|
CITY OF VANCOUVER ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT |
Date: |
July 07, 2004 | |
Author: |
Rick Gates | |
Phone No.: |
871-6036 | |
RTS No.: |
4264 | |
CC File No.: |
2151 | |
Meeting Date: |
July 20, 2004 |
TO: |
Vancouver City Council |
FROM: |
Director of Social Planning |
SUBJECT: |
Revisions to the Community Services Grants Program |
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT Council adopt, as policy, the revised criteria and priorities for Community Services Grants, as outlined in Appendix A;
B. THAT Council approve the revised Reconsideration process, as described in Appendix B.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A and B.
COUNCIL POLICY
On October 9, 2003, City Council approved, as policy, a number of revisions to the Community Services Grants program, including:
· the creation of three categories of Community Services Grants;
· three sets of eligibility criteria which apply to the new categories of Community Services Grants;
· priorities for the Direct Social Services category of Community Services Grants.
These criteria and priorities are listed in Appendix C.
On that day, Council also reconfirmed, as policy, other aspects of the Community Services Grants program, including: Basic Eligibility Criteria, Ineligible Services, Core Funding Guidelines, Rent Subsidy Grants, and the Reconsideration Process.
On November 22, 1994, Council adopted the Reconsideration Process that is used by applicants for Community Services Grants and Cultural Grants who disagree with the staff recommendations for these grants. Included was approval of the policy that reconsiderations will be considered only if they are based on one or both of the following premises:
· that the eligibility criteria and priorities have not been properly applied; or
· that the financial situation of the applicant has not been properly assessed or understood.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
In October, 2003, City Council approved a number of changes to the Community Services Grants program. These changes were incorporated into the processing of 2004 CS Grant applications.
Upon completion of the 2004 process, Social Planning staff conducted a review of the revised program. We concluded that, for the most part, the goals and objectives of the new program were met. However, we also saw a few areas for improvement, particularly with regards to clarifying the eligibility criteria, priorities and reconsideration process.
Consequently, staff are recommending the following changes:
· Divide the criteria into two types - "must meet" eligibility criteria, and more qualitative eligibility "considerations";
· Amend the list of "Ineligible Services" by:
o deleting the prohibition against providing replacement funding; but keep the prohibition against funding services that come within the mandates of other levels of government,
o adding "time limited projects" to the list.
· Editing the priorities list for Direct Social Services to make them clearer; and move how well they are doing in responding to the community and cost sharing from priorities to considerations. The "considerations" list will be used to further determine eligibility and to weigh priority ratings.
· Change the reconsideration process such that staff's assessment of priority is no longer grounds for reconsideration. Instead, all eligible but low priority applications will be presented to Council with the Allocations report, and decisions will be made with regards to the grants budget, not priority.
This report outlines details of the recommended changes that should be implemented for the 2005 CS Grants program.
BACKGROUND
City Council formally established the Community Services (CS) Grants program in 1978, along with the Cultural and Other Grants programs. Since then, various aspects of the program have been reviewed and changes have been made.
The most recent review took place in 2003. The purpose of that review was to determine what revisions were needed for this grants program to ensure that it continued to be relevant and responsive to the current changing social services environment. The outcomes of the review were heavily influenced by the input received from community groups that took part in consultations at various times throughout the process.
Coming out of this review were the following recommended changes to the grants program:
· the grants program structure - from one type of grant to three, called Direct Social Services, Neighbourhood Organization and Organizational Capacity Building Grants;
· amended eligibility criteria for each of the three types of grants; and
· newly defined priorities, which apply solely to the Direct Social Services category of grants, and a rating process using these priorities, to help determine recommendations for funding.
These changes were approved by City Council on October 9, 2003.
2004 Grant review process
For the 2004 CS Grants program, Social Planning received 113 grant applications. Staff reviewed and assessed these applications on the basis of the new criteria and priorities established by Council last year.
By policy, all eligibility criteria for the respective grant category had to be met for the application to be eligible for funding. 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.
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. The list of applications was then sorted by priority rating, and those at the top and middle of the list were recommended for funding. There was insufficient funding available in the CS Grants budget to fund all applications; therefore, eight applications at the bottom of the priority list were the ones that were not recommended for a grant (or were to receive a terminating grant).
This process resulted in Social Planning staff recommending 92 grants.
Reconsideration
The Reconsideration process was approved by Council in 1994 to ensure that there would be a consistent process for reviewing grant recommendations and to allow adequate time for organizations to make a case and for staff to provide Council with a response. At the time of notification, all grant applicants were given the opportunity to request reconsideration if they disagreed with the recommendations. Eleven applied for reconsideration, ten that had been recommended for no grant or "terminating grant" did not.
At the conclusion of the reconsideration process, City Council increased the grants budget by $64,300 to fund the six (out of eight) organizations that staff had determined were eligible but at a lower priority. Council also approved an additional $94,421 to fund five organizations which had applied for reconsideration on the basis that they disagreed with the staff determination that they were ineligible for funding or increased funding.
REVIEW OF THE 2004 CS GRANTS PROGRAM
The changes introduced in 2003 to the CS Grants program were intended to ensure that the program was relevant and responsive to the changing social services environment. The changes were also intended to clarify and simplify the grant application and review process. Upon the conclusion of the 2004 CS Grants process, staff undertook a review of the new process itself to see how well it met these goals and where it could be improved.
The primary conclusion of the review is that the revised program was much improved. The criteria, priorities and City objectives were clearer, and staff were able to be more objective when assessing grant applications. We were also able to be more specific in our reasons for not recommending some grants. Consequently, the following recommended changes to the program represent fine-tuning, rather than a wholesale revision to the program.
Criteria
The establishment of the three grant categories made it possible to compare and make judgements among similar types of functions. This was particularly useful with the Neighbourhood Organization and Organizational Capacity Building categories, as it enabled us to work with the applicants to develop a better understanding of what is expected from these types of organizations and the work that they do. In doing so, we noted that there are really two types of criteria - those that are black and white, you either meet them or you don't; and those that are more qualitative, involving varying degrees of compliance. Clarification is needed, particularly for the second type of criteria and how they are to be applied.
Priorities
The previous priority for continuous, stable funding was continued for the Neighbourhood Organization and Organizational Capacity Building categories, in keeping with City objectives for sustainability and strengthening neighbourhoods. Given the changes that are happening to these organizations themselves and to the communities that they're working with, this funding is helping them make adjustments and develop creative and effective solutions to meet all the newly emerging needs.
The new priority rating system for Direct Social Service Grants helped us ensure that funding is directed to those organizations that are delivering services that most closely match City priorities. The overall priority rating was done on a cumulative basis - that is, services that met a number of the six priorities were rated higher than those that just met one. Also, the rating was weighted, so that those services which are primarily directed to meeting the priority were rated higher than those where meeting the priority was only part of the program objectives.
For the first time, new applications were rated equally alongside programs that had been funded for years, with the result that we were able to recommend funding for some excellent new services and programs that are supportive of City priorities and work. The downside was that, in order to stay within budget, the funding for these new programs had to come from previously funded organizations. Although these organizations had, for the most part, been delivering good services over the years, they did not rate as high a priority for funding as the others.
It is important to note that the priority rating system was a tool to help staff decide which grants to recommend - what made this tool particularly useful was the ability to do relative comparisons, so that the very highly rated services would be assured of funding, and only those that ranked lower in priority, compared to the others, were the ones which may not get funded. Note that this situation is entirely dependent on the amount of money in the budget, not the types or quality of services being proposed.
As we did the priority ratings, we found that some clarification was needed for some of the definitions of the priorities. Also, we found ourselves using some of the more subjective eligibility criteria as a way of distinguishing between applications that received equal priority ratings. Later on in the report, we provide recommendations that address both of these situations.
Funding
Because of the high priority that was placed on providing grants to eligible organizations in the Neighbourhood Organization and Organizational Capacity Building categories, any grant increases to groups in either of these categories usually came from the Direct Social Services category. This resulted in staff having to make assessments between two different types of grants (e.g. Neighbourhood Organization and Direct Social Services), which defeats the purpose of having different grant categories.
Reconsideration
On November 22, 1994, Council adopted the Reconsideration Process that is used by applicants for Community Services Grants and Cultural Grants who disagree with the staff recommendations for these grants. Included was approval of the policy that reconsiderations will be considered only if they are based on one or both of the following premises:
· that the eligibility criteria and priorities have not been properly applied; or
· that the financial situation of the applicant has not been properly assessed or understood.
This process was developed to replace the previous one whereby applicants appealed, after the fact, Council decisions on grants. The reconsideration process has worked reasonably well over the past ten years, with only a small number of groups requesting reconsideration each year.
This year, there were 11 requests for reconsideration. Also unique was the fact that half were appealing the priority rating which placed them below the cut-off for funding, and the other half were seeking reconsideration of staff's determination of their ineligibility.
At the completion of the reconsideration process, Council increased the budget and approved grants for all eligible applications (who had applied for reconsideration) with a low priority rating and for those applicants which staff had determined did not meet all the eligibility criteria.
One complication this year was that not all groups that had their funding denied or cut applied for reconsideration. Once they learned that Council had increased the budget such that any application applying for reconsideration was funded, some reported that they had been unfairly treated and asked for a second look. Council decided that they would not reopen the reconsideration process, but did ask staff to report back on changes that would ensure equal access to City funds.
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE CS GRANTS PROGRAM
As mentioned above, staff have concluded that the newly revised CS Grants program worked well this year. We did identify some areas for improvement, but these mostly constitute fine-tuning and clarification. The current criteria and priorities are listed in Appendix C; the proposed revised criteria and priorities are in Appendix A.
Criteria changes
In applying the eligibility criteria, we found that there were two distinct types of criteria- 1) those that were simple, objective rules regarding eligibility, and 2) more qualitative criteria about how well the organization functions and the proposed services meet needs. So we are proposing separating these criteria into two, with the more qualitative ones being listed as considerations, as these are the ones where staff's professional judgement and analysis comes into play. To be eligible for funding, an organization must meet ALL the eligibility criteria.
For Neighbourhood Organization and Organizational Capacity Building Grants, the criteria listed as considerations will then be used to determine how much funding, within the context of the grants budget, will be recommended for each group.
For the Direct Social Services Grants, two of the previous criteria which deal with how well these services respond to community needs and collaborative efforts be turned into considerations. Also, the degree of cost-sharing should be a consideration, not a specific priority. These "considerations" will be used in two ways:
1. as a secondary eligibility screen - those that do not sufficiently meet these criteria will be deemed to be ineligible for funding
2. for those that are eligible, to weight their priority rating (see priorities changes below)
One criterion that was common to all three types of grants was that the service being applied for could not be on the "not eligible list". This was confusing to some people, particularly since it involved looking somewhere other than in the list of criteria to see what is not eligible. So we are restructuring the information sheets (see appendix A) to indicate what CS Grants are for, immediately followed by the list of items that will not be recommended for funding and, in the process, changing the title from "Ineligible" to "Not Funded". Of course, Council always has the option, as a result of the reconsideration process, of granting one-off exemptions to this list, as they have done from time to time in the past.
We are also recommending two changes to the "not funded" list:
1. Currently, the list (Ineligible Services; Appendix C - Page 2) says that the City will not provide replacement funding for anything which was previously provided by other levels of government. This policy was intended to prevent downloading, but it has some unintended consequences, while not having much effect on downloading. The first item on the list, that we do not fund services that come within the mandate of other levels of government, provides protection against downloading of services that come within other jurisdictions. But when Provincial or Federal funding is cut, it can also be for services that don't particularly come within their mandates, or they've changed their mandates. There are also situations where the service is jointly funded - the current rules say that we cannot provide sufficient funding to keep the service functioning should the other funder decide to quit supporting it.
The cancellation of funding from the other levels of government for any particular service happens as a result of the priorities that they set. The City should retain the ability to fund, or not fund, based on its own priorities. Consequently, staff are recommending that the prohibition against "replacement funding" be removed from the "do not fund" list. The prohibition against funding services that come within the mandates of other levels of government will remain.
2. The practise, for many years, has been to ensure that the limited City funding be used to provide on-going funding. We have told potential applicants that the City does not fund time-limited (generally up to three years) pilot or start-up programs, primarily because there are other funding sources for this type of project. Community groups have consistently supported this approach as there are far fewer continuous funding sources for services, once the demonstration project has proven its worth. Even though this has been the City's position for many years, it is not stated explicitly anywhere. Therefore, staff are recommending that "time-limited projects" be added to the "do not fund" list.
Priorities changes (for Direct Social Service Grants)
There are currently six priorities for DSS funding (see Appendix C). In the determination of priority ratings for this year's grant applications, staff found that they were making comparisons among a number of factors - nature of the service, how well the service was delivered, target population, program strategies, etc. The priorities themselves were fine; it's just the way in which they were written that needed some improvement.
Therefore, staff are recommending the revised priority list included in Appendix A. Note that the priorities themselves have not changed appreciably; they have been edited so that different types of priorities are separated from each other. For instance, the strategies for dealing with change used to include advocacy and community development - the intent all along was that these two items were each a priority on their own.
It is proposed that the priority ratings continue to be cumulative, and reflect the degree to which the priority is being met. Priorities will continue to be determined by making comparisons among similar types of services and/or strategies. There are no established benchmarks that applicants have to meet or exceed to get a particular rating.
As mentioned above, "considerations" will be used to determine funding eligibility. They will also be used to weigh the overall priority ratings. So a group which is responding well to community needs will have its priority rating increased by some increment; whereas a group that is not responsive, even though it may start out with the same priority rating, will not have its rating increased by the same increment.
Funding changes
To avoid the problem of making priority comparisons between different types of grants, we are proposing that separate budget amounts be established for each grant category when the overall CS Grants budget is set, prior to grant recommendations being developed. Then, if we want to increase the funding for an organization, the funding will come from the reduction of another grant within the same category. More funding, or less funding, for each category can be established when the budget is set on the basis of current needs and priorities, without having to worry about the effects on individual grant applications. Note, however, that it may be necessary sometimes to shift allocations between category budgets to reflect the reality of the applications received and the resulting grant recommendations.
Reconsideration process changes
As noted above, there were two primary reasons for staff to recommend no grant or a terminating grant: 1) not eligible and 2) insufficient funds to provide grants to the lowest priority applications.
The reconsideration process, by policy, permits only two grounds for reconsideration - a disagreement about eligibility is certainly one of them. However, the real issue around the low priority rating some groups received is not the rating, but the fact that the budget was not large enough to fund all eligible applications, so the lowest priority ones got left off the list of recommended grants. If they had been able to successfully demonstrate that they should be rated higher, then other groups, who had already been advised that they were going to get grants, would move to the bottom of the list so that we could stay within budget.
For the past two years, in the reconsideration report, staff have submitted for consideration two options for lower priority applications - stick with the original recommendation of no grant or increase the budget sufficiently to provide a grant. Since the real issue in these instances is the size of the budget, not the rating process that is used to determine who will or will not get funded, staff are recommending that the review of funding levels take place when the allocations report is being considered. This report will include all recommendations for grants that fit within the established budget, with all remaining eligible applications, which have been rejected strictly on the basis of their priority rating, submitted for consideration at that time. Whatever the Council decision on these grants, the organizations would not be able to request reconsideration of the Council decision nor their priority rating.
Applicants would still be able to request reconsideration on the basis of eligibility and/or their financial situation. The proposed revised reconsideration process is described in Appendix B
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The proposed changes in criteria will not appreciably affect the number of applications that are eligible for funding; i.e. the proportion of applications that are eligible won't suddenly increase because of the changes, and, conversely, it won't decrease. Similarly, restricting the grounds for reconsideration should not significantly change the number of groups that get funded at the end of the day
Changing the date when Council decides how to deal with the grants budget level to address the lower priority applications should not materially affect the budget itself.
Of course, there could be increases in the number of applicants, particularly as a result of continuing funding cuts from other sources and, therefore, a larger increase in the budget would be needed to fund the lower priority ones. Council is under no obligation to provide any funding beyond the previously agreed to budget limit and could fund none, some, or all of the lower priority applications.
There may be some timing problems with the proposed reconsideration process. The Allocations Report is usually dealt with before the City budget has been established, and so considering low priority Direct Social Services grants, which would result in a budget increase if approved, could be problematic.
CONCLUSION
With some relatively minor changes, the CS Grants program can continue to be an effective support system provided by the City to community social service agencies.
- - - - -
APPENDIX A
PROPOSED REVISED CRITERIA, PRIORITY
Community Services Grants provide operating funding to non-profit organizations to:
· help ensure an equitable access to appropriate social services;
· enhance the ability of community organizations to successfully address social issues;
· maintain and strengthen linkages/integration between community services and programs and City policies and priorities.
Community Services Grants are NOT for:
Community Services Grant funding will not be recommended for any of the following:
· services which are clearly within the mandates of other governments or departments; e.g. Continuing Care Programs, first year settlement, employment and job training, Alcohol and Drug treatment programs, licensed Childcare programs, community economic development, etc. This includes programs or services which are eligible for funding from any other City grant programs, such as Cultural Grants, Childcare Grants, Environmental Grants (Note: this does not preclude cost-sharing on programs which are within the mandates of several jurisdictions);
· services which are primarily recreational or educational (in particular academic or technical training);
· health services such as health self-help groups; health information programs; medical treatment, maintenance or rehabilitation programs;
· processing legal or human rights cases;
· direct welfare supports, including food banks;
· residential programs or housing;
· research;
· transportation expenses;
· payment of City property taxes; capital expenses; operating or capital deficits;
· the provision of grants or donations to other organizations or individuals;
· services or programs directed to the preservation of any particular ethnic or cultural heritage;
· attendance at or fees for conferences, workshops or other forms of training;
· time-limited projects (three years or less) in the developmental or formative stage.
Organizations receiving Community Services Grants may provide one or more of the services noted above, but the City's grant cannot be used for these purposes.
NEIGHBOURHOOD ORGANIZATION GRANTS
Eligibility Criteria
To be eligible for a NEIGHBOURHOOD ORGANIZATION GRANT, the organization must meet the following criteria:
· be a registered non-profit society, in good standing with the Registrar of Companies. It must have an independent, active governing body composed of volunteers. The by-laws must have provisions that no Board director can be remunerated for being a director; staff members cannot be voting members of the Board or Executive;
· must extend its services to the general public, and shall not exclude anyone by reason of religion, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, language, disability or income; except in instances where it can be proven that exclusion of some group is required for effective targeting of another group to occur;
· have the demonstrated functional capacity and sufficient resources to be able to deliver the services and programs for which funding is being sought;
· be primarily serving and working with the residents of the neighbourhood in which it is located;
· be providing a range of neighbourhood-based social services and ensuring, through coordination and collaboration, that such services are provided;
· be actively involving neighbourhood residents in issue advocacy, community development, and community capacity building;
· be actively engaged in ensuring that the Guiding Principles (working together, inclusion, participation) provide the primary direction for the work and functioning of the whole organization;
· must ensure that funding from the City is used only for core staff expenses;
· must secure matching funding (at least 1/3) for core staff costs from other sources.
Funding considerations
Neighbourhood organizations which meet the eligibility criteria (above) will be eligible for grant funding. The considerations (below) will be used to determine how much funding each organization gets. The amount of funding will be determined within the context of the budget ceiling established for this category of grants:
· quantity and quality of issue advocacy, community development and community capacity building that is done and supported, and the degree to which these activities are an integral part of the operations;
· degree of community involvement and support;
· extent of working together with other community groups;
· effectiveness (outcomes) of efforts at inclusion;
· financial need (to sustain at least the core functions);
· degree to which the program, services, and activities are addressing or related to the key neighbourhood issues.
ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING GRANTS
Eligibility Criteria
To be eligible for an ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING GRANT, the following criteria must be met:
· The organization must be a registered non-profit society, in good standing with the Registrar of Companies. It must have an independent, active governing body composed of volunteers. The by-laws must have provisions that no Board director can be remunerated for being a director; staff members cannot be voting members of the Board or Executive;
· the organization must extend its services to the general public, and shall not exclude anyone by reason of religion, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, language, disability or income; except in instances where it can be proven that exclusion of some group is required for effective targeting of another group to occurl;
· the organization must have the demonstrated functional capacity and sufficient resources to be able to deliver the services and programs for which funding is being sought;
· the primary purpose and mandate of the organization is to support other non-profit agencies to improve their ability to deliver social services, address social issues, and navigate change;
· the organization is developing organizational capacity in other organizations by providing one or more of the following:
o increasing the amount of resources available (e.g. access to centralized information and referral, volunteer recruitment and coordination); OR
o improving the utilization of resources (e.g. assistance to become computerized and internet competent); OR
o improving the management and allocation of resources (e.g. skills enhancement training and experiences, the development of support models for staff, Board and society members); OR
o providing linkages and coordination among a number of non-profit social service agencies operating a hub model service centre.
· City funding is to be used primarily for staff salary and benefit expenses (maximum of 15% of grant for program, administrative or other costs);
· costs for City funded program(s) are reasonable and on a par with other similar programs.
Funding considerations
Organizations seeking OCB funding which meet the eligibility criteria (above) will be eligible for grant funding. The considerations (below) will be used to determine how much funding each organization gets. The amount of funding will be determined within the context of the budget ceiling established for this category of grants:
· The degree to which services and programs are :
o appropriate,
o relevant, and
o accessible
· the diversity of non-profit agencies being served;
· the recognition and enhancement of the expertise and participation of groups and stakeholders in the community;
· involves the development of new networks and contacts;
· how well and the degree to which stated goals are met and outcomes achieved;
· the degree by which the cultural competency of the organizations being served is developed and enhanced;
· financial need (for the requested service or program).
DIRECT SOCIAL SERVICE GRANTS
Eligibility Criteria
To be eligible for a DIRECT SOCIAL SERVICE GRANT, the following criteria must be met:
· The organization must be a registered non-profit society, in good standing with the Registrar of Companies. It must have an independent, active governing body composed of volunteers. The by-laws must have provisions that no Board director can be remunerated for being a director; staff members cannot be voting members of the Board or Executive;
· the organization must extend its services to the general public, and shall not exclude anyone by reason of religion, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, language, disability or income; except in instances where it can be proven that exclusion of some group is required for effective targeting of another group to occur;
· the organization must have the demonstrated functional capacity and sufficient resources to be able to deliver the services and programs for which funding is being sought;
· City funding is only for services and/or programs which directly address specific current social problems and/or issues;
· costs are reasonable and on a par with other similar programs;
· City funded service must primarily serve Vancouver residents in Vancouver;
· City funding must be used primarily for staff salary and benefit expenses (maximum of 15% of grant for program, administrative or other costs).
Funding considerations
Organizations seeking DSS funding, which do not meet all the eligibility criteria (above), will not be eligible for grant funding. Whether or not funding is recommended and the amount of recommended funding will be determined within the context of the priority of the services being delivered, how well they're being delivered and the established budget ceiling for this category of grants.
An important consideration when determining the priority for funding is how well the services are being delivered and the City funding is being used. Consequently, the following considerations will be used to help determine eligibility for funding and to adjust priority ratings:
· Within the context of the broad diversity of residents within the community, the degree to which services and programs funded by the City are:
o appropriate,
o relevant,
o accessible, and
o effective
· the degree to which the City-funded service connects/collaborates with services provided by other funders and agencies in circumstances where the services are being provided to essentially the same group of people;
· the degree to which the total costs of the requested service are shared by the City and other funding sources;
The following are the current priorities for DIRECT SOCIAL SERVICES GRANTS:
· the primary function of the funded services or programs are intended to remove barriers and/or provide supplemental supports to ensure equal access to services and opportunities;
· the primary focus of the funded services is directed to residents who are experiencing social, physical, and/or economic disadvantages and/or who face discrimination;
· the funded services or programs reinforce or support City policy which is related to the delivery of social services and/or current Social Planning work;
· a significant portion of the potential target group is being served and the client base is large enough that there is a noticeable positive impact on the community;
· one or more of the following strategies are used by the funded service or program to deal with significant changes in the social service environment:
- organizing/mobilizing significant increases in volunteer resources,
- developing mutual support (e.g. coalition building, collaborative projects) among: groups, individual and group support systems, or cross-cultural support networks,
- facilitating improved access to other services,
- developing or supporting new service delivery models.
· the primary function of the funded activity is advocacy aimed at securing services and protecting rights
· the primary function of the funded activity is community development which empowers and involves marginalized population groups in solving social problems, bringing about positive social change, and extending participatory democracy.
Establishing the priorities for funding will be cumulative - that is, services which meet a number of priorities will be deemed to be a higher priority for funding than those that meet just one. The determination of priority will also be on a weighted basis; that is, services which are primarily directed to meeting the priority will be rated higher than those where meeting the priority is only a part of the service objectives. Finally, priorities will be adjusted by a factor that reflects how well the service is being delivered, in terms of the considerations noted above.
APPENDIX B
PROPOSED RECONSIDERATION PROCESS
Basis for reconsideration (Council policy):
Grant recommendations will be considered only if the request is based on one or both of the following premises:
1. that the eligibility criteria have not been properly applied, or
2. the financial situation of the applicant has not been properly assessed or understood
Requests for reconsideration which are not based on these premises will NOT be processed.
Reconsideration process
· Applicants are notified in writing of Social Planning's recommendations, along with reasons for reduced, terminating or no grants
· Applicants who wish to dispute the staff's recommendation for their grant, and can do so on the basis of one or both of the premises noted above, may submit a request for reconsideration to the Social Planning Department by the specified deadline.
· Eligible grant recommendations based on an assessment of "low priority" will not be accepted for reconsideration. Council will deal with all of these when considering the allocation of all recommendations that are not in dispute.
· Applications which are not in dispute (i.e. the applicants have not submitted a valid request for reconsideration) AND recommendations for reduced, terminating or no grants, which are based on a low priority rating, are sent directly to City Council. Council will decide at that time whether or not to increase the grants budget to fully or partially fund the low priority applications. There will be no appeal to this decision. Council does reserve the right to direct that any recommendation about which it has concerns be referred to the reconsideration process.
· The reconsideration process takes place after the Council meeting described in the previous point. After written notice and supporting information has been received by Social Planning, staff will review: the validity of the applicant's reasons for requesting reconsideration,; the information provided on the grant application form and attachments; and information provided during any interviews. Applicants will be contacted if there are any questions, and every effort will be made to clarify misunderstandings.
· Staff will then prepare a written summation of their findings for Council, including the arguments being put forward by the applicants and a decision to either amend the original recommendation or to keep it as is.
· All applicants requesting reconsideration will be advised of the contents of the Social Planning report to Council, and will be invited to appear as a delegation before Council, if they so wish.
· There is no appeal of Council's decision on the requests for reconsideration
APPENDIX C
2003 CRITERIA AND PRIORITIES
ELIGIBILTY CRITERIA
Organizations must meet all of the following basic eligibility criteria, plus the criteria that are specific to each category of grant. The organization :
· must be a registered non-profit society, in good standing with the Registrar of Companies
· must have an independent, active governing body composed of volunteers; staff members cannot be voting members of the Board or Executive
· must have provisions that no Board director can be remunerated for being a director
· cannot be a funding body or give grants to other groups or organizations
· must have fully explored other sources of funding
· must extend its services to the general public, and shall not exclude anyone by reason of religion, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, language, disability or income; except in instances where it can be proven that exclusion of some group is required for effective targeting of another group to occur
· must primarily serve Vancouver residents
· must have a proven local track record of efficiency, effectiveness, and stability
Note: The proposed service or program cannot be one of those included on the list of "Ineligible Services"
To be eligible for funding for a DIRECT SOCIAL SERVICE GRANT, the proposed service or program must also meet the following criteria, in addition to the basic eligibility criteria (above):
· relates directly to the identified need that the service is intended to address
· must be appropriate, relevant and accessible to the community being served, including the broad diversity of residents within the community
· the effectiveness and quality of the service can be substantiated
· costs are reasonable and on a par with other similar programs
· the City-funded service must connect/collaborate with services provided by other funders and agencies in all circumstances where the services are being provided to essentially the same group of people
· City funding must be used primarily for staff salary and benefit expenses (maximum of 10% of grant for program, administrative or other costs)
To be eligible for a NEIGHBOURHOOD ORGANIZATION GRANT, the organization must also meet the following criteria, in addition to the basic eligibility criteria (above):
· be providing a range of neighbourhood-based social services and/or ensuring through coordination and collaboration that such services are provided
· be involved in or supporting issue advocacy, community development, and community capacity building
· demonstrate community support and involvement in the organization (e.g. large, active society membership)
· be actively engaged in ensuring that the Guiding Principles (working together, inclusion, participation) provide the primary direction for the work and functioning of the whole organization
· must secure matching funding (at least 50%) for core staff costs from other sources
To be eligible for an ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING GRANT, the proposed service or program must also meet the following criteria, in addition to the basic eligibility criteria (above):
· be providing on-going organizational support, not one-off, time limited projects
· must be appropriate, relevant and accessible to the broad diversity of the non-profit agencies and community being served
· must recognize and enhance the expertise and participation of the community
· where possible, involve the development of new networks and contacts
· the effectiveness and quality of the service can be substantiated
· costs are reasonable and on a par with other similar programs
· City funding must be used primarily for staff salary and benefit expenses (maximum of 10% of grant for program, administrative or other costs)
INELIGIBLE SERVICES
City Council has established, by policy, that certain types of services and programs are not eligible for funding from the Community Services Grants program. Therefore, grant funding will not be recommended, nor approved, for any of the following:
· duplication of services which are clearly within the legislated mandates of other governments or departments; e.g. Continuing Care Programs, first year settlement, employment and job training, Alcohol and Drug treatment programs, licensed Childcare programs, community economic development, etc. (Note: this does not preclude cost sharing on programs which are within the mandates of several jurisdictions.)
· replacement of funding previously provided by other levels of government
· services which are primarily recreational or educational (in particular academic or technical training)
· medical treatment, maintenance or rehabilitation programs
· research
· transportation
· residential programs or housing
· payment of City property taxes
· capital expenses
· operating or capital deficits
· direct welfare supports, including food banks
· agencies which are primarily funding bodies to other organizations
· processing legal or human rights cases
· services or programs directed to the preservation of any particular ethnic or cultural heritage
· conferences, workshops or other forms of training
Organizations receiving Community Services Grants may provide one or more of the services noted above, but the City's grant cannot be used for these purposes.
PRIORITIES FOR DIRECT SOCIAL SERVICES GRANTS
The following are the current priorities for DIRECT SOCIAL SERVICES GRANTS:
· services or programs that remove barriers and/or provide supplemental supports to ensure equal access to services and opportunities for residents who are experiencing social, physical, and/or economic disadvantages and/or who face discrimination;
· services or programs that reinforce or support City policy and/or current Social Planning work;
· the client base is large enough that the impact of the service on the community is optimized
· the total costs of the requested service are shared by the City and other funding sources
· services or programs which:
- support family relationships and structures and/or prevent family breakdown OR
- reduce isolation and/or retain independence for seniors OR
- address issues of poverty, violence, discrimination and equality, particularly for women
· one or more of the following strategies are used:
- organizing/mobilizing volunteer resources
- developing mutual support among groups (e.g. coalition building, collaborative projects), individual and group support systems, or cross-cultural support networks
- facilitating access to other services
- developing or supporting new service delivery models
- advocacy aimed at securing services and protecting rights
- community development which empowers and involves marginalized population groups in solving social problems, bringing about positive social change, and extending participatory democracy.
Establishing the priorities for funding will be cumulative - that is, services which meet a number of priorities will be deemed to be a higher priority for funding than those that meet just one. The determination of priority will also be on a weighted basis; that is, services which are primarily directed to meeting the priority will be rated higher than those where meeting the priority is only a part of the service objectives.
* * * * *
