|
|
|
Novina Wong
City Clerk |
|
|
City Clerk’s
City Hall, 1st Floor, West
100 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2
|
Tel: (416) 392-8018
Fax: (416) 392-2983
clerk@toronto.ca
http://www.toronto.ca |
May 10, 1999
To: Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee
From: City Clerk
Subject: Graffiti Transformation Program -
1999 Recommended Allocations
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.
City Clerk
R. Dyers/tl
Item No. 4
(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, descirbed 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. One hundred 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
Applicant 1998 Allocation 1999 Request 1999 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
|
Agency |
Grant Amount
(1) 1998
(2) Request
(3) 1999 |
Notes |
|
Cecil Community Centre
and Harbourfront Community Centre. (joint project ) |
(1) $22,000.00
(2) $29,033.00
(3) $22,000.00
|
One co-ordinator ( an older youth) + 10 youth.Will link youth to their Employment Resource Centre Trainees are "high need at risk" youth.
$3,300.00 inkind donated 2-5 murals. |
|
Christie Ossington Neighbourhood Centre
"United Neighbourhood Artists"
|
(1) $25,000.00
(2) $41,320.00
(3) $23,043.00 |
Using two experienced youth from previous years to train six new youth. This year will include more emphasis on skills and business training. |
|
Community Business Resource Centre and the Parkdale Village Business Improvement Area with various Parkdale groups.
|
(1) $15,000.00
(2) $18,000.00
(3) $15,000.00 |
Up to 12 youth jobs. Technical training in removal and murals, career development seminars. Partnership with local business association, school, recreation centre and others. Eight major sites, two murals and maintenance of previous work. Target is $18,000.00 in corporate and community contributions. |
|
Community Centre 55
|
(1) $21,600.00
(2) $31,000.00
(3) $21,000.00
|
Eight youth. Primarily removal and touch up with cart. One-two graffiti artists to paint 2 murals.
$4,000.00 expected from sales and donations. |
|
Davenport Perth Neighbourhood Centre "Mural Express!"
|
(1) $22,000.00
(2) $22,000.00
(3) $22,000.00 |
Eight youth aged 16-20. Some are returning from last year and plan is to move to a more business operation. Six sites, split between public, private and community non profit. Anticipating $4,000.00 in sales/donations and $3,000.00 in funds from other sources. |
|
Dixon Hall Neighbourhood Centre
"Fresh Coat - Regent Park Youth Painters"
|
(1) $23,000.00
(2) $21,978.00
(3) $21,000.00 |
Four-six youth, 18-24. Three experienced from last year to peer train. Business training also provided. Attempt at partial cost recovery and move to a business format. Nine-twelve sites to be looked at. |
|
Area 4,1999" Pape Adolescent Resource Centre (PARC) with Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre
|
(1) $25,000.00
(2) $34,626.00
(3) $23,043.00 |
Two older youth co-ordinators.
16 youth "in care" age 15-19 (5-8 murals).
Some sites have been offered already by owners.
Plan to increase entrepreneurial revenues and seek funding to continue in fall. |
|
7th Generation Image Makers
Native Child & Family Services of Toronto
|
(1) $34,000.00
(2) $34,500.00
(3) $28,043.00 |
Native street youth - "uniquely Canadian Images" re: Tourist interest.
Successful business spin-offs (commissioned art, business cards etc.) last year. Sites identified.
Hope to work with Yonge Street Revitalization Project, increase self-employment training. 16 youth to benefit. |
|
"Homo Air Ectus"
|
(1) $26,000.00
(2) $26,000.00
(3) $24,042.00 |
As with Murality, this organization has created a successful venture over two years. They will employ youth from that period as two team leaders (part time) working with 16 part time student artists.Already large list of sites and commitments. |
|
St. Christopher House
|
(1) $10,000.00
(2) $16,433.00
(3) $10,000.00 |
Partners with Midtown Kiwanis Boys and Girls Club. Ten youth age 13-15. Woman abuse as a result of negative images part of educational component. One youth age 20-25 as team leader.
Agencies donating $8,848.00 in administration. |
|
Lakeshore Area Multi Service Project |
(1) n/a
(2) $25,756.00
(3) $23,043.00 |
First year proposal in South Etobicoke. Growth of graffiti and mural workshops with local artists and youth last fall generated interest in the program.Partnerships with local business etc. Plan to execute four murals this year with six youth. |
|
West Scarborough Community Centre |
(1) n/a
(2) $35,577.00
(3) $23,043.00 |
First year collaboration with seven community partners. Four youth, expect $5,200.00 in other contributions. Broad training in life skills and conflict resolution as well as technical skills. No projections yet on volume of work. |
|
Arts York |
(1) n/a
(2) $30,000.00
(3) $23,043.00 |
A first year collaboration with Arts York as sponsor. Four youth groups covering most of former York will clean and provide two murals each. Total budget is $54,420.00 with expected Federal and community contributions making up the rest. If insufficient other funds, will scale back to focus on one area initially. Twenty youth to be involved. |
|
Scadding Court Community Centre, "Urban Artists"
|
(1) $6,000.00
(2) $6,000.00
(3) $6,000.00 |
Target Alexandra Park and Chinatown
Second year focus large murals, technical and business training will progress to using the summer experience to find part time contracts over the winter for eight youth and more focus on privately owned properties.
|
|
Total 1998
Total Requests
Total Recommended
|
$ 250,000.00
$ 372,223.00
$ 284,300.00
|
Projected numbers of youth hired and murals created are based on requested amounts. The lower recommended budgets will impact on these projections and on any anticipated revenue. |
Appendix C
Community Economic Development
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.
