ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO:

Standing Committee on Planning and Environment

FROM:

Director of Social Planning

SUBJECT:

Reconsideration of Community Services Grants Applications

 

RECOMMENDATION


CONSIDERATION

and that the Community Services Grants budget be increased accordingly.

NOTE: If Council wishes to approve any of the requested new grants or increases, the source of funding would be Contingency Reserve, after allocating the balance in the Community Services Grant budget of $392.

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.

On June 8, 1993, City Council decided that rent subsidies to social service organizations occupying City-owned property, held in the PEF, will be funded from the Community Services budget, and that this budget will be adjusted to accommodate the subsidies approved by Council. Applications for rent subsidy grants are to be assessed for eligibility on the same basis as applications for Community Services Grants

Approval of grant recommendations requires eight affirmative votes.

PURPOSE

This report contains the results of the reconsideration process which was initiated by nine
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: 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. This has all but eliminated requests based solely on the fact that the groupdoes good work, 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 2003 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 Recomm.

Request

#6 BC Coalition of People with Disabilities - Advocate

No grant

$21,185

#27 End Legislated Poverty

$33,996

$49,000

#41 KidSafe Project Society

No grant

$16,224

#44 Law Courts Education Society

$20,000

$30,000

#59 Pacific Legal education Assoc. - Kidstart

No grant

$20,000

#63 Philippine Women's Centre of BC

No grant

$35,000

#93 Vancouver Rape Relief Society

No grant

$100,000

#97 Volunteers for Intergenerational Programs

No grant

$12,000

#102 WISH Drop-in Society

$29,000

$34,000

On March 25, 2003, City Council approved Social Planning's recommendations for all Community Services Grant applications, except for those which were referred to the reconsideration process. A total of $82,996, which was originally recommended for End Legislated Poverty, Law Courts Education and WISH was unallocated, and therefore remains available in the budget for these 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.

In the case of five applications, staff felt that sufficient rationale was supplied to warrant either a new grant or an increase to an existing grant. However, almost all of the CS Grants budget has been allocated, so there is no money remaining in it for these increases or new grants. Consequently, staff are providing Council with the choice of remaining with the original recommendations or increasing the budget, where warranted.

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 2003 CSG budget, as approved by Council on February 27, 2003 is $3,029,700, to be allocated as follows:

There is $392 remaining in the CS Grants budget after the above-mentioned allocations, which is insufficient to provide for the requested new grants or increases to previous grants. Consequently, if Council wishes to approve any of the recommended new grants or increases, the source of funding would be Contingency Reserve, after allocating the balance in Community Services Grant budget of $392.

CONCLUSION

After a careful and thorough review of the nine applications that were referred by the applicants to the reconsideration process, Social Planning staff concluded that their original recommendations should remain unchanged for four of them, and that three new grants and two increases should be approved, provided that a funding source can be identified and approved.

* * * * *

ag20030513.htm

APPENDIX I

A. B. C. Coalition of Persons with Disabilities - Advocate (#6)

B. End Legislated Poverty (ELP) (#27 and #303)

C. Kidsafe Project Society (#37)

D. Law Courts Education Society of BC (#44)

E. Pacific Legal Education Association (PLEA) - Kidstart Program (#59)

F. Philippine Women Centre (#63)

G. Vancouver Rape Relief Society (#93)

H. Volunteers for Intergenerational Programs (VIP) (#97)

I. WISH Drop In Centre Society (#102)
BC Coalition of Persons with Disabilities - Advocate (#6)

Request $21,185
2002 Grant $6,500 emergency grant
Social Planning Initial Recommendation $0 NO GRANT

Program Description (summarized from the grant application)

The BC Coalition of Persons with Disabilities (BCCPD) requested a 0.5 FTE advocate to assist individuals to understand the regulations, policies and appeals process for the new provincial disability income assistance programs which were instituted in the Fall of 2002. The advocate would also provide one-to-one assistance to individuals in filing their re-assessment forms, initial applications and appeals, based on a self-help model.

Social Planning's Initial Response

Staff recommended NO GRANT with the following explanation:

"The main peak in demand for this service will occur in early March with the deadline for the disability benefits review. The City has already approved an emergency grant to provide additional assistance during this review period."

Basis for Reconsideration

While the BCCPD did not specifically state which of the grounds for reconsideration it was referencing, its submission relates to the City's priority for the requested position.

Social Planning Comments

In response to a comprehensive Provincial review of people receiving disability benefits, City Council approved an emergency grant of $6500 to BCCPD on November 26, 2002. This grant was used to hire two contract advocates who worked for 3 months to assist 240 individuals with their review forms, on a one-to-one basis, and to present workshops which reached 800 people.

BCCPD currently has 2 advocacy staff who normally deal with about 25 one-to-one applications per month for disability benefits, appeals and tribunals. As noted above, this rate increased to about 80/month during the first 3 months of 2003, leading up to the March 15th provincial deadline for the review forms.

BCCPD argues that the need for additional advocacy hours will continue, based on three factors:

· assistance to people who are appealing rejection of their applications;
· assistance to people who were initially exempted or who did not file, and who will now be asked to submit the 23-page review forms; and
· assistance to new applicants.

It is impossible to know precisely how many people will be affected over the coming months and how many will come to BCCPD. However Social Planning staff estimate the following:

· on the basis of new criteria established by the Province, approximately 675 Vancouver residents who have applied for the DB2 replacement will be rejected.
· about 1,750 Vancouver residents were exempted from submitting applications for the initial reivew. They will now have to submit applications and be reviewed. The majority of these have mental health problems and may go to agencies other than BCCPD.
· about 750 people did not file, were not exempted, and will automatically get reduced IA as of June 15th. These people could become new applicants
· there were normally an estimated 1,500 new applications for disability benefits yearly in Vancouver. New applicants have been backlogged, while the review of existing recipients has proceeded.

These estimates on numbers affected were not available at the time of the initial grant review.

The Province has contracted with Vancouver Coastal Health Authority to run clinics for people in the Downtown Eastside, including mental health clients. It is not known at this time what proportion of the disability review workload the VCHA will handle, although it certainly won't be all of it.

Based on the above information, staff agree that BCCPD is very likely to face significantly increased requests for assistance with disability benefit applications and appeals for the coming year. There will also be additional pressure on its existing advocates when people begin to receive reduced assistance. If Council decides to increase the CS Grants budget to accommodate additional or increased grants arising from the reconsideration process, staff recommend approval of $11,000 for increased hours for the advocate position to deal with the increased demand for service.

Recommendation

Submitted for CONSIDERATION is either a recommendation for no grant, or a grant of $11,000.


End Legislated Poverty (ELP) (#27 and #303)

Request: $49,000 (CS Grant)

2002 Grant: $33,996 (CS Grant)

Social Planning Initial Recommendation: $33,996 (CS Grant)

Program Description (summarized from the grant application form)

ELP is a Vancouver-based advocacy coalition that raises awareness about poverty issues within the province and Vancouver. It has 35 member groups, of which 17 are located in Vancouver. Since losing Provincial funding this year, ELP is now largely a volunteer-run organization with three part time staff. The organization provides up-to-date information and analyses on government policies, offers support to action groups, assists the public with referrals, publishes a monthly newsletter called the Long Haul, and maintains both a web site and library with information on poverty. ELP strives to be inclusive in its work involving waged and unwaged people as well as marginalised groups including Aboriginal people, women, youth, seniors, immigrants, refugees and people of colour.

Social Planning's Initial Response

Staff recommended a Community Services grant and a rent subsidy for ELP equal to what was provided in 2002. This recommended grant allocation would have provided wages and benefits for one part time salary and some program expenses for work conducted in Vancouver. The rent subsidy grant would have covered just under half of the rental charges in a city-owned building.

Basis for Reconsideration

ELP is requesting reconsideration based on the grounds that their financial situation has not been properly assessed or understood.

In the attached letter requesting reconsideration, ELP notes that it has lost 70% of its funding due to the elimination of a provincial grant. The organization has been clear in its correspondence that it does not expect other funders to make up the shortfall, however, ELP's Board and staff see this as a critical year in its survival. The Society has developed a restructuring plan to reduce its operating budget by half, from $304,378 in 2002 to $165,600 in 2003. Staff positions have been reduced from 5.75 FTEs to 3 part timepositions (a volunteer coordinator, front-line advocacy worker and a bookkeeper). The provincial work of the organization will be now be conducted by volunteers. The Vancouver-based work will be resourced by the volunteer coordinator who will recruit and support volunteers to do anti-poverty work specific to Vancouver.

Aside from the City, ELP's only other current funder is the Law Foundation which provides $19,500 towards the production of the Long Haul. ELP anticipates securing approximately $50,000 from other funders (yet to be applied to) and earning revenue from subscription sales and donations. ELP does not have charitable tax status so this may limit their ability to attract donations. While ELP is coping with the effects of losing Provincial funding, it is experiencing more demand to respond to poverty-related issues. ELP is asking for additional City assistance this year to help it remain effective while attempting to secure other sources of funding.

Social Planning Comments

Social Planning is supportive of the structural changes ELP has made to address its funding reductions, e.g. the decision to redirect City funding from an organizer position to a volunteer coordinator position. In reviewing the reconsideration request staff have gone over the proposed budget for the volunteer coordinator program which amounts to $49,000. The budget includes costs for the volunteer coordinator's wages and benefits, program expenses and Board expenses. In comparing other City-funded provincial advocacy coalitions, staff note that Council has typically provided grants for part of a staff salary and program expenses. In keeping with the grant program's criteria, City money must be used to pay for work related to the needs of Vancouver residents and not for work to serve a provincial mandate. Retaining the current level of City funding at $33,996 fully covers ELP's volunteer coordinator's salary/benefits and approximately 45 % of the requested program expenses, not including Board expenses. Staff are recommending this level of funding, with conditions that are intended to ensure that the organization's work is focussed on serving Vancouver residents.

The level of rent subsidy for ELP's space in a city-owned building has been allocated in the past based on the practice of the city subsidizing up to 50% of rental costs. However, the BC Coalition for People with Disabilities (BCCPD), located in the same building as ELP currently receives a rent subsidy equal to 64% of its rent. Staff recommend increasing ELP's rent subsidy to 64% of the rental cost or from $5,685 to $7,872. This increase to their rent subsidy will provide ELP with some additional support toward their operating expenses.

Recommendation

Community Services Grant: $33,996

Rent Subsidy Grant: $7,872


Kidsafe Project Society ( # 37)

Request: $16,224
2001 Grant: $ 0
Social Planning Initial Recommendation: $ 0 NO GRANT

Program Description ( summarized from the grant application)

Kidsafe provides field trips, recreation and developmental programs, as well as nutritious meals and snacks, to 300 at-risk children from four inner-city schools over the summer months and during the winter and spring breaks when schools are traditionally closed. The four schools are: Queen Alexandra, Mount Pleasant, Grandview and Nightingale.

Social Planning's Initial Response:

Staff recommended NO GRANT with the comment that "The City currently funds a number of year-round social/recreational programs for children that operate after school and during school breaks, as well as supporting licensed out-of-school care programs. The Kidsafe request is for positions to staff a 10 week program delivered during school breaks. In the context of available city funding and other priorities, staff do not recommend a grant."

Basis for Reconsideration

Kidsafe has requested reconsideration on the basis that the eligibility criteria have not been properly applied and that their financial situation has not been properly assessed (see the attached letter).

In regard to eligibility criteria, Kidsafe pointed out that 1) the program is a refuge for at-risk children who live in poverty, and is delivered in schools which are locationally more accessible than other facilities; 2) the program does not charge a fee; 3) the program provides meals including breakfast, lunch and snacks during times when schools are closed; 4) the program offers unique developmental opportunities to the children.

As to the financial situation, Kidsafe stresses that they receive private donations and funding from the provincial and federal government. City's funding can assist with other funding solicitation. It was also mentioned that Kidsafe paid for staffing costs at two Community Centres.

Social Planning Comments

Social Planning staff recognize that Kidsafe is a well established, effective program serving the needs of 6 to 12 year old children in 4 inner-city schools during school holidays. Staff agree that the program is accessible and has no cost barriers for the children.

One important feature of Kidsafe is that the program is delivered with the support and collaboration of local service agencies. The program is currently offered at four sites, and has one full time staff providing overall co-ordination. At each site, Kidsafe provides funding to a local agency which, in turn, hires program staff and is responsible for program delivery. Mount Pleasant Community Centre, Britannia Community Centre and the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Vancouver (at two sites in Mt. Pleasant) are the current service partners.

In addition to the program staff funded by Kidsafe, each community partner contributes program planning and supervision, administration costs and program expenses. Mount Pleasant Community Centre staff estimate that last year they contributed a minimum of $16,000 in-kind (and some cash) to the Kidsafe Program. An additional bonus is that Kidsafe children also have free access to Park Board recreational facilities such as swimming pool and rinks

It is clear that the City, through Park Board staffing and facilities, is already contributing significant support towards the program. Likewise, the City's Community Services Grant program funds the salaries of two Boys and Girls Club's senior Program Co-ordinators in the Mount Pleasant area. Both staff provide oversight and supervision to all programs operating under Boys and Girls Club in the Mount Pleasant area, including Kidsafe.

From a financial perspective, Kidsafe's operating budget showed a surplus of over $170,000 for the past two years, and a balanced budget for the current year without any city contribution. There is no indication that the requested city fund is targeted for new or expanded programs, or that the organization will lose any of its current or proposed program without city funding.

Based on the above, staff conclude that Kidsafe provides much needed programs for at-risk children in inner-city neighbourhoods and that Kidsafe's Board should be complemented for being successful in raising needed funds for this Project. The City continues to support Kidsafe's work through the participation of Park Board and Boys and Girls Club staff and facilities.

Recommendation

NO GRANT


Law Courts Education Society of BC. (#44)

Request $30,000
2002 Grant $20,000
Social Planning Initial Recommendation: $20,000

Program Description (summarized from the grant application)

The grant request is to help fund an increase in hours for 2 part time community workers, one Chinese and Vietnamese speaking and the other Spanish and French speaking. These staff provide information, education, referral and support to immigrants and refugees from these communities who are appearing at the Vancouver Provincial Court as accused, victims, witnesses, or parties involving a civic suit. Provincial funding for translation services is only available for court proceedings and court translators are prohibited from providing advice or assistance.

Social Planning's Initial Response

Social Planning staff recommended a grant of $20,000.

Basis for Reconsideration

The Law Courts Education Society of B.C. is requesting reconsideration on the basis that the financial situation of the organization has not been properly assessed.

In their submission letter (attached), the Law Courts Education Society of B.C. indicates that their staff currently work 4 hours a day, five days a week. This is not enough coverage to support the increasing demand for services especially during peak times when court is in session.

There is a secondary issue of trying to retain these highly skilled community workers when the Society can only offer them limited part time work. The additional request of $10,000 from the City would be matched by the agency to enable them to offer staff 0.7 FTE positions and access to a benefits plan. This will help to stabilize the positions and thereby strengthen their ability to assist clients and community partners.

Social Planning Comments

Significant barriers to access basic services exist for the clients to this program because of language, literacy and cultural differences. The Society has fund-raised to support this program for many years, but was faced with the possibility of having to terminate itwithout the funding support provided by the City last year. Improving access to services is a high priority for a wide range of City and City-supported programs.

There has been a steady increase in demand for this service and the Society's concerns regarding their ability to retain the staff who have the combined skills of being multi-lingual and very knowledgeable about legal processes are quite justified. An increase in the grant is therefore warranted.

However, staff recommended no increase in the grant as there was insufficient money available within the approved Community Services Grants budget to provide a grant increase to all eligible applicants. If Council decides to accommodate additional or increased grants arising from the reconsideration process, staff recommend approval of a $10,000 increase for a total grant of $30,000 for this program, with the condition that the agency will match the City's increased funding.

Recommendation

Submitted for CONSIDERATION is either a recommendation for a grant of $20,000, or a grant of $30,000


Pacific Legal Education Association (PLEA) - KidStart Program (#59)

Request $20,000
2002 Grant $0
Social Planning Initial Recommendation: $0 NO GRANT

Program Description (summarized from the grant application)

The grant request is to help fund the volunteer coordinator staff position for the KidStart Mentoring Program. The KidStart Mentoring Program, which has been in operation for many years, takes referrals for children (boys and girls) between the ages of six and 12 and matches them with a positive adult mentor of the same gender as the child. Referrals are usually brought forward by parents, teachers, social workers, police, mental health workers and community organizations.

Social Planning's Initial Response

Staff recommended NO GRANT, with the comment that "While the request for an increase was seen as a high priority for funding, it was not recommended due to insufficient money available with in the Community Services Grants budget."

Basis for Reconsideration

The organization is seeking reconsideration on the basis that the eligibility criteria and priorities have not been properly applied, and that the financial situation of the applicant has not been properly assessed or understood.

In their letter seeking reconsideration (attached), PLEA indicates that KidStart Mentoring Program participants (the children) are, for the most part, Vancouver residents who are experiencing disadvantages and/or facing discrimination and therefore are the City's identified top priority for service. It is also noted that the KidStart Program is not supported by government programs, relying on charitable donations and gaming allocations. However, PLEA is not in a financial position that enables them to continue to subsidize the program, particularly in light of ever increasing demand.

Social Planning Comments

The children (aged 6-12) served by the Kidstart program often fall between the cracks in the social service system. The Youth Justice Act only provides support and services for youths between 12 and 18 years of age and they must have already committed a criminal offence to access services. Other similar 1:1 mentorship-type programs are not equipped to take children who exhibit challenging behaviours, and these kids often end up withlittle or no support. The early intervention provided by the Kidstart program helps kids and their families by connecting them to pro-social recreational activities, helping with homework that enables them to have a better chance of staying in school and provides social support. PLEA has a good track record in working with these children and the investment in prevention and early intervention programs is a better alternative than waiting until they are older and punishing them after they break the law.

In the initial grant review process, staff determined that this application meets the CS Grants eligibility criteria and is a high priority for funding. If Council decides to increase the CS Grants budget to accommodate additional or increased grants arising from the reconsideration process, staff recommend approval of a $20,000 grant for this program.

Recommendation

Submitted for CONSIDERATION is either a recommendation for no grant, or a grant of $20,000.


Philippine Women Centre (#63)

Request $35,000
2002 Grant $0
Social Planning Initial Recommendation $0 NO GRANT

Program Description (summarized from the grant application)

The Philippine Women Centre of British Columbia (PWC) assists women in the Filipino community with developing skills to advocate for their rights on a broad range of issues including immigration, employment, accreditation, housing and tenancy. Some of PWC's activities include: promoting and supporting the development of Philippine women's centres in other provinces, organizing international conferences and campaigns, engaging in community economic development, providing information and referral; conducting research and education on issues that marginalised Filipino women.

PWC currently has one staff person, a Program Coordinator, funded by the Province. This organization has applied for a grant to create a second Program Coordinator position for the Vancouver region, who will help to deal with the service demands that are too much for one person.

Social Planning's Initial Response

Staff recommended NO Grant based on limited available City funding and other higher priority demands on this funding.

Basis for Reconsideration

The Philippine Women Centre of British Columbia has requested reconsideration on the grounds that "the eligibility criteria and priorities were not properly applied". They put forth the argument in the attached letter that the needs of their clients and the work that they do to meet these needs are a very high priority.

Social Planning Comments

In the initial grant review process, staff determined that, while a portion of the organization's work is outside the scope of the Community Services Grants program, the component of direct supports and services to local residents is eligible. However, staff recommended NO GRANT as there was insufficient money available within the approved Community Services Grants budget to provide a grant to all eligible applicants.

The PWC plan, at this point, for dealing with the Provincial cut-back is to increase the number of trained and experienced volunteers and to try to find alternate sources of funding. By directing any approved City funding to the plan for dealing with the Provincial cuts, we can avoid potential problems with overlapping duties when the cuts occur. Presumably, having one person concentrating on this work will free up some time for the other Program Coordinator to provide much needed services.

If Council decides to increase the CS Grants budget to accommodate additional or increased grants arising from the reconsideration process, staff recommend approval of a grant for this program, with conditions that will ensure that the City-funded work is directed to addressing the anticipated loss of Provincial funding through such activities as enhanced volunteer recruitment and training and fund-raising over the next year.

Specifically, if additional funding is approved, staff recommend a grant of $17, 500 with the following conditions:

Recommendation

Submitted for CONSIDERATION is either a recommendation for no grant, or a grant of $17,500.


Vancouver Rape Relief Society (#93)

Request $100,000
2002 Grant $0 (no application)
Social Planning Initial Recommendation $0 NO GRANT

Program Description (summarized from the grant application)

Vancouver Rape Relief operates a 24 hour rape crisis centre and a transition house for battered women and their children. Following initial contact they provide advocacy and emotional support to these women in crisis. They also offer a free, extensive (award winning) volunteer training and public education program.

Rape Relief has applied for a City grant to fund 2.5 staff positions who would be engaged in front-line crisis work, providing immediate response to women who are seeking aid, and all the other aspects of staff work for this organization.

Social Planning's Initial Response

Staff recommended NO GRANT with the following explanation:

"Rape Relief has requested funding for 2.5 staff positions for its self-funded 24 hour rape crisis line. Staff note that the Province has recently terminated its contracts with other 24 hour rape crisis line providers in the Lower Mainland, and re-contracted with a new provider who is to run a Province-wide service. Until the situation with this new line and existing Vancouver rape crisis services is clearer, staff recommend against taking on any new organizations or programs. City policy with respect to any service area being funded by other levels of government is that grants cannot be provided for "replacement of funding previously provided by other levels of government."

Basis for Reconsideration

Rape Relief contends that neither the eligibility nor priority criteria have been properly applied. In their request for reconsideration letter (attached), they point out that they have not received sustaining grants from the Provincial Government; consequently, the termination of provincial contracts for rape crisis lines does not directly affect them, and cannot be used as a reason for the City not to fund them.

They also state that they have benefited in the past from City funding, and that they are seeking a "renewed commitment" from the City.

Social Planning Comments

Rape Relief is quite correct in noting that they receive no Provincial funding for their crisis lines and that they are therefore not seeking "replacement" funds for cut services.

When staff assess grant applications, they review both the situation of the individual applicant and the situation in the overall sector - in this case, rape crisis services. Women Against Violence Against Women (WAVAW) and Rape Relief are the two Vancouver organizations providing rape crisis services. The Province has cut funding for WAVAW's 24 hour crisis line and contracted with Information Services Vancouver (ISV) to provide a province-wide line that is intended to replace the lines previously operated by WAVAW and other women's crisis centres. At this point, we do not know how well the ISV service will work, how WAVAW's services will be affected, or what future demands may be placed on WAVAW and Rape Relief as a result of these changes. Consequently, staff cannot recommend funding, in this circumstance, for any 24 hour rape crisis lines.

Rape Relief currently has Provincial funding for their transition house, which they combine with fund-raising revenue to support 11 staff positions. Their budget shows the ability to continue for at least the next year at this level of staffing, without City funding. They also indicate that the number of crisis calls has remained relatively static for the past few years, so there is no argument for the need for additional staff to meet increased need.

In a subsequent telephone discussion with Rape Relief's Administrator, Social Planning was advised that the number of staff at Rape Relief has recently been reduced by two. One was because of the termination of Federal short-term project funding, but City policy prohibits funding the replacement of such a staff reduction. They said that the other position was cut because of a reduction in donations. However, their budget shows anticipated increases in fund-raising.

With regards to their request for a renewed funding commitment from the City, there is no record of such a commitment in the past. Council did approve a small $2,000 grant to Rape Relief in 1993, but nothing prior or since.

Staff continue to anticipate that there will be repercussions from the Provincial restructuring of rape crisis lines, both to those who previously received Provincial funding for this service and those that didn't (such as Rape Relief). But it is too early yet to know what those effects are or will be. This will be one of the issues discussed when we review the Community Services Grants program later this year. In the meantime, staff cannot recommend a grant to Rape Relief.

Recommendation

NO GRANT


Volunteers for Intergenerational Programs (VIP) (#97)

Request $12,000
2002 Grant $11,000
Social Planning Initial Recommendation: $0 NO GRANT

Program Description (summarized from the grant application)

The grant request is to continue funding the volunteer coordinator position. The volunteer coordinator recruits, screens, and assigns mature volunteers to participate in Intergenerational programs within the family, elementary schools, and other community settings.

Social Planning's Initial Response

Social Planning staff recommended NO GRANT, with the explanation that this organization had lost its core MCFD funding and could not function independently any longer, and furthermore, it appeared that VIP had sufficient assets to cover the remainder of 2003, during which time it was going to seek a partner to deliver VIP programs.

Basis for Reconsideration

The applicant has submitted a request for reconsideration on the basis that the eligibility criteria and priorities have not been properly applied (see the attached letter).

In the letter, VIP indicates even though they have lost the MCFD funding, they have taken steps to downsize their operation and reduce costs. They also indicate that they are in the process of relocating to another office location at a reduced monthly rent. The letter notes that the organization has a healthy reserve but that they need City funding to continue to operate effectively, and that the City's support would help stabilize the organization.

Social Planning Comments

In light of the significant loss of Provincial funding (60% of the organization's operating budget), Social Planning continues to believe that VIP cannot continue to independently provide effective programs. As an option for longevity, staff have encouraged VIP to explore a partnership with a Vancouver-based organization which shares an interest in Intergenerational programming.

Recommendation
NO GRANT


WISH Drop In Centre Society (#102)

Request $34,000
2002 Grant $29,000
Social Planning Initial Recommendation: $29,000

Program Description (summarized from the grant application)

Wish Drop In provides women who are involved in the sex trade in the Downtown Eastside with a safe and warm place to get meals, access shower facilities and get referrals to other programs and services with the overall goal of increasing their health, safety and well-being. Grant request is to help fund part of the Executive Director's salary and funds for drop in staff.

Social Planning's Initial Response

Social Planning staff recommended a grant of $29,000

Basis for Reconsideration

WISH is requesting reconsideration on the basis that their financial situation has not been properly assessed (see attached letter).

The demand for their services has increased by 30% in the last year. There has been an increase in the level of conflict and violence at the drop in and they need an additional staff position to ensure safety for participants and staff. They have been able to obtain other sources of funding for transition, literacy and violence prevention programs at the drop in but no additional funding for the core service. The additional funding would cover the cost of a third staff person, six nights a week.

Social Planning Comments

In the initial grant review process, staff determined that this organization's request for a significant increase in their grant meets the CS Grants eligibility criteria and is a high priority for funding. Social Planning has supported yearly increases for WISH for the previous five years (1998-2002) because of the documented increase in the number of women using the drop-in and because of the effectiveness of the service. For 2003, staff recommended no increase in the grant (i.e. the same grant as last year) as there was insufficient money available within the approved Community Services Grants budget to provide a grant increase to all eligible applicants. If Council decides to increase the CS Grants budget to accommodate additional or increased grants arising from thereconsideration process, staff recommend approval of a $5,000 increase for a total grant of $34,000 for this program.

Recommendation

Submitted for CONSIDERATION is either a recommendation for a grant of $29,000, or a grant of $34,000.

Comments or questions? Send us e-mail at info@city.vancouver.bc.ca
© 2002 City of Vancouver