SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 2 CS&B COMMITTEE AGENDA MAY 8, 1997 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Date: April 22, 1997 Dept. File No. C.C. File No. 2152-2 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 not approve a grant to High Risk Project Society, in accordance with Social Planning s original recommendation. B. THAT Council not approve a grant to the Neil Squire Foundation, in accordance with Social Planning s original recommendation. C. THAT Council approve Social Planning s original recommendation for a Community Services Grant of $27,540 to the South Granville Seniors Friendship Centre. D. THAT Council not approve a grant to the Stroke Recovery Association of B.C., in accordance with Social Planning s original recommendation. E. THAT Council not approve a grant to the Westcoast Youth Net Society, in accordance with Social Planning s original recommendation. GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS The General Manager of Community Services submits A to E 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: -2- 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 five Community Services Grants applicants, and makes recommendations based on the outcome of this process. BACKGROUND In November 1994, City Council approved a grants "reconsideration" process for those grant applicants who disagreed with the Social Planning Department's recommendation with regards to their applications. A key feature of the process is that there are only two grounds for requesting reconsideration (referred to in Council Policy, above). This has all but eliminated requests based solely on the fact that the group does good work (most do), or there is considerable community support for it, or any of a number of other reasons. All applicants for 1997 Community Service Grants were advised in mid-March of Social Planning's recommendations, along with our rationale for recommendations for reduced or no grants. They were also told of the reconsideration process which could be used if they disagreed with the recommendations. Five applicants, out of 113, requested reconsideration. Requests for reconsideration were submitted by the following organizations: Organization Original Recommendation High Risk Project Society No grant (new application). Neil Squire Foundation No grant, reduced from $10,000 last year. South Granville Senior $27,540, but they requested Friendship Centre $35,000. Stroke Recovery Assoc. of No grant (funding cut by the B.C. City in 1996). Westcoast Youth Net Society No grant (new application). -3- City Council subsequently, on April 8, approved Social Planning's recommendations for all Community Services Grant applications, except for the five which were referred to the reconsideration process. At that time, Council also established a reserve of $24,538 for emergencies or unforeseen circumstances. It was understood that any new or increased grants coming from the reconsideration process would be funded from this reserve. The $27,540 originally recommended for South Granville Seniors was unallocated, and so remains available in the budget for this or another grant. RECONSIDERATION PROCESS The applicants for reconsideration have all submitted written material supporting their requests for changes to our recommendations. This material is included in Appendix A. Social Planning staff reviewed the original applications, supporting materials, interview notes, and the new information that was submitted with the reconsideration requests. If there was still some confusion or lack of clarity, applicants were personally contacted to ensure that staff had a clear and complete understanding of the situation. Staff then developed recommendations based on this review of all the pertinent information, and prepared written explanations for their decisions. These comments and the recommendations, along with the applicants' submission, are attached as Appendix A. 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 appear as delegations when this report is dealt with by Council. CONCLUSION After a careful and thorough review of the five applications that were referred, by the applicants, to the reconsideration process, Social Planning staff have concluded that their original recommendations should remain unchanged. * * * * *