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.
* * * * *