An Intro to Asset Liability Management in Regards to Social Impact Credits

My aim is to make this brief. Let us begin with our current understanding of market premiums when purchasing shares of companies. We employ ALM techniques to understand and quantify risk. The asset risk as we know can be affected by common expectations such as company x reaching quarterly sales targets or uncommon events such as an executive of company x deciding to publicly expose their political ideology or will towards managing a nations social services in a corporate fashion. The question is what are key factors that go into the quantifying the market premium on social impact credits(SICs).

The factors I am discussing here include, savings to society, and capitalization of development costs. I am leaving out tangible assets of a social development organization (SoDev) in order to avoid the expiring vs non expiring credit conversation. This discussion relates to both. I aim to stay neutral in this paper between the expiring vs non expiring debates. If you have heard me speak you probably know where I stand.

First of why is this conversation necessary?

Risk mitigation. When we all start on an even playing field we can avoid over speculation on SIC valuation. History tells us that each time a new asset class comes into play or a new industry that requires an alternative asset assessment methodology emerges a bubble is formed due to excitement and misunderstanding of the real factors which affect the assets’ market premium.

There are two key factors and recurring threads in the world of SIC research, expansion and delivery. The first is savings to society or the general economic impact. The short end of savings to society is simple. How much would society be spending if the actions of the SoDev never occurred, and how long will society be spending that amount of money.

When you assess in broader terms the general economic impact, you are then also bringing into view the larger picture on how the economy is impacted beyond the immediate direct public program expenditure. For example the Margaret and Wallace McCain Family Foundation commissioned a study on the impact of investing in early learning and child care. The report highlighted impact factors such as labour market participation, reduction in income inequality, and a decrease in the need for special education. The estimate was as high as for every $1 invested there is an economic impact as high as $5.8. And, that is part of the ROI when investing in SoDevs.

Now, lets move on to capitalization of program development. In short, think tech, think of developing a valuation on a technology application that has not entered into its first sales cycle. Here it becomes easy to see. We know that there is a high development cost and removing that development cost from product or service valuation will create disinterest in further developing technological innovation.

In the same vein in order to create better and more effective social service programs the same methodology that has kept developers in Silicon Valley and other tech centres around the world, building and creating mass amounts of economic returns, must also be attributed to programs that social development organizations produce. The incentive for a SoDev becomes, getting the job done right, and getting the job done effectively. This is a market approach.

Although I aimed to stay neutral in the debate between expiring vs non expiring credits, there are clues as to which system works better than the other when transferring an intangible asset created by a SoDev to a tangible asset that can hold liquid value.

The combined value of savings to society or economic impact and capitalization of development costs will provide that baseline number, that is required to understanding when a credit is reaching a state of being undersold or oversold.

Written by Delali Hotsonyame

    An Intro to Asset Liability Management in Regards to Social Impact Credits  © 2026 by Delali Hotsonyame is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Unlocking Canada’s Hidden Social Value: Program Assets, Social Credits, and the Economic Potential of the Not-for-Profit and Social Impact Organizations

Unlocking Canada’s Hidden Social Value: Program Assets, Social Credits, and the Economic Potential of the Not-for-Profit and Social Impact Organizations

Abstract

Canada’s not-for-profit sector delivers essential social programs that generate measurable economic value, yet this value remains largely unrealized within traditional financial systems. With thousands of not-for-profit organizations operating nationwide, the sector represents a substantial but under recognized contributor to Canada’s economic stability, social resilience, and long-term growth. This paper introduces a conceptual framework that addresses the mechanics of turning social programs into economic assets and proposes social credits as a mechanism for capturing and mobilizing the unrealized value produced by these assets.

Using a simple Social Return on Investment (SROI) program calculation, we estimated that the sector generates at least $8 billion in unrealized economic value annually. Using an exploratory case study the suggested figure may very well exceed $40 billion. We argue that recognizing and mobilizing this value could significantly strengthen Canada’s economy, enhance ESG accountability, and create new pathways for social investment.

The Waterloo STEAM Academy will like to work with a partner institution to create a Canada first formalized structure that not-for-profit and non profit organizations can utilize to turn assets into currency. In short the receiving organization maintain rights to further develop and administer their programs, while exchanging that balance sheet monetary asset for sponsorship dollars.

This will allow for the maximization of value per program and better incentivise corporate giving.

1. Introduction

Canada’s not-for-profit organizations play a central role in delivering social services, educational programs, community supports, and research initiatives. These programs reduce homelessness, improve mental health outcomes, support youth development, and strengthen local economies. Despite their importance, the economic value created by these programs is rarely captured in a way that reflects their true contribution to national productivity and social well being.

This paper proposes framing program assets as an asset class, social credits. When a not-for-profit designs and delivers a program, it creates a reproducible, improvable, measurable asset that generates social and economic value over time. However, because not-for-profits cannot distribute surplus as dividends, much of this value remains unrecognized and unused.

We introduce social credits as a mechanism for capturing this unrealized value and outline how SROI methodology can quantify program value in ways that support ESG reporting, impact investment, and national economic planning.

2. Background and Literature Context

2.1 The Not-for-Profit Sector in Canada

According to madeinca.ca, Canada has over 80,000 not-for-profit organizations. This amounts to a multibillion dollar social impact ecosystem. Statistics Canada in a report on non-profit sector contributed 216.5 Billion to the Canadian economy. These organizations operate across sectors including:

• Housing and homelessness

• Mental health and addictions

• Youth development

• Education and workforce training

• Arts and culture

• Environmental stewardship

Collectively, they form a critical part of Canada’s social infrastructure.

Part of the problem in quantifying the size of the social impact ecosystem is the use of terminology between not-for-profit and non profit. I suspect the program creation economics are similar if not the same.

2.2 The Problem of Unrealized Social Value

Traditional accounting frameworks do not capture:

• Avoided public costs

• Long-term productivity gains

• Community stabilization effects

• Inter-generational benefits

• Research and innovation outputs

As a result, billions of dollars in social value remain invisible to policymakers, investors, and the public.

Realizing the additional value creation can result in a significant boost in the economy via direct capital and the resulting social benefits they create.

2.3 SROI as a Measurement Tool

Social Return on Investment (SROI) is increasingly used to quantify social outcomes in economic terms. It provides a structured method for:

• Identifying outcomes

• Assigning financial proxies

• Adjusting for deadweight, displacement, attribution, and drop-off

• Calculating value created per dollar invested

SROI ratios commonly range from 1:2 to 1:4 depending on program type and population served. As institutions are beginning to grapple with this new asset class there is a need to standardize and understand the asset class.

Currently certificates of value are the norm. The issue of what becomes of those certificates in the long-term becomes questionable. Questions arise such as the tradeability of these certificates, and tracking. In order to provide sponsors of social credit surety asset-liability management and related modelling is required.

Whether or not social credits can be treated similar to stocks with a secondary market is a major subject matter that needs additional research. The potential for building an exchange with standardization is a paramount question. A clear recognizable exchange can increase the speed of adoption.

3. Conceptual Framework: Programs as Economic Assets

3.1 Defining Program Assets

A program asset is a structured intervention with:

• A defined logic model

• A measurable outcome profile

• Repeatable delivery mechanisms

• Rights of administration and advancement

• Long-term value creation potential

Programs are not one time activities; they are value producing assets. They are structured interventions with a clear goal and measurable outcomes with the ability to be audited.

3.2 The Not-for-Profit Constraint

We will explore the social organization constraint by looking at why a structured framework for defining and managing social credits lay within the difference in how a for profit corporation treats intangible assets, goodwilll and program assets versus the limitations of not-for-profit corporations.

Not-for-profits cannot distribute surplus as dividends

• Hold program value as equity

• Monetize program outcomes

• Leverage program value for investment

This creates a structural barrier that prevents the economic system from recognizing the full value of the sector’s contributions.

4. Methodology: Estimating Unrealized Social Value

4.1 National Estimate

Using a conservative average of $100,000 in annual social value per organization, we estimate:

80,000 organizations*$100,000=$8,000,000,000

Eight billion dollars in unrealized social value annually.

This estimate assumes minimal program output and does not account for high-impact sectors such as homelessness reduction or mental health.

4.2 Waterloo Region Case Study

A small exploratory study of five not-for-profits in Waterloo found each organization had over $500,000 in unrealized social value. This is merely based on a cost based valuation taking into consideration only the labour input.

If this pattern holds nationally:

80,000*$500,000=$40,000,000,000

Forty billion dollars in unrealized social value.

This suggests the conservative estimate may significantly understate the true scale of the opportunity.

5. Social Credits, Lets Define and Discuss the Mechanism for Monetizing Value Creation

5.1 Short Answer; What is a Social Credit?

A social credit is a documented, auditable claim on the economic value created by a program asset. It differentiates itself from equity, profit shares, and financial security in the fact that the program asset becomes a shared asset. It is a socially relevant impact asset. An asset that can be added to the assets of corporate entity, thus enabling the asset to be paid out as shares or leveraged upon.

5.2 Mechanics of Social Credit Issuance

The mechanics begin with program creation and delivery by the not-for-profit corporation and social organizations. Next is to define measurable outcomes within a standard SROI framework. The estimated economic value is calculated and a portion of value is converted into social credits.

Credits are then purchased by sponsors or impact investors. Organization retains operational rights and sponsors or purchasers retains the monetary asset value.

5.3 Benefits for Stakeholders

For not-for-profits and other social organizations there will be recognition of value created, new pathways for funding and a strong incentive to maximize resource use and allocations

For corporations they will have SMART ESG or other social impact managed by a trusted partner because of transparent reporting and verified social value creation

For Canada we will see increased economic participation, a strengthened social infrastructure, and a reduction of pressure on public systems.

6. The Numbers Game Revisited

6.1 Conservative Scenario

Capturing 25% of the conservative $8 billion estimate:

$8,000,000,000*0.25=$2,000,000,000

Two billion dollars in recognized impact assets.

6.2 Moderate Scenario

Capturing 10% of the Waterloo micro study’s $40 billion estimate:

$40,000,000,000*0.10=$4,000,000,000

Four billion dollars in recognized impact assets.

6.3 High-Impact Scenario

Capturing 25% of the Waterloo micro study’s based estimate:

$40,000,000,000*0.25=$10,000,000,000

6.4 Pulling the Numbers Together

Here I am playing with numbers. This is were cross collaboration is needed. We can see the potential is enormous. Having a clear picture of the potential will inform the speed of adoption and regulations.

As a side note, there are many more factors that add to the value of a social program such as the societal impact. The societal impact is a paramount feature because this also captures efficiency. For example if the current cost for our governments to sustain one homeless person is $40,000 per year and the social impact organization accomplishes the same goal for $10,000 they have added an additional $30,000 in value to each person in their program.

Now we can really start to get an idea of how large the social impact asset class can be. And how we can add incentives to bolster social impact.

7. Policy Implications

7.1 National SROI Standards

Canada would benefit from standardized SROI methodologies, sector specific valuation guidelines as well as the institutionalization of training and certification. A national strategy will provide procedural clarity via social credit regulations, and centralized exchanges.

7.2 Social Credit Regulation

To ensure credibility credits must be auditable. They need to have a direct link or certificate number corresponding to the asset created by the social organization. Certificate number or other identification will lend itself to preventing double counting. It will also enable transparent reporting. And, of course, third party verification must be encouraged.

7.3 Central Exchanges

Centralized exchange would be a major asset to the realization of social credits as a commonly accepted asset class. A central exchange can create a clear map to commonly used standards such as SDG indicators, GRI standards and various corporate internal ESG Frameworks.

A Canada first approach can lead to a global adoption strategy where local success can be viewed as a framework for other nations towards a goal of a single global standard.

8. Limitations

8.1 Efficacy Differential

Currently SROI relies on financial proxies that may vary by region and social organization. The discrepancy reduces trust in current programs. There is also the issue of monetization, not all outcomes are easily monetized and certain regions may see differences in the potential effect of the same program. An example is a fisheries focused re-skilling program for at risk young adults in Saskatchewan will not have the same benefit of having the same program in Nova Scotia.

8.2 The Opportunity

This is why social credit programs require careful governance and further research to normalize estimates and real value. The problem is also why the current norm of program value certificates is valuable. It maintains a record and data for asset-liability modelling and other economic modelling.

9. Future Research Directions

9.2 Research

Large scale national valuation studies. This is the big one. To create an auditable standard and centralized exchange confidence in numbers is required. The studies must have sector specific SROI benchmarks. And regional pilot programs to study efficacy and impact.

9.3 Normalizing Data

Economic modelling of long-term impacts. The main reason for normalizing data and creating mathematical models is to minimize or avoid the creation of economic bubble. The tasks required include asset liability management and related modelling, legal and accounting frameworks for social credits in order to create an integrated social impact investment market.

Conclusion

10. Let’s Get Moving

Canada’s not-for-profit sector produces billions of dollars in social and economic value every year. That value is largely invisible to the financial system. By re-framing programs as assets and introducing social credits as a mechanism for capturing unrealized value, Canada can unlock a new era of measurable, auditable, economically meaningful social impact.

Recognizing this value is not simply an accounting exercise. It is a national opportunity to strengthen communities, support vulnerable populations, and build a more resilient and prosperous Canada.

Written by Delali Hotsonyame

Unlocking Canada’s Hidden Social Value: Program Assets, Social Credits, and the Economic Potential of Not-for-Profit and Social Impact Organizations © 2026 by Delali Hotsonyame is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Leveraging Lived Experience to Drive Innovation, Economic Mobility, and Community Impact

Executive Summary

Individuals with lived experience of homelessness possess unique adaptive skills such as resilience, resourcefulness, improvisation, and systems‑level awareness. The attained skills directly translate into entrepreneurial and workforce strengths. Yet these capabilities remain largely untapped in traditional economic development and social‑service models.

This paper is an evidence based document demonstrating how lived experience can be transformed into economic opportunity, why current systems fail to leverage this talent pool, and how a structured program can convert survival skills into business and employment outcomes. 

1. Introduction

Homelessness is often framed solely as a social crisis. However, emerging research and case studies show that individuals who have navigated barriers such as housing instability, have developed competencies that mirror those required in entrepreneurship, leadership, and high‑pressure work environments. These include:

• Rapid problem‑solving
• Negotiation and conflict navigation
• Opportunity recognition
• Risk assessment
• Social network building
• Adaptability under uncertainty

This paper argues that homelessness is not only a condition of deprivation, but it is also an environment that can cultivate unconventional but powerful industry aligned skills. 

2. The Research: Homelessness as a Training Ground for Entrepreneurial Competencies

2.1 Resilience and Adaptability

A 2024 study that was published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing, Ketel and Abdoli found the attributes that describe resiliency include adaptability, problem solving and coping. There is an acknowledgment, based on their literature review, that these traits are attributed to homeless populations. that individuals who have experienced homelessness demonstrate significantly higher resilience scores than the general population, particularly in adaptability and stress tolerance. (Ketel and Abdoli, 2024)

The importance of resilience in entrepreneurship is a key influencing factor for success. Ayala and Manzano in 2014 through a longitudinal study found supporting evidence to highlight the importance of resilience in small businesses. (Ayala and Manzano, 2014).

2.2 Informal Economy Participation

Many unhoused individuals participate in informal economic activities. They gain skills that are transferable Stephen Gaetz and Bill O'Grady provide an excellent overview on the economic activity of young homeless workers. Barriers to employment for homeless youth include education, discrimination,  criminalization, and mental health challenges. (Gaetz and Grady 2002). Our program provides the solutions needed by providing education on directly needed skills, and eliminating the opportunity for discrimination based on homelessness. 

The informal activities often mirror early stage entrepreneurship: identifying needs, creating value, and negotiating exchanges. Although this paper focuses on homelessness. For those who are more successful, we will work towards translating their gained skills in the informal economy to the formal economy.

2.3 Systems Navigation as Executive Function

Surviving homelessness requires navigating fragmented social assistance systems such as shelters, food programs, transit, healthcare, and legal processes. There are basic needs that must be navigated, needs that are taken for granted such as access to electricity, access to a washroom, laundry services or the ability to consistently maintain access to wireless communication via mobile communication plans. To me the ability to navigate complex systems requires a continuous improvement mindset. Young people are forced to evaluate their social assistance network and source out the best alternatives based on access and need.

The constant change to finding better doing better is a skill that is found in executive leaders. Business leaders do not rely on company policy to act. They need to be innovative, ready and willing to make key decisive decisions.

2.4 Social Capital Building

Although the next article I am citing was based on social capital during the COVID-19 pandemic, We have found similarities in our own case studies. People experiencing homelessness have to create formal and informal groups to bridge gaps between social services. They often build interdependent social networks to maintain safety, and resource sharing. (Boucher, et al. 2022). 

There is a distinct similarity to entrepreneurial ecosystems, collaborative, trust based, and resource efficient. Think of country clubs, Friday Golf, boating clubs, trade shows and professional conferences.

3. The Gap: Why Traditional Programs Fail

There is an abundance of data on why traditional programs fail: The AMO published a report titled "Municipalities Under Pressure One Year Later: An Update on the Human and Financial Cost of Ontario’s Homelessness Crisis" The report is an update prepared by Donaldson, J., Kandyba, L., Wang, D. Early on in the report the authors notes how homelessness funding has increased while homelessness grows. A spending estimate just over $4 Billion. The 2025 estimate is 45,111 which only represents 53% of all known homelessness. It almost makes me wonder what the impact would be if they were all given $45,000 to jump start their life.

Political discourse often focuses on housing supports, "wrap around" services and increased spending. The AMO estimates 177000 homeless in 10 years or 297,000 if there is an economic crisis. The proposed spending equals $13 Billion. $2 billion for near-term investments and 11 for long-term investments. (Donaldson, et al, 2025) If we decided to meet in the middle, I might propose an invested slush fund increase the amount from $45,000 per person to $54,000 per person. Just to clarify I have added some humour. The math might be bit more complex than what I proposed above when you include year over year change. 

A thought to consider. The AMO report noted 2024 spending was $4.1 Billion for 81,515 homeless. The request from AMO is for $11 billion over 10 years and $2 billion now. Is that 2 billion on top of a 2026 spend that is likely going to be more than $4.1 Billion? If the answer is yes. We are spending more on homelessness than giving the homeless basic income on top of what they already receive in social assistance.

Should we audit municipal spending? Money has gone into housing and we all see how quickly a buildings can be built. Or potentially I missed a key detail; the money is in a superposition. If that is the case we can always ask for help from the Perimiter Institute. 

We are aiming for a net positive after 10 years instead of a deficit. However it should be noted that our re-skills programs is designed for a younger audience not the entire adult homeless population. It is a pre-emptive strike designed to combat potential future homelessness and chronic homelessness. 

3.1 Programs focus on deficits, not assets

Most interventions assume skill gaps rather than recognizing existing competencies. This is where we differ. As explained earlier we are taking a positive approach. Instead of focusing on housing gaps, and gaps in wrap around services, we are focused on the energy and abilities of those in early adulthood and high school.  

Instead of the usual rhetoric that these people constantly hear which focuses on calling our young economic leaders a "problem". We are calling them what they are; young economic leaders.

3.2 Training is not trauma informed

Traditional business training does not account for survival based learning styles or medications that may affect behaviour. We dove head first to explore issues with certain medications using first hand data. That type of research will continue. 

We work with individuals where they are not where someone thinks they should be.

3.3 Barriers overshadow potential

Lack of ID, credit, transportation, or stable housing often prevents participation.

3.4 No translation mechanism

There is no structured method to convert survival skills into business language equivalents.

4. Opportunity: A New Model for Economic Mobility

4.1 The Lived Experience Innovation Model

This model reframes homelessness‑acquired skills as business assets. Lets discuss Economic Experience Models. I want to point to an article from the July-August 1998 Harvard Business Review. The article, coauthored by B. Joseph Pine II and James H Gilmore. They talk about KW's Oktoberfest liken it to a market for vendors to sell goods and services. People attend the market to experience Bavarian culture. 

The lived experience being sold comes from those who immigrated to Kitchener/Waterloo from Germany. I hope this example is one all those in the Waterloo Region can connect to. It is that lived experience that makes the marketplace more enticing while opening up wallets and purses. 

So in reality, this is not such a new concept. It is an economically understood concept. One that is used by many different types of industries from SAAS to pants. I originally had typed SAAS to concerts, but the term sassy pants flew in my mind and made me chuckle. Then It hit me yoga pants, and athleisure. 

4.2 Program Components

You might already be thinking, this model will require small class sizes and/or one on one support. How is that even going to be viable. It becomes viable due to community support, grants, B2B sponsorship initiatives and individual donors. 

This is initial funding. We are actively mobilizing our students into real economic activity. The goal is to become net positive in 5 years. 

B2B launch fund sponsorship includes:

• cross posting
• skills training
• hire a student/contract a students business
• Visual art marketing program

        1.  Skill Translation Workshops

Participants map lived experiences to business competencies with the help of an educator or mentor. Skills translation can be tricky, it must match participant interest, it must be flexible and innovative. Educators and mentors cannot be scared to venture into the unknown with their students. 

        2. Micro‑Enterprise Training

Trauma‑informed, culturally relevant entrepreneurship curriculum. Micro-Enterprise Training is similar to skill translation. Why it is separate is to also show how social connections can bridge the gap between struggling enterprise to successful. 

This is also an excellent opportunity for businesses to gain expert team members and define their business needs to help develop and train new recruits. It is part of our community sponsorship programs, where businesses pay in to gain access to top talent or services.

One of our current students has brought in a community business sponsor simply by showcasing the amazing growth potential of his product. The student mobilized their social capital building skills to navigate the needs of another enterprise.

        3. Mentorship & Peer Cohorts

Pairing participants with entrepreneurs who also have lived experience. For those students who have reached an operational stage, and they just need a second person to bounce ideas off of, or to just chat. Entrepreneurship can be lonely..

5. Expected Outcomes & Impact Metrics

Expected Economic Outcomes

• 40–60% of participants launch micro‑enterprises within 12 months
• 50% increase in income stability
• 30% reduction in reliance on emergency services
• Social Outcomes
• Increased self‑efficacy and confidence
• Strengthened community networks
• Reduced stigma through public storytelling
• Systems Outcomes
• Lower shelter utilization.
• Improved our regional economic outlook through an increase businesses and employers.
• Attract an investor community.
• Data demonstrating ROI of lived‑experience‑centered models.

6. Why Sponsor us? 

1. High ROI

Studies show that every $1 invested in homelessness‑to‑employment programs yields $1.17–$2.84 in community savings (Nelson and Aubry, 2020). That is a pretty decent Social return.

In 2012 the Mental Health Commision published a report. They found for ever $1.00 invested in housing first approach saves between $1.54. In 1 year 84% stayed in their chosen housing. This represents depreciation.

Consider the fact that our program also creates economic activity. Which further amplifies your impact. 

Year 1. We are aiming to save $2.00 per every dollar spent and add $1.00 per every dollar spent to the economy in terms of student revenue in year 1. 

2. Innovation

This model reframes homelessness as a source of untapped entrepreneurial potential.

3. Social Governance 

Measurable, auditable metrics to boost ESG goals

4. Evidence‑Based

The approach is grounded in peer‑reviewed research and proven economic‑mobility frameworks and our own research conducted in Waterloo.

7. Conclusion

Homelessness teaches lessons that no MBA program can replicate. It builds resilience, creativity, negotiation skills, and the ability to operate under extreme uncertainty. aits that define successful entrepreneurs and leaders.

By investing in lived‑experience‑centered economic development, funders can unlock a hidden talent pipeline, reduce homelessness, and drive measurable community transformation.

References

Christian Ketel, Samereh, Abdoli. 2024. "Resiliency in Persons Experiencing Homelessness: A Concept Analysis Using the Evolutionary Framework." Journal of Advanced Nursing. Volume 81, Issue 2. Pages 749-761.

Juan-Carlos Ayala, Guadalupe Manzano. 2014. "The resilience of the entrepreneur. Influence on the success of the business. A longitudinal analysis." Journal of Economic Psychology. Volume 42, 2014, Pages 126-135, ISSN 0167-4870, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2014.02.004.

Bill O'Grady, Stephen Gaetz. 2002. "Making Money-Exploring the Economy of Young Homeless Workers." Work, Employment & Society. Volume 16 Issue 3. Pages 433-456.

Lisa M. Boucher, Zoë Dodd, Samantha Young, Abeera Shahid, Ahmed Bayoumi, Michelle Firestone, Claire E. Kendall. 2022. “They have their security, we have our community”: Mutual support among people experiencing homelessness in encampments in Toronto during the COVID-19 pandemic," SSM - Qualitative Research in Health. Volume 2,100163.

B. Joseph Pine II and James H Gilmore. 1998. "Welcome to the Experience Economy". Harvard Business Review. July/August 1998.

Dr. Geoffrey Nelson and Dr. Tim Aubry. 2020.  "Evidence at a glance: Housing first and costs?" Ontario Housing First Regional Network Community of Interest.

Paula Goering, Veldhuizen, Aimee Watson, Carol Adair, Brianna Kopp, Eric Latimer and Angela Ly. 2012 "At Home/Chez Soi Interim Report." Prepared for the Mental Health Commission of Canada. September 2012 

Day 1 Summer Camp

 

What to Expect on Day 1 of Camp

Camp hours mimic the Waterloo Regional School Board. There are two nutrition breaks. If you drop of your child for extended day. Please pack a snack for the extended day period.

Arrival & Check‑In (8:00–9:00 AM)

When you arrive, head downstairs, we are in the basement.

A quick check‑in confirms your child’s name, week, and any important notes (allergies, pick‑up permissions, etc.).

Campers meet their instructor and peers, and explore toys and games.

Settling In 

Campers meet their instructor, volunteers, and group members.

We do a short welcome circle, icebreakers, and a tour of the spaces they’ll use (washrooms, maker area, outdoor zone, etc.).

Staff review expectations in a friendly, kid‑centered way: kindness, safety, teamwork, and curiosity.

Morning STEAM Block 

This is the first big “wow” moment of the week. Campers jump into hands‑on activities such as:

• robotics 
• Curiousity inspired LEGO build
• Maker challenges
• Engineering builds
• Art‑tech or creative problem‑solving tasks
• Activities are designed to be accessible for all skill levels. There is no experience needed.

Lunch & Outdoor Break 

• Campers eat their nut‑free and fish-free lunches together.
• Weather permitting, we head outside for movement, games, and fresh air.
• Staff supervise all transitions and ensures water breaks as needed.

Afternoon Workshops 

The afternoon focuses on deeper project work or themed activities for the week. Examples include:

• Building circuits
• Designing and testing prototypes
• Coding mini‑games
• Team STEAM challenges
• Creative maker projects

Lunch & Outdoor Break 

Wrap‑Up & Reflection 

Pick‑Up 

Staff release campers only to approved adults listed at registration.

Please bring ID

Communication With Families

Feel free to engage the staff in discussion about how the day went. We will send out end of the week recaps.

Give us your feedback whenever possible. Feedback is how we improve.

What Your Child Should Bring on Day 1

• Nut‑free, fish-free food + snacks
• Water bottle
• Comfortable indoor/outdoor clothing
• Sunscreen + hat
• Any medications with clear instructions
• A positive, curious attitude
• Change of clothes

First Day Checklist for Parents

 First Day Checklist for Parents

✔ Before You Leave Home

Pack a nut‑free lunch and two snacks

Fill a water bottle

Apply sunscreen (child must reapply on their own)

Label any personal items your child brings

Ensure your child is wearing comfortable indoor/outdoor clothing

Enter the camp location into your GPS not our office location: Camp is held at Trinity Church, we use the side door at the corner of the driveway loop. 330 Conservation Dr, Waterloo.

✔ What to Pack

Nut‑free lunch + snacks

Water bottle

Sunscreen + hat

Any required medications in a labelled bag with written instructions

Weather‑appropriate clothing (light jacket, running shoes)

Optional: a spare clothing if your child tends to get messy during projects, or if your child has an amazing ability to focuse on projects but forgets the washroom...

✔ What Not to Bring

Personal electronics (phones, tablets, gaming devices)

Toys from home

Anything valuable or fragile

Food containing nuts

✔ Arrival & Check‑In

Drop‑off is 8:00am–9:00 AM

Staff will greet you when you enter the building. We are hiding in the basement

Confirm pick‑up permissions if anything has changed

Give any essential medications directly to staff such as epi-pens. Do not leave them in backpacks

✔ Pick‑Up

Pick‑up is 4:00–5:00PM

Bring ID if someone new is picking up

✔ Communication

Share your thoughts, whether it is new ideas we should try, methods that can increase our level of care.

Summer Camp FAQs

 What is the minimum age for a child to be able to attend summer camp?

Our STEAM camps are designed for children ages 5–12. Children must be turning 5 by the end of the calendar year.

 

Where is the camp located?

330 Conservation Drive

We are nice and cool in the church basement.

 

What are the camp hours?
Camp runs 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM.
no-fee extended day is (8:00 AM–9:00 AM) and (4:00 PM–5:00 PM) 

 

What does a typical day look like?
Each day includes:

• Hands‑on STEAM workshops (coding, robotics, engineering, maker projects, art‑tech)
• Outdoor breaks and movement time
• Team challenges and creative build sessions
• Reflection/calming activities

 

How do I register?
Registration is completed through our secure Uplifter portal. Once registered, you’ll receive a confirmation email and a pre‑camp information package.

 

Do you offer refunds or transfers?
Refunds and transfers depend on availability and timing. Please contact us as early as possible if your plans change.

 

Are there discounts for multiple weeks or siblings?
Discounts may be available depending on the season. We are also Pay-What-You-Can provider. Just set up your payments in Uplifter and stop them when you want. We complete adjustments at the end of each season. You cam call in to us for early adjustment and to ensure only what you want is being charged.

 

Who supervises the campers?

Campers are supported by:

• Certified instructors and STEAM educators
• Trained camp staff
• High‑school and post‑secondary volunteers who assist with activities and supervision
• All staff and volunteers follow strict safety, privacy, and conduct guidelines.

 

How do you handle photos and videos?
We take non‑identifiable photos and short videos to document learning and share daily highlights with families. We never capture faces or identifying details of campers.

 

What is your camper‑to‑staff ratio?
We maintain small group sizes to ensure personalized support, typically 1 adult per 8 campers, plus volunteers.

 

What should my child bring?

Nut‑free and fish-free lunch and snacks

Water bottle

Comfortable clothing for indoor and outdoor activities

Sunscreen and hat for outdoor time

Any required medications (with instructions provided to staff)

 

Do you provide lunch or snacks?
No. Families must send nut‑free and fish free food and drinks.

 

What should my child NOT bring?

• Personal electronics
• Toys from home
• Anything valuable or fragile

 

What kinds of STEAM activities will my child do?
Depending on the week, campers may explore:

• Coding (block‑based or Python, depending on age)
• Robotics and circuits
• Engineering challenges
• Maker projects 
• Art‑integrated STEAM activities
• Team problem‑solving challenges

 

Do campers need prior experience?
No experience required. Activities are designed to be accessible, hands‑on, and adaptable for all skill levels.

 

What if my child has allergies or medical needs?
Please list all medical information during registration. Our staff will review it and follow up if clarification is needed.

 

Is the camp accessible?
We aim to accommodate diverse learning needs and physical accessibility requirements. Contact us to discuss specific needs so we can plan appropriate supports.

 

Will I receive information on how the week went?
Families receive:

Important reminders or schedule changes

End‑of‑week highlights. We aim to exclude faces. 

 

Who do I contact if my child will be absent?

Please let the office know via email admin@waterloosteamacademy.ca or phone call 548-390-4719

DNS Setting and Propagation

 DNS Settings & Propagation

What the DNS??

DNSs (Domain Name System) are the Internet's address book. When someone types yourdomain.ca into a browser, the DNS is what tells the internet, which server to go to. It is like your home address. When you have a friend coming to visit, it is the house number and street address name. 

 

A DNS is made up of records, each serving a specific purpose:

• A Record — Points your domain to an IP address (e.g., your website server).
• CNAME — Points one hostname to another (e.g., www → yourdomain.ca).
• MX Records — Tell the internet where to deliver email.
• TXT Records — Used for verification (Google, Microsoft, SPF, DKIM, DMARC).
• NS Records — Define which DNS provider is authoritative for your domain.

These records live on your DNS host (e.g., Namecheap, Cloudflare, GoDaddy).

 

Why DNS Changes Do not Update Immediately

        1. DNS Is Cached Everywhere

To keep the internet fast, DNS information is cached at multiple layers:

Your local device

Your router

Your ISP (Bell, Rogers, etc.)

Global DNS resolvers (Google DNS, Cloudflare DNS)

Browsers (Chrome, Edge, Firefox)

Each layer stores the old DNS answer until the cache expires.

 

        2. TTL Controls How Long Old Data Lives

Every DNS record has a TTL (Time To Live) value — usually 300 to 48,000 seconds (5 minutes to 48 hours).

Example: If your A record has a TTL of 3600 seconds, every resolver is allowed to keep the old IP for 1 hour before checking again.

Lower TTL = faster updates Higher TTL = slower updates

 

        3. Global Propagation Takes Time

When you update DNS:

Your DNS host updates instantly.

Some resolvers fetch the new data immediately.

Others continue using cached data until TTL expires.

Different regions update at different speeds.

This is why one person sees the new website while another still sees the old one.

Typical propagation time:5 minutes → 48 hours Most changes settle within 1–4 hours.

 

    4. Email‑Related Records Take Longer

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC often feel slower because:

Mail servers cache aggressively

Some providers only refresh every few hours

Email reputation systems may take 24–72 hours to adjust

 

How to Speed Up DNS Changes?

• Lower TTL 24 hours before making changes (e.g., set to 300 seconds).
• Make your DNS changes.
• Raise TTL again after everything is stable.
• If you didn’t lower TTL beforehand, you simply have to wait for caches to expire.

 
How to Check Propagation?

Use tools like:

• whatsmydns.net
• dnschecker.org
• dig (command line)