City of Toronto  
HomeContact UsHow Do I...?Advanced search
Living in TorontoDoing businessVisiting TorontoAccessing City Hall
 
Accessing City Hall
Mayor
Councillors
Meeting Schedules
   
   
  City of Toronto Council and Committees
  All Council and Committee documents are available from the City of Toronto Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@city.toronto.on.ca.
   

 

July 27, 1998

To:Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee

From:City Clerk

Subject:Development of the Municipal Grants Policy

Recommendations:

The Municipal Grants Review Committee on July 27, 1998, recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council:

(i)the adoption of the report of the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services;

(ii)that consultation on the Municipal Grants Policy be as follows:

(a)through local Councillors, including initiatives such as questionnaries; and

(b)through solicited written submissions and meetings with stakeholders identified by staff and Councillors; and

(iii)that deputations on the Municipal Grants Policy be heard only at the Municipal Grants Review Committee; and that the necessary Bill be introduced at Council to give effect thereto, if necessary;

The Municipal Grants Review Committee reports, for information, having:

(1)requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to:

(i)develop a questionnaire for Councillors to distribute to their respective communities, in order to achieve the broadest consultation possible; and

(ii)report to the Municipal Grants Review Committee on the feasibility of a University or private sector polling company undertaking a study, including the development of a questionnaire, as part of the consultation process on the Municipal Grants Policy;

(2)referred to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services the communication dated June 9, 1998, from Councillor Frank Faubert; and

(3)requested the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team to give consideration to amending the Council Procedural By-law to provide for a more effective process for the hearing of deputations in an effort to eliminate duplication.

Background:

The Municipal Grants Review Committee had before it the following report and communication:

-(July 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services providing an overview of the work to date on the development of a Municipal Grants Policy; identifying key issues for consideration; providing a workplan for the remainder of the policy development process; and outlining recommendations in regard thereto; and

-(June 9, 1998) from Councillor Frank Faubert respecting policy development with regard to evaluation of grant applications.

City Clerk

R. Dyers/tl

Item No. 1

Sent to:Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services

Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee

Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team

(Report dated July 20, 1998, addressed to the

Municipal Grants Review Committee from the

Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services)

Purpose:

This report provides an overview of the work to date on the development of a Municipal Grants Policy, identifies key issues for consideration and provides a workplan for the remainder of the policy development process. Appendix "A" provides a brief description of the program reviews occurring within the various grants service areas.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the direction being taken in the development of a Municipal Grants Policy outlined in this report be endorsed;

(2)the workplan outlined in Appendix "D" be approved, with specific reference to when the Municipal Grants Review Committee will hear deputations regarding the Municipal Grants Policy;

(3)this report be forwarded to the City Task Forces addressing Seniors, Access and Equity, Community Safety, Children and Youth, and Homelessness for comment; and

(4) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Council approved the report entitled "Municipal Grants Review Committee" (Clause No. 15, Report No. 3 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee) on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, which established the Municipal Grants Review Committee and directed the Committee to oversee the development of a Municipal Grants Policy.

A three tier policy development structure was established, including: the Municipal Grants Review Committee to oversee the development of the Policy; the Grants Managers Workgroup to address issues of co-ordination and develop policy options for Committee consideration; and Service Area Review Groups to review individual grants programs and to plan for grants program delivery in 1999.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Policy Context:

The establishment of a Municipal Grants Policy at this point in the development of the new City is complicated by the fact that Council has not yet defined its key policy directions. Typically Council policy direction is articulated in a range of key documents including the Official Plan, Strategic Plan, Social Development Strategy, Environmental Plan, etc. Given the time frames required to develop these policies and the need for a Municipal Grants Policy to guide the provision of grants programs in 1999, the latter must be developed ahead of an overall Council policy framework.

Council has established a number of task forces to address specific issue areas or target populations such as Seniors, Access and Equity, Community Safety, Children and Youth, and Homelessness. It is anticipated that the work of the Task Forces will result in a range of recommendations related to municipal grants programs. Again, the timing of the reporting for task forces to Council is later than that of the Municipal Grants Review Committee (most task forces will be providing final reports late in 1998 or early 1999).

Given the challenges with respect to the timing of various City policy initiatives which may affect municipal grants programs and practices, the Municipal Grants Policy will require regular review and revision. In the longer term, it may be appropriate to review the Municipal Grants Policy regularly at the beginning of each term of Council.

Key Concepts:

Given the policy context noted above, it is useful to frame the Municipal Grants Policy within the City mission statement developed by the Toronto Transition Team. The draft mission statement is: "The government of the City of Toronto will promote, protect and support the economic, social, environmental and cultural strength and vitality of the City and its diverse neighbourhoods. It will provide accessible and accountable governance, leadership that brings people together, and responsive, affordable civic services." Flowing from this, the following key concepts can be used to guide the development of the Municipal Grants Policy:

(1)Civic Participation:

Strategic funding enhances the ability of communities to engage in partnerships with the City, which, in turn, facilitates community/resident input and participation in democratic governance.

(2)Community Capacity:

Strategic funding assists communities to locate, utilize and enhance existing talents, resources and infrastructures, and develop new ones. Further, funding enhances the ability of communities to develop and implement community appropriate responses to identified needs, changing needs, and the needs of newly arrived residents.

(3)Equity:

Strategic funding facilitates the achievement of equity objectives.

(4)Relation to City Mission:

Grants programs are a strategically defined mechanism to achieve a politically established mission, priorities and objectives. As the key policy documents noted above are developed, grants programs and purposes will require review and revision to ensure they conform with Council policy direction.

The above list is provided as a starting point in the definition of the key concepts required to underpin the Municipal Grants Policy. It is anticipated that additional key concepts will be identified through the consultation processes now underway.

Why the City Makes Grants:

Grants are one of a range of tools Council can use to achieve its goals and objectives. In determining if and at what level direct financial support is to be provided to community organizations there are a number of questions that must be answered, including what City objectives are met through the provision of grants and why are grants the tool used to achieve those objectives over other possible policy options or service delivery mechanisms. The Municipal Grants Policy will need to define why and when this mechanism is used. In addition to the key concepts noted above, the benefits and costs associated with community based service delivery need to be clearly articulated. Benefits may include affordability, access directly into communities, leverage of additional community resources, and employment creation.

Definitions:

A grant is a transfer of money in return for defined programs, activities, actions, events, services, or products. The nature of the funding provided can vary in terms of what is funded (event, service, project, program, core/sustaining), the potential duration (one-time, ongoing, multi-year), and who can apply (open/competitive, targeted, and negotiated with an identified service provider). The Municipal Grants Policy should further define the range of grants program design options and the considerations to be used in deciding when to use one type of program over another.

All grants programs purchase some kind of service or activity and as a result it is difficult to draw a clear distinction between purchase of service funding and grant funding. Purchase of Service funding tends to closely define not only service outcomes, but also specific details regarding how the service is provided. Purchase of Service also tends to fund 100 percent of the cost of the service provided and is often a service required by Provincial legislation.

Non Cash Benefits Provided by the City:

The City provides a range of supports to community agencies, organizations and groups. These supports include: grants, below market municipal space, surplus equipment, staff support and assistance, tax relief, and other various in-kind supports. The Municipal Grants Policy will define the relationship between grants and other forms of municipal support, however, the policy focus will be on the administration of cash transfers.

There may be an assumption that the administrative systems and skills required to administer one form of support are immediately transferable to the administration of another form of support. This assumption will need to be tested to determine if different skills are required to administer the various forms of municipal support. Regardless of the final administrative model, a consistent approach to the provision of supports to community agencies and groups will be required.

Once the Municipal Grants Policy is developed and approved, elements of the policy may be useful for application to all forms of municipal support.

Administration:

Based on the consultations which have occurred, the research to date and the work of the Grants Managers Workgroup, the following initial directions with respect to an administration framework have emerged:

(1)That for each given funding purpose and program, the responsible department should be given the mandate to undertake the program administration (as is largely the case currently).

(2)That the required mechanisms to ensure adequate and appropriate co-ordination between grants programs, regardless of which Department they are administered by, be developed and implemented.

(3)That there should be no duplication of core funding from City sources. This means that an individual agency/organization can receive core support from only one City grant program, but that a single agency may apply for and receive funding under one or more program or project funding programs.

The specific elements of grants administration under review include: identification of the criteria and information requirements common to all grants programs and other forms of municipal support; development of options for the management of common administration elements/tasks; review of the concept of a two step applicant review process where by the agency eligibility for municipal funding could be determined through a centralized mechanism and program (or activity) eligibility would be determined at the Department/Division level; and identification of the resources and structures required for the range of options identified for consideration.

Consultation:

One of the real challenges for staff has been to determine how to consult in the most effective and efficient way. The Municipal Grants Policy is a significant and complicated policy initiative. The approach has been to carry out consultation primarily at the service review level. Appendix "A" provides a brief summary of each service area review including the consultation work to date and what is planned over the next few months.

Additional consultation on the broader, cross program aspects of the Policy will take place through focus groups with specific stakeholders and through the deputation process at the Municipal Grants Review Committee.

Specific Issues to be Addressed in the Policy:

The Grants Managers Workgroup has identified a range of administrative principles and practices which may apply to all municipal grants programs. These principles and practices will vary in application according to the unique needs addressed through various grants programs. The principles and practices identified can be grouped into the following general areas: accessibility/non discrimination, customer service, program definition, and process. Appendix "B" provides a draft list of the principles and practices being developed.

Research on Grants Practices in Other Cities:

The research to date has focussed on comparable American cities and further research is now being undertaken on Canadian cities and cities in other countries. Two significant initial findings are: no other city has undertaken to develop a Municipal Grants Policy comparable to the work being done here and grants administration is decentralized in the majority of cities which have been contacted. Appendix "C" provides a summary of the research findings to date. A complete report regarding the research on grants practices in other cities will be submitted to the Municipal Grants Review Committee in September.

Update on Policy Development Workplan:

A draft policy will be submitted to the Municipal Grants Review Committee for consideration and discussion at its September 1998 meeting. Staff will edit and revise the proposed policy in accordance with Committee direction and submit a final policy for consideration at the October Committee meeting. Appendix "D" provides a revised Committee workplan.

Conclusions:

The task of developing a Municipal Grants Policy, a process which appears to be unique within a North American context, at this point in the development of the new City structures and strategic policies, is extremely challenging. This report outlines some of the initial considerations and directions being considered and is intended to generate discussion with regard to the general directions to be articulated in the Municipal Grants Policy.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Chris Brillinger

Tel: 392-8608/Fax: 392-8492

cbrillin@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

--------

Appendix "A"

Access and Equity Grants

Overview:

The Access and Equity (former multicultural) grants program has been operating since 1980. The 1998 program provided a total grants fund of $307,000.00 to 29 community-based non-profit organizations to (1) strengthen an anti-racism climate in Toronto, and to (2) promote respect and value for Toronto's multicultural and multiracial character. The program criteria supports three categories namely, (1) activities on anti racism, (2) access and equity development, and (3) anti-hate initiatives.

The review features consultations with a broad range of stakeholders including staff and board members of funded and non-funded organizations, Councillors, other funders and municipal staff. Consultations began in June and continue through September 1998. Comments are also welcomed through mail, fax, e-mail or the website. Nineteen consultations have also been conducted through the Task Force on Community Access and Equity with the broader public on access and equity issues, including the grants program.

In response to the concerns expressed by the Task Force on Community Access and Equity, the Access and Equity Centre is co-ordinating a policy review with grants staff from all of the City's grants programs, in order to formulate a City access and equity policy including a non-discrimination agreement applicable to all City grants programs, users of municipal space, and not-for-profit agencies that receive a tax rebate. The policy will be part of the 1999 Municipal Grants Policy recommendation.

Initial Findings:

The following issues are being consulted on:

(1)What principles and policies should the City adopt for all its grants programs?

(2) Toronto being such a diverse city - should the City continue to fund anti-racism, anti-hate, access and equity grants? Why/why not?

(3)What are your suggestions about how to prioritize funding within the access and equity program?

(4)Wow should the grants administrative process be improved?

(5)What types of accountability mechanisms should the City use?

Key Findings:

(1)Aboriginal communities are distinct and have a special constitutional relationship in Canada. Issues concerning Aboriginal persons should be a City priority.

(2)The City needs to provide grants by identifying sectoral priorities based on "high need" and "communities at risk" indicators. Within each of these sectors, there are individuals and groups of people who are disadvantaged due to racism or ethnocentrism and thus are socially, politically, economically and culturally deprived or isolated.

(3)The Access and Equity grant fund is extremely small in relation to the needs it addresses and the size and diversity of the population it serves. Participants suggested a budget of $1.6million providing 40 agencies a sum of $40,000.00 each to support one staff person.

(4)Participants addressed the change in the "name" of the program. The move to anti-racism from multiculturalism signaled a move toward naming the kernel of the issue. It represented a move towards clarity of language and commitment. It also helped address the specific problems resulting in measurable solutions. In view of the program's history and mandate, they proposed that the name of the program should be amended to, "Anti-Racism/Anti-Hate Grants Program". If the City increases the program budget to fund all disadvantaged groups covered under the Human Rights Code, then the name should be changed to "Anti-Racism, Access and Equity". In the meantime, with such a small fund and with so many groups from different equity sectors requiring funding, it is resulting in pitting equity groups against each other.

(5)The program plays a crucial role in enhancing the capacity of communities both in supporting them to build a community infrastructure to address systemic inequities and to educate residents on human rights issues.

(6)Participants were satisfied with the staff review process. New, emerging organizations were in favour of a "peers advising staff review model."

(7)The program should be reflective of the City's strategic priorities. Merging the administration of the program within a grants secretariat was a serious concern for participants. They feared that the value of such a program may be eroded and eventually may be eliminated.

A complete analysis of the consultations will be submitted in September 1998.

Challenges/Limitations:

Several reports and studies provide information on systemic inequities affecting disadvantaged populations. The City needs to respond to communities at high risk with equitable funding, with a monitoring mechanism to ensure that access and equity principles are adhered to by grant recipients, and ensure that City systems are transparent and accessible.

Arts and Culture Grants

Progress Report:

To help guide the review of arts and culture grants policy, an Advisory Committee was formed comprising members of Council, representatives of the Toronto Arts Council and Etobicoke Municipal Arts Commission, and several members of the cultural community. Councillor Chong and Councillor Ashton, who is chairing the Advisory Committee, represent Council.

The review of arts and culture grants policy is mid-way through a public consultation phase that includes three key elements.

First, more than 1,600 copies of a discussion paper have been circulated widely with an invitation for written comments. Second, two public workshops were attended by more than 150 people on July6and 7 at the North York Civic Centre. The results of these workshops are currently being synthesized for consideration by the Advisory Committee. Lastly, the Chief Administrator's Office is conducting confidential interviews with a random sample of previous and current grant applicants.

In promoting the consultation, an effort has been made to give notice both within the funded community and beyond the cultural sector. This includes direct mail to all grant applicants, a notice made available in galleries and theatre lobbies across the City, information posted on the City's website, and advertisements in NOW and six community newspapers (Etobicoke Guardian, City of York Guardian, Bloor West Guardian, Scarborough Mirror, East York Mirror, North York Mirror).

The Advisory Committee will meet again in August to discuss the results of the workshops, interviews, and written submissions before recommendations to the Municipal Grants Review Committee are formulated.

Preliminary Findings:

The consultation has focussed on several key issues in preparation for the development of the policy. Some of the questions posed during the consultation include:

(a)What should be the City's objectives in making arts and culture grants?

(b)Should the City try to support the broad range of cultural activity, or should it focus its support in key areas?

(c)How should the City's role in funding arts and culture differ from that of the private sector or the Provincial and Federal Governments?

(d)Should the City use a system of "peer review" to evaluate applications submitted?

(e)Should grants be allocated through an arm's length funding body?

Preliminary findings of the consultation suggest that there is strong support for the arts and culture grants program to fund a broad range of cultural activities, rather than target funding in key areas. In terms of review and approval mechanisms, the majority of respondents support the allocation of grants through an arm's length body using peer review for the evaluation of applications. One of the major challenges to be addressed through the arts and culture grants policy is service rationalization. In particular, the policy must address the issue of whether the four programs of grants to individual artists (choreographers, composers, writers, visual artists), previously available only in the former City of Toronto, can be extended city-wide.

Conclusion:

The public consultation phase of the Arts and Culture Grant Program Review is well underway. During August the program review advisory committee, chaired by Councillor Ashton, will review the data collected during the consultation, and advise staff in the formulation of its recommendations for consideration by the Municipal Grants Review Committee later this fall.

Breaking the Cycle of Violence Grants

The review for the Breaking the Cycle of Violence (BTCV) grants program will consider the program's purpose, impact in the community, and administration in order to provide options for the delivery of the program in 1999. Consultation meetings are being held in August with community groups, and will include opportunity for participation by funded groups, unfunded applicants and groups in former municipalities where the program was not previously available.

A workgroup has been established to support the consultation and review process, including four members of the Task Force on Community Safety, as well as staff representing the Healthy City Office, Community Resources Unit of Social Development Division and Equal Opportunity/Status of Women's Committee. Additional meetings will be held with community organizations and City staff to address issues that may arise in later stages of the review. Research will be done into other funding programs addressing similar issues, and the work of the Task Force on Community Safety will be considered, especially the survey of community concerns and resources and the inventory of city programs and activities related to safety.

The review will identify other resources for the community for prevention of violence initiatives, including funding that may be available from other levels of government and private funders.

Key Issues:

Purpose:

The BTCV grants program was provided by the former City of Toronto to support community organizations in working to prevent violence against women and other vulnerable groups, and to increase access to services by women who faced barriers related to language, disability, cultural basis of service delivery, housing or income status. Funded projects have included activities related to woman abuse, crime prevention, community education, increased safety, prevention of hate crime, support for vulnerable youth, elder abuse prevention, capacity development in vulnerable communities and workplace harassment. All funded projects must identify the role their activities play in preventing violence against women, recognizing that women continue to face unacceptably high levels of public and private violence.

The primary decision related to the purpose of the program is whether there should be a more specific focus (on prevention of woman abuse, or support for community-based crime prevention activities, for instance), or whether the current, broad-based approach of the program can continue to be effective.

Impact in the Community:

The Breaking the Cycle of Violence grants program continues to be in high demand in the community, attracting over 80 applicants each year. Between 55 percent and 65 percent of each year's applications are from new groups. The annual budget is $485,000.00 and 50-55 projects are funded each year. The program currently is able to draw on a variety of community development and education supports for applicants from within the City's departments. These supports are often crucial for the development of successful projects and partnerships.

The key decisions to be addressed in looking at the impact of the program are:

-What should be the level of staffing and funding resources for delivering the program across the new City of Toronto?

-How should the program balance the project funding criteria with organizational needs for core funding?

-How can effective evaluation of the program activities be integrated into the grants process?

Several options will be outlined for consideration, including maintaining the program at current levels, or increasing the staff and funding resources.

Review Mechanisms:

The BTCV program has operated with staff review of applications, and recommendations were made to the former Toronto City Council through the Grant Review Board, a subcommittee of the Neighbourhoods Committee. A member of the Safe City Committee participated in the Grant Review Board meetings where grant recommendations were decided on. The Safe City Committee also provided annual advice to staff about outreach priorities for the program, and assisted in identifying under-served communities and new community groups. Funded groups were invited to the Safe City Committee to present information on their project accomplishments.

With the amalgamation-related changes to City structures, key decisions will need to be made about the appropriate review mechanisms for this program, and how the community will be involved in establishing annual priorities. The Task Force on Community Safety will be addressing a variety of issues, including ongoing mechanisms for co-ordinating safety issues and managing the City's safety programs. A challenge for the review of the Breaking the Cycle of Violence grant program review is that the Task Force report will not be presented until early in 1999, after the 1999 grants process must be initiated. This may result in the grants review process recommending interim processes for this grants program, until it is clear what the Task Force recommends and what City Council decides.

Administration:

The current administrative structure and practices of the program have supported applicants from the former City of Toronto, through staffing in the Healthy City Office and Finance Department. In the six years since the program was implemented in 1993, more than 80 applicants per year have been managed by staffing of approximately one FTE. The practices for receiving, reviewing and recommending applications will be considered, along with the expectations of the City and the community groups for monitoring and ongoing support.

Administrative changes for the program are anticipated, and will be directed at co-ordinating grant application expectations with other programs to ensure that potential efficiencies for applicants can be realized, as well as establishing stronger community support and information capacities for the program.

Community Service Grants Program Review

Introduction:

The 1998 Community Service Grants program represents a combination of ten existing grants programs provided by the seven former municipalities as the primary means of municipal support for community-based agencies. The former ten programs were: East York Community Grants ($32,800.00); Etobicoke Community Service and Development Grants ($298,700.00); Metro Community Resource Funds ($8,292,900.00); Metro Emergency Support Fund ($1,200,000.00); Metro Special Projects ($689,000.00); North York General and Sustaining Grants ($436,000.00); Scarborough Grants to Organizations ($266,800.00); Toronto General Grants ($676,800.00) and York Community Service Grants ($330,700.00). In 1998, 433, agencies applied for municipal support under the Community Service Grants Program (C.S.G.P.). Of the 433 agencies that applied for grants, 387 were recommended for funding.

1998 Policy for Administration of Grants:

In 1998, agencies were reviewed under the 1997 eligibility criteria of the former municipal programs through a simplified review process, providing flatline allocations to returning agencies that did not have identified performance issues and considering new applicants using funds made available by non returning agencies or those with reduced allocations.

Consultation Process:

The consultation plan involves consulting with key stakeholders, peer experts, agencies presently receiving grants, agencies not receiving a grant, staff and Board members of community-based agencies, community members, City staff and other funders. The consultation plan involves the publication and distribution of a position paper with a request for written comments, three public workshops held across the City and with evening times to which any interested community member can attend, targeted discussion groups and informal drop-in discussions with staff in local areas.

The position paper will be directly distributed to all existing applicants and other interested groups. To date, surveys were done in individual interviews with agency's staff and Board members as part of the review process for the 1998 grants. A draft report of initial findings and suggested mechanisms to deal with key issues will be prepared in September for the Municipal Grants Review Committee. The draft report will be distributed to interested groups for feedback. This feedback will be integrated into the final report that will be presented to the Municipal Grants Review Committee in October. As well, historical information on previous municipal consultations on grants, funding strategies at other levels of government and research on other municipal grants programs will be collected and analyzed in order to provide a framework for the 1999 grants program.

Key Issues:

There are a range of issues for the service area review, including: the appropriate level of agency accountability under the amalgamated program and the staff resources required to ensure agency accountability; how the City, as a funder, can improve its ability to determine the effectiveness and impact of grants as a tool to address the needs of communities; and what mechanisms and policies are needed to facilitate the redistribution of the resources within the Community Services Grants Program. Some of the issues that the review will seek to address are listed below.

Priority for Funding:

Should the Community Services grants program continue to place emphasis on disadvantaged and/or underserved communities, proposals to address gaps in service, and small and medium sized organizations?

New and Emerging Needs:

How can a policy be developed that allows the grants program to be responsive to new and emerging needs and provides a framework for the equitable distribution of resources? How should innovative or preventive approaches to service delivery be funded?

Need for Municipal Funds:

A number of agencies have considerable capacity to raise funds through user fees and/or productive enterprises and/or donations and/or grants. Given the need in the community for funding support, should consideration be given to reallocating funds to organizations with a greater demonstrated need in the future?

Redistribution:

Although redistribution of grants funds was a priority under the largest of the existing programs (Metro Community Resources Fund) staff did not attempt to undertake redistribution in the 1998 transition year. In 1998, any funds made available through attrition within the program were allocated to new applicants. A focus for the review will be assessing what mechanisms and policies are needed to facilitate the redistribution of the resources within the Community Services grants program and what is needed to better track the impacts and achievements of rationalization of funding to better meet access and equity goals.

Developmental Funds:

Should there be developmental or seed grants for new agencies or new programs? How should this funding be balanced with the need to sustain existing agencies.

Core Funding and Project Funding:

What should be the balance between grants that go to core operations, sustaining programs and project funding within the grants program? What is the role of the municipality in ensuring that there is a viable community-based sector to deliver services?

Other Levels of Government and the Grant-making Sector:

What is the role of the Community Services grants program in relation to other grant-making institutions? What are the key linkages that should be formed?

Strategic Funding:

Should grants be given on the basis of a more strategic approach in order to ensure that the work of funded agencies remains relevant and useful? If so, then what mechanisms need to be developed in order to increase the impact of grants and in order to move from giving grants as charity to investing in communities, from being reactive to being proactive, from one-time grants to multi-year involvements, from granting to individual projects to granting to strategic systemic solutions.

Review and Assessment of Agencies:

What review and assessment procedures should the City use in awarding grants? A variety of review processes will be examined as well as examining what information is required from agencies.

Challenges/Limitations:

The new grants program will need a flexible model that acknowledges the diversity of size and types of grant that fund services in the community. The policies and framework that make up the program should also remain attentive to local needs as well as assure equity of resources across the new City. A good foundation is already present in that the program will be built on the best components of the former municipalities' emphasis on local initiatives and the former Metro system that looked at city wide issues.

Homeless Initiatives Fund Service Review

Overview:

The Homeless Initiatives Fund (HIF) was established by the former City of Toronto Council in 1992 after extensive consultation with community agencies who work with homeless people. The HIF is not a grants program in its traditional sense, but is integrated into the work of the Housing Division and is an instrument to develop and implement City policies. Shelter Housing and Support Division staff work with community agencies funded through the HIF to develop long term solutions to homelessness. The approved budget for 1998 is $783,500.00.

The program is based on the former City of Toronto's "Off The Streets" policy which recognized that homelessness is a multi-faceted problem which requires a variety of different problem solving approaches depending on the individual circumstances of homeless people. There are three objectives of this policy:

(1)prevention of homelessness;

(2)outreach and support to vulnerable people living "on the streets" or in unsafe or precarious housing; and

(3)support for homeless people who are able to make changes in their lives and move into more permanent forms of housing.

Funding is provided for projects of short and long term duration. Projects are usually selected through targeted proposal calls. Over the past six years funding has fallen into the following three categories:

Pilot Projects:

These projects are designed to develop new initiatives and community-based responses to problems experienced by homeless people. In many cases there are no or limited services available to address these problems. Projects are identified through targeted proposal calls directed at community agencies who have expertise in the appropriate areas. Projects typically involve action-research components where front-line workers work directly with homeless people to learn more about issues, provide assistance, and develop responses. The projects are assisted by resource groups or steering committees which include Shelter Housing and Support Division staff. At the end of pilot projects recommendations for longer term solutions are made.

Longer Term Initiatives:

These projects receive multi-year funding for developing and operating unique services which assist, involve and/or employ homeless people in some capacity. A range of projects are currently funded including community economic development projects, housing help initiatives, street outreach and connections to services, and information and communications projects. Projects are initially selected through targeted proposal calls. Housing Division staff work closely with each project to address unmet needs, monitor progress and evaluate the project's effectiveness in meeting its objectives.

Innovations:

The intent of these projects is to utilize the skills, imagination and ideas of homeless and formerly homeless people and the staff who work with them to develop small scale projects that are of benefit to their peers, their neighbourhood, or the greater community. "Seed" or start-up money is provided to groups through open proposal calls. Projects which show potential for on-going viability may attract longer term funding from other sources. Housing Division staff assist in project development, monitoring, and evaluation and in locating in-kind and donated resources. Recent examples include a market garden for residents of Streetcity 2, a Voice and Electronic Mail project for people without access to telephones and computers, a woodworking co-op etc.

The Housing Division also provides capital support for transitional and permanent housing through a "sister" program, the Capital Leverage Fund. There are two projects currently in the development stages:

(1)the Dixon Neighbourhood Homes permanent housing project for 40 formerly homeless men and women being constructed on the 30 St. Lawrence site; and

(2)a transitional housing program for street youth being developed at 11 Ordnance. Both of these projects involve partnerships with community groups, donation of City-owned land and a capital grant.

Consultation Plan:

Program priorities for the Homeless Initiatives Fund are established through ongoing consultation with members of the Alternative Housing and Services Committee and through annual workshops which propose strategies to address emerging issues. For example, the "Housing Strategies for Homeless Persons" series of workshops in 1997 identified three priority areas for 1998: (1) the development of alternative housing options; (2) Housing Help projects which assist vulnerable people in securing or maintaining permanent housing; and (3) outreach and support to chronically homeless men who live in parks, ravines, and on the streets and have limited access to existing community services.

The consultation plan that will develop priorities for 1999 and upcoming years include a series of workshops that are being conducted that will describe the "Continuum of Support" for homeless people that currently exists in Toronto, identify gaps, and recommend priorities for the Homeless Initiatives Fund over the next few years. The first workshop was held in early May and participants emphasized that poverty, housing, health, education, and employment issues were intertwined in a complex web that led to homelessness. The participants recommended that two workshops focusing on Community Economic Development and Funding Issues be conducted. These will be held in the fall of 1998.

Housing Division staff will also be meeting with staff from service areas of the City that provide support to community agencies that work with homeless people to make existing funding programs more effective and ensure that there is no duplication of funding or services.

Key Issues:

The focus of the HIF is to develop long term homeless responses rather than short term or emergency initiatives. In the absence of long term or core funding from the Federal or Provincial governments, the success of these responses depends on working closely with community agencies to identify problems and developing solutions and by partnering existing City resources with those of the community and private sector. These resources could include staff, surplus land or properties, and, in the case of housing supply, other development incentives currently being examined by committees of Council.

Homelessness is also a complex problem and involves more than the lack of shelter. Homeless people are not a homogeneous group and come from all walks of life, age groups, ethno-cultural groups, and vary in their mental and physical well-being. Needs vary considerably from newly homeless people who have recently lost their housing due to economic eviction to someone who has lived on the streets or in parks or ravines. This diversity of needs necessitates a variety of responses and co-ordination between service areas. Housing, health, employment and or income supports must all be addressed in order for responses to be ultimately successful.

Homeless Initiative Fund projects provide strategic interventions that help people from becoming homeless, improve access to affordable housing, improve the condition of many homeless people, and provide vital services to the community. The problem of homelessness, however, is growing due to structural changes to the economy, systemic changes in the social safety net, and the downloading of key social services to the municipal level of government. Developing new initiatives to meet emerging needs in the community is one of the most important challenges that must be dealt with over the next few years.

Challenges/Limitations:

In 1998, HIF project funding was only available to community agencies with the Toronto Community Council District. Identifying issues, developing community partnerships, and providing funding support to projects in the new expanded City of Toronto is one of the biggest challenges for 1999.

Issues are further complicated by the growing tension between residents' and business associations and homeless people and the agencies that work with them in the downtown core. The polarization of opinions on "fair-share" distribution of social services and programs, panhandling and other forms of street activity in the downtown core complicate the development of cohesive homeless policies for the new City of Toronto.

Changes in Provincial legislation, particularly The Tenant Protection Act, may have a profound impact on the ability of low income people to find and maintain affordable housing. Community agencies are very worried that this new legislation coupled with record low vacancy rates and no new rental construction will lead to higher rents and abuses to the system. This will put increased pressure on existing access, prevention and supply projects funded through the Homeless Initiatives Fund.

The downloading of social housing to the municipality and the pressure to keep operating costs low will put added pressure on housing programs. Although the Province has decided to keep the "supportive housing" portfolio, many "alternative" housing projects that house homeless people are scheduled to be downloaded as they do not meet the Provincial definition for supportive housing. These alternative housing projects require additional operating funds in order to provide the supports necessary to enable vulnerable people to live independently in the community.

Decreased staff resources at housing projects and community agencies who have received funding cuts from other Provincial programs will limit the community resources available to take part in new HIF initiatives. In addition, some community programs that have received core funding from the Province in the past may not receive it in future years. This will put additional pressures on the municipality.

Many of these issues are being examined in more detail by the City's Homeless Action Task Force. The Task Force will be making specific recommendations in its final report due in the fall of 1998. These may include policy recommendations and suggestions for specific initiatives. In addition, the Provincial Homeless Task Force will be issuing its own recommendations some of which may be in conflict with existing City policies. Finding new program funding and developing new strategies to meet identified needs will be a challenge.

Conclusion:

The Homeless Initiatives Fund supports a range of community-based initiatives that improve the lives of homeless people. Housing Shelter and Support staff work closely with community agencies to identify unmet needs and develop strategies to address them. Priorities for 1999 will be developed through ongoing consultation with community groups through the Alternative Housing and Services Committee and through workshops planned in the fall of 1998. Additional priorities may be identified by the Homeless Action Task Force which will be making its final report in the fall of 1998.

Public Health Grants Service Review Consultations

Consultation Purpose and Process:

Consultation was undertaken with key stakeholders regarding the principles, priorities, and practices of Public Health's two community grants programs - Drug Abuse Prevention and AIDS Prevention. Each grant program distributed a background paper, and encouraged participation at consultation meetings or comments directly to staff. The AIDS Prevention and Drug Abuse Prevention Program (DAPP) review panels, in consultation with Public Health staff, facilitated separate community consultations attended by representatives from funded agencies, staff from health districts in Toronto (without similar grants programs), and staff from similar programs implemented by the Provincial and Federal governments. The review panel co-chairs - Councillors Rae, Bussin, and Korwin-Kuczynski - facilitated discussions. Forty-five attended the AIDS consultation and 57 attended the DAPP consultation.

Key Practices/Issues Reviewed:

The background papers and consultation agendas for the DAPP and AIDS Prevention consultations varied somewhat, dependent upon the issues confronting each grant program. Overall, the issues addressed relate to:

(a)eligibility;

(b)application, assessment, approval and appeal processes;

(c)project reports;

(d)staffing and administration;

(e)principles guiding the grants programs;

(f)priorities; and

(g)level of funding for each grants program.

Initial Findings, Challenges and Service Rationalization Issues:

Findings and recommendations will be detailed in autumn reports to the Municipal Grants Review Committee and the Board of Health. At this time, some comments can be made and directions indicated. In summary, the consultation meetings indicated a high level of support to maintain existing programs and practices, while expanding the programs throughout the new City.

(a)Eligibility, application, assessment, approval and appeal processes: Direction given to staff is to allow more time between application issuance and the application deadline; and to reassess use of deputations within the AIDS Prevention program. Funded groups strongly support establishment of review panels made up of City Councillors/Board of Health members and informed citizens; the review panels should retain lead roles in both the review and appeal steps, with appeals being made before the appropriate review panel. In the case of AIDS Prevention, it is important to continue involvement of people living with HIV or AIDS.

(b)Staffing, reports and administration: Direction given to staff is to maintain site visits and twice-yearly written reports; clarify with funded agencies how reports are utilized in monitoring and assessing project activities. Participants argued strongly to maintain staffing levels that ensure the type of contact and relationship between agencies and staff that has occurred to date, e.g., staff involvement in development of projects/groups, application development, reporting and on-going support. Participants at both consultations asked staff to explore mechanisms to support funding of more than one year's duration; AIDS service organizations also encouraged further exploration of how to support core/sustaining funding in addition to project funding.

A key challenge facing the AIDS Prevention grants program is that this program has a historic accounting practice that relies on program approvals in one fiscal year to authorize spending split between two fiscal years. Public Health staff are working with staff in various other service areas to develop resolution proposals. One proposal to resolve this problem was before the Budget Committee in July, 1998; it has been referred to the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services for report back and this issue will be integrated into the fall report.

(c)Principles: Consultation participants strongly recommended maintaining Public Health grants management and delivery within the Public Health Division, with the Board of Health having program authority. (See also (b) above, regarding review panels.)

(d) Priorities, potential leveling up and service rationalization: No significant changes in priorities were suggested. Staff will report back further about mechanisms to balance access to new groups, especially groups in other parts of the new City, with groups in Toronto district which have a proven track record; how to balance funding of City-wide projects and service organizations with local neighbourhood/district projects; and balancing projects targeted to at risk and high need populations with projects targeted to general need populations.

Leveling up for both Public Health grants programs was strongly supported by consultation participants. At the June 23, 1998, Board of Health meeting, the Board recommended that the two community-based funding programs be "expanded across the new City of Toronto with appropriate funding, and that this expansion be reflected in the Toronto Public Health 1999 budget." Estimated costs to level up were identified in "Reinvesting in Public Health," before the Board of Health in January, 1998. Leveling up issues will be reported in detail in the fall report.

Additional rationalization issues confronting the AIDS Prevention grants programs relate to increasing consistency in management of grants and AIDS, sexual health and STD contracted services, and finalizing policy and mechanisms related to currently separate service area funding programs (e.g., AIDS programs funding by Community Services Grants Program).

Recreation Grants Services Review

Overview:

The new City is designing a framework for recreation funding that encourages and develops partnerships between the City and the voluntary sector. This is particularly important in a city with such diverse needs. Organizations, both large and small, provide community recreation programs and deliver them with the assistance of thousands of volunteers. Funding for these organizations, however, has not been provided consistently or uniformly in the six former municipalities. The challenge in the future will be to find a mechanism to provide funding for these services in an equitable manner across the new City of Toronto, so that all residents can participate in recreational and leisure activities within their local neighbourhoods.

Consultation Process:

The consultation plan involves the publication of a discussion paper with a request for written comments, two public workshops and some targeted discussion groups. The discussion paper will be directly distributed to all existing applicants and sports/recreation groups operating in the new City. One workshop will be conducted with Board and staff of current grant applicants and the other will be open to all. To date, an initial discussion has been held with the Coalition of Neighbourhood Services. Network groups such as Community Voices of Support, Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Toronto, Association of Community Centres, Council of Agencies Serving South East Asians, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI), Centre for Spanish Speaking Peoples, and the Chinese Information Centre and Community Services of Greater Toronto for example will also be invited to participate. The availability of the consultation plan will be promoted through the City's website, media release and local community centres. The public consultations will be held in August.

Key Issues:

The review will focus on four key questions:

(1)Why should the City support local community groups?

The City must have a clearly defined principle for the provision of financial assistance to voluntary organizations to ensure that residents have the opportunity for enjoyable and creative use of leisure time.

(2)What activities should the City's grants program support?

Prior to amalgamation, eligibility criteria for fundable activities varied widely among the recreation programs within the former cities ranging from large operating grants to small travel grants. Programs varied from elite performance to local recreational. Consensus will be difficult; so priorities will have to be addressed.

(3)What process should the City use in awarding recreation grants?

A variety of review processes will be examined including a sole review by staff, the use of peer assessment and/or interviews in some configuration that may include staff, citizens and/or politicians.

(4)What models of delivery should be used?

Current practice has three different models of delivery for Recreation Grants within the new City including Purchase of Service, a pre-approved list for Major Recreation Grant recipients and the Minor Recreation process. Various models will be reviewed to ensure that the City utilizes the most efficient and effective service delivery.

Challenges/Limitations:

Service Rationalization:

The City of Toronto's Recreation Grants Program must serve the entire City. For 1998, former municipalities' criteria were used in accepting and reviewing Recreation Grant applications. No recreation applications were received or awarded to the former Cities of East York, Etobicoke and Scarborough. Of the one hundred and fifteen organizations that received grants this year, eight applications were from the former City of York, twelve applications were from the former City of North York and ninety-five were from the former City of Toronto. To ensure equitable access to local organizations within their neighbourhoods, there must be some leveling up of resources within the Program itself, or, by defacto, leveling down will occur. The Recreation Grants Program cannot continue to serve only 50 percent of its constituents. It must be available and accountable to the larger community, whose tax dollars support this program. Given current budget restrictions, this will be challenging.

Redistribution:

A review of programs that have received City funding over the past ten years indicates that many organizations are comprised of and serve new Canadians and provide recreational opportunities not provided by the City. There are some new and innovative programs. However, it is difficult to move funds from organizations that have traditionally received grants to new and emerging community groups. Priorities established through public consultations may provide a framework for some redistribution of resources.

Youth Grants Administered by the Planning Department

Graffiti Transformation Program:

The former Toronto City Council established a program for the removal of graffiti and the transformation of the defaced sites into murals. It was designed to employ youth and enhance the affected neighbourhoods. 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 the chosen approach. This is the third year of operation within the boundaries of the former City.

The review process will involve focus groups comprised of current recipients and youth participants, youth serving agencies from non-participating former municipalities. Spokespersons for neighbourhood residents and local retail strips will be included on the advice of the pertinent Councillors.

Key questions to be explored will include the extent of graffiti vandalization in communities and current methods of dealing with it, the appropriateness of murals as a response, the potential interest of youth and the agencies working with them, suitable funding, administrative and delivery structures as well as eligibility and evaluative criteria and processes.

Employer Outreach Grants:

Despite a recent upturn in the economy, youth unemployment remains high. The Youth Employment Counselling Centres Employer Outreach Grant was established thirteen years ago by the former City of Toronto to support the placement of disadvantaged youth in permanent jobs and/or training positions. The grants have been available to Youth Employment Counselling Centres as established under previous Provincial programs.

Although restructuring and renaming of those programs has technically meant that some of these groups are no longer involved in the new Provincial program, the need is still high and grants were maintained this year on the same basis as in the past since they are all still involved in youth employment.

The consultation will be in the form of a focus group including current recipients and youth employment agencies from all former municipalities as well as other funding bodies.

Key questions would include whether the program still serves a useful function given program changes by other funders; if so, are revisions to the program called for; who is interested and what funding, delivery and administrative structures make sense, as well as eligibility and evaluative criteria and processes. Both of these consultations will be completed and reported on in the fall.

Economic Development Service Review Strategy

Economic Development administers three grant programs that are viewed as economic development tools. The programs target sector specific initiatives in the area of tourism, film, theatre, recording industry, fashion, food and beverage, information technology and telecommunications, biotechnology, retail, sustainable transportation and area specific initiatives that address commercial revitalization, business improvement and local community economic development. Each program has specific guidelines and criteria that characterize it and a set of indicators by which success can be assessed. The suggested consultation process for the three grant programs is as follows:

(1)Economic Development Partnership Program (EDPP) (former city of Toronto):

Applications for funding are accepted three times a year. The goal of the Program is to provide seed monies to facilitate the initiation or expansion of projects which will have substantial long term economic development benefits for the City of Toronto by contributing to the size of the local economy and/or to the generation of future economic growth and job creation. Applicants are eligible to apply on a one time only basis or for a maximum period of five years. Applicants are required to submit a business plan and detailed budget showing projected revenues and expenditures. Each applicant must demonstrate an ability to attract corporate support for their initiative. Applicants applying for support can be either non-profit (incorporated or unincorporated) or a private business. Applicants may request funding for a wide variety of initiatives which include, but are not restricted to: sector specific incubators (e.g., photography incubator); festivals that generate substantial tourism activity and/or have an industry, trade show or marketplace component incorporated into the range of festival activities (e.g., the Industry Centre that forms an important part of the International Film Festival); co-operative ventures that involve the production, distribution and retailing of specific products (e.g., a baking co-op organized around immigrant women specializing in North African breads), Economic Impact studies (e.g., Gay Pride and First Night), conferences (e.g., The Humane Village Congress), cross sectoral alliances (e.g., Festival Alliance Toronto project). Organizations applying for ongoing support must provide a report on the initiative in accordance with identified performance indicators before a subsequent request for support is considered. Projects that deal with job and life skills development or training are ineligible for funding under the EDPP funding guidelines.

The EDPP was re-evaluated and fine-tuned in 1995 at which time application deadlines were set and program guidelines were made clearer and more specific to follow. Prior to amalgamation, requests for funding were reviewed by staff and evaluated by a designated sub-committee of a standing committee (in this case, the Economic Development Committee). Appeals were made directly to the standing committee. This year, staff made recommendations directly to the Municipal Grants Review Committee.

The Economic Development Partnership Program is a partnership program. Grant recipients work with Economic Development staff on an ongoing basis, where necessary, to achieve maximum results from pre-approved goals. There is often an opportunity to maintain ties and dialogue with grant recipients even after funding ends. Therefore, in terms of any consultation required vis-a-vis this program the issues are really ones of establishing a suitable review team that could report directly to the City's Economic Development Committee and of determining a suitable deputation and appeals process for applicants. There are several additional issues for which consultation needs to occur. Included here are issues surrounding the fiscal and administrative impact of extending the program City wide. Lastly, there is the issue of identifying and determining the City's role in continuing support, past the five-year funding maximum set by the Program, for certain initiatives and activities of importance to the City, that are reaching the end of their five-year funding cycle, i.e., the Theatre Alliance or the International Film Festival.

(2)Festivals and Special Events Program (former City of York):

The Festivals and Special Events Program, in place since 1995, supports local festivals and special events by providing seed monies that create local community economic development benefits, build volunteer commitment and develop strong organizational structures and financial support. Local festivals and special events are also viewed as important tools in rejuvenating commercial and residential districts by attracting visitors to these areas, developing these areas as tourist destinations as a long term goal and instilling local area pride.

The Program makes funding available to organizations initiating or carrying out ongoing festivals and special events. Examples of festivals and events funded under this program include the Annual Marcus Garvey Day Celebration, the Junior Carnival Parade, and the Urban Harvest Oakwood Village Festival of the Arts. Organizations applying for funding can be non-profit (incorporated or unincorporated) or private business. Festivals and special events recommended for Program funding have been community-based organizations and Business Improvement Areas where a significant amount of community involvement is proposed. Applications are currently evaluated by civic staff from the former City of York's "Interdepartmental Festival and Special Events Liaison Team" and recommendations made to Council for final decision, accordingly.

The Festivals and Special Events Liaison Team intends to convene for a half day consultation session, in September 1998 with past grant recipients to initiate a review process. Issues to be discussed will include the application process, level and length of funding, peer review as part of the review process, inclusion of in-kind services in determining grant totals, application deadlines, the appeal process and retention of funds to address successful appeals. A questionnaire is also to be developed to address the above issues in greater detail. On a broader note, the issue of extending and advertising this program across the newly amalgamated City also needs to be addressed.

(3)Commercial Research Program (former City of Toronto):

Initiated in 1986, the Commercial Research Program provides modest grants to business associations to assist them in hiring professional consultants to undertake research required to plan effective revitalization strategies. The participating business associations must pay at least half of the study costs themselves, and manage the day-to-day operation of the projects. The City gains public access to the studies that are undertaken. The reports are used to provide research models and information valuable both to other business associations and to City staff working on commercial revitalization and business improvement issues. Examples of studies funded include the Bloor Yorkville BIA urban design/streetscape improvement study/guide, the Bloor/Bathurst/Madison BIA parking study and the Yonge Street Business and Residents Association Christmas lighting and decoration study/program.

Staff are currently reviewing the support offered to BIAs and business associations and evaluating the future of this program as part of the review of grant programs affecting BIAs and business associations across the amalgamated City, with the target of recommending an integrated program for implementation in 1999. The consultation process recommended here continues to be one of monitoring and facilitating, where appropriate, BIA and business association related research and activities with the aim of making each area a more desirable place in which to shop and recreate.

Appendix "B"

Draft Municipal Grants Principles and Practices

The following is a working draft of grants principles and practices. The Grants Managers Workgroup will revise, add and delete, based on the results of the various service area consultations.

(A)Accessibility/Non-Discrimination:

(1)be non-discriminatory, racially sensitive, culturally appropriate;

(2) ensure flexibility to meet new and emerging needs; and

(3) include an outreach strategy to provide access to grant program information.

(B)Customer Service/Public Information:

(1)provide information to applicants/public regarding the total amount of grants available, range of grant amounts, number of grants made annually, and the duration of grants;

(2) provide notification of receipt of applications;

(3) provide staff assistance in advising applicants and in devising applications prior to the deadline; and

(4) provide information accessible to the public about decisions.

(C)Process:

(1)collaborate and cooperate with other funders as appropriate (internally, externally);

(2)involve individuals with appropriate expertise in the review process which may include a peer/citizen review mechanism;

(3)have an established review cycle and timetable;

(4)have defined decision-making processes and evaluation criteria;

(5)provide an appeal process and provide review results in writing in time for applicants to exercise any rights to appeal;

(6)provide for staff follow-up and evaluation of how funding was used;

(7)develop evaluation and monitoring strategies to ensure that individual agencies achieve their outcomes and that funding programs achieve their stated objectives;

(8)administrative processes need to be realistic, i.e., provide sufficient time to complete and submit applications; and

(9)information required from applicants must be related to the review and monitoring processes.

(D)Program Definition:

(1) have clearly articulated goals and objectives;

(2)have clear, written eligibility criteria;

(3)have clear statement of expectations of funded agencies/groups/individuals;

(4)have predetermined budget allocations;

(5)develop an appropriate open process for the regular review of both program criteria and program priorities; and

(6) have program flexibility in order to meet new and emerging needs.

Appendix "C"

Municipal Grants Administration/Policy Research

Interim Report:

Introduction:

The purpose of this research is to look at the municipal grants administration policies and systems in the United States and other countries. The first phase focuses on US cities; the second phase looks into a number of cities in Canada and Europe. This interim report summarizes the key findings of the first phase of the research.

Out of nine US municipalities initially contacted for this research, information from seven of them have been gathered, based on a survey involving interviews with senior management staff, and review of relevant documents.

The seven US municipalities are: City of New York; City of Los Angeles, City of Portland, City of Philadelphia, City of Seattle, City and County of San Francisco, and the City of Boston.

Summary of Findings:

Initial findings from the information so far gathered indicate that structurally, municipal grants administration is decentralized to the various operating departments, rather than centralized in one grants office. Grants are administered according to policies adopted by the administering unit or department, in accordance to the laws, regulations and requirements of both the external funding sources (Federal, State) and the City's internal ordinances and policies.

Reasons for Decentralized Grant Administration:

Cities recognize that departments possess the expertise and experience in knowing the needs of the community and the capability of community-based groups to deliver the services to be funded. The departments that directly provide services or work with community to provide services, conduct consultations and do outreach work, and, are the most knowledgeable and familiar with the state of the community's needs, the capability of the existing social infrastructure to absorb those needs, and the ability of community-based groups to provide the services that the funds are intended for.

Thus, departmental staff are considered to be in the best position to take on the various functions of assessing eligibility of community-based organizations for specific funds, and making grant allocation decisions, negotiating bids and making decisions in awarding contracts.

Centralized Functions:

In cases where a central grants unit exists, its functions are mainly in the area of accounting, setting up central information systems to account for each grant, and ensuring overall compliance to Federal and State laws, and City ordinances and policies in the administration of grants.

Among the functions of the centralized grant management office are:

(1)to ensure that financial conditions required by the funding source, such as Federal or State statutes and municipal regulations are followed;

(2)to serve as a centralized automated contract information system that facilitates the accounting and monitoring of the City's grants, e.g., one model is able to identify each grant through a code and to produce a profile for the grant (indicating source, amount, award period, type of reimbursement, whether it is a contracted grant or loan); and/or

(3)to assist departments with their accounting and financial management procedures and the development of forms and contracts, or to help standardize accounting procedures to be followed by departments administering grants.

Grant Allocation: A Bidding Process

Generally, departments contract out funds to non-profit community-based organizations as grants or loans won through a bidding process called Requests for Proposals. Funds given out as loans to organizations and individuals through a Call for Investments generate income for the City, both interest and principal paid back by funded entities to the municipality; called Program Income, these funds are added to the funding pot. Recipients of funds are primarily non-profit organizations; however, there are a number of funds available for-profit contractors, in such areas as job training.

Although there are variations on staff involvement in making allocations recommendations, staff generally make a determination which community-based agencies can best address the needs identified in a city's Consolidated Plan - which contains needs data, population data, and strategies for addressing needs.

Departmental staff are also involved in monitoring and evaluating the performance of an agency receiving funds. Some cities use staff, called assessors or contract monitors, in the evaluation of funded initiatives. While some Cities involve community representatives in the evaluation, some do not. Projects are evaluated according to legal requirements, financial expectations, and results or quality outcome.

Funding Sources and the Budget Process:

Funds are sourced from the Federal and State governments, and the City's own. Through an annual budget process that includes community participation, allocations to the various City departments are made according to availability of funds and identified needs.

The departments then put out bids for needed programs and services, and non-profit community-based groups participate in the bidding process. A contract is made by the City with the successful bidder.

Final Approval of Grants:

In most of the Cities reached, final approval of grants allocation recommendations rests on City Council and the Mayor. Allocation recommendations are the combined result of staff and community input, through committees created for the purpose.

Municipal Grants Policy:

There is no single policy that cities use in municipal grants administration or allocation. The entire grant allocation process, however, is expected to be done according to the laws, regulations and grant conditions and requirements stipulated by funding sources, as well as the city's own ordinances, policies, plans and strategies.

Examples are requirements for citizen participation in overall budget planning, public policies to promote affordable housing development, municipal strategies to reduce poverty, funding guidelines promoting equal opportunity, and the city's own pledges contained in various certifications to uphold and comply with specific government regulations, requirements and statutes concerning the use and disbursement of federal formula and non-formula grant funds.

A City's Consolidated Plan, for instance, has to have a citizens' participation component, as required by the Federal Government. The Consolidated Plan covers four kinds of grants that cities apply Federal funding for, including the Community Development Block Grant - the biggest chunk of Federal funds.

Other Forms of Support:

Most cities provide other forms of support to community-based agencies, such as technical support in areas like training; use of public space for a nominal sum; and tax write-offs for some projects.

One city that gives out as loans for some projects intended for low income people, "forgive" the loans if the project keeps and maintains its facilities/services for the benefit of low income people for long periods of time, such as 30 years.

Rationale for Providing Grants to Community-Based Groups

The main reason cities fund community-based services is it is an effective way of delivering/achieving municipal services or objectives.

Appendix "D"

Municipal Grants Review Committee

Revised Workplan - July 20, 1998

Meeting DateAgenda Tasks

July 27, 1998Review of Municipal Grants Policy - update report

Miscellaneous grants administration reports

September 28, 1998Review of draft Municipal Grants Policy - deputations on draft policy

Review of the various Service Area Reviews - deputations on service area reviews

Miscellaneous grants administration reports

October 26, 1998Municipal Grants Policy report - deputations on Municipal Grants Policy

Service Area Review Reports and Recommendations - deputations on service area reports and recommendations

November, 1998Miscellaneous grants administration reports (if required)

 

   
Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only and do not retain the exact structure of the original versions. For example, charts, images and tables may be difficult to read. As such, readers should verify information before acting on it. All council documents are available from the City Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@city.toronto.on.ca.

 

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links
© City of Toronto 1998-2001