ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO:

Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets

FROM:

Director of Social Planning

SUBJECT:

Reconsideration of Community Services Grants Applications

 

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

On November 22, 1994, City Council established that reconsideration of grant recommendations can only occur if they are based on one or both of the following premises:

1) that eligibility criteria and priorities have not been properly applied; or

2) the financial situation of the applicant has not been properly assessed or understood.

Approval of grant recommendations requires eight affirmative votes.

PURPOSE

This report contains the results of the reconsideration process which was initiated by seven
Community Services Grants applicants, and makes recommendations based on the outcome of this process.

BACKGROUND

In November 1994, City Council approved a grants "reconsideration" process for those grant applicants who disagreed with the Social Planning Department's recommendation with regards to their applications. A key feature of the process is that there are only two grounds for requesting reconsideration (referred to in Council Policy, above). This has all but eliminated requests based solely on the fact that the group does good work (most do), or that there is considerable community support for it, or any of a number of other reasons.

Over the years (including this one) a number of organizations have requested reconsideration because they feel that they meet the priorities as outlined in the Council policy. Often staff have agreed that they do meet this one criteria, but Council policy also explicitly states that not all organizations meeting all the criteria (not just the priorities) will automatically receive a grant - allocations are based on the grants budget, as determined by Council, and current overall needs and priorities. Given the high priority we place on providing on-going funding to organizations that continue to provide needed services, and the maintenance of the grants budget at a consistent level for many years, there has been insufficient funding available in most years (including this one) to be able to provide grants to all the new applicants that meet the eligibility and priorities criteria.

All applicants for 2002 Community Service Grants were advised in late February of Social Planning's recommendations, along with our rationale for recommendations for no grants. They were also told of the reconsideration process which could be used if they disagreed with the recommendations.

Requests for reconsideration were submitted by the following organizations:

Organization

Original Recommendation

#37 KidSafe Project Society

No grant

#42 Leave Out ViolencE (LOVE)

No grant

#55 PACE (Prostitution Alternatives Counselling & Education)

No grant

#60 Philippine Women Centre of BC

No grant

#64 Real Power Youth Society

No grant

#92 Vancouver Multicultural Society

No grant

#91 Women Against Violence Against Women (WAVAW)

$27,000

Two other organizations - the Law Courts Education Society of B.C. and the Self-Help Resource Association of B.C. - also requested reconsideration, but when staff recommended grants for them in the second allocation report which was prepared when additional funding became available in the CSG budget, they both withdrew their requests.

On March 26 City Council approved Social Planning's recommendations for all Community Services Grant applications, except for those which were referred to the reconsideration process. On April 23, Council will consider recommendations for three additional grants and a reserve of $9,504 for emergencies or unforeseen circumstances. If the reserve is approved any new or increased grants coming from the reconsideration process would be funded from it. The $27,000 originally recommended for WAVAW was unallocated, and so remains available in the budget for this or other grants.

RECONSIDERATION PROCESS

The applicants for reconsideration have submitted written material supporting their requests for changes to our recommendations. This material is included in Appendix I.

Social Planning staff reviewed the original applications, supporting materials, interview notes, and the new information that was submitted with the reconsideration requests. If there was still some confusion or lack of clarity, applicants were personally contacted to ensure that staff had a clear and complete understanding of the situation.

Staff then developed recommendations based on this review of all the pertinent information, and prepared written explanations for their decisions. These comments and the recommendations, along with the applicants' submission, are attached as Appendix I.

The original recommendations for all are being reconfirmed.

All applicants were advised that they could make presentations to Council if they were still in disagreement with the staff recommendations. Some of them may wish to appear as delegations when this report is dealt with by Council.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The 2002 CSG budget, as established in the interim budget approved by Council on April 11, 2002 is $2,977,600 to be allocated as follows:

CONCLUSION

After a careful and thorough review of the seven applications that were referred, by the applicants, to the reconsideration process, Social Planning staff concluded that their original recommendations should remain unchanged.

* * * * *

Link to Appendix I

csb020502.htm