ultimately benefit the residents of communities throughout the province.

Karen Pitre
Special Advisor to the Premier on Community Hubs


Community hubs are an important part of the local and regional landscape.  Whether it be a school, a recreation complex, a public library, a place of worship, a local health centre or a combination thereof, community hubs serve as an access point for new or existing services that are co-ordinated to provide responsive, client-focused support for the community.      

While the benefits of community hubs are well established and documented, many opportunities remain to better co-ordinate services to ensure that they can meet the needs of those who access them, including children, youth, seniors and other priority clients or population groups.

In March 2015, Premier Kathleen Wynne appointed Karen Pitre as a Special Advisor on Community Hubs and the lead of the Community Hubs Framework Advisory Group.  After significant consultations and hearing from more than 350 organizations, the Advisory Group released its report, Community Hubs in Ontario: A Strategic Framework and Action Plan, in August 2015.

Of the 27 recommendations in the Action Plan, work on the following recommendation is being led by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in collaboration with other partner ministries and key stakeholders:

“Require integrated planning to ensure client-focused service delivery regardless of jurisdictional boundaries (provincial, municipal, school board, health and agency).”

The purpose of the minister’s forums was to help inform the government’s approach to moving forward on this recommendation and to solicit ideas on potential solutions.  Specifically, the forums were intended to engage a range of experts and leaders from various sectors – municipal, non-profit, school boards, health, social services, community safety, and others – about how the province and its local/regional partners can better support the integrated and long-term planning of community-based services [1].

To gather information representative of Ontario’s unique geography and regional diversity, forums were held in the following communities: Toronto (November 30), London (December 11), Barrie (December 14), Kingston (December 15), Sudbury (December 16), and Thunder Bay (December 18). More than 450 participants from across Ontario gave their time to attend these full-day events.

The forums used a combination of learning and engagement approaches to gather expert input from participants and to capitalize on the wide range of perspectives.  These approaches included keynote speeches, panel discussions and breakout sessions.  More information about the forum structure and format – e.g., speakers, breakout session questions – is included in the appendices.

Forum Themes

The following section provides an overview of the key themes across all six forums.  Discussions resulting from the keynote speeches, panel presentations and breakout sessions can be categorized around four main themes: Local Leadership and Decision Making; Access to Resources; Fragmented Policies; and Restrictive Legislation.    

Specific insights, experiences and ideas in each of these key areas emerged across all forums that can help the government and its stakeholders implement the integrated planning [2] recommendation.

Given the community-level focus of integrated planning, themes having local/regional implications are identified first, followed by themes that are more provincial in scope. Under each of the four themes, barriers (i.e., obstacles or challenges that hindered planning at the local, regional or provincial level) will be presented, as well as participant suggestions to overcome these barriers.

Opportunities to address one or more of the challenges identified by participants will also be highlighted.  The themes outlined may have several interpretations or uses, depending on the type of program or service that is being provided. For each approach presented, key words or phrases are shown in bold to emphasize the central idea or concept that participants communicated. 

Theme 1: Local Leadership and Decision-Making


  • Local leadership is often identified as a key factor to the success of integrated planning efforts for community hub development and operation. However, some communities, especially smaller rural or northern communities, lack local capacity to champion a community hub model through the co-ordination of different service providers and the integrated planning necessary to develop a successful community hub. This can result in:
  • An absence of trust and/or buy-in from local residents and businesses, thereby hindering the development of meaningful and sustained partnerships;
  • A lack of overall knowledge and understanding of community needs, which can have negative implications for planning and goal-setting; and/or
  • Disagreements between service providers on what their service goals are.
  • Smaller non-profit entities often cite the lack of capacity, information and expertise as a major challenge to the creation of community hubs.
  • Decisions that are made about local service delivery planning at the provincial level can fall short of meeting and understanding community needs and/or using local assets.
  • Organizations offering the same or similar services in the same geographic area to the same client group can lead to poor decision-making and service overlap.
  • Programs that fund services at the local level can be inflexible, which can impede collaborative planning and service delivery. For instance, some stakeholders are unable to secure funding from certain government programs because they house private businesses (e.g., a coffee shop).
  • Some service providers find it challenging to locate and secure a partner organization to manage, and take long-term financial responsibility for, the physical space of the community hub (e.g., performing custodial duties, maintenance, etc.).

Participant Suggestions

  • Establish a publicly accessible, central database of hub-related planning tools and resources. Virtual access to this data through improved high-speed internet service can go a long way to enabling local leadership, information sharing and decision-making in rural and remote communities.
  • Create mobile teams in remote communities to address geographic or travel-related barriers. Muskoka Health Link has made progress in facing these challenges with their mobile primary care unit.
  • Modify funding program criteria to align more closely with a client-first or “bottom-up” approach to enhance local authority, autonomy and decision-making. The Ontario government’s Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative is an example of where funding can be used by Service Managers to address local priorities and better meet the needs of at-risk individuals and families.
  • Establish community-based approaches to integrated planning in an effort to identify and/or prioritize local needs and prevent duplication of services. Engaging existing interest groups like Business Improvement Areas is an approach that can help to facilitate networking and knowledge exchange around local champions, funding and property management. The City of Hamilton’s “Neighbourhood Action Strategy” is another successful approach where city staff work with community partners, neighbourhood groups and residents to develop action plans.
  • Some other successful approaches include:

  • “Situation Tables” – used by a range of human service providers (mental health, social service agencies, police services, etc.) to collaboratively study and act upon the underlying causes of criminality and social disorder. Furthering Our Communities Uniting Services (FOCUS) Rexdale is one such table based in Toronto.
  • “Collective Impact” – brings together local community groups and leaders to tackle complex social, economic and environmental issues that cannot be addressed by a single sector or program. The Youth Collective Impact Program, delivered by the J.W. McConnell Family Foundation’s Innoweave initiative, in partnership with the Laidlaw Foundation, is founded on this grassroots approach. 

Theme 2: Access to Resources


  • Many of the forum participants agreed that limited access to helpful resources is a barrier to building partnerships and collaborating on service delivery planning. The types of resources mentioned varied, but a common focus was on accessing current data to help identify local service delivery needs and gaps. This ranged from capital asset inventories, to local-level statistics regarding employment, health, education, etc., to service provider contact information.
  • In some cases, “resources” referred specifically to available funding, incentives, physical/usable space, technology, human resources, supportive evidence, performance measures and planning tools.
  • In other cases, resources referred to increased local capacity, a better understanding of best practices, or even focused funding for a local coordinator to reach out across local agencies and improve planning.

Participant Suggestions

  • Similar to what was mentioned under Theme 1, establish a publicly accessible, central database of hub-related planning tools and resources. Make use of supporting evidence and performance measures associated with the latest research (e.g., Social Return on Investment; Canadian Index of Wellbeing) and/or asset inventories like a land registry that contains public properties available for integrated service delivery and co-location.
  • Virtual access to this data, perhaps through an online resource centre, would help to break down the barriers caused by jurisdictional boundaries while improving the transparency of real-time information. [3]

  • Provide seed funding for community groups to integrate their planning, or to leverage existing funding sources for the co-ordination of activities. Funding could be used for specific activities, such as recruiting staff, procuring meeting space, developing tools and resources, covering operating costs, etc. This start-up funding could be sourced through government and/or agencies like the Ontario Trillium Foundation, but engagement of the private sector should also be considered.
  • Explore incentives for improved integrated planning. Some of the ideas that surfaced include property tax exemptions for co-location and tax incentives for private sector corporations to pursue partnerships with community hub service providers.
  • Offer programs or policies to support the placement and training of community champions or leaders to engage local partners, to recruit staff and volunteers, and to help implement collaborative planning processes. Ontario’s Healthy Kids Community Challenge and the Aboriginal Community Recreation Activators Ontario Program are both founded on this approach.
  • In partnership with experienced leaders and stakeholders operating in the community hub sector, develop an evidence-based guide to assist new or existing service providers and their partners with integrated planning (e.g., governance models, mechanisms for improved planning, available supports, etc.). Once developed and pilot-tested, the guide could be made publicly accessible through a virtual database and updated on a regular basis.
  • Utilize formal support or mandate letters of the governing bodies of key service-provider agencies like school boards, local boards, Local Health Integration Networks, and municipalities to advance partnerships and enable easier or quicker access to space, data, human resources, etc.
  • As mentioned earlier, alternative approaches to service delivery for remote communities or underserved populations, such as mobile hubs, could be a viable approach. As highlighted at the Sudbury forum, the North East Local Health Integration Network has employed such an approach with mobile-assisted living services and Mobile Crisis Teams to meet the needs of high-risk seniors.
  • Adopt a mentoring model, whereby service providers interested in developing a community hub can link together with existing hub leaders or organizations to learn from their experiences related to important planning issues such as location, infrastructure, data collection and partnership development.

Theme 3: Fragmented Policies


  • Information sharing between provincial ministries, local agencies, the federal government and others can be limited due to varying mandates and jurisdictional boundaries. To complicate matters, ministries are often reorganized to better meet these mandates, with different branches, divisions and staff being shuffled around.
  • Local, regional and provincial programs are not always outcomes-focused, and outcomes often vary across these initiatives.
  • It is not uncommon for ministries to have different approaches to planning for the service delivery organizations they fund (e.g., performance measures, policies for working with various organizations, funding conditions, application formats and deadlines, etc.). This constant state of change makes it difficult for front-line service providers to navigate the programs and policies of interest to them, often resulting in an administrative burden on available time, money and resources.

Participant Suggestions

  • Establish a table of provincial ministries to standardize requirements for working with (and funding) service provider organizations and to facilitate the sharing of best practices, data sources, and evaluation criteria. SchoolsPlus in Nova Scotia or the former ActNow BC initiative are two examples of how this approach has worked in other provinces.
  • Streamline funding programs to remove barriers associated with different / inflexible terms and conditions by:
  • Establishing a Community of Practice or Centre of Excellence to lead the development of outcome-based evaluation and measurement, with an aim to creating evaluation frameworks with common outcomes and targets across funding programs. 
  • Bringing funders from multiple sectors together to streamline rules, criteria and policies around time limitations and funding cycles (i.e., the carry-over of unspent funds), insurance, cost-sharing, and reporting requirements.  This is already happening in the U.S.A. through “Grant Making Conferences,” and is showing signs of promise here in Ontario (i.e., Ottawa Grant-Makers Forum). 
  • Consolidating common forms (application, budget, interim reports) and tracking databases to improve efficiencies in administrative or “back office” operations among funders and recipients. Grants Ontario and the Ontario Trillium Foundation have made progress in this area.
  • Test one or more community hubs that model integrated planning and support a one-window approach to funding, governance and information sharing. Violence Against Women Hubs and Local Employment Planning Councils are good examples of pilot hub initiatives already underway in Ontario.
  • Integrate “big policy” at the provincial level for initiatives such as poverty reduction, built environment, affordable housing, mental health, and community safety that impact the work of several ministries. This type of provincial policy integration could enhance the transferability of resources, bypass jurisdictional boundaries and break down silos.
  • Expand Federal-Provincial/Territorial (FPT) efforts, ideally through existing communication channels, to better engage other levels of government on the integration of programs and policies for service delivery planning. As was heard at the Thunder Bay forum, resource sharing between federal and provincial governments is key to assisting local-level community hub planning to address on-reserve Aboriginal needs related to travel and housing. The Joint Consortium for School Health – a partnership of 25 Ministries of Health and Education across Canada working to promote a comprehensive approach to student wellness and achievement – is a promising practice in this regard.

Theme 4: Restrictive Legislation


  • Ontario has a number of statutes designed to protect personal privacy but a significant number of forum participants indicated that more of a balance is needed to uphold personal privacy while allowing the appropriate sharing of information.
  • The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) were viewed as restricting information sharing between service providers. For example, when investigating post-traumatic effects on children, some participants responded that they have no legal authority to share the child’s story with case workers or other parties who require this information about the event.  Solicitor-client privilege was seen as contributing to this challenge. The same legislation can lead to stigma and other concerns among existing or future community hub clients if they are required to share their story multiple times to access care. 
  • Currently,  the Planning Act requires a municipality or an approval authority to make decisions on planning applications within specified timeframes (i.e., to amend an official plan to allow, for example, a community hub to be developed -- within 180 days),  beyond which an applicant can launch an appeal for the lack of decision.  When faced with alternative development applications, this time period is seen by some larger municipalities as insufficient to allow for meetings with various stakeholders to discuss different development options.  Currently, the Planning Act provides all municipalities with the same maximum amount of time to make a decision, regardless of the number of potential service providers operating in their jurisdiction with whom they may wish to consult.
  • The District Social Services Administration Boards (DSSAB) Act was seen to limit the authority of member municipalities in areas such as housing, planning and economic development. Lower-tier municipalities in DSSAB areas may have restricted authority to engage directly with service providers on services that can be provided at a community hub, such as affordable housing.
  • The limited legislative authority of ministries to share data with each other (i.e., personal information related to education, health, and social services data) often results in fragmented policies and services.

Participant Suggestions

  • Consider improvements to legislation or establish new protocols to allow for the appropriate sharing of client information, while protecting privacy. Similar action can be considered for both the Planning Act and DSSAB Act to increase flexibility and authority, where appropriate.
  • Conduct a jurisdictional scan of promising practices to build the capacity of new or existing hub operators (e.g., Alberta’s Children First Act allows schools to share some information with emergency workers). A repository of success stories outlining how service providers were able to ensure privacy and safety while providing assistance to clients would prove useful in this regard; as would a virtual ‘chat room’ where service agencies can exchange notes and share experiences. The same approach could be taken to build an inventory of leading practices or case study examples from other jurisdictions that have worked to improve their planning or municipal services legislation to facilitate integrated planning.
  • Create a data governance environment that facilitates data sharing across ministries to break down information silos and support a whole-of-government approach to service planning and policy development.

In Summary

The Minister’s Forum, and the regional forums that followed, were intended to spark frank and honest discussion about current and future opportunities to integrate service planning, and to seek advice and input from experts so that Ontarians can access services that meet their needs in an effective and efficient way.

The level of participation and interest in these events was tremendous, with representation from a wide range of geographic areas, sectors and subject-area experts. This diversity yielded a wealth of information about integrated planning barriers, solutions and innovative models to enhance the development of community hubs. Most, if not all, of the leading planning mechanisms are characterized by a client-centered approach to meet the needs of local residents, and to capitalize on a community’s existing assets and/or resources.

The discussions were meaningful and strategic, revealing an overwhelming passion and dedication from all participants to eliminate planning barriers and to capitalize on emerging opportunities. Many of the participants also benefited from the opportunity to network with other like-minded individuals whom they may not have connected with (or known about) otherwise.

There was a general consensus from participants that bringing services together is not always easy, and that planning for community hubs can be complex. Most participants agreed that a one-size-fits-all model falls short of meeting every community’s needs, and that local flexibility is often needed. One thing that seemed immediately clear was that local and provincial governments have an important role to play in providing and managing resources, convening stakeholders and facilitating integrated planning discussions across all sectors.

Next Steps

While many of the gaps and opportunities identified through the forums are relatively simple, some of the issues raised are complex and would no doubt require further analysis to address specific policy or legislative solutions. In addition, there are many more organizations that are interested in sharing their success stories, advice and experiences.

As such, this report represents both a starting point for the work ahead, and a catalyst for future discussions and collaborations between the Ontario government and a host of local, municipal and provincial stakeholders committed to developing community hubs.

Combined with input from other policy work and research, the key themes identified through the forums will play a key role in the development of recommendations to “require integrated planning for client-focused service delivery.” The forums will also provide guidance and insight to government in identifying opportunities for future collaboration through new partnerships.

Engaging with key stakeholders, including school boards, health service agencies, municipalities and the public, will continue to bring forward ideas and to inform how the provincial government can help to better integrate the planning and delivery of services through community hubs. We will continue to work collaboratively with partners and stakeholders as we move forward with implementation.

The forums have now concluded. Thank you for your feedback.

APPENDIX A: Forum Speakers

Toronto, Ontario

  • Bill Davidson, Executive Director, Langs Community Centre
  • Chris Murray, City Manager, City of Hamilton
  • Elena Di Battista, Director, Our Kids Network
  • Janet Menard, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Community and Social Services
  • Jennifer Holmes-Weier, Vice President, Ontario Regional Development Centre Services & Government Relations, YMCA of Greater Toronto
  • Larry Ketcheson, CEO, Parks and Recreation Ontario
  • Leah Stephenson, Director of Policy and Stakeholder Relations, Association of Ontario Health Centres
  • Nick Milanetti, Executive Director, Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association
  • Robert Singleton, Managing Director, Toronto Pan Am Sports Centre

London, Ontario

  • Andrea Brown, Manager, Fusion Youth Activity and Technology Centre
  • Bill Davidson, Executive Director, Langs Community Centre
  • Jeffrey Neven, Executive Director, Indwell
  • Lynne Livingstone, Chair, London’s Child and Youth Network
  • Michelle Baldwin, Executive Director, Pillar Nonprofit Network
  • Rob Horne, Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services – Region of Waterloo
  • Sandi Burgess, County Librarian/CEO, Middlesex County Library Service Integration
  • Sara Middleton, Director, Community Partnerships & Investment, United Way of London & Middlesex

Barrie, Ontario

  • Cheryl Faber, Project Manager, Muskoka Health Link
  • Elizabeth Brims, Project Manager, Community Partnerships, York Region for the Richmond Hill Housing and Community Hub
  • James Thomson, Vice President - Strategic Initiatives, New Path Foundation for the Common Roof™
  • Jane Sinclair, General Manager, Health and Emergency Services, County of Simcoe
  • Leo Plue, Executive Director, Abilities Centre
  • Michael Braithwaite, Executive Director, 360°Kids
  • Phil Rose-Donahoe, Manager of Cultural Services, The Link, Town of Georgina
  • Sara Peddle, Executive Director, David Busby Street Centre

Kingston, Ontario

  • Andi van Koeverden, Strategic Advancement Director, The Mount Community Centre
  • Brian Mosley, GIS Analyst, Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox & Addington Public Health
  • Colin Wiginton, Cultural Director, Tett Centre for Creativity and Learning, City of Kingston
  • Hersh Sedhev, Executive Director, Kingston Community Health Centres
  • Karyn Carty Ostafichuk, Manager of Planning, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
  • Mark Darroch, Director, Community and Social Services, County of Northumberland
  • Nauni Parkinson, Hub Development Staff, Peterborough Poverty Reduction Network
  • Robyn Rogers, Clerk/Manager of Corporate Services, Municipality of Hastings Highlands; and Kimberly McMunn, CEO/Community Resource Officer, Hastings Highlands Community Centre

Sudbury, Ontario

  • Alice Radley, Executive Director, Physically Handicapped Adult Rehabilitation Association (PHARA)
  • Fern Dominelli, CAO, Manitoulin-Sudbury District Services Board
  • Lois Mahon, Premiers Advisory Group on Community Hub Framework
  • Lucia Reece, Director of Education, Etienne Brule, Algoma District School Board
  • Mike Nadeau, Commissioner, Social Services – SSM DSSAB
  • Chief Robert Keetch, Sault Ste. Marie Police Service, City of Sault Ste. Marie
  • Tyler Campbell, Children’s Services Manager, Best Start Hubs, City of Greater Sudbury

Thunder Bay, Ontario

  • Charles Morris, Executive Director, Wequedong Lodge
  • Danielle Bobinski, Coordinator, June Steeve Lendrum Family Resource Centre; and  Tina Bobinski,  Assistant Director,  Mental Health & Addictions, Dilico Anishinabek Family Centre
  • Dean Main, Community Development Supervisor, Town of Terrace Bay
  • Don McArthur, CAO/Clerk, Township of Schreiber
  • Linda Bruins, Executive Director, Evergreen A United Neighbourhood
  • Lori Roulston, Director of Client Services; and Crystal Simeoni, Manager Property Management, District of Thunder Bay Social Services Administration Board  
  • Tuija Puiras, CEO, North West Community Care Access Centre

APPENDIX B: Breakout Session Questions

The following key questions were posed to participants at all six of the forums to facilitate meaningful discussion on the integrated planning recommendation. Forum participants (including panelists) were organized into breakout tables of six to eight people to review and discuss the questions in detail. The breakout activity was then followed by a facilitated group discussion involving all participants to identify common themes – e.g., barriers, solutions and promising practices or approaches.

Current Approaches to Planning and Service Delivery

  1. Do you use a co-ordinated/integrated approach to plan for the delivery of services? How is this co-ordinated approach undertaken? What is preventing a more co-ordinated/integrated approach?
  2. What challenges (locally, provincially, etc.) have you had to overcome when planning to integrate and deliver services through a community hub? How were these challenges overcome?

Aligning Provincial Priorities with the Priorities of Others

  1. Are there specific services that have been considered for delivery through a co-ordinated approach, but you reconsidered because of cross jurisdictional challenges? What has inhibited an integrated approach to planning for these services?
  2. How could the province better support you and others to plan and bring together services under a single roof or service delivery approach? What would a framework to require integrated service delivery planning look like?

Promoting Community Collaboration and Transforming Service Delivery

  1. What mechanisms (e.g., committees, panels, local tables, etc.) have participants used to collaborate on integrated service delivery planning? How could the province or municipal sector better support local collaboration through these mechanisms?
  2. Are there opportunities to include other partners in the integrated planning and delivery of community hub services? Which organizations? How would you recommend bringing these organizations to the table?


[1] Programs and services include, but are not limited to, recreation, public health, assisted living, education, youth services, housing, employment training, child care, and community safety.

[2] As the forum progressed, some participants clarified that in particular communities, the “co-location” of services did not necessarily translate to “service integration.” As such, integrated planning was viewed as being critical.

[3] Public Health Units and Social Planning Councils are well positioned to undertake various data collection and community mapping activities, given their understanding of the Social Determinants of Health and their use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to enhance the planning of health-related services for vulnerable populations.