Toronto City Council Navigation Banner (see text links at bottom)

June 30, 1999

To :Community Services Committee

From:Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services

Subject:Community Services Grants Program (C.S.G.P.) - 1999 Appeals Report

Purpose:

This report presents the recommended allocations from the $45,000.00 Community Services Grants Program (C.S.G.P.) appeal fund for agencies which appealed to the Community Services Committee for reconsideration.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The 1999 approved estimates provide for $10,516,323.00 for the Community Services Grants Program. An amount of $45,000.00 was reserved to respond to agency appeals.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the appeal fund of $45,000.00 be allocated to: Assaulted Women's Helpline ($8,000.00); ComServ Family Support Inc. ($1,000.00); Doorsteps Neighbourhood Services ($8,000.00); Learning Disabilities Association of North York ($3,000.00); Next Door Family Resources ($3,500.00); Parkdale Focus Community Project ($10,000.00); Reena ($7,500.00); St. Alban's Boys and Girls Club ($4,000.00);

(2) a request of $10,000.00 from the Contingency Grants for the one-time restructuring costs of Volunteers Etobicoke ($5,000.00) and for East Scarborough Boys & Girls Club ($5,000.00) be made to the Grants Committee to be established under the Policy and Finance Committee; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

Under the general authority for making municipal grants provided in Section 113 (1) of the Municipal Act, all of the former municipalities provided support to the not-for-profit sector through community service grants.

On June 17, 1999, the Community Services Committee received a report entitled "Community Services Grants Program (C.S.G.P.) - 1999 Allocations", which recommended allocations totalling $10,471,323.00 to 307 agencies.

Forty three organizations appealed and provided written and/or verbal presentation to the Community Services Committee regarding the following issues: amount of funding recommended to their agency; conditions placed on the grant; and not being recommended for funding and/or not considered eligible. Several organizations noted the need for service equalization in the grants program across the City, or the need for increased amounts of funding in the C.S.G.P.

In developing recommendations with regard to how the appeal funds could best be allocated, staff reviewed the original recommendations and considered the information presented in the deputations. A total of $45,000.00 is available for the 1999 Community Services Grants Program appeals.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Of the 43 organizations which appealed their allocations, 9 were new applicants not recommended for support, and the remaining 34 were returning or previously funded agencies. Of the returning agencies, two agencies were recommended for a reduced allocation, and 32 for a flat-line allocation. Two agencies had future funding conditions which they were appealing.

The overall approach used in assessing the appeals was consistent with directions outlined in the June 3, 1999 report, "Community Services Grants Program (C.S.G.P.) - 1999 Allocations".

Funds made available through the appeals fund have been recommended to one eligible new applicant and to provide increases to six returning applicants using the equity framework specifically community equity (i.e. both geographic communities and communities of common bond) and to return an agency who had not been recommended a grant to their 1998 level. The principles of equitable access to grants, agency effectiveness and efficiency, community needs and available resources were considered as well.

New Agencies:

Nine new agencies that were not initially recommended for a grant appealed. Six of these agencies were determined to be ineligible as they had not yet developed the required organizational systems and structures and/or did not demonstrate the required level of performance through the interview and review process. Of the remaining three agencies, one agency was not recommended because it was determined to be a lower priority within the equity framework. One agency was not recommended because it requested funds for a program in which the small number of clients served and the resulting cost per participant made it a lower priority. An additional agency was not recommended for a grant because of the changes in the organization as a result of restructuring.

Based on the information provided during the deputations and a review of agency applications, staff have confirmed the original recommendations regarding the six agencies which have not yet developed the required organizational systems and structures. These agencies will be invited to attend organizational development workshops provided by the Community Resources Unit of the Social Development and Administration Division. In addition, staff are meeting with other funders to identify possible supports to assist agencies during their developmental stage and, where appropriate, to encourage agency co-ordination/collaboration. As well, staff have confirmed the original recommendations regarding the two agencies that were determined to be a lower priority.

Based on the deputation, Committee direction and additional information of one new applicant, Parkdale Community Focus is recommended for a grant of $10,000.00 for the Community Parents Outreach Program. This program was originally declined funding due to uncertainty about the restructuring the agency was undergoing with the Community and Older Persons Alcohol Program. The agency has demonstrated that the restructuring has progressed to a sufficient level and the program for which funds have been requested would not be negatively impacted by the structural changes.

Returning Applicants:

As indicated above, staff have confirmed the general approach to flatline previously funded organizations and to allocate any available additional dollars using the equity framework, specifically community equity (i.e. both geographic communities and communities of common bond).

Of the 34 returning agencies appealing their recommendations 32 were flat-lined. Based on the information provided during the deputations and a review of agency applications staff have confirmed the original recommendations for 26 of these agencies and have recommended additional funds for six of these agencies.

One agency appealed the initial recommendation that their program was no longer eligible and their grant would be reduced and phased out beginning in the year 2000. Based on the information provided at the deputation, staff have confirmed the original recommendation.

One agency appealed the future funding condition placed on the agency. Based on the information provided during the deputation and a review of the agency application, staff have confirmed the original recommendation.

Two agencies who appealed, had received initial recommendations for decreased allocations. Staff have reviewed the materials and deputation comments provided by the agencies and have confirmed the initial recommendation for one of these agencies.

Reena was determined to be ineligible for funding during the 1998 allocation process as a result of relocating the agency head office outside of the City of Toronto. The agency was allocated fifty per cent of the previous year's allocation as transition funding. In 1999 the agency has reapplied for funds. The agency has indicated through the appeals process that although the agency head office is not located in the City of Toronto the majority of clients and Board members are from the City of Toronto.

The location of the agency head office has been a significant criterion for determining eligibility for City of Toronto grants. Staff will review this criterion and implications of any changes for the grants programs. Pending this review a grant at the same level as 1998 is recommended.

Three agencies, made appeals regarding their flat line allocations on the basis of the need for service in their catchment areas and the variability of funding levels across the City. Staff will review the need and demand to level up the funding available for the C.S.G.P. program and report through the Community Services Committee through the 2000 year budget process.

Two agencies appealed their initial recommended allocations on the basis that they need additional funds to cover one-time restructuring costs due to mergers that their agencies were undergoing. Staff are recommending that $5,000.00 per agency be sought from Contingency Grants as one-time additional funds to assist these agencies with their restructuring.

Conclusions:

Based on reviews of the information presented through the deputations, it is recommended that one new applicant receive funding, six returning applicants receive additional funds and one returning applicant receive a grant at their 1998 flat-line allocation level. In addition, two returning applicants are recommended for consideration for funding from Contingency Grants for one-time restructuring costs.

Contact Name:

Chris Brillinger Tel: 392-8608, Fax: 392-8492

e-mail address: chris_brillinger@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services

Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only.

The documents 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. Phone 392-8016 or e-mail clerk@city.toronto.on.ca.

Agenda Index | OUR CITY | COUNCIL | BUSINESS | SERVICES | ATTRACTIONS
CONTACT US | SEARCH | SITE MAP

clerk@city.toronto.on.ca
© 1999 The City of Toronto