uniteTOlove.ca
This is a living research library. Claims carry verification statuses. A documented set of about 234 findings, where a derived page carries a source's claim without its original hedge, is known and queued for remediation, so read any affected line alongside its source backgrounder and check the corrections log for status. Found a mistake? Let us know.

Provincial Homelessness Funding: HPP and HART Hubs — Backgrounder

DRAFT Research backgrounder

Briefs for this backgrounder

Status: DRAFT Version: v1.0 · Date: 2026-07-14 · What this page draws on: carried-forward (carried forward from this page’s own sources docs, cited as-is) and New load-bearing findings (2026 live-discovery findings, source quotes inline) (a page under the broader homelessness-encampments / C2★ issue index row) (page under Domain H — Homelessness & Housing-First Deep Dive, coverage class: full) · Nearest this library's issue index row: C2★ homelessness-encampments — Owner: Municipal Service Manager (CMSM/DSSAB) delivery; provincial funding (Homelessness Prevention Program); federal (Reaching Home). This page is the provincial side of that Owner column. Sibling page homelessness-federal-funding-architecture covers the federal side. Claim coverage as of 2026-07-14: 3 carried-forward documents (hart-hubs-funding-outcomes-and-gaps.md, hpp-funding-history-and-ag-accountability-followup.md, hpp-investment-plan-2023-24.md), cited as-is per this page’s binding rule, each carrying its own internal CL-###-style citations from the predecessor csrl2 project (not yet reconciled into this project's own this library's internal records register/the claims register — flagged in "Open questions / data gaps"); 3 new 2026 primary-source findings from this review's live discovery (NEW-PROV-1 through NEW-PROV-3), including a direct fetch of the Auditor General's own 2023 follow-up report confirming figures the carried-forward document had already summarized, plus new primary-source figures (the three-government funding-share breakdown, the $654 million 2022/23 MMAH spend total) not previously in this page’s material. Coverage: breadth not formally checked in this review — this draft establishes claim-level coverage and fresh-discovery integration only, consistent with this page’s outline-to-depth trajectory. Cui Bono: 0 beneficiary entities identified (0 ESTABLISHED / 0 REPORTED) — see "Cui Bono" section below for why.

Written per this library's standard page structure, this project's later, 2026-07-14. Per this page’s own binding rule, the three carried-forward documents are cited as-is and not re-researched; this document's original contribution is a live-discovery pass that directly fetched the Auditor General of Ontario's own 2023 follow-up PDF (confirming the carried-forward 37%/23%/40% figures precisely against the primary source and surfacing additional primary-source detail — the exact recommendation-by-recommendation table, the provincial/municipal/federal funding-share breakdown, and the $654 million 2022/23 total MMAH homelessness spend) plus the required Cui Bono and International-context sections.

Scope

This page’s neutral scope question: what does the Ontario government fund in the province's homelessness response — the Homelessness Prevention Program (HPP) and HART Hubs specifically — at what scale, under what accountability record, and with what documented outcomes? This document covers: HPP's funding history and program-consolidation design; the Auditor General of Ontario's 2021 Value-for-Money audit and its 2023 follow-up, including the exact primary-source recommendation-implementation figures; HART Hubs' funding, model, and disputed outcome data; and Ottawa's own detailed 2023-24 investment-plan breakdown as a documented comparator to Toronto's much larger, less granularly-published system. It hands off, rather than duplicates: federal funding mechanisms (Reaching Home, IHAP, NHS bilateral) to the sibling page homelessness-federal-funding-architecture; system-wide Toronto shelter bed capacity and TSSS's own operating-budget structure to shelter-system-capacity-strain; and general opioid-crisis/overdose data outside its direct HART Hub connection to opioid-crisis-public-health-response.

Current state

HPP: funding history, confirmed and extended by direct primary-source fetch

This page’s carried-forward documents establishes HPP's two-budget-year funding history: created in Budget 2022 with a base of approximately $493 million, with Budget 2023 adding $202 million to bring the total to approximately $695 million — the figure commonly rounded to $700 million — and states that violence-against-women shelters and domiciliary hostels are explicitly not funded through HPP, administered separately by the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services [hpp-funding-history-and-ag-accountability-followup.md, carried-forward]. This review's own direct fetch of the Auditor General's 2023 follow-up report adds a further primary-source figure not in the carried-forward material: the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing "spent $654 million in 2022/23 on programs related to homelessness, including the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative, the Home for Good program and the Indigenous Supportive Housing Program ($356 million on average annually from 2016/17 to 2020/21, for a total of $1.8 billion over the five years)" [NEW-PROV-1]. This $654 million 2022/23 total is a different figure from HPP's own ~$695 million combined-budget-allocation total cited above — the two are not stated as identical in either source, and this document does not reconcile them further; both are cited as independently sourced primary figures rather than treated as interchangeable.

The three-government funding split, confirmed directly against the primary source

A genuinely new finding from this review's direct fetch, not present in this page’s carried-forward material: the Auditor General's 2023 follow-up states that "Funding for homelessness initiatives from all three levels of government increased over the five-year period 2016/17 to 2020/21, although the largest contributor remained the Ontario government. In 2020/21, the Province contributed 68% of all funding, followed by 23% from municipalities and 9% from the federal government... Not including municipal funding, contributions by the provincial and federal governments in 2022/23 were 85% and 15% respectively" [NEW-PROV-2]. This is a precise, primary-sourced counterweight to any framing that treats the federal government as the dominant funder of Ontario's homelessness response generally (as distinct from Toronto's own refugee-claimant-driven IHAP figure specifically, documented in the sibling federal-funding page, where the federal contribution is much larger due to that page’s own different, narrower population).

The Auditor General's 2021 audit and 2023 follow-up: exact figures, directly confirmed

This page’s carried-forward document states the Auditor General's December 2021 Value-for-Money Audit made "Recommendation 1 in exact terms: that the province develop a comprehensive, coordinated provincial strategy to prevent and reduce homelessness, with specific actions, targets, and timelines" and that the 2023 follow-up found "37% of recommended actions fully implemented, 23% in process, and 40% showing little or no progress" [hpp-funding-history-and-ag-accountability-followup.md, carried-forward]. This review's direct fetch of the Auditor General's own 2023 follow-up PDF confirms this precisely and adds the underlying detail: of 30 total recommended actions across 12 numbered recommendations, exactly 11 were fully implemented (37%), 7 were in the process of being implemented (23%), and 12 showed little or no progress (40%), with 0 marked "will not be implemented" and 0 "no longer applicable" [NEW-PROV-3]. The follow-up's own overall conclusion statement — "The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Ministry), as of November 14, 2023, has fully implemented 37% of the actions we recommended in our 2021 Annual Report, and made progress in implementing an additional 23% of the recommended actions" [NEW-PROV-3] — matches the carried-forward document's summary exactly, giving this figure the strongest possible confirmation this project's discipline allows: an independent live fetch of the actual primary PDF producing the identical figure the inherited predecessor-project document had already reported.

HART Hubs: funding, the structural "no right to stay" gap, and disputed outcomes

This page’s carried-forward documents establishes HART Hubs as funded by the Ministry of Health, not MMAH — "a separate funding stream from the province's $700 million Homelessness Prevention Program," with combined provincial commitment (HPP + HART) recomputed at approximately $1.26 billion as of the province's May-June 2026 statements ($560 million across 29 hubs, 28 open, up from an original $378 million/19-hub figure) [hart-hubs-funding-outcomes-and-gaps.md, carried-forward]. By February 2026, 11 of the 19 additional hubs announced beyond the original 9 had opened — in Barrie, Windsor, London, Belleville, Dufferin County, Sarnia, Sudbury, Renfrew, Lanark/Leeds/Grenville, and two locations in Sault Ste. Marie — with the remaining 8 on an unclear timeline [From this library’s earlier research from hart-hubs-funding-outcomes-and-gaps.md, original sourcing: CL-50000, Canadian Affairs retrospective; ⚠️ still being checked — the master briefing itself tags this source “still being checked” rather than “verified”, per a failed direct-ingest attempt]. The hubs run on an abstinence-based model — treatment, recovery, and housing supports, explicitly excluding safer supply, supervised consumption, or needle exchange — and the province's own HART Hubs reference document establishes that hub residents "have no legal right to remain," with housing described as a program goal rather than a contractual obligation [From this library’s earlier research]. Independent site-level reporting shows uneven rollout: Ottawa's replacement hub offered only showers, meals, and leisure activities roughly a year in; Guelph-Wellington's supportive housing units were fully occupied but withdrawal-management beds were unavailable; Kitchener-Waterloo's hub was operating near 94% capacity within its first year [From this library’s earlier research]. Displacement effects compounded the gap while sites were still closing: Toronto's Kensington supervised consumption site saw a 30% rise in users after nearby sites closed, before it too eventually closed [From this library’s earlier research from hart-hubs-funding-outcomes-and-gaps.md, original sourcing: CL-50004, Canadian Affairs retrospective; ⚠️ still being checked — the same “still being checked” tier of sourcing as the rollout-list figure above]. Toronto's own four HART Hub sites show a similarly mixed record: direct site-visit journalism found limited evidence of new services at three of the four addresses, and the fourth (117 The Esplanade, run directly by Toronto Public Health) offered only opioid agonist treatment before closing, reportedly because the City had in-principle provincial approval but had not received the actual funding allocation letter needed to proceed [From this library’s earlier research]. A December 2024 Ontario Auditor General audit (cited in the carried-forward document) found the HART Hub transition away from supervised consumption sites was made without proper planning, impact analysis, or public consultation [From this library’s earlier research]. The province's own self-reported outcome figures, current to April 2026, count more than 100,000 client interactions across the network and more than 250 individuals placed in supportive housing, against that same $560 million/29-hub investment [From this library’s earlier research from hart-hubs-funding-outcomes-and-gaps.md, original sourcing: CL-148, Wire Service Canada/Global News independent counter-reporting]. Advocates cited in that same Global News coverage counter that service depth varies considerably: most Toronto hubs, they say, still function primarily as drop-in programs rather than delivering the fuller treatment-and-housing model the network promises [From this library’s earlier research from hart-hubs-funding-outcomes-and-gaps.md, original sourcing: CL-148]. The sector's own quantified critique goes further: AMO and HelpSeeker's 2025 report frames the funding-to-outcome ratio directly, finding that $378 million in HART Hub investment is a real commitment, but the 375 supportive homes built alongside it are inadequate against actual need [From this library’s earlier research from hart-hubs-funding-outcomes-and-gaps.md, original sourcing: CL-114, Donaldson et al. (2025), Municipalities Under Pressure, HelpSeeker/AMO].

The overdose-call trend and the government's counter-claim

The carried-forward document documents a sharply rising trend in suspected-opioid-overdose paramedic calls across multiple Ontario cities in the first five months of 2026 versus the same months in 2025 — 20% in Thunder Bay, 52% in Ottawa, 115% in Toronto, and 199% in Hamilton — occurring as Ontario completed its exit from supervised consumption entirely (the last two Toronto facilities closed June 2026, leaving three privately-funded sites province-wide) [From this library’s earlier research]. Against this, the government points to a different metric: a stated 41% decrease in opioid-related deaths since the first HART Hubs opened, sourced to the Office of the Chief Coroner and presented as the government's own stated position, not independently confirmed by the carried-forward document's own author [From this library’s earlier research].

Ottawa's own funding breakdown: a documented comparator

The third carried-forward document provides an unusually granular public accounting of a mid-size Ontario city's homelessness funding — useful as a direct comparator to Toronto's larger, more heavily-studied but less granularly-published system. Ottawa's 2023-24 homelessness-sector funding totalled over $83.5 million a year: 58% provincial (through HPP), about 23% municipal, and 19% federal (through Reaching Home) [hpp-investment-plan-2023-24.md, carried-forward]. The provincial share flows through HPP, created in April 2022 when the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing consolidated three older programs — the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative, Home for Good, and the Strong Communities Rent Supplement Program — into one flexible envelope; Ottawa's combined funding under those three predecessor programs had been $46,053,419 in 2021-22, and HPP's first-year allocation held that steady at $47,619,500 for 2022-23 [From this library’s earlier research from hpp-investment-plan-2023-24.md, original sourcing: CL-90185, CL-90180]. When MMAH announced a further $202 million/year province-wide HPP increase in March 2023, Ottawa's own share of that increase was $845,100 — a 1.8% bump to the City's own allocation but only 0.4% of the province's new money — prompting Mayor Mark Sutcliffe's reported reaction: "We thought there maybe was a zero or two missing" [From this library’s earlier research]. The 2023-24 plan allocates its resulting $48.46 million total across five categories: emergency shelter solutions receive the largest share ($21,440,275, funding 10 shelter and transitional-housing programs run by eight agencies), followed by supportive housing ($13,798,275), housing assistance ($8,195,375), community outreach and support services ($2,607,444), and administration, capped at the HPP-mandated 5% ($2,423,230) [From this library’s earlier research from hpp-investment-plan-2023-24.md, original sourcing: CL-90186, CL-90187]. Within housing assistance, Ottawa's Housing First long-term rent allowance program (formerly Home for Good) served 360 households going into the year, with roughly 180 more expected to be added [From this library’s earlier research from hpp-investment-plan-2023-24.md, original sourcing: CL-90188]. New in this plan is a pilot housing benefit for large, chronically-homeless families — households of 7 or more who have spent 180+ cumulative nights in shelter over the past year — that pays more than the Canada-Ontario Housing Benefit (COHB) would: a single parent with 6 children in a $1,882/month unit would receive $1,486/month under the pilot versus $1,026.80 under COHB, a $459.20 difference [From this library’s earlier research from hpp-investment-plan-2023-24.md, original sourcing: CL-90189]. Supportive housing funding also covers about 950 beds across 25 Residential Services Homes — private and non-profit residences for adults needing help with daily living — at roughly $7.6 million, plus 224 additional supportive units under construction [From this library’s earlier research from hpp-investment-plan-2023-24.md, original sourcing: CL-90190, CL-90191]. Ottawa also documents a specific, well-evidenced administrative problem: its own municipal-only Housing and Homelessness Investment Plan (HHIP) funding is split into five fixed, non-transferable envelopes that "cannot be redistributed between them, even when community need shifts from year to year" — the report itself calling this "a significant administrative barrier to the most effective use of these funds" [From this library’s earlier research]. Outside the dedicated funding envelopes entirely, the City also absorbs an unbudgeted cost for overflow hotel/motel placements when the family shelter system runs over capacity — an operating deficit of roughly $8 million in 2022 alone, about half offset by one-time provincial funding [From this library’s earlier research from hpp-investment-plan-2023-24.md, original sourcing: CL-90184]. The report frames all of this against a system under sustained strain: Ottawa's shelter population rose roughly 5% a year for six straight years (2014-2019), leading City Council to declare a housing and homelessness emergency in January 2020 [From this library’s earlier research from hpp-investment-plan-2023-24.md, original sourcing: CL-90192]. The pandemic temporarily reduced shelter use — a 48.9% drop in refugee claimants crossing from the United States who had been accessing Ottawa's shelters — but for those who stayed in shelter, the average length of stay rose about 23% [From this library’s earlier research from hpp-investment-plan-2023-24.md, original sourcing: CL-90193]. The system that manages all of this now involves more than 60 agencies, 30 of them homelessness-focused [From this library’s earlier research from hpp-investment-plan-2023-24.md, original sourcing: CL-90194]. A 2025 audit by Ottawa's own Auditor General reached a related, independent finding: supportive-housing demand is growing faster than the current system can accommodate, and coordination gaps between the three levels of government on capital, operating, and health funding are a real structural obstacle, not just a resourcing question [From this library’s earlier research from hpp-investment-plan-2023-24.md, original sourcing: CL-465, Office of the Auditor General of Ottawa, Supportive Housing Audit, June 2025].

Since this 2023-24 plan was written, the pressure it describes has continued rather than eased. Ottawa's official October 2024 Point-in-Time Count found 2,952 people experiencing homelessness [From this library’s earlier research from hpp-investment-plan-2023-24.md, original sourcing: CL-846, City of Ottawa 2024 Point-in-Time Count Report], and monthly shelter-system client counts tracked in the City's own HIFIS data rose from 3,658 in June 2024 to 4,596 by May 2026 [From this library’s earlier research from hpp-investment-plan-2023-24.md, original sourcing: CL-848, City of Ottawa Housing Services monthly HIFIS data]. In response, City Council approved a new 10-Year Housing and Homelessness Plan (2026-2035) — the third such plan since 2014 — structured around 3 priorities, 7 goals, and 18 objectives, deliberately built around directional rather than fixed numeric targets while more baseline data accumulates [From this library’s earlier research from hpp-investment-plan-2023-24.md, original sourcing: CL-847, City of Ottawa 10-Year Housing and Homelessness Plan 2026-2035].

Key tensions / tradeoffs

A formally accepted 2021 recommendation for a comprehensive provincial strategy, against a directly confirmed 40% little-or-no-progress rate two years later. The Ministry "accepts" Recommendation 1's call for a comprehensive, coordinated provincial strategy with specific actions, targets, and timelines [per the 2021 audit text quoted in this page’s carried-forward document] — and the Auditor General's own 2023 follow-up, confirmed by this review's direct primary-source fetch, finds 40% of all 30 recommended actions across all 12 recommendations showing "little or no progress" as of November 2023 [NEW-PROV-3]. This is the province's own independent oversight body's finding, not this project's characterization. A second, independent oversight body reached a parallel conclusion at the municipal level: a 2025 audit by Ottawa's own Auditor General found supportive-housing demand outpacing system capacity and identified coordination gaps across all three levels of government on capital, operating, and health funding as a structural obstacle in its own right [From this library’s earlier research from hpp-investment-plan-2023-24.md, original sourcing: CL-465].

The province's self-reported HART Hub outcome counts, against the sector's own funding-to-outcome critique. The province counts more than 100,000 client interactions and more than 250 people placed in supportive housing as of April 2026 against its $560 million/29-hub investment [From this library’s earlier research from hart-hubs-funding-outcomes-and-gaps.md, original sourcing: CL-148] — while advocates say most Toronto hubs still function as drop-in programs, and AMO/HelpSeeker's own 2025 sector report frames the $378 million HART investment as having produced only 375 supportive homes built, inadequate against actual need [From this library’s earlier research from hart-hubs-funding-outcomes-and-gaps.md, original sourcing: CL-148, CL-114]. This is the same province-says/critics-say structure this document already applies to the overdose-call trend and the provincial AG's 40% little-or-no-progress finding: two credible, differently-sourced accounts of the same funding architecture that this document does not adjudicate between.

HART Hubs funded at roughly four times the per-site rate of the supervised consumption sites they replaced, against rising non-fatal overdose call volumes across multiple cities in the same window. The carried-forward document states the first 9 HART Hubs opened at "roughly four times the funding of the sites they replaced" [From this library’s earlier research] — a genuine funding increase — set against a documented, multi-city rise in suspected-opioid-overdose paramedic calls (115% in Toronto) over the same general period the network expanded and Ontario completed its exit from supervised consumption [From this library’s earlier research]. The government's own counter-claim (a 41% coroner-sourced decrease in opioid deaths) uses a different metric (confirmed fatalities versus emergency-response call volume) tracking a different underlying phenomenon — this document states both figures without adjudicating between them, consistent with the carried-forward document's own explicit refusal to do so.

A large, precisely quantified provincial funding announcement, against a small, precisely quantified municipal share of it (Ottawa). The $202 million/year province-wide 2023 HPP increase produced only a $845,100 (0.4% of the new provincial money) increase to Ottawa's own allocation [From this library’s earlier research] — a directly comparable, smaller-scale instance of the same "large headline increase, small municipal share" pattern this project's federal-funding sibling page for COHB in Toronto specifically.

What the evidence does and doesn't support

Well-supported:

Thin or contested:

International context

1. Treaties/frameworks touched. No live-discovery attempt in this review located a treaty or international framework connection specific to provincial-level Canadian social-program funding architecture (as distinct from the federal National Housing Strategy Act's own ICESCR engagement, covered in the sibling homelessness-federal-funding-architecture backgrounder). Provincial homelessness-prevention funding programs like HPP are a matter of Canadian federalism's internal division of powers (municipal affairs and housing being provincial jurisdiction under the Constitution Act, 1867) rather than a subject with its own distinct international-law anchor — stated here plainly per this template's own guidance that "not every issue slug has a genuine international-law angle."

2. Best global comparators. Portugal's national decriminalization-plus-treatment model (in effect since 2001, administered through a dedicated national coordinating structure — the Serviço de Intervenção nos Comportamentos Aditivos e nas Dependências, SICAD) is the most frequently cited international comparator specifically for a jurisdiction combining addiction-treatment infrastructure with a housing/harm-reduction response at national scale, relevant to HART Hubs' own combined addiction-treatment-and-housing design; this document does not independently re-verify Portugal's current program parameters or funding scale in this review, and flags that as a live-discovery gap rather than asserting confident current detail. Within the same Canadian federation, British Columbia's supervised consumption and harm-reduction infrastructure — which Ontario's own HART Hub transition moved directly away from — is a genuine domestic comparator on the opposite side of the same policy question HART Hubs represents, though this document does not independently verify BC's current program status in this review either.

3. What Toronto/Ontario can steal shamelessly. Not confidently identifiable from this review's discovery: whether Portugal's SICAD-style dedicated national coordinating body (as distinct from a hub-network funded through a single Ministry, as HART Hubs are) offers a specific, transferable structural design Ontario's own scattered, multi-Ministry approach (documented by the Auditor General's 2021 audit finding of "at least 14 strategies" across five ministries) could adopt is a genuine open question this review does not resolve with confidence — stated honestly as an incomplete finding rather than a forced comparator claim.

Cui Bono — who profits from this problem persisting

Per the Accountability Observatory's charter (Prime Rule: pointer, never author) and the backgrounder template's binding requirement — 0 beneficiary entities identified in this review (0 ESTABLISHED / 0 REPORTED). A direct check against this library's internal records found no row naming a specific corporate/entity beneficiary of Ontario's HPP or HART Hub funding architecture specifically. The Seed Landscape's own captured findings on Ontario government spending (the Auditor General's Ontario Place and LCBO procurement findings) concern different program areas entirely, not homelessness-prevention or addiction-treatment funding. This is stated as a genuine absence, not a search failure: no registered entity/claim pair currently exists in the Accountability Observatory's public claims register naming a HART Hub operator, HPP-funded service provider, or Ministry of Health addiction-treatment contractor. A future capture pass specifically targeting named HART Hub operators (the carried-forward document names specific Toronto partner organizations — Fred Victor, Covenant House, Dixon Hall, Fife House — in a service-delivery capacity, not established here as beneficiaries of any documented extraction) or provincial procurement records for HART Hub construction/operation contracts could plausibly surface entity-level findings — flagged in "Open questions / data gaps" as a live capture-backlog candidate, not asserted here as a closed empty finding.

Open questions / data gaps

Claim-index appendix

carried-forward (carried forward from this page’s own sources docs, cited as-is, internal citations not yet reconciled to this project's own claims register):

New load-bearing findings (this review, source quotes below, not yet through this library’s formal verification process):

---

Source quotes (NEW-PROV-1 through NEW-PROV-3)

NEW-PROV-1

"The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Ministry) spent $654 million in 2022/23 on programs related to homelessness, including the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative, the Home for Good program and the Indigenous Supportive Housing Program ($356 million on average annually from 2016/17 to 2020/21, for a total of $1.8 billion over the five years)."

Source: Office of the Auditor General of Ontario, "Follow-Up on 2021 Value-for-Money Audit: Homelessness," Chapter 1, Section 1.07, 2023 Annual Report (Annual Follow-Up on Value-for-Money Audits), https://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en23/1-07FU_homelessness_en23.pdf. Accessed 2026-07-14.

NEW-PROV-2

"Funding for homelessness initiatives from all three levels of government increased over the five-year period 2016/17 to 2020/21, although the largest contributor remained the Ontario government. In 2020/21, the Province contributed 68% of all funding, followed by 23% from municipalities and 9% from the federal government. At the time of our follow-up, the Ministry was no longer collecting information on municipal contributions to homelessness programs. Not including municipal funding, contributions by the provincial and federal governments in 2022/23 were 85% and 15% respectively."

Source: same as NEW-PROV-1.

NEW-PROV-3

"Overall Conclusion: The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Ministry), as of November 14, 2023, has fully implemented 37% of the actions we recommended in our 2021 Annual Report, and made progress in implementing an additional 23% of the recommended actions." / Recommendation Status Overview table: 30 total actions recommended across 12 recommendations — 11 (37%) Fully Implemented, 7 (23%) In the Process of Being Implemented, 12 (40%) Little or No Progress, 0 Will Not Be Implemented, 0 No Longer Applicable.

Source: same as NEW-PROV-1.