SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 2
CS&B COMMITTEE AGENDA
APRIL 25, 1996
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: April 9, 1996
TO: Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets
FROM: Director of Community Services, Social Planning
SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Community Services Grants
Applications
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT Council approve Social Planning's original
recommendation of a Community Services Grant of
$10,000 to the Western Institute for the Deaf &
Hard of Hearing (#90), with the condition that "a
report on the use of the interpretation service be
submitted to Social Planning by August 1, 1996".
B. THAT Council not approve a grant to Vancouver
Peretz Institute (#78), in accordance with Social
Plan-ning's original recommendation.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services submits A and
B for CONSIDERATION.
COUNCIL POLICY
On November 22, 1994, City Council established that
reconsideration of grant recommendations will be considered
only if they are based on one or both of the following
premises:
1) that eligibility criteria and priorities have
not been properly applied; or
2) the financial situation of the applicant has
not been properly assessed or understood.
Approval of grant recommendations requires eight affirmative
votes.
PURPOSE
This report contains the results of the reconsideration
process which was initiated by two Community Services Grants
appli-cants, and makes recommendations on the basis of this
process. No changes to the original staff recommendations
are made.
BACKGROUND
In November 1994, City Council approved a new grants
reconsid-eration process with the following features:
- specified ground for reconsideration (referred to in
Council Policy, above);
- staff's reasons for initial recommendations, applicants'
reasons for seeking reconsideration, and staff's
responses are all in writing; Council is provided with
copies of all this material;
- speedier approval of grants which are not in dispute;
and
- some portion of the grants budget is set aside to fund
recommendations for new or increased grants arising from
the reconsideration process.
All applicants of Community Services Grants were advised, in
writing, in late February of Social Planning's
recommendations, along with reasons for recommendations for
reduced or no grants. Two applicants - the Western Institute
for the Deaf & Hard of Hearing and the Vancouver Peretz
Institute - requested reconsideration of the Department's
recommendations.
City Council subsequently approved, on March 26, Social
Planning's recommendations for all Community Services Grants
applications not being reconsidered. Included was the
establishment of a Reserve for Emergencies and Unforeseen
Circumstances, in the amount of $19,428. It was understood
that any recommendations for new or increased grants arising
from the reconsideration process were to be funded from this
reserve.
RECONSIDERATION PROCESS
The applicants for reconsideration submitted written reasons
for reconsideration and additional information in support of
their request.
Social Planning staff reviewed the original applications,
supporting materials, interview notes, and the written
material submitted with the reconsideration request.
Staff then prepared written comments on each application and
developed recommendations based on this review process.
Staff's comments and recommendations are attached, along with
the applicants' submissions as Appendix A.
DISCUSSION
The reconsideration process was established to allow for a
thorough second look at applications in situations where
there may be misunderstanding or disagreement over
interpretations of policy and criteria. Prior to the
implementation of this process, it was not unusual for as
many as a dozen or more applicants to try to make their pitch
directly to Council, usually on the basis that they simply
disagreed with staff's recommendation. The low number of
requests for reconsideration this year is reflective of the
improved criteria for grants and the limitations placed on
the grounds for reconsideration.
In fact, the request for reconsideration from the Peretz
Institute was not based on the grounds established by
Council, and could have been rejected on that basis alone.
However, this was a new application and staff felt that
providing them with a clearer explanation of why they were
not recommended for a grant may provide some direction to
them for improving their service, by making it more
accessible and relevant.
CONCLUSION
Social Planning staff reconsidered two Community Services
Grants applications. Staff concluded that their original
recommendations for these two applications should remain
unchanged.
* * * * *
WIDHH - Western Institute for the Deaf & Hard of Hearing
(#90)
Request: $20,000
1995 Grant: $20,000
Program Description (summarized from grant application)
(1) ASL (American Sign Language) Interpreting for Deaf
people in Vancouver in educational, business,
vocational, social, and other settings ($10,000 grant
request).
(2) Support of consumer groups (primarily to the Greater
Vancouver Association of the Deaf and the Vancouver
League for the Hard of Hearing) through the provision of
office and meeting space at no charge to facilitate
their effort in cultural, recreational, educational,
social and advocacy efforts and events ($10,000 grant
request).
Social Planning Initial Response:
Recommended a grant of $10,000 ($10,000 decrease from the
previous year), with a condition that:
"a report on the use of the interpretation service
be submitted to Social Planning by August 1, 1996".
We also commented in the grants report that "there is no need
for the consumer group using space at WIDHH to be paying
rent, so grant funds are not needed to offset this potential
rent income".
Basis for Consideration:
The financial situation of the applicant has not been
properly assessed or understood. The applicant claims that
they require the $10,000 grant to alleviate the cost to WIDHH
of providing meeting space for the Vancouver League for the
Hard of Hearing and the Greater Vancouver Association for the
Deaf. Please read the attached letter.
Social Planning Comments:
Of the two activities for which WIDHH has requested funding,
support to the interpreter service is clearly within the
Community Services Grants priority services for people with
disabilities. A $10,000 grant has been recommended for this
service, along with a condition that we receive a more
detailed report on the use of this interpreter service.
.../2
The second part of the application, however, is for $10,000
which is for WIDHH building operating costs, requested on the
grounds that WIDHH provides office space and the use of
Brodie Hall without charge to two consumer groups: Greater
Vancouver Association of the Deaf (GVAD) and the Vancouver
League for the Hard of Hearing (VLHH). This does not fall
within any Community Services Grants priorities.
The 1994 and 1995 Community Service Grants to WIDHH included
a grant for this purpose because, at the time, the
organization was in a difficult financial situation due to an
earlier decision of the Board which had left WIDHH with a
$500,000 mortgage. In the view of Social Planning staff, the
organization is now in reasonable financial shape. For the
1996 year, WIDHH will have a total budget of $1.54 million,
projected fundraising of just under $300,000, and a balanced
budget. WIDHH has confirmed that it does not expect any
significant changes in grants from other funders this year.
Based on the information provided in this year's
reconsidera-tion letter, it appears to Social Planning staff
that the requested $10,000 is as much a building operating
grant to WIDHH as it is a support to the two consumer groups.
The two groups together have only 234 sq. ft. of office space
and use Brodie Hall about 6 hours per week. It is difficult
to see how this level of use accounts for costs in excess of
$15,000. There is also a larger principle involved,
concerning rental policies of non-profit groups. In general,
Social Planning staff have not supported the charging of rent
to the key constituents or central programs of any agency.
In our view, GVAD and VLHH are key constituents of WIDHH and
should be included without charge by WIDHH.
Recommendation: no additional grant.
* * * * *
VANCOUVER PERETZ INSTITUTE (#78)
Request: $35,000
1995 Grant: $0 (new application in 1996)
Program Description (summarized from grant application):
The Vancouver Peretz Institute is a Jewish secular, humanist
and cultural organization engaged in a wide range of
activities, including services for seniors such as
interactive discussion groups and speakers, oral histories,
age related exercises, etc. The request is to help pay for a
part time seniors co-ordinator, a part time assistant
co-ordinator and a part time office assistant.
Social Planning Initial Response: No Grant.
The reason given for the recommendation was that:
"The need for service is not clearly established".
Basis for Reconsideration:
The applicant did not provide information relevant to the
grounds of reconsideration. Their request for
reconsideration reiterates reasons already presented in the
original application and the grant review.
Social Planning Comments:
A. Many other services for seniors are available through
local organizations including community centres and other
seniors' groups. For example, Jewish Family Services
provides outreach services for isolated seniors and this
program is funded by the City's Community Services Grant.
For the most part, the seniors who might use the services
at Peretz should be able to access a range of services in
their community.
B. Two primary goals of the Community Services Grants
program, as described in the Guiding Principles, are to
increase collaborative and cooperative work between and
among agencies, and to make services more inclusive. The
connections between Peretz and other local agencies are
not strong, and there is very little, if any,
collaborative
planning or service delivery. The focus of their
programs, as stated in the letter which requests
reconsideration, dated March 11, 1996, that their program
is "directed towards a segment of the isolated senior
population who relate only to Secular programs ..." is
contrary to the goal of being inclusive.
Recommendation: No Grant.
* * * * *