Graffiti Transformation Program -
1999 Recommended Allocations
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends the adoption of the
Recommendation of the Municipal Grants Review Committee embodied in the following
communication (May 10, 1999) from the City Clerk.
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee reports, for the information of Council,
having requested the Chief Administrative Officer to submit a report directly to Council for its
meeting scheduled to be held on June 9, 1999, on how this venture can be monitored to ensure
that the Graffiti Transportation Project is actually being undertaken and the grant is being
properly utilized.
The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee submits the following communication
(May10,1999) from the City Clerk:
Recommendation:
The Municipal Grants Review Committee on May 10, 1999, recommended to the Strategic
Policies and Priorities Committee the adoption of the attached report (April 22, 1999) from
the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting the Graffiti
Transformation Program - 1999 Recommended Allocations, subject to amending the
Appendix A referred to in Recommendation No. (1) to provide that the grant allocation to
"Homo Air Ectus" be increased by $1,958.00 for a total 1999 allocation of $26,000.00.
Mr. Mark Dias, "Homo Air Ectus", appeared before the Municipal Grants Review Committee
to appeal the recommendation in the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development Services.
--------
(Report dated April 22, 1999, addressed to the
Municipal Grants Review Committee from the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services)
Purpose:
To recommend grants to 14 organizations for the removal of graffiti and the transformation of
vandalized surfaces into murals. The decision to initiate the Graffiti Transformation Program
arose from presentations to the Neighbourhoods Committee of the former City of Toronto
regarding the deterioration of communities caused in part by the proliferation of graffiti. As a
reinvestment in both the liveability of urban neighbourhoods and the youth in those
communities, agencies train and employ young people to carry out the work.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds for this grant program are available in the Consolidated Grants budget. There are no
other financial implications.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)grants be provided to community groups to engage in Graffiti Transformation as shown
in Appendix A; such Grants are deemed to be in the interest of the Municipality;
(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect
thereto.
(3)early in 2000, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report on
the evaluation of the Graffiti Transformation Program in 1999 with particular emphasis on the
first year progress of new groups in former municipalities where the program was not
previously available.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The Council of the former City of Toronto established a program for the removal of graffiti
and the transformation of the defaced sites into murals in 1996. The decision to initiate the
Graffiti Transformation Program arose from presentations to the Neighbourhoods Committee
of the former City of Toronto regarding the deterioration of communities caused in part by the
proliferation of graffiti. Staff of the Planning Division were asked to investigate and comment
on a presentation on the subject by the Christie Ossington Neighbourhood Centre.
Subsequently, the Graffiti Transformation Program was established as a grant to community
groups.
Participating agencies create training and business experience for youth in the field of graffiti
removal and outdoor art. In this way an opportunity was created to ameliorate neighbourhood
deterioration and, since much of the graffiti is perpetrated by youth, to involve their peers in
learning about the adverse effects of the vandalism in retail and residential neighbourhoods as
a proactive intervention. In the process, valuable skills are learned in remediation methods,
business practice and community relations.
A Community Economic Development (C.E.D.) model was the chosen approach. This
approach, described in detail in Appendix C, involves the hiring of youth by local
organizations who would provide training and development for them while carrying out the
service. This will be the fourth year of operation within the boundaries of the former City of
Toronto and the first year in other former Municipalities of the new City.
Comments:
A community suffers when areas previously enjoyed by everyone become the "property" of a
group, making others uncomfortable about using the space. People will stay away when the
"tagging" of an area, (graffiti labels and initials applied on public or private property) becomes
more common than proper use of the public space. This discomfort, by keeping people away,
adds to the sense of danger and can make an area even more unsafe, since there is none of the
informal surveillance provided by those relaxing on park benches or moving through the
laneway after parking their car. This in turn encourages more graffiti, creating a vicious circle.
In 1996, the former City of Toronto Council established a program for the removal of graffiti
and the transformation of the defaced sites into murals. The program was designed to enhance
the affected neighbourhoods. The work could have been carried out in a variety of ways such
as contracts with private muralists, by way of public competitions or by adult art clubs.
At the time, the Department also had a mandate to work on youth unemployment as well as
neighbourhood planning, improvement and revitalization issues. A Community Economic
Development (C.E.D.) model involving the hiring of youth by local organizations who would
provide training and development for them while carrying out the service was designed and
proposals were sought from community groups.
A description of C.E.D models is included in Appendix C.
An interdepartmental team including staff from Urban Planning and Development Services,
Parks and Recreation, and Works and Emergency Services, as well as the Toronto Arts
Council are responsible for reviewing proposals and recommending allocations.
In 1996, five groups were awarded a total of $179,589.00. Those groups produced 18 murals
and cleaned several hundred smaller graffiti sites. The groups also leveraged a further
$124,959.00 from a combination of sales and other funders as well as $10,683.00 in the form
of free time, talent, materials and small donations. This total of $315,231.00 in combined
resources resulted in 80 youth directly received $159,861.00.
Following the success of the 1996 Graffiti Transformation Program, the former City repeated
the program in 1997 allocating $286,000.00 to 12 groups. The program resulted in 68 murals
and the cleaning of over four hundred units of graffiti where murals were not appropriate or
desired. Other donations of time, materials and cash, as well as sales of the service by the
youth, increased the value of the 1997 program to $394,956.61, an increase of 38 percent over
the City grants envelope. Onehundred and eighteen (118) youth were employed in the program
and paid $205,494.88 in wages and stipends.
In 1998, in accordance with granting policy, the program budget and availability remained
unchanged from pre-amalgamation guidelines. The twelve groups again participated,
producing a further 51 murals, cleaning 30 sites and 625 tags from small street installations. In
addition, one group now offers backlane addresses for emergency identification and several
are receiving commissions for private works of art. In the process they created 117 jobs and 24
casual work opportunities for youth. Well over $72,000.00 was raised by these groups from
donations, sales and other funders.
Over the three-year life of the program, over 1,000 "tags" have been removed, 30 sites have
been cleaned and 137 murals have been created. Along the way, nearly 350 youth have
received paying work as well as training in the technical aspects of graffiti removal, outdoor
art and business skills.
In addition to the interest demonstrated by donations and sales, the youth experienced many
indications of approval from their respective communities - kind words, assistance, applause -
as well as being drawn into the fabric of the community in a way many may not have
previously experienced.
The 1999 Program:
This year, requests totalled $372,223.00 as compared to a budget of $284,300.00. Reductions
have been discussed with the review committee which attempted to consider factors such as
the proponent's experience and ability to raise other amounts, age of and disadvantages faced
by the youth resulting in higher supervision requirements and requests too small to withstand
cuts without resulting in an unrealistic proposal. The recommended allocations are shown in
Appendix A, while project descriptions are shown in Appendix B.
Council policy respecting grants for 1999 required all programs to be made available
City-wide for the first time, allowing the program to include proposals from new groups. In
anticipation of limited funds to expand availability to a much larger City, staff provided all
Councillors with materials on the program and requested their assistance in identifying groups
in their constituencies with an interest in the issue and a capacity to deliver the program. An
introductory information session was held in the fall and follow-up conversations continued
throughout the winter and spring with attendees and others who expressed interest. A final
session was held in spring for those who were still interested and, as a result, 14 proposals
were received as described in Appendix B.
Three of those proposals are from communities in former municipalities where the program
was previously unavailable and discussions are underway with a group in a fourth for
inclusion in next year's program. The budget process has resulted in an additional $34,300.00
being made available for this purpose and the new groups are to be congratulated for their
co-operation in recognizing the limited resources available.
Evaluation of this year's program will be reported prior to recommendations for 2000. It is
expected that for purposes of geographic distribution, the City will be viewed from the
framework of this Department's Planning Districts that year.
Conclusions:
In order to continue the Graffiti Transformation Program in 1999, grants should be awarded as
described in Appendix A. Staff will report prior to the next budget cycle with respect to
further expanding the program availability as well as this year's results. This report will be
made to the Planning and Transportation Committee.
Contact Name:
Larry King, Planner, Tel: 392-0622.
--------
Appendix A: 1999 Recommended Allocations
Graffiti Transformation Project
Applicant1998 Allocation1999 Request1999 Recommended
Cecil Community Centre $22,000.00 $29,033.00 $22,000.00
Christie Ossington $25,000.00 $41,320.00 $23,043.00
Neighbourhood Centre
Community Business $15,000.00 $18,000.00 $15,000.00
Resource Centre
Community Centre 55 $21,000.00 $31,000.00 $21,000.00
Davenport Perth
Neighbourhood Centre $22,000.00 $22,000.00 $22,000.00
Dixon Hall $23,000.00 $21,978.00 $21,000.00
Neighbourhood Centre
Pape Adolescent $25,000.00 $34,626.00 $23,043.00
Resource Centre
Native Child & Family $34,000.00 $34,500.00 $28,043.00
Services of Toronto
"Homo Air Ectus" $26,000.00 $26,000.00 $24,042.00
St. Christopher House $10,000.00 $16,433.00 $10,000.00
Scadding Court Community $ 6,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00
Centre
LAMP N/A $25,756.00 $23,043.00
Arts York N/A $30,000.00 $23,043.00
West Scarborough N/A $35,577.00 $23,043.00
Community Centre
Totals$250,000.00$372,223.00$284,300.00
--------
Appendix B: Description of Applicants Proposals
Graffiti Transformation Project
The establishment of local organizations to solve local problems has a long history in Toronto.
More recently, strategies to include economic components in community-based endeavours
have received support from the Federal, Provincial and Municipal Governments. The City of
Toronto first became involved in such efforts in 1980 with a grant program providing funds
for feasibility studies and start-up costs. Eventually, the City supported the development of the
Community Business Resource Centre to provide development and training and the Greater
Toronto Community Loan Fund to provide capital. This Department currently works closely
with these organizations on a variety of programs to encourage and support self-employment,
community businesses and retail strip revitalization programs.
In Community Economic Development terms, there are two basic models that are used
depending on the issue being addressed, the financial scenario and the outcomes that are
sought. Community-based training models generally address issues of preparation for the
work force and use business opportunities as a vehicle for this effort. The employees generally
work in the business until the required training occurs or their term (as determined by program
guidelines) is complete. Assistance in a job search is then offered. Skills for Change and
Trinity Square Enterprises are examples of this model.
Community Businesses operate on a model that emphasizes the provision of jobs in a more
traditional sense. Although training occurs, the focus is on enabling the employee or member
to perform well enough to stay with the business as opposed to finding employment
elsewhere. Where particular employment issues are evident (for example, medical concerns,
single parenthood, the need to continue formal education). Accommodations are built into the
operational model to mitigate the impact of the employment barrier while allowing the person
to still earn money from productive employment. AWAY Express (a ten-year old courier
business using public transit) and Prezents of Mind (a craft store) are examples of Community
Businesses.
Both types of organizations are incorporated as non-profits (corporations without share
capital) enabling them to partner with both public and private organizations as well as
voluntary and private sector foundations. There is frequently overlap in the models and few
are purely training or business oriented. Similarly, the best and most durable have a diverse
financial base usually including formal and informal arrangements with the public, private and
voluntary sectors in addition to revenue from sales.
A key component in most successful models is the ongoing involvement of public sector
funders. Traditionally, Federal and Provincial agencies have played significant roles in this
regard due to their employment and economic development mandates. However there is an
argument to be made for Municipal involvement both from the perspective of defining issues
and approaches locally and based on the view that cities suffer the most direct and evident
results of unemployment, and in this instance, the social, economic and visual impact of
graffiti.
It appears, after reviewing the experience of the Christie Ossington Community Centre with
their staff, that a community-based training model is appropriate at this point. The possibility
of conversion to some form of community business in the future may be worth evaluating after
an initial pilot.