ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

Date: November 19, 1997

Author/Local: RGates/6036

CC File No. 3253

TO:	Vancouver City Council
FROM:	Director of Community Services, Social Planning
SUBJECT:	Federation of Canadian Municipalities: Quality of Life Reporting System

---

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council endorse continuing participation by Vancouver City staff in the development of the FCM Quality of Life Reporting System, at a cost of $5,000, to be funded through the Social Planning budget.

GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of the foregoing.

COUNCIL POLICY

There is no applicable Council policy.

PURPOSE

This report provides an update on the FCM’s Quality of Life Reporting System project and seeks Council’s approval for continuing support for this project.

BACKGROUND

In anticipation of impending federal government funding cuts to social services, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) decided in early 1996 to develop a coordinated system for monitoring local social and economic decisions.

On July 23, 1996, Vancouver City Council agreed to endorse the City’s participation in the development of a "template" for the proposed FCM Quality of Life Reporting system, and approved a contribution of $5,000 for this project. Council also decided that any further support for implementation of the system would be subject to a report back on program details and costs. This report is the one requested by Council.

In October 1996, staff from the 11 participating municipalities met with FCM staff to determine what information should be collected and in what format. It was agreed that ten indicators (listed in the next section) would be developed, with each one representing a different aspect of the social well-being of the community. It was also agreed to carry out more detailed design and testing of one indicator first, before committing to do the work required to fully develop all of them.

A draft report on the development of the first indicator, the Community Affordability Measure (CAM), was sent for comment to the participating communities in August 1997. Some relatively minor changes were proposed, but there was agreement that this was beginning to look like a useful and important indicator.

Staff from the participating cities and the FCM met again in October 1997 to develop a plan for getting all of the indicators finalized. Unfortunately, Vancouver City staff were unable to attend this meeting, although we did provide input prior to it and received notes on its outcome afterwards. Thirteen municipalities across the country are now involved in this project. They have committed to carry on to full implementation of this Quality of Life Reporting System, and would like to know that Vancouver is also on board. The municipalities that have agreed to participate in this project are listed in Appendix A.

DISCUSSION

At the October 1996 inter-municipal staff meeting, it was agreed that the following indicators would be developed:

·530·Community Affordability Measure·530

·530·Quality of Employment Measure·530

·530·Quality of Housing Measure·530

·530·Health Community Measure·530

·530·Community Social Infrastructure·530

·530·Human Capital Measure·530

·530·Community Stress Measure·530

·530·Community Safety Measure·530

·530·Community Participation Measure·530

·530·Annual Special Theme Indicator (to be developed as a sub-section of the indicators listed above).·530

These indicators are not going to be a duplication of information reported on by others -rather, they are to be a re-compiling of information from a range of sources that will produce a number which provides a simple way of understanding where each municipality stands in relation to others, on a specific topic. A key feature of these indicators would be their ability to show and quantify change over time.

The Consumer Price Index is given as an example of the type of indicator that would be developed. Not many people know exactly what information is compiled to derive the CPI (nor do they need to), but most understand that it does represent the relative cost of consumer goods, particularly as those change over time.

The Community Affordability Measure (CAM) was the first indicator to be developed in detail for this project. The CAM is the ratio of the income of residents to the cost of living within the municipality, as compared to the national average. A second CAM was also developed that calculated how affordable the community is for modest and low income residents. The CAM is a single number (between 0.5 and 1.5) that easily and intuitively indicates how affordable the community is.

The 1997/1998 Action Plan

The agreed-upon objectives for 1997/98 are:

·530·to have the QOL system in place, with all indicators designed and tested by the end of 1998·530

·530·to produce, by the fall of 1998, a first QOL report that includes at least 6 indicators·530

·530·to have a funding strategy in place to support the continuing operation of the QOL system·530

·530·to develop strategic partnership for the development and ongoing operation of the system·530

·530·to develop and implement a public relations and marketing strategy for the project·530

·530·to have 15 or more municipal participants by the end of 1998.·530

There was also agreement among the participating municipalities on the process to be used for the release of QOL reports and for bringing them to the attention of other organizations and levels of government. The process would include a national video-press conference with participating Mayors, briefing workshops with funders, partners and sponsors, and meetings between the Mayors and political representatives from the other levels of government. Depending on the results of the specific indicators there may also be community workshops and/or follow-up analysis.

Project Funding

The $5,000 per year contribution from participating municipalities has been sufficient for the development of the indicators. (Note, however, that Vancouver does not yet paid its 1997/98 share.) As the project progresses, the costs will rise as data will have to be purchased and analysed, and reports will have to be written, produced and distributed.

The projected annual costs for the project when it is fully operational are $226,000. See Appendix B for details. The projected budget assumes that participating municipalities should not pay more than the $5,000 per year which has been contributed to date, so the remainder ($151,000) will come from other (non-municipal) sources.

On September 1995, City Council approved $4,500 from Contingency Reserve to pay for the City’s participation in a Social Policy Study conducted by FCM. This study led directly to recommendations that a social condition monitoring system be developed.

City Council agreed to contribute $5,000 to the first year of research and development of the QOL indicators project in July 1996, with the funding coming from the Social Planning Department’s "Purchase of Outside Services" budget. The project plan, as described above, anticipates another year of research and development before the system is put in place. FCM has requested that the City contribute another $5,000 for the second year of the start-up phase of the project. There is sufficient funding remaining in the Social Planning budget to pay for the second year’s work.

However, in the longer term, we have concerns that it may not be appropriate to fund the ongoing operation of a research/statistical project that could be useful for the City as a whole and the regional district from the Social Planning Department’s short-term research budget. In any event, staff will report back to Council once the developmental stage of the QOL project has been completed.

CONCLUSION

Once completed, the Quality of Life Reporting System will provide municipal leaders with a powerful tool with which to:

·530·monitor changes at the local level as a result of reduced federal and provincial spending on social programs·530

·530·plan and set priorities for local needs and growth·530

·530·engage in the discussion/debate on social policy issues from a community perspective.·530

There still is considerable work to be done in the development of this system, and Social Planning staff are recommending that the City of Vancouver continue to be a full participant in this important work. As the project moves into full operational mode, staff will report back at that time on the appropriate level of funding and involvement of the City.

* * * * *

(c) 1997 City of Vancouver