1. Community
funding PROCESS review EXAMEN DU PROCESSUS DE FINANCEMENT COMMUNAUTAIRE |
That Council:
1. Approve the consultant phase 1 recommendations, as outlined in this report, to be implemented as part of the 2005 budget process, and
2. Direct staff to report back with recommendations respecting the consultant’s phase 2 proposals, as outlined in this report, in anticipation of the 2006 budget process.
RECOMMANDATIONS
DU COMITÉ
Que le Conseil municipal:
1.
approuve
les recommandations du consultant relatives à la phase 1, qui sont énoncées
dans le présent rapport, en vue de leur mise en œuvre dans le cadre du budget
de 2005;
2.
donne
instruction au personnel de soumettre un rapport assorti de recommandations
concernant les propositions du consultant pour la phase 2, qui sont énoncées
dans le présent rapport, en vue du processus budgétaire de 2006.
documentation
1. Deputy City
Manager, Community and Protective Services report dated 17 August 2004
(ACS2004-CPS-CSF-0022).
2. Extract of
Draft Minutes, 2 September 2004.
Report to/Rapport au :
Health,
Recreation and Social Services Committee
Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux
and Council / et au Conseil
17 August 2004 / le 17 août
2004
Submitted by/Soumis par : Steve
Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager / Directeur municipal adjoint, Community and
Protective Services / Services communautaires et de protection
Contact
Person/Personne ressource: Colleen Hendrick, Director / Directrice
Cultural Services
and Community Funding / Services culturels et financement communautaire
(613) 580-2424 x24366,
colleen.hendrick@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
Community funding
PROCESS review
|
|
OBJET : |
EXAMEN DU PROCESSUS DE
FINANCEMENT COMMUNAUTAIRE
|
REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve the consultant phase 1 recommendations, as outlined in this report, to be implemented as part of the 2005 budget process, and
2. Direct staff to report back with recommendations respecting the consultant’s phase 2 proposals, as outlined in this report, in anticipation of the 2006 budget process.
RECOMMENDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des
services sociaux recommande au Conseil municipal:
1.
d’approuver
les recommandations du consultant relatives à la phase 1, qui sont énoncées
dans le présent rapport, en vue de leur mise en œuvre dans le cadre du budget
de 2005;
2.
de
donner instruction au personnel de soumettre un rapport assorti de
recommandations concernant les propositions du consultant pour la phase 2, qui
sont énoncées dans le présent rapport, en vue du processus budgétaire de 2006.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 26, 2003, Council approved a recommendation from the City Auditor that “Management establish a clear and comprehensive corporate policy framework governing all mechanisms for funding to external organizations”.
A Request for Proposals (RFP) was developed in order to seek third-party expertise to conduct a review of the community funding process in Community and Protective Services. In December 2003, the RFP was awarded to J. Coflin and Associates, in the amount of $49,000.
The objective of the process review was to recommend
a new accountability framework that would guide the allocation and monitoring
of the $13M of annualized sustaining funding provided to more than 200 agencies
delivering health, recreation and social services.
In order to move toward a more transparent, accountable,
fair and efficient community funding program that will be able to adapt to
changing circumstances, needs and priorities, the consultant proposed that
funding process improvements be implemented in two phases. Phase 1
recommendations, implemented for the 2005 funding year as an interim measure,
would establish a revised management and administrative framework based on
current practices and policy. In
Phase 2, the administrative and management processes would be refined and
adapted following funding policy reviews.
Even though the scope of the Community Funding Review was limited to funding provided to community agencies for the delivery of health, recreation and social services, the report and its recommendations make a significant contribution to the development of a corporate framework that may be used by other Departments for their community funding programs.
RÉSUMÉ
Le 26
mars 2003, le Conseil municipal a approuvé une recommandation du vérificateur
municipal voulant que la direction établisse un cadre de politique clair et
exhaustif devant régir l’ensemble des mécanismes de financement des organismes
externes.
On a
alors élaboré une demande de propositions dans le but de confier à un
expert-conseil de l’extérieur le mandat d’examiner le processus de financement
communautaire en vigueur aux Services communautaires et de protection. Ce
mandat, qui portait sur un montant de 49 000 $, a été confié en
décembre 2003 à la société J. Coflin and Associates.
Il
s’agissait de recommander un nouveau cadre de responsabilité devant guider
l’affectation et la surveillance des subventions de soutien d’un montant
annualisé de 13 millions de dollars que la Ville accorde à plus de 200
organismes dispensant des services sociaux, de santé et de loisirs.
Afin de
progresser vers un programme de financement communautaire plus transparent,
responsable, juste et efficace en mesure de s’adapter aux circonstances, aux
priorités et besoins changeants, le consultant a proposé que les améliorations
au processus de financement soient
apportées
en deux phases. Les recommandations de la phase 1, mises en œuvre pour l’année
de financement 2005 à titre de mesure intérimaire, établiraient un cadre
administratif et de gestion fondé sur les pratiques et la politique actuelles.
Au cours de la phase 2, le processus administratif et de gestion serait précisé
et adapté selon les examens de la politique de financement.
En dépit
du fait que l’Examen du financement communautaire ne portait que sur le
financement accordé à des organismes communautaires pour la prestation de
services sociaux, de santé et de loisirs, le rapport et les recommandations
qu’il renferme apportent une contribution importante à l’élaboration d’un cadre
que les autres Services peuvent appliquer à leurs propres programmes de financement
communautaire.
BACKGROUND
In 2003, staff within the Community Funding Division introduced additional accountability measures and requirements for agencies receiving sustaining funding. The budget submission document for 2004 allocations required agencies to provide detailed information on the agency, the services they provide with funding from the City, the agency’s financial statements, their governance structure (Board of Directors), an outcomes report and their estimated 2004 budget, including unavoidable cost increases. Staff reviewed each submission and contacted agencies where there was missing documentation. Agencies were advised that no payment for 2004 would be issued until all required documentation was received and reviewed.
The objectives of the community funding process review were to establish standardized documentation, reporting, monitoring and evaluation procedures for all funded partnerships. This supports increased accountability and efficiency in the management and administration of community funding. The consultants, J. Coflin and Associates, reviewed file documentation, interviewed staff, agency representatives and other funders and reviewed various funding “best practices”. The consultant’s findings and recommendations are outlined in the following sections.
DISCUSSION
The goal of the Community Funding Process Review was
to recommend process improvements to ensure sound fiscal management,
appropriate accountability for funding allocations, transparent decision-making
and effective risk management. To
accomplish this, the consultant gathered information to document the City’s
current processes, identify “best practices,” and conduct a gaps analysis
before identifying proposed solutions. The consultant reviewed available
Community Funding management documents and reports to City committees and
Council, examined a sample of the files that the Community Funding Division
maintains for each agency or organization that has received funding and
interviewed City staff and managers. The consultant also examined the funding
program management and administrative practices of the cities of Edmonton,
Vancouver and Toronto, the United Way/Centraide and the City of Ottawa’s
funding program for arts and heritage organizations.
Finally, the consultant interviewed representatives
of a small sample of the agencies and organizations that receive sustaining
funding.
The consultant identified the following process
elements to help structure its data collection and analysis:
·
Solicitation Process: The
methods used to inform potential applicants about the funding program.
·
Application: The kinds of information that applicants must submit and the format
of those submissions
·
Screening & Assessment: The
methods used to review, evaluate and assess whether an application is eligible
for and should be recommended for funding.
·
Decision-Making: The person or body authorized
to make the ultimate funding decision.
·
Terms and Conditions: The duration
of the funding and the rules that determine accountability.
·
Reporting: The kinds of performance information that funding recipients must
provide to the funding body.
·
Contribution Management: The role
of the funding program staff in monitoring and/or supporting the recipient of
funding to help ensure that the conditions are met and funding program goals
are achieved.
Based on its research and knowledge of a variety of
public sector funding programs, the consultant identified the practices and
procedures used by the funding programs that were examined that represent best
practices, practices that best exemplify qualities associated with effective
and responsible program management:
·
Transparency: people are informed, in a timely manner, of any decision that affect
them, the individual or body that makes such decisions, the reasons for the
decision and the steps that they can take if they wish to dispute the
decision. In the case of funding programs,
transparency requires, among other things, that applicants are fully informed
of the factors that will be considered by the funding authority and that the
public have ready access to information about who receives funds, for what
purposes and in what amounts.
·
Accountability: individuals and organizations involved in a shared venture, such as
public funding for community services, agree to undertake clearly defined
responsibilities, to openly demonstrate how they have fulfilled their
obligations, and to accept reasonable consequences if they fail to fulfill the
obligations.
·
Fairness: funding decisions are based on known criteria so that organizations
that apply for funding have a reasonable opportunity to present their case to
the decision maker and that they be assured that their submission will be
treated on its merits. It also means that the funding authority has the
assurance that the information provided by the applicant is complete and
accurate.
·
Efficiency: the resources invested in the process, by both the applicant and the
funding authority, are reasonable and proportionate to the benefits each
expects to gain from the process.
In the end, the project team found that virtually
every element of the sustaining funding process was weak in comparison with the
best practice standards. For the most part the weakness were a direct
consequence of the City’s decision to manage the amalgamated funding program
while trying to respect pre-amalgamation policies and procedures.
In order to move toward a more transparent, accountable,
fair and efficient community funding program that will be able to adapt to
changing circumstances, needs and priorities, the consultant proposed that
funding process improvements be implemented in two phases. Phase 1
recommendations, implemented for the 2005 funding year as an interim measure,
would establish a revised management and administrative framework based on
current practices and policy. In
Phase 2, the administrative and management processes would be refined and
adapted following funding policy reviews.
Phase
1 – Interim Improvements
1.
That,
as an interim measure, the City adopt the former RMOC “Funding Principles And
Criteria for Purchases Of Service (Sustaining) Funding” (see Document 2) as the
policy framework for 2005 sustaining contributions. Specifically, that the
funding criteria be:
Service Focus – Sustaining contributions
must be used to deliver, or support the delivery of a health, recreational or
social service, including direct, planning and advocacy services, to residents
of the City of Ottawa.
Community Accessibility - Services should be
accessible to all and organizations receiving sustaining contributions should
have appropriate policies respecting access.
Community Linkages - Organizations receiving
sustaining contributions must work collaboratively and cooperatively with other
related service providers in Ottawa.
Community Accountability - The organization must be
accountable for its operation and performance to the community through a Board
of Directors fairly elected by the general membership or other suitable body.
Consumer Involvement - Consumers should be
involved in the determination of services whenever possible, including
participation on the board of directors and in program evaluation.
Board of Directors/Steering
Committee -
The organization’s Board or other governing body must serve in a voluntary
capacity and should be representative of the community it serves.
Human Rights Code - Organizations receiving
sustaining contributions must operate in a non-discriminatory manner in all
dealings with clients and staff, as upheld by the Ontario Human Rights Code.
Fundraising – As appropriate,
organizations must demonstrate efforts to obtain funding from other sources in
addition to the City of Ottawa. Where appropriate and feasible, consideration
must be given to the ability of the clients to contribute financially to the
cost of the service.
Operational Efficiency - The organization must
demonstrate economic and efficient use of all resources such as property,
staff, volunteers, and funds.
Program Effectiveness - The organization must
demonstrate an ability to produce and report results of value and benefit to
the client.
2.
That
sustaining funding submission forms for 2005 be modeled after the application
form used by the City of Toronto. The form would be designed to accommodate the
requirements of smaller organizations. The submission form would collect the
information such as:
=
Agency
name and contact information;
=
Governance
(board of directors, by-laws, key officials, legal status, membership, etc);
=
General
and, as appropriate, program specific financial details;
=
Program
and/or service descriptions;
=
Funding
requests, including the rationale for any increase in funding;
=
Limited
performance information with provision, where appropriate, for agencies and
organizations to use materials they have prepared to address the accountability
requirements of other funding bodies (e.g., United Way/Centraide; Trillium
Foundation); and
=
Evidence
of compliance with funding criteria such as accessibility of services
3.
That
sustaining funding submission forms include a provision whereby the applicants
would demonstrate their acceptance of standard conditions by signing the
application.
4.
That
the standard conditions be modelled on those used by the City for its 3-year
funding to arts and heritage organizations (See Document 3).
5.
That
the Community Funding Division continue to screen each sustaining funding
submission to determine whether all required information and documentation has
been provided. If the submission is
complete, the Division would send the applicant a letter confirming receipt and
informing the organization of the expected decision making schedule. If the
submission is incomplete, the Division would send the applicant a letter
identifying the omission(s) and specifying that the application would not be
given further consideration until the City had received it.
6.
That
submissions receive no further consideration if the Community Funding Division
has not received all required information and documents by the stated deadline.
7.
That
the Division evaluate each sustaining funding submission to assess the extent
to which it meets the criteria adopted in response to recommendation #2 and
prepare a brief assessment report on each submission.
8.
That,
in the process of evaluating a submission, the Division consult with any City
department or agency with a direct interest in the services or programs dealt
with in the submission. This process
would help ensure that the programs and services that receive community funding
from the City are consistent with related City policy and services. It would
also give the Community Funding Division the benefit of the experience of the
other City departments and agencies that work with, or in some instances, fund
the organization or program in question.
9.
That
the Division provide the organization with a copy of the assessment report of
its submission and the Division’s recommendations, including recommendations
for additional or amended conditions before the application is submitted to the
decision maker to assist in determining whether funding should be approved and
the amount. This disclosure will help ensure the transparency of the review,
assessment and decision processes.
10.
That
the Community Funding Division provide the Director, Cultural Services and
Community Funding, with a copy of the staff assessment and any submission made
by the sustaining funding applicant in response to that assessment in advance
of funding authorizations.
11.
That
the Community Funding Division use the assessment completed in the submission
review process as the basis for the development of a formal schedule of agency
contacts with funded organizations both to monitor program performance and to
enhance the exchange of information about program development and community
needs, and to facilitate planning on part of both the Branch and recipient
organizations.
12.
That,
at the earliest opportunity, the City adopt a basic policy framework for
sustaining contributions, one modeled on the frameworks established for the
community project and arts and heritage funding programs. The framework may
include specialized policies, eligibility criteria and reporting requirements
for individual categories of program/service (e.g., Neighbourhood Recreational
Services, General Counselling and Support Services, Seniors Support Services,
etc.)
13.
That
the City of Ottawa implement a procedure, modeled on policies adopted by the
Arts and Heritage Organizations Operating Funding Program, whereby
organizations and/or programs assessed as being low risk according to criteria
established during the policy review be subject to a full application and
assessment every three years, subject to the satisfaction of annual interim
reporting requirements.
That the implementation of
the triennial review policy be staggered to establish, over three years, a
rotating review schedule to evenly distribute the workload of agency reviews
over time. To accomplish this, one third of the agencies that are assessed as
low-risk during the review of their applications for 2006 funding be scheduled
for a full review for 2009 funding, a third would be scheduled for 2008, and
the balance would be scheduled for 2007.
The determination of the
level of risk would be based on an evaluation of factors such as:
·
the
organization’s financial performance (deficits, unrestricted reserves,
observations contained in audits or management letters from auditors);
·
demonstrated
capacity to deliver services of an acceptable quality;
·
evidence
that the organization’s program or services address a continuing need and
priority in the City of Ottawa;
·
complaints
from the public; and
·
the
organization’s governance, accountability and management structures.
14.
That
any recipient of sustaining funding assessed as presenting a risk based on
previous performance, the innovative nature of their services they provide, or
other factors, be subject to annual reviews until the level of risk is reduced.
15.
That
the City establish standard conditions for sustaining funding that would be
accepted by the applicant at the time that the application is submitted.
16. That the City retain the
right to specify additional or special conditions to address issues identified
in the assessment of the organization’s application and that these conditions
be set out in an appropriate letter of understanding signed by both parties
before any funding is released.
17. That organizations entering
into multi-year sustaining funding arrangements be required to submit an annual
interim report consisting of a copy of its most recent audited or independently
reviewed financial statement, a copy of its most recent annual report, a copy
of the minutes of its most recent annual meeting, a financial statement for the
year to date and a budget for the year coming, and a program performance
report.
CONSULTATION
The external consultants met with staff
representatives across the Corporation as well as with a sample of agencies
receiving sustained funding from Community Funding.
The Coflin report has been separately distributed to
all members of the Executive Management Committee to consider the recommendation
in the context of community funding provided by other City Departments.
There are no financial implications to approving
this report.
Document 1
- Community Funding Review Process Report – J. Coflin & Associates – on
file with the City Clerk
Document 2 - Funding Principles and Criteria for Purchases of Service (Sustaining) Funding (from former Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton)
Document 3 - Terms and Conditions for Recipients of Three-year Funding (Model) – (based on Terms and Conditions for Arts and Heritage Organizations)
Community and Protective Services Department to
implement the Coflin recommendations described in this report.
Document
2
FUNDING PRINCIPLES AND
CRITERIA
FOR PURCHASES OF SERVICE
(SUSTAINING) FUNDING 1
(from Former Regional
Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton)
1.
Principles
1.1.
The
Social Services Department has a responsibility to provide financial assistance
to organizations which provide social services to the residents of
Ottawa-Carleton.
1.2
The
Social Services Department will purchase social services that are consistent
with the Department's mandate and meet the needs of the community.
1.3
The
Social Services Department funding must be used to serve predominantly
low-income persons.
2.
Eligibility Criteria
2.1
Community
Need - Mandate of the agency, as clearly defined in the goals and objectives of
the agency, must provide a service or fill a need as determined by the
Department in consultation with the community.
2.2
Service
Focus - Funds provided by RMOC must be used to assist persons in financial
need. Funding can be used to provide direct services, planning and advocacy
programs.
2.3
Community
Accessibility - Agency services should be accessible to all 1ow-income clients
from across the Region in need of services. Policies should be in place
regarding accessibility based upon language, literacy, gender, disability,
sexual orientation, age, or race.
2.4
Community
Linkages - Agency must work collaboratively and cooperatively with other
related service providers in RMOC.
2.5
Community
Accountability - The organization must be accountable for its operation and
performance to the community through a Board of Directors fairly elected by the
general membership.
2.6
Consumer
Involvement - Consumers should be involved in the determination of services
whenever possible, including participation on the board of directors and in
program evaluation.
2.7
Board
of Directors/Steering Committee - The Board must serve in a voluntary capacity
and should be representative of the community it serves. The Board must have
democratic election procedures in place.
2.8
Human
Rights Code - Agencies, in all dealings with clients and staff, must operate in
a non-discriminatory manner as upheld by the Ontario Human Rights Code.
2.9
Legal
Status - The organization requesting purchase of service (sustaining) funds
must be, or must be in the process of becoming, incorporated as a non-profit
organization and should be registered under the Canada Income Tax Act for the
purpose of receiving charitable donations; or alternatively partner with an
incorporated organization. In instances where several groups or organizations
join together to form a network or association, one incorporated organization
is to accept the lead role.
2.10
Fundraising
- Agencies must demonstrate efforts to access other sources of funding. Where
appropriate and feasible, consideration must be given to the ability of the
clients to contribute financially to the cost of the service.
2.11
Operational
Efficiency - The organization must demonstrate economic and efficient use of
all resources such as property, staff, vo1unteers, and funds.
2.12
Program
Effectiveness - The organization must demonstrate an ability to produce results
of value and benefit to the client.
3.
Eligibility Evaluation Criteria
3.1
Community
Need - Service must demonstrate its relevance to the Department's mandate and
Strategic Plan.
3.2
Clarity
- Project must have clear goals and objectives and must provide a clear
description of how RMOC funds will be dispensed.
3.3
Linkages
- Organization should work cooperatively and collaboratively with related
agencies in the community. The project should not duplicate an existing
service.
3.4
Accessibility-
Project should be fully accessible to all who require services regardless of
language, age, literacy, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and race.
3.5
Staffing
- Staffing for the project should be adequate and reasonable.
3.6
Evaluation
- An appropriate evaluation plan of the project should be included in the
application. This evaluation should involve consumer input. An agency
self-evaluation will be required during the term of each contract.
3.7
Consumer
Involvement - Consumers should be involved in the service. This includes
involvement in the project's development and participation on the board and/or
steering committee.
3.8
Financial
Information - Application must be accompanied by competed RMOC budget forms,
most recent audited report, and indications of plans for future funding.
4.
Ineligible
The
Department Will Not Fund:
4.1
Organizations
which have a political affiliation.
4.2
Organizations
such as service clubs which act primarily as a funding source for any other
organization or group.
4.3
Activities
focused primarily on education, health, preservation of culture, recreation, or
child care.
4.4
Organizations
where the social service component is conditional upon participation in the
religious activities of the organization.
4.5
Funds
to recover the cost of an organization's financial deficits.
4.6
Capital
costs such as purchase of buildings, vehicles, large equipment.
4.7
Provincial
or national organization unless a local chapter/branch exists to serve only the
residents of RMOC.
Document 3
(Based on Terms and
Conditions used for Arts and Heritage Organizations)
1. Definitions
“Applicant”
means the applicant organization which submitted an application to the City of
Ottawa’s Arts Funding Program.
“Grant”
means funding from the Arts Funding
Program.
“Recipient”
means the applicant organization, which submitted the application, which has
agreed to be bound by these terms and conditions and which has been awarded
3-year funding by the City of Ottawa.
2. Time
Frame
These
terms and conditions shall be in effect for three years from the date of grant
receipt.
3. Acknowledgement
of Funding
The Recipient shall publicly acknowledge the support of the City of Ottawa in print and verbally in all publicity, promotional materials, informational materials, press materials and at public occasions relating to the program for which funds have been granted. See the Arts Funding Program Guidelines for more details.
4. Purpose
of Grant
Grants
shall only be used for the purposes of the program as described in the grant
application. Major changes in the
programming, organizational structure or community impact of the program shall
only be made with the City’s prior written approval.
Funds
are not available for the following: municipal taxes, transportation, office
furniture, major capital expenditures or requests to cover a deficit from a
previous year. Grants will only be made
to the agency directly responsible for the program being funded.
Grants will not be made when the purpose of the activity is to raise funds for a separate organization.
5. Unused
Funds
Any
unused portion of the grant remains the property of the City, and if already
paid to the Recipient by the City shall be repaid to the City of Ottawa.
6. Assignment
of Grant
Neither
the Applicant nor the Recipient shall assign this application or grant
respectively without the prior written consent of the City.
7. Disposal
of Assets
For
assets purchased either in whole or in part with City funds, the cost of which
exceeds $5,000.00, the Recipient shall not sell, lease or otherwise dispose of
those assets without the prior written consent of the City.
8. Repayment
of Grant
The
Recipient shall, at the request of the City, repay to the City the whole or any
portion of the grant if the Recipient:
i)
experiences
a change in its ownership or control, without the prior written consent of the
City;
ii)
ceases
operation;
iii)
is
wound up or dissolved;
iv)
has
knowingly provided any false information in the application and any
attachments;
v)
uses
funds for purposes other than those detailed in the grant application;
vi)
breaches
any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement;
vii)
breaches
any of the provisions of Human Rights Code, 1981, as amended, or other
applicable legislation, regulations or by-laws in the operation of the program;
viii)
commences,
or has commenced against it, any proceedings in bankruptcy or is adjudged
bankrupt.
Where
required, the grant shall be repaid by cheque payable to the City of Ottawa,
and mailed to the People Services Department, Office of Cultural Affairs, 495
Richmond Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K2A 0G3.
9. Changes
to grants
The
3-year funding amount awarded to the applicant may change over the designated
time period under the following circumstances:
i) the organization fails in a significant way to meet its own stated objectives or fails to execute its confirmed program of activities;
ii)
the
organization undergoes significant changes to senior artistic and/or
administrative personnel and a disruption of activities is predicted;
iii)
the
organization fails to meet its financial obligations and /or the required
reports are not forwarded to the Department of People Services in a timely
manner;
iv)
City
Council is unable to fulfill its funding commitments resulting from a reduction
in its budget.
10.
Accounting
The
Recipient shall keep and maintain records, invoices and other documents
relating to the grant in a manner consistent with generally accepted accounting
principles and clerical practices, and shall maintain such records for a period
of three years from grant receipt.
The Recipient
authorizes the City and its agents at all reasonable times to inspect and copy
any records, invoices and documents in the possession or under the control of
the Recipient which relate to the grant.
The
right of inspection under this paragraph includes the right to perform a full
or partial audit.
11.
Limitation of Liability Indemnification and Insurance
The Recipient agrees that the City shall not be liable for any incidental, indirect, special or consequential damages, injury or any loss of use, revenue or profit of the Recipient arising out of or in any way related to the program.
The
Recipient agrees that it shall indemnify the City, its employees and agents,
against all costs incurred as a result of a claim or proceeding related to the
program, unless it was caused by the negligence or wilful act of an employee of
the City.
12.
Report
The
Recipient shall submit an annual report upon completion of each of the three
years for which it has received funding.
These reports shall provide all details required by the City. Upon request of the City, the Recipient
shall submit interim progress reports to the People Services Department.
13.
Additional Terms
The
City shall be entitled to amend or impose such additional terms and conditions
in its letter of approval, in its sole discretion as it deems necessary and
shall be entitled to impose such terms and conditions on any consent granted
pursuant to this application, as it deems necessary.
COMMUNITY FUNDING PROCESS
REVIEW /
EXAMEN DU PROCESSUS DE FINANCEMENT COMMUNAUTAIRE
ACS2004-CPS-CSF-0022
Councillor Bédard indicated that many organizations are concerned about
the amount of documentation and compilation they have to provide the City as
part of their application for funding and believed that a less onerous approach
should be taken for organizations requesting small amounts. Colleen Hendrick, Director, Cultural
Services and Community Funding, explained that the consultants did recognize
this and the fact that smaller organizations are driven by volunteer boards and
part of the issue should be to identify what organizations represent more risk
than others; this is why there are more accountabilities in place. There is recognition that all organizations
should report on key components and identify which of those require a different
approach. That part of the policy
review would include moving to a three-year funding cycle, whereby
organizations would not have to submit all the documentation every year.
When asked whether there were community groups consulted as part of this
review, Ms. Hendrick confirmed that nine key agencies were involved in the
process. They each received executive
summaries of the report and all provided positive feedback. In response to a question posed by
Councillor Feltmate, Ms. Hendrick advised that recreational groups were not
included in the sample group consulted.
The councillor was interested to see if there are different ways of
managing those differences.
Councillor Doucet stated that the recommendation seems to put a focus on
service delivery, but very little on community development. The Deputy City Manager for Community and
Protective Services, Steve Kanellakos explained that the Department is moving
toward community development and are developing a strategic framework on
priorities based on the 20/20 Growth Plans (Human Services and Arts and
Heritage). In the Fall, staff will
bring forward a report on service delivery principles and will discuss with the
committee the approach the Department will take and the role community
development will play in the way the City fosters and enhances its’ service in
the community.
The councillor also noted the reference to ‘charitable status’ in the
Consultant’s report (Document 1 refers) and asked whether there could be a
clause to separate community development vs. community delivery. Ms. Hendrick advised that those are
schedules of priorities used in the former Social Services Department and what
will be brought back will be more specific to community funding administration.
With respect to the funding principles of the former Region, Councillor
Feltmate wondered whether there are groups that have difficulties with boards,
steering committees, et cetera and whether there is training for those bodies
through the YMCA for example. And, when
those issues are identified, she wanted to know how the City would reflect
supporting community capacity building for those organizations to remain
sustainable. Ms. Hendrick advised that
there have been some organizations that have struggled within their board governance
model and staff have provided support and resources to help them resolve their
problems. She recognized it is the
City’s role to help them become stronger.
Councillor Stavinga suggested such information should be flagged in the
budget directions and was advised by the Deputy City Manager that while the
directions are in formulation now, it is not clear what kind of details it will
contain. He believed that some of the
broader directions, particularly around the 20/20 Growth Plans should be
incorporated. The councillor encouraged
the Deputy City Manager to communicate her suggestion so that staff fully
understands the value offered by community groups.
In response to further questions posed by the councillor, staff advised
that the new funding formula would be brought forward in a report for 2005,
with implementation scheduled for 2006.
Ms. Hendrick confirmed there would be a lot of consultation as part of
the policy development, especially in light of the proposal to revise and
simplify the application format. When
asked whether agencies would be alerted to the upcoming changes, she indicated
that the application forms would contain directions, along with information
about Phase 2 of the program. The
councillor asked for the list of organizations it is going to and which of
those were consulted.
Councillor Cullen suggested that giving a message to move from the one
to three-year funding does not help build long-term relationships; community
development is a very necessary part of building capacity to deal with social
issues so it is very important to realize what those are. Mr. Kanellakos indicated that multi-year
funding and budgeting is consistent with this approach of predictability,
sustainability and how the City approaches community development.
Councillor Brooks was concerned to learn that none of the nine groups
consulted were from the rural area and was concerned about the proposal to move
from a one to three year funding scheme and the impact this would have on
organizations in the rural area. Ms.
Hendrick explained that sustaining funding includes the rural areas and that
all organizations that were receiving funding in the former municipalities
continue to be funded. The councillor’s
concerns were based on the fact the rural areas do not have the same population
base as the urban and suburban areas and believed the gap between the two would
increase because the demands in latter two are expanding. The Director advised that increased demand
in the future would be examined as part of the funding priorities.
In response to questions posed by Councillor Bédard with regards to
funding priorities, i.e., arts vs. others, the Director explained that
priorities would be established early in the Fall with a policy framework in
terms of funding to be created in 2005 and recommendations brought forward in
time for the 2006 budget. The
councillor suggested the discussion on establishing priorities occur before
budget, so organizations understand what funds are available and for what
priorities. The Deputy City Manager
advised that this would be the first step in terms of the draft budget
directions report and which would be finalized late in October or early
November. In March of 2005 and over a
nine-month period, staff would be in the process of defining priorities, doing
a broader public consultation process and allowing Council to be more specific
on its priorities.
That the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee recommend Council:
1. Approve the consultant phase 1 recommendations, as outlined in this report, to be implemented as part of the 2005 budget process, and
2. Direct staff to report back with recommendations respecting the consultant’s phase 2 proposals, as outlined in this report, in anticipation of the 2006 budget process.
CARRIED