CITY OF VANCOUVER

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

 

Date:

March 15, 2004

 

Author:

Rick Gates

 

Phone No.:

871-6036

 

RTS No.:

3967

 

CC File No.:

2151

 

Meeting Date:

April 8, 2004

TO:

Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets

FROM:

Director of Social Planning

SUBJECT:

Reconsideration of Community Services Grants Applications

RECOMMENDATION

CONSIDERATION

Presented below are two choices for each of six requests for reconsideration. The first choice, in each instance, is Social Planning's original recommendation (which was based on insufficient funding for eligible applications with a lower priority rating), while the second choice is an alternate recommendation arising from the reconsideration process. The reasons for the alternate recommendations are included in the attached Appendices.

NOTE: If Council wishes to increase the Community Services Grants budget in order to fund any of the requested new grants or increases, the source of funding would be Contingency Reserve, after allocating the balance in the Community Services Grants budget of $1,266. If Council selects the second option in each of the following recommendations, the ongoing impact on the Community Services Grants budget will be an increase of $64,300 (about 2%).

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services submits A to K2 for CONSIDERATION.

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:

Approval of grant recommendations requires eight affirmative votes.

PURPOSE

This report contains the results of the reconsideration process which was initiated by eleven
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 group does good work, or that there is considerable community support for it, or any of a number of other reasons.

On October 9, 2003, City Council approved some significant changes to the Community Services Grants program:

With the introduction of the three grant categories, eligibility criteria for each category, and newly articulated City priorities for funding, we introduced a new grant review process. First, we had to establish that the applicant had applied for the appropriate type of grant and that they were eligible for funding within that category. Then, for those within the Direct Social Services category, we assessed how well each one was responding to the six identified City priorities.

A total of 15 applications were found to be ineligible for funding - one was for a Neighbourhood Organization Grant and the remainder were for Direct Social Services. Six were ineligible because they were asking for funding for services that come within the legislated mandates of other levels of government, and two were requesting replacement of funding that had been cut by other levels of government. Five were ineligible because they each didn't meet a number of other criteria.

Once the applications' eligibility had been established, each of the requests for a Direct Social Services Grant was rated for how well it met each of the stated City priorities. There was insufficient funding available in the CS Grants budget to fund all applications; therefore, those at the bottom of the priority list were the ones that were not recommended for a grant. However, most of the lower priority applications were from groups that had received City funding previously - for these, staff recommended 6-month terminating grants to enable the affected organizations to make the necessary adjustments to their finances and services.

A total of nine terminating grants were recommended - one because the proposed service is no longer eligible for funding, and the other eight because of their lower priority rating.

All applicants for 2004 Community Service Grants were advised in late February of Social Planning's recommendations, along with our rationale for recommendations for terminating or 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

Request

1. ALDA - Adult Learning Disabilities

$7,500 terminating

$30,000

7. Big Brothers

$18,700 terminating

$37,440

30. EYA - YouthMappers

$0 NO GRANT

$28,100

51. La Boussole

$0 NO GRANT

$58,771

67. Pacific Post Partum

$8,500 terminating

$17,000

73. Real Power

$0 NO GRANT

$45,700

74. Renfrew-Collingwood Seniors

$8,100 terminating

$25,000

103. Van. Status of Women

$16,000 terminating

$51,480

105. Van. Women's Health Collective

$0 NO GRANT

$49,421

109. West. Inst. Of Deaf & Hard of Hearing

$5,000 terminating

$10,000

110. WISH Drop-in Centre

$34,000

$36,000*

* Note: with the request for reconsideration, WISH revised its request to $65,000

On March 9, 2004, 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 $97,800, which was originally recommended for the six terminating grants 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 Appendices A-K

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 there was 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 Appendices A-K

In the case of six applications, staff noted that they met all the basic eligibility criteria, but they came out low in the overall priority rating. There was insufficient funding in the CS Grants budget to provide grants to all eligible applicants, including those with low priority ratings. Consequently, staff are providing Council with the choice of remaining with the original recommendations or increasing the budget to provide grants to the applicants for which we have recommended no grant or to continue funding in the case of terminating grants.

Staff originally recommended no grant for La Bousolle as the proposed service is a low priority for City funding, in a situation similar to the ones described above. However, information provided with the request for reconsideration made it clear that this application is not eligible for funding, so the recommendation for no grant remains, but for a different reason.

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 2004 CSG budget is $3,154,700 to be allocated as follows:

There is $1,266 remaining in the CS Grants budget after the above-mentioned allocations. This amount is insufficient to provide for the requested new grants or to provide a full year's funding to the recommended terminating grants. If Council selects the second option for each of the six applications which are submitted for Consideration, a total of $64,300 will be added to the Community Services Grants budget. The source of funding for such an addition to the budget will be Contingency Reserve, after allocating the balance of $1,266 from the Grants budget. Note that funding from Contingency Reserve is for 2004 only - it represents an increase to the Community Services Grants budget and will be funded, without offset, from 2005 forward.

CONCLUSION

After a careful and thorough review of the eleven applications that were referred by the applicants to the reconsideration process, Social Planning staff concluded that their original recommendations should remain unchanged for the four that are ineligible for a grant. The six that are eligible, but were rated as low priority, could be fully funded if Council is prepared to increase the CS Grants budget sufficiently to fund these. Finally, the one request for a significant grant increase is not supported, at this time, because of operational and financial uncertainties being faced by the applicant

- - - - -

 

APPENDIX - 1

Adult Learning Disabilities Association (#1)

Request $30,000
2003 Grant $15,000
Social Planning's Initial Recommendation $ 7,500 TERMINATING GRANT

Program Description (summarized from the application)

The Adult Learning Development Association (ALDA) provides a range of social services for adults who have suspected or diagnosed learning disabilities. Services and programs are provided on an individual basis, designed to achieve personal, social, and economic independence. These services include: information/referral, resource library, informal and diagnostic assessments, counselling, workshops, support groups, advocacy, employment assistance, and public awareness. The City grant will be used toward the salaries of two core positions, an Executive Director and a Secretary/Volunteer Coordinator, whose duties include working with adults who are not Federal employment contract clients.

Social Planning's Initial Response

Staff determined that this application meets all the eligibility criteria for a Direct Social Services Grant. However, because of insufficient funding within the CS Grants budget to provide grants to all eligible applications, and the higher priority rating given to other applications, staff recommended a 6 month terminating grant of $7,500.

Basis for reconsideration

ALDA is seeking reconsideration based on "the eligibility and priorities having not been properly applied and the financial situation of the Society not being properly assessed or understood". They highlight in their attached letter that, without City support, they will not have the capacity to provide the additional social service that they have been providing to people who are not contracted employment clients.

Other cuts and funding hold backs are affecting both cash flow and operating budget revenues. The Province has reduced their gaming funding by $25,000; the Society does not have the fiscal capability to continue to operate a Provincial employment program under the new contract criteria; and the Federal Government (through HRDC) has a 10% hold back on their current contract equivalent to $35,000. The Society is also concerned that the loss of City funding could jeopardize their ability to compete for future HRDC employment contracts which are their major funding source.

Social Planning Comments

ALDA provides valuable services to adults with learning disabilities in the City of Vancouver. The organization does meet the eligibility criteria. Social Planning's recommendation of a terminating grant was not based on a negative evaluation of the program; rather, we determined that other applicants rated higher in priority for the limited available funding.

The application rated high for one of the six City priorities - cost sharing. The program received a medium rating for having a significant client base and for removing barriers and/or providing supplemental supports to ensure equal access for residents who are experiencing disadvantages. However, other applications better met the other City priorities. As the overall priority rating was determined on a cumulative and comparative basis, ALDA's overall priority rating was lower that those recommended for funding.

On the issue of their financial situation not being properly assessed or understood, most of the information provided in their letter was discussed at the time of the grant interview.

The reduced operating budget and cash flow challenges are not related to City funding. They are a direct result of senior government funding decisions related to their employment programs. Even without City funding, ALDA will still be able to compete for future HRDC employment contracts as the City's grant was never connected to this work

If Council decides to increase the CS Grants budget to accommodate additional grants arising from the reconsideration process, staff recommends that funding not be terminated and that a grant of $15,000 be approved.

Recommendation

Submitted for CONSIDERATION is either a terminating grant of $7,500 or a grant of $15,000.


Big Brothers of Greater Vancouver (#7)

Request $37,440
2003 Grant $37,440
Social Planning Initial Recommendation $18,700 TERMINATING GRANT

Program Description (summarized from the application)

Big Brothers provides programs for boys and girls ages seven to eighteen through one to one or group mentoring. The programs are subdivided in four different categories:

Social Planning's Initial Response

Staff determined that this application meets all the eligibility criteria for a Direct Social Services Grant. However, because of insufficient funding within the CS Grants budget to provide grants to all eligible applications, and the higher priority rating given to other applications, staff recommended a 6-month terminating grant of $18,700.

Basis for Reconsideration

Big Brothers have requested reconsideration on the basis that the priorities have not been properly applied. They put forth the argument in their letter (attached) that the work of Big Brothers "achieves high complementarities with at least five of the six City priorities."

Social Planning Comments

Big Brothers provides valuable services to youth in the City of Vancouver. Social Planning's recommendation of a terminating grant was not based on a negative evaluation of the program; rather, we determined that other applicants rated higher in priority for the limited available funding.

We agree with the applicant that this program rates high for one of the six City priorities - the program costs are shared with other funders. They also rated moderately high for having a client base that is large enough to have a significant impact on the community.

However, in comparison, other applications rated higher with the other four City priorities. As the overall priority rating was determined on a cumulative and comparative basis, Big Brother's overall priority rating was lower than those that were recommended for funding.

If Council decides to increase the CS Grants budget to accommodate additional grants arising from the reconsideration process, staff recommend that funding not be terminated for this program and that a grant of $37,440 be approved

Recommendation

Submitted for CONSIDERATION is either a terminating grant of $18,700 or a grant of $37,400.

Environmental Youth Alliance - YouthMappers (#30)

Request $28,100
2003 Grant $0
Social Planning Initial Recommendation $0 NO GRANT

Program Description (summarized from the application)

The Youth Community Asset Mapping Project, or YouthMappers for short, provides training and supports to youth driven and service providing agencies in community asset mapping. The YouthMappers use this tool to help youth express their perception of the local environment, build their capacity to conduct research, and develop knowledge that can be used to create more youth friendly programs, services and policies.

The grant request is for partial funding for a YouthMapper Coordinator. This position will work with a part-time program manager and three youth interns.

This team will undertake activities in four core areas over the next year:

Social Planning's Initial Response

Staff determined that this application meets all the eligibility criteria for a Direct Social Services Grant. However, because of insufficient funding within the CS Grants budget to provide grants to all eligible applications, and the higher priority rating given to other applications, staff recommended NO GRANT.

Basis for reconsideration

EYA has requested reconsideration on the basis that "the priorities have not been properly applied." They put forth the argument in their letter (attached) that the work of the YouthMappers does respond to most, if not all, of the six City priorities.

Social Planning Comments

YouthMappers is an innovative and effective program that actively engages youth in the planning and community development processes that are happening throughout the city. Social Planning's recommendation of no grant was not based on a negative evaluation of the program; rather, we determined that other applicants rated higher in priority for the limited available funding.

We agree with the applicant that this program rates high for two of the six City priorities - reinforcing or supporting City policy and/or current Social Planning work (specifically the Civic Youth Strategy and the work of the youth outreach team) and for using priority strategies, such as facilitating access to other services and supporting new service delivery models.

However, other applications rated higher with the other four City priorities. As the overall priority rating was determined on a cumulative and comparative basis, EYA's overall priority rating was lower than those that were recommended for funding.

If Council decides to increase the CS Grants budget to accommodate additional grants arising from the reconsideration process, staff recommend a grant of $16,500 for this program. Although EYA requested $28,000, one of the criteria for this type of grant is that it must be used primarily for staff salary and benefit costs (with a maximum of 10% of the grant being used for other expenses). EYA is proposing that $20,000 of the grant go towards staff costs for the year, so the maximum that we can recommend is this amount, plus 10% for the other expenses - i.e. $22,000. As with other new grants, if approved, this one would provide funding from April 1 to December 31, so the annual amount would be pro-rated to $16,500.

Recommendation

Submitted for CONSIDERATION is either no grant, or a grant of $16,500

La Boussole (#51)

Request $58,771
2003 Grant $0
Social Planning Initial Recommendation $0 NO GRANT

Program Description (summarized from the application)

La Boussole provides support and community services to a predominantly French speaking "at-risk" population who originally came to Vancouver as immigrants from French-speaking countries or migrants from the province of Quebec. Some of the services offered include:

Social Planning's Initial Response

Staff determined that this application met all the eligibility criteria for a Direct Social Services Grant. However, because of insufficient funding within the CS Grants budget to provide grants to all eligible applications, and the higher priority rating given to other applications, staff recommended NO GRANT.

Basis for reconsideration

La Boussole has requested reconsideration on the basis the organization's services "play a key role in meeting City priorities." Some of the specific arguments highlighted in the attached reconsideration request include:

Social Planning Comments

Social Planning staff originally determined that the part of the program for which City funding was being sought did meet the eligibility criteria. However, information provided by the organization in their reconsideration letter indicates that the social resource worker, for which they are seeking City funding, has previously been funded through the Canada-British Columbia agreement, but this funding will cease as of March 31, 2004. City policy is that "replacement of funding previously provided by other governments" is ineligible for a CS Grant. La Bousolle points out in their letter that: "Council can decide to override its policy dealing with replacing funding cut by other levels of government, and we respectfully request that you do so."

La Boussole provides valuable services to many French speaking individuals in the City of Vancouver, and staff acknowledges that there is a need for francophone services. Social Planning's recommendation of no grant was not based on a negative evaluation of the program; rather, we determined that other applicants rated higher in priority for the limited available funding.

We agree with the applicant that this program rates high for two of the six City priorities - the program helps ensure equal access to services and opportunities for disadvantaged residents and they employ the City's high priority strategies. They also rated moderately high for serving a client base that is large enough to have a significant impact on the community.

However, in comparison, other applications rated higher with the other three City priorities. As the overall priority rating was determined on a cumulative and comparative basis, La Bousolle's overall priority rating was lower than those that were recommended for funding.

If Council is prepared to give the policy exemption, and to increase the CS Grants budget to fund lower priority applications, staff suggest that the appropriate grant would be $30,000. Although La Boussole has requested $58,771, City grants for this type of service are typically in the $40,000 range. The costs of providing these services exceed the grant amounts, but the organizations pay the difference through their own fund-raising. Also, as with other new grants, if approved, this one would provide funding from April 1 to December 31, so the annual amount of $40,000 would be pro-rated to $30,000.

Having said what an appropriate funding level might be, staff still believes that it is important that the City continue with its policy of not replacing funding that has been cut by other levels of government, particularly in light of the on-going budget cuts at the Provincial level. Allowing even one grant for this purpose could set a very expensive precedent. Therefore, we are recommending no grant.

Recommendation

NO GRANT

Pacific Post Partum Support Society (#67)

Request $17,000
2003 Grant $17,000
Social Planning Initial Recommendation $8,500 TERMINATING GRANT

Program Description (summarized from the application)

Pacific Post Partum Support Society provides a self-help support program for women suffering from postpartum depression or anxiety (PPD/A) and provides support and information for their families. Specifically, the Society provides:

Social Planning's Initial Response

Staff determined that this application meets all the eligibility criteria for a Direct Social Services Grant. However, because of insufficient funding within the CS Grants budget to provide grants to all eligible applications, and the higher priority rating given to other applications, staff recommended a 6-month terminating grant of $8,500.

Basis for reconsideration

The Pacific Post Partum Support Society has requested reconsideration on the basis that their financial situation has not been properly understood and that the City priorities have not been properly applied. They also feel that that the social benefits of the services provided by the society have not been adequately recognized and credited (although this last point is not one of the permitted grounds for reconsideration).

In their request for reconsideration letter (attached), the Society indicates that there is uncertainty about the $64,000 gaming grant that they have applied for. They point out that "If we are refused gaming funding or if it is substantially reduced, we will have to cut services including closing some of our groups and laying off staff." They go on to explain that even if the gaming funding is cut, the City grant will help to ensure continuation of at least part of the services to Vancouver families.

The Society believes that their services "closely meet the City priorities and use most of the strategies listed in the Information Sheet for a Direct Social Service Grant." In particular, the Society states in their letter that they support family relationships and prevent family breakdown by: organizing/mobilizing volunteer resources and by developing new service delivery models.

Social Planning Comments

The information on the Society's financial situation is not new. When staff first reviewed their grant application, there was uncertainty about how much, if any, gaming funding the organization would receive this year. We assumed that termination of the City grant would probably result in a reduction of service, but this is one of the unfortunate outcomes of funding cuts.

The Pacific Postpartum Support Society provides valuable services to mothers that develop postpartum depression and support services to their families. Social Planning's recommendation of a terminating grant was not based on a negative evaluation of the program; rather, we determined that other applicants rated higher in priority for the limited available funding.

We agree with the applicant that this program rates high for one of the six City priorities - the program costs are shared with other funders. They also rated moderately high for providing a service that supports families and prevents family breakdowns.

However, in comparison, other applications rated higher with the other four City priorities. As the overall priority rating was determined on a cumulative and comparative basis, Pacific Post Partum's overall priority rating was lower than those that were recommended for funding.

If Council decides to increase the CS Grants budget to accommodate additional grants arising from the reconsideration process, staff recommend that funding not be terminated for this program and that a grant of $17,000 be approved

Recommendation

Submitted for CONSIDERATION is either a terminating grant of $8,500 or a grant of $17,000

Real Power Youth Society ( #73 )

Request: $45,700
2003 Grant: $ 0
Social Planning Initial Recommendation: $ 0
NO GRANT

Program Description (summarized from the grant application)

The Real Power Youth Society (RPYS) is a youth-driven organization that addresses issues specific to young women, with the goal of removing barriers to young women=s participation in communities through skill development and developing change strategies. RPYS provides two programs: the Real Power Workshop Series (RPWS) is for girls in grade 8 and 9 in high schools, and the POWER Camp Vancouver is a summer program offered in 10-day sessions at different locations in the city.

Social Planning=s Initial Response:

Staff recommended NO GRANT. Staff determined that the application has not met all of the Direct Social Services Grant eligibility criteria: specifically, the organization has not fully explored other sources of funding; the proposed services, for which City funds are requested, do not relate directly to a clearly identified need; and the cost for the service is not reasonable or at par with other similar programs.

Basis for Reconsideration

In the letter requesting for reconsideration (attached), the Society spoke generally about the benefits, focus and service nature of the proposed program. The request does not reference either of the two allowable grounds for reconsideration.

Social Planning Comments

Social Planning staff recognize that Real Power is committed to encouraging young women, between the ages of 13 and 15, to address issues of self-expression, relationship building and confronting barriers.

In their request for reconsideration, however, Real Power has not provided new or additional information in response to Social Planning=s original comments regarding the ineligibility of their application. Specifically:

1) the organization has not fully explored other sources of funding - there was no clear indication that the organization had applied to sources of funding other than Gaming.

2) the program or services do not relate to a clearly identified need - RPYS is offered as a citywide program for all young women between the ages of 13 and 15. RPYS has identified needs for this population that they intend to address, but with their limited resources, they can only serve a small number of people. To be effective, RPYS has to identify and focus on specific groups within the target age population who can potentially benefit the most from their program, and then direct the programs to these groups.

3) the cost of the program is not reasonable or at par with similar programs - the summer program and workshops both serve a small number of people, and both programs are of short duration. Based on cost per participant, program cost is much higher than similar city-funded programs.

If Council decides to increase the CS Grants budget to accommodate additional grants arising from the reconsideration process, staff suggests that a grant of $20,000 would be appropriate for this program. Although RPYS requested $45,700, the suggested amount of $20,000 is more at par with similar types of programs funded by the City. . Also, as with other new grants, if approved, this one would provide funding from April 1 to December 31, so the annual amount of $20,000 would be pro-rated to $15,000. However, staff are concerned that the organization may not be financially viable with City funding at this level.

Recommendation

NO GRANT

Renfrew-Collingwood Seniors= Society (#74 )

Request $25,000
2003 grant $16,160
Social Planning Initial Recommendation $ 8,100 TERMINATING GRANT

Program Description (summarized from the application)

Renfrew Collingwood Seniors Society provides a two-day per week Community Program for isolated seniors, with services including hot lunch, transportation to and from the program, arts/crafts, advocacy, outings, recreation, and various information/assistance. The program serves approximately 37 clients per day. For the other three days/week, the Society has a contract with Vancouver Coastal Health to provide Adult Daycare.

Social Planning=s Initial Response

Staff determined that this application meets all the eligibility criteria for a Direct Social Services Grant. However, because of insufficient funding within the CS Grants budget to provide grants to all eligible applications, and the higher priority rating given to other applications, staff recommended a terminating grant of $8,100.

Basis for reconsideration

The Society has requested reconsideration on the basis that the eligibility criteria and priorities have not been properly assessed, and that their financial situation has not been properly understood. The Society notes that A... the community programs funded by the City grant are the only programs of their kind available to at-risk seniors who do not qualify for a day program under Continuing Care....@ and that they will be unable to run the two-day per week program without City assistance. The applicant provides details on the benefits and cost-effectiveness of the program but does not provide new information relating to City priorities or the Society=s financial situation.

Social Planning Comments

The City has provided a grant to this program since 1984. Social Planning's recommendation of a terminating grant was not based on a negative evaluation of the program; rather, we determined that other applicants rated higher in priority for the limited available funding.

Staff agree that the program rates high for one of the six City priorities: reducing isolation and/or retaining independence for seniors. The program received a medium rating for cost sharing and for services which remove barriers and/or provide supplemental supports to ensure equal access to services and opportunities for residents who are experiencing social or physical disadvantages.

However, other applications better met the other three City priorities. As the overall priority rating was determined on a cumulative and comparative basis, Renfrew Collingwood=s overall priority rating was lower that those recommended for funding.

One general concern staff have in relation to this program was reported at the Society=s AGM on May 3, 2003. The AGM report notes that there is a 16 month wait list for the Adult Daycare program and that the Community Seniors Program A...continues to be an integral component in our endeavours to address the problems posed by the ADC waitlist.@ This approach is entirely understandable from the Society=s perspective, but it raises a question from the City=s perspective, re: using City funds to supplement the inadequacies of a Provincially-funded health service.

If Council increases the CS Grants budget to accommodate additional grants arising from the reconsideration process, staff recommend that funding not be terminated and that a grant of $16,200 for this program be approved, noting the need to monitor the relationship between the Adult Day Care and Community Programs.

Recommendation

Submitted for CONSIDERATION is either a terminating grant of $8,100, or a grant of $16,200.

Vancouver Status of Women (#103)

Request $51,480
2003 Grant $31,940
Social Planning's Initial Recommendation $16,000 TERMINATING GRANT

Program Description (summarized from the application)

Vancouver Status of Women's work targets three priority groups of women: women living in poverty, women facing racism and women living with violence. Services include: drop-in and phone-in information provided through a volunteer run Feminist Information and Referral line (now closed), networking groups, volunteer training and support, and an updated resource centre with a wide range of women's issues. Vancouver Status of Women (VSW) also develops public education programs through print materials and programs that address issues in women's lives. The grant request is for two positions, a full time Women's Centre Coordinator and a part time Anti-Discrimination Committee Coordinator.

Social Planning's Initial Response

Staff determined that this application is not eligible for CS Grant funding because the proposed service does not meet all of the eligibility criteria; specifically, the effectiveness and quality of the service cannot be substantiated, and the service is weak with respect to accessibility. A 6-month terminating grant of $16,000 was recommended to enable the organization to make the necessary adjustments to its finances and services.

Basis for reconsideration
VSW has requested reconsideration on the basis "that the eligibility criteria and priorities have not been properly applied and the financial situation of the applicant has not been properly assessed or understood". They dispute the eligibility assessment of the organization, specifically around service provision and accessibility, and believe that City staff did not fully appreciate the gravity of their financial situation.

Social Planning Comments

The City has provided funding to VSW since 1976, primarily for program coordination and in the past year, also for volunteer coordination. The grant level has been $31,940 for the past four years. This year, the organization applied for two different positions, each having some duties of last year's Volunteer and Program Coordinator.

Some of the functions of these new positions are ineligible for City funding, e.g. conference planning (part of the Anti-Discrimination Coordinator's work). The functions of the Women's Centre Coordinator position were partially funded by the Provincial Women's Centre grant, which has been cut as of March 31, 2004. Any increase in the City grant would certainly constitute a replacement of Provincial funding and could not be approved under current City policy. As the Women's Centre Coordinator is also responsible for administration of VSW, a full assessment of the entire organization's eligibility for City funding was undertaken, as opposed to a review of one specific program.

To be eligible for a CS Grant, an organization must have "a proven track record of efficiency, effectiveness, and stability". On the basis of information provided during the grant review process and staff's experience with this organization, VSW has not met this criteria.

Prior to 1997, when VSW was located on Commercial Drive, the organization had over 100 volunteers, a well-used drop-in and resource library and ran several support groups for women. Since moving to 877 East Hastings and losing Federal funding for its magazine Kinesis in the late nineties, the number of women accessing the organization as volunteers and participants has declined. As there is no longer a sufficient number of volunteers to manage the information referral line, it was terminated in December 2003. When operational the line averaged thirty-five calls per week and the service was by voice-mail only, with call backs taking up to a week or more. VSW's activity reports in 2003 reported they provided workshops and presentations to approximately one hundred women. The centre was open, but the hours were unpredictable. They are now planning to operate three days per week.

Also, grant applicants must be able to demonstrate that their services are "appropriate, relevant and accessible to the community being served". The location of VSW's centre in the 800 block East Hastings has presented a challenge around accessibility. While VSW states that they moved to their current location to better serve marginalized women in the DTES, they have not played a significant role in this area as a service for local women. In fact, their visibility as a city-wide serving organization has weakened.

Since 1999, previous VSW Board members have spoken to Social Planning staff about their desires to move for both safety reasons, after numerous break-ins, and to better attract and retain volunteers. Thanks to a generous benefactor several years ago, VSW has $107,000 set aside in a restricted building fund to use toward purchasing a space. Given their current operating challenges, VSW will have to cost share leased space with another organization. In their reconsideration letter they say they plan to move this summer.

VSW has provided additional financial information during the reconsideration process. The grant application noted the imminent loss of $47,500 in Women's Centre funding from the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. This amounts to a twenty-two percent reduction to their projected annual budget of $173,267. Information provided in the reconsideration process indicates that, as of March only $57,000 of the proposed 2004 operating budget has been secured. VSW has yet to apply for foundation grants and the Gaming Commission has advised them they are unlikely to receive anticipated Direct Access funding. Based on their projected operating budget they will be in a $96,000 deficit position without City funding. Even if Council chooses to provide the same grant as last year, VSW will have a $64,000 deficit.

Over the last year, the Society has put its energies into fighting the Provincial cut to Women's Centres, but they have not developed a solid plan for how they can continue as a more volunteer-driven organization without this funding.

Given that this organization does not meet the basic eligibility criteria for a CS Grant, and that City funding is unlikely to resolve VSW's financial difficulties, staff are recommending that on-going CS Grant funding be terminated for this group. A 6-month grant of $16,000 is recommended to enable the organization to make the necessary adjustments to its finances and services.

Recommendation

A terminating grant of $16,000.

Vancouver Women's Health Collective (#105)

Request $49,421
2003 Grant $0
Social Planning Initial Recommendation $0 NO GRANT

Program description (summarized from the application)

The Vancouver Women's Health Collective (VWHC) provides a range of health information for women through their health information telephone line, a resource library, and the VWHC therapist and practitioner directory. They also engage in advocacy and community organizing work around women's health issues.

The Vancouver Women's Health Collective applied for a CS Grant specifically for the wages and benefits of the Executive Director, who is responsible for all coalition, advocacy, and media work for the organization, as well as the day-to-day financial and office management functions. In addition, the VWHC intends to use part of the City grant towards the production costs of their newsletter.

Social Planning's Initial Response

Staff recommended NO GRANT for this application as it does not meet all of the eligibility criteria. Specifically, the stated purpose of the organization is to provide health services which come within the mandates of the Provincial Government and Vancouver Coastal Health, and the requested funding would be replacement of funding that had been previously provided by other levels of government. By policy, CS Grants are not provided for either of these situations.

Basis for Reconsideration

The Vancouver Women's Health Collective has requested reconsideration on the basis that the eligibility criteria have not been properly applied and that the financial situation has not been properly assessed.

In the attached letter, the VWHC makes the point that they applied for funding for the staff person who is responsible for the health advocacy work - work that does not come within the mandates of other levels of government. The health information services that they also provide would be funded from other sources.

Also, they claim that the City funding is required for the continued survival of the organization. They are committed to trying to secure other sources of funding, but are relying on City support at this time to be able to carry on.

The group acknowledges that the City grant would be "replacement funding" but are asking Council to provide an exception to this policy.

Social Planning Comments

The City has provided Community Services Grants to the Vancouver Women's Health Collective from 1989 to 1998; approximately $15,000 per year towards the costs of a "Program Coordinator" who oversaw the entire program. With the restructuring of the health care system in the late 1990's, the province took on more responsibility for ensuring that women had a voice in the delivery of health services (e.g. women's population health advisory committees, community health advocates). Consequently, the City grant funding was terminated. Vancouver Coastal Health provided a grant to VWHC in the first years of the Sharon Martin fund, but this grant was not renewed. The Provincial women's centre grant of $47,000 ends March 31, 2004. This funding represents 43% of VWHC's 2003 operating budget.

City policy states that "replacement of funding previously provided by other levels of government" is not eligible for funding from the CS Grants program, yet this is exactly what VWHC is requesting. Council would have to provide a specific exemption to the policy for a grant to be approved

The health information services provided by the VWHC, which come within the mandate of the Provincial Government, are also ineligible for City funding. This includes any administrative support and program expenses related to this work. The Executive Director of VWHC estimates that up to 30% of her time is spent doing the administrative support work for these services that are ineligible for City funding. The remaining 70% is for health advocacy and related work.

The City does fund a number of other coalitions for their advocacy work which deals with issues that are not wholly within the City's jurisdiction - BC Coalition of People with Disabilities, Tenants Rights Action Coalition, Human Rights Coalition, and End Legislated Poverty. By these precedents, the advocacy work of the VWHC could be eligible for City funding.

While the current Executive Director has been active in advocacy work on women's health issues, there is a significant difference between the structure of the VWHC and that of other City-funded coalitions. In the City-funded coalitions, the coalition members are organizations themselves, so that hundreds of people are represented, at least second hand, on these coalitions. Decisions on which issues to address and which positions to take come from these broad-based groups, and the advocacy work is done on behalf of and with the participation of the member organizations.

The VWHC membership is made up primarily of individuals with an interest in women's health issues, but with limited connections to other women's organizations, women with low incomes and women from the diverse cultural communities. VWHC's overall direction comes primarily from the Steering Committee (the society Board) and staff. The effectiveness of their advocacy work is limited by this lack of broad-based community support and involvement.

If Council is prepared to give the policy exemption, then an appropriate level of funding needs to be determined. VWHC has requested a grant of $49,421. The grants approved for the other advocacy groups vary from $20,000 to $37,600. These grants are pro-rated amounts reflecting how much of the work of the funded staff person is directed to advocacy and how much is done on behalf of Vancouver residents.

We try, whenever possible, to provide similar funding levels to services which are comparable. Pro-rating the VWHC grant request in a similar fashion results in a grant of approximately $30,000. If a grant is approved, it will be effective April 1 to December 31, so the annual amount needs to be pro-rated to reflect 9 months of funding. This would reduce this year's grant to $22,500, which is less than half of what they've requested.

However, funding at this level may cause a problem. In the request for reconsideration letter, the VWHC expresses a concern about their ability to survive without City funding. There is funding in place (primarily gaming funds) for a part time healthy information service, but it is questionable if an effective advocacy program can continue to be provided with half of the required funding.

In conclusion, staff believe that it is important that the City continue with its policy of not replacing funding that has been cut by other levels of government, particularly in light of the on-going budget cuts at the Provincial level. Allowing even one grant for this purpose could set a very expensive precedent. In this instance, if Council did decide to allow an exemption to the policy, the fair and appropriate level of funding may not be sufficient to enable the continuation of the service that the grant is supposed to be used for. Therefore, we are recommending no grant.

Recommendation

NO GRANT

Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing ( WIDHH) (#109 )

Request $10,000
2003 Grant $10,000
Social Planning Initial Recommendation $ 5,000 TERMINATING GRANT

Program Description (summarized from the application)

WIDHH provides ASL (American Sign Language) interpreting and Community Interpreting Services for low-income Vancouver residents. The program provides ASL Interpreting for people in educational, business, vocational, social and other settings.

In 2003, the $10,000 CS Grant supported 228 hours of interpreting for 67 clients.

Social Planning=s Initial Response

Staff determined that this application meets all the eligibility criteria for a Direct Social Services Grant. However, because of insufficient funding within the CS Grants budget to provide grants to all eligible applications, and the higher priority rating given to other applications, staff recommended a 6-month terminating grant of $5,000.

Basis for reconsideration

WIDHH has requested reconsideration on the basis that their financial situation has not been properly assessed or understood, and that the grant priorities have not been properly applied. In the attached letter, WIDHH notes that many members of the Deaf community have incomes below the poverty line, and that WIDHH does not have the resources to carry unfunded programs.

Social Planning Comments

The City has provided annual grants to WIDHH since 1971. Social Planning=s recommendation of no grant was not based on a negative evaluation of the service; rather, we determined that other applicants rated higher in priority for the limited available funding.

We agree with the applicant that this program rates high for one of the six City priorities - removing barriers and/or providing supplemental supports to ensure equal access for residents who are experiencing disadvantages. The program received a medium rating for cost sharing. Staff also agree that the service is very important for the individuals who receive it, however the client numbers are small relative to most other applications.

Historically, the CS grants have included three programs where the sole purpose of the grant is to offset the costs of professional services to lower-income clients (two counseling programs and the WIDHH interpreter program). These programs operate differently than most other Direct Social Service applications, since they do not operate using a range of strategies and do not plan for specific outcomes for clients. None of these programs received high ratings in comparison to other applications and two fell below the threshold of available funding.

Funding for the Community Interpreting Service ($125,00), comes from fees, the City grant and Provincial funding which is tied to child protection and similar issues. WIDHH raises approximately $350,000 annually from United Way, gaming and other sources but uses these funds for other components of its services. Vancouver has been the only Lower Mainland municipality in which some lower income people from the Deaf community can access free ASL interpretation for educational, employment, personal finances and other social needs, and this is due to the CS Grant.

If Council decides to increase the CS Grants budget to accommodate additional grants arising from the reconsideration process, staff recommend that funding not be terminated for this program and that a grant of $10,000 be approved

Recommendation

Submitted for CONSIDERATION is either a terminating grant of $5,000 or a grant of $10,000.

WISH Drop-In Centre Society (#110)

Request: $ 65,000 (revised)
2003 Grant: $ 34,000
Social Planning Initial Recommendation: $ 34,000

Program Description (summarized from the grant application)

WISH drop-in centre offers women involved in the survival sex trade in the Downtown Eastside a safe place to go where they can also access needed support and services. The centre is currently open five nights per week. It offers nutritious hot meals, showering facilities, and a safe place to rest. It also provides visits by public health nurses, a literacy program, a pre-employment training program (until the end of April), peer support, and referral to detox and rehabilitation facilities. In 2003, an average of 100 to 150 women used the centre each night.

Social Planning's Initial Response:

WISH's initial application requested $36,000 from the City. The application meets all the eligibility criteria for a Direct Social Services Grant and rates high on all six of the City priorities. During the course of the grant review, it became apparent that the Society's financial situation had changed since the application was submitted in early December, 2003. Social Planning staff recommended $34,000, the same level of funding as the previous year, pending further clarification of the issues.

Basis for Reconsideration

The Society has requested reconsideration on the basis that their financial situation has changed since the original proposal was submitted to Social Planning. It is asking the City for an increase of the grant to $65,000 to assist the drop-in program in raising staffing to an acceptable level.

Since January 2004, the Society had to reduce the number of staff at the drop-in from three to two. The centre is now operating five nights a week instead of six, and closing half an hour earlier at night. The cutbacks in staff have restricted their capacity to deal with clients effectively and raised concern for staff and volunteer safety as well.

In their letter (attached), WISH notes that gaming revenue, one of the key sources of revenue for the drop-in centre, is irregular and has affected their cash flow. The Board recognizes the need for increased fundraising and restructuring of the overall operations of the centre to ensure maximum efficiency and adequate financing for programs.

Social Planning Response

Since its inception in the early 90's, WISH has grown from a store-front, volunteer-run centre to an agency with significant public and private funding for its diverse services and programs which serve a high number of women working in the survival sex trade in the Downtown Eastside. In 2003, an average of 100 to 150 women used the Drop-in Centre each night. Approximately ten staff and seventy volunteers assist with all aspects of program delivery.

In reviewing the current financial status of the organization, Social Planning staff noted that while the Society receives project funding from several sources, funding for its core operation (administration costs, rent, and the staff required to operate the drop-in) is primarily from its own fundraising and from the City Grant. While the Society has been very effective at fundraising, this income is not predictable.

In 1999, WISH undertook an organizational review and developed a 5-year plan to address governance structure, capacity for program delivery and other issues. Over the same period of time, however, the demands on the drop-in have risen sharply. Various programs have been initiated, but neither the core funding nor the organizational infrastructure has kept pace with this growth.

In the past few months, the organization has faced additional challenges including the retirement of its Executive Director, changes to some of its program funding, and the new demands arising from its partnership with PACE on the Mobile Access Project. Early in the year, the Society had to lay off approximately 1 FTE and reduce drop-in hours.

At the same time, WISH also has some real strengths and opportunities. Between 2002 and 2003, it increased revenues from private donations and foundations significantly, and it is also the successful recipient of a $1 million capital grant from VanCity for the construction of a new drop-in centre that will be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Because of the recent program, staff and funding changes, it is unclear how much additional funding is needed to reinstate WISH's drop-in operation to the previous level of 6 days/week, 6 pm to 10 pm. Social Planning staff agree with the Society's analysis that WISH has outgrown its initial demand for services and its organizational needs are "changing at a pace that its current configuration cannot meet". As WISH states: it needs to "take concrete steps to restructure its operations in order to ensure maximum efficiency of running and financing the drop-in centre and its programs."

Social Planning staff believe that this organization is at a critical juncture and that it needs assistance with both organizational development, and stable and sustainable core funding.
There needs to be a broader discussion with funders and stakeholders to re-examine its long term capacity for program delivery, governance structure and financial sustainability. Sources of funding need to be identified for immediate assistance with organizational development and for immediate and long term operating funds.

As WISH is a key component of the Vancouver Agreement plan, Social Planning suggests that staff work with WISH and Vancouver Agreement staff to identify strategies and necessary steps to address these fundamental concerns of the Society in the coming months. Social Planning staff will report back to Council as soon as possible with recommendations as to the Society's organizational needs and the appropriate level of support which can be considered by the City.

Recommendation

At this time, Social Planning therefore recommends that funding for the drop-in remains at the current level of $34,000, with the condition that WISH will work with Social Planning staff and other government stakeholder groups to identify concrete steps to restructure its operations in order to ensure maximum efficiency of running and financing the drop-in centre and its programs.

csb20040408WEB.htm

 

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