2.
SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES
NEEDS OF RAPIDLY GROWING COMMUNITIES BESOINS EN SERVICES SOCIAUX ET DE SANTÉ DES COMMUNAUTÉS
EN CROISSANCE RAPIDE |
That Council receive this report for
information.
Que le Conseil prennent connaissance de ce rapport à titre
d'information.
The Committee approved the following direction to staff:
That staff bring forward a strategy to deal with the pressures indentified by the report “Social and Health Services Needs of Rapidly Growing Communities”.
Le Comité a approuvé la directive suivante donnée au personnel :
Que le personnel propose une stratégie afin de faire face aux pressions
dégagées dans le rapport intitulé Besoins en services sociaux et de
santé des communautés en croissance rapide.
DOCUMENTATION
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report dated 22 January 2007 (ACS2007-CPS-CSF-0002).
2.
Extract
of Draft Minute, 1 February 2007
Report to/Rapport au:
Community and Protective Services Committee
Comité des services communautaires et de
protection
and Council / et au Conseil
19 December 2006 / 19 décembre 2006
Steve Kanellakos
Deputy City Manager, Community and Protective Services
Directeur municipal adjoint, Services
communautaires et de protection
Contact Person/Personne ressource:
Colleen Hendrick
Director Cultural Services
and Community Funding
Directrice Services
culturels et financement communautaire
(613) 580-2424 x24366, colleen.hendrick@ottawa.ca
|
City Wide/ Portée générale
Ref N: ACS2007-CPS-CSF-0002 |
|
SUBJECT: |
SOCIAL AND HEALTH
SERVICES NEEDS OF RAPIDLY GROWING COMMUNITIES |
|
OBJET : |
BESOINS EN SERVICES
SOCIAUX ET DE SANTÉ DES COMMUNAUTÉS EN CROISSANCE RAPIDE |
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That
the Community and Protective Services Committee and Council receive this report
for information.
RECOMMENDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité des services
communautaires et de protection et le Conseil prennent connaissance de ce
rapport à titre d'information.
As part of the 2006 budget process, Council approved the following motion (motion 47/89):
WHEREAS the City does not have a
plan for anticipating the social and health service needs of rapidly growing
communities,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be instructed to look at how other rapidly growing municipalities anticipate health and social services needs arising from growth and report back to the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee by September, 2006.
The community based non-profit sector forms an essential part of the civic social infrastructure. Municipal governments rely on this sector to deliver social services, health and recreation services that support municipal goals. The Ottawa 20/20 Growth Plan and the Human Services Plan recognize the importance of this sector in contributing to the overall vision of the plan.
The non-profit and voluntary sector plays a key role in the community by:
On February 8, 2006, Council approved the Community Funding Framework-Phase II (ACS2006-CPS-CSF-0001). At the same meeting, Council also approved a motion to consider an investment of $500,000 each year for 10 years beginning in 2007. This would result in an increase of $5M over 10 years to the Community Funding base budget to address staffing and operating budget pressures related to existing programs.
The following report provides Council with a review of the processes used by other municipalities to identify agency needs and outlines the process used in Ottawa to identify community agency needs. The report also presents the pressures identified by agencies through the 2007 Funding Submission. The pressures are broken down by the type of pressure (such as staffing) as well as by reason for need (such as a new or expanded program).
Dans le
cadre du processus d’approbation du budget de 2006, le Conseil a adopté la
motion suivante (motion 47/89) :
ATTENDU
QUE la Ville n’a pas de plan lui permettant de prévoir les besoins en services
sociaux et de santé des communautés en croissance rapide.
IL EST
RÉSOLU de donner instruction au personnel d’examiner la façon dont les autres
municipalités en croissance rapide prévoient les besoins en services sociaux et
de santé découlant de la croissance et de présenter un rapport à ce sujet au
Comité de la santé, des loisirs et des services sociaux d’ici au mois de
septembre 2006.
Le secteur
des organismes communautaires à but non lucratif constitue un élément essentiel
de l’infrastructure sociale. Les administrations municipales comptent sur ce
secteur pour la prestation de services sociaux, de santé et de loisirs qui vont
dans le sens des objectifs qu’elles poursuivent. Le Plan de gestion de la
croissance Ottawa 20/20 et le Plan des services à la personne reconnaissent
l’importance de ce secteur pour la concrétisation de la vision d’ensemble
définie dans le plan.
Le
secteur des organismes bénévoles à but non lucratif joue un rôle clé dans la
collectivité, car il :
À sa réunion du 8
février 2006, le Conseil municipal a approuvé le Cadre stratégique pour le
financement communautaire – Étape no 2 (ACS2006-CPS-CSF-0001). À la
même réunion, le Conseil a aussi adopté une motion qui l’enjoignait d’envisager
un investissement de 500 000 $ par année pendant 10 ans, à compter de
2007. Cette injection de capitaux
devait se traduire par une augmentation de 5 millions de dollars sur 10 ans du
budget de base du financement communautaire, afin de régler les problèmes
associés à la dotation en personnel des organismes et à la budgétisation des
coûts de fonctionnement liés aux programmes existants
Le rapport qui suit passe en revue, à
l’intention du Conseil, les moyens par lesquels les autres municipalités
déterminent les besoins des organismes, de même qu’il décrit la façon dont on
établit les besoins des organismes communautaires à Ottawa. Le rapport indique également les pressions
auxquelles les organismes ont dit faire face dans leur demande de financement
pour 2007. Les pressions sont réparties
par catégorie (dotation en personnel, p. ex.) et selon la nature des besoins
(programme nouveau ou élargi, p. ex.).
As part of the 2006 budget process Council approved the following motion:
WHEREAS the City does not have a
plan for anticipating the social and health service needs of rapidly growing
communities,
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED THAT staff be instructed to look at how other rapidly growing
municipalities anticipate health and social services needs arising from growth
and report back to the Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee by
September, 2006.
In responding to Council direction, Community Funding Division (CFD) staff selected four (4) Ontario municipalities – Regional Municipality of Halton, Regional Municipality of Peel, Regional Municipality of York and the City of Toronto - and reviewed how they addressed the needs of their growing communities.
Other Municipalities
Overall, it was found that the four municipalities used a variety of planning tools to identify needs arising from growth and demographic change. These tools included the following: review of emerging needs or budget pressures included in annual funding submissions, research and community consultations. The Regional Municipality of Halton conducted a scan of agency strategic plans to determine agency budget pressures. Halton and Peel have also undertaken additional research and completed reports that are anticipated to impact the funding practices of these municipalities in 2007.
In the case of the Regional Municipality of Halton, their Community Plan was submitted to Council on October 4, 2006. The Community Plan was developed, following extensive consultation, by the Roundtable, a broadly based group of community members, community agencies and funders and chaired by the Regional Chairman of Halton. It is anticipated that the recommendations contained in the Community Plan will impact the funding processes of the Halton Healthy Community Fund.
Similarly, the Regional Municipality of Peel conducted a service needs assessment to assist with the review of funding applications for 2007. The needs assessment was based on consultations with community agency staff, board members and funders. The findings of the assessment corroborated research findings on the voluntary sector in other municipalities and at the national level. The report went to the Regional Council Grants Committee in October 2006 to aid in the discussion regarding how to proceed with the 2007 funding envelope as a result of increased need.
The Regional Municipality of York undertook a report looking at the socio-economic profile of the immigrant population. Results of that report impacted funding priorities and decisions. Consequently, two new programs, a Welcome Centre and an accreditation program were funded in 2006 to serve the needs of the immigrant community.
The City of Toronto, has produced several reports including Cracks in the Foundation, Community Agency Survey 2003, which assessed the stability and capacity of Toronto’s community based human-service sector. “Stability and Equity: Community Working Group on Stable Core Funding Final Report”, 2004 provided the rationale to identify the ethno-racial community as a priority for funding. The Toronto Strong Neighbourhoods Strategy, 2005, identified 13 priority neighbourhoods to be strengthened through targeted investment. These 13 priority neighbourhoods were the focus for new program funding or increased funding for current programs from the Community Partnership and Investment Program in 2006.
City of Ottawa
The City of Ottawa, through the Community Funding Division (CFD), manages funding investments totalling $20M, including $15.6M in Renewable Funding for health, recreation and social services; $510,500 in Project Funding and $3.9M in National Child Care Benefits (NCB) reinvestment (2006 figures). In 2006, 1.7 million clients were served through our community agencies. The City’s funding represents an average of 8.5% of the agencies’ total budgets.
Type
of Funding:
The Community Funding Division manages three Funding Programs. Each of these are briefly described below:
· Renewable Community Funding is provided to support programs that respond to Departmental Strategic Priorities. This funding is for core costs (operating and program), with terms and conditions embedded in one or three-year service agreements
· Community Project Funding (non-renewable) is available for time limited or pilot projects that respond to emerging and unmet community needs and reflect Departmental Strategic Priorities
· National Child Benefit Savings Reinvestment Program (NCB) funds programs to reduce the impact of poverty on families and to increase attachment to the labour market
Sources of Funding:
· The Renewable and Project Funding Programs are funded 98.6% by the municipality.The Ministry of Health contributes 1.4% to the total funding envelope. The NCB Savings Reinvestment Funding Program is cost shared with the Province 80/20 (20% municipal)
·
In addition; Adobe contributes $
139,000 annually to the Renewable Funding Envelope on behalf of the Community
and Health Resource Centres. This
funding contribution will continue until 2012
On February 8, 2006, Council approved the Community Funding Framework-Phase II (ACS2006-CPS-CSF-0001). The framework governs all mechanisms for funding to external organizations from the Community Funding Division. The framework was developed in consultation with the non-profit and voluntary sector and was developed in response to the challenges brought forth during those consultations.
Methodology to Identify Needs:
Each year the City of Ottawa assesses service and growth needs and pressures through the Funding Submissions process. Agencies are required to submit Funding Submissions annually. The Community Funding Division reviews and summarizes agency budget pressures through an analysis of the agencies’ funding submissions. The funding submission requests agencies to identify sources of funding, use of funding, areas of priority, and number of individuals served. Agencies are also asked to include in the Funding Submission document an Audited Financial Statement, Annual Report, minutes of Annual General Meeting, proof of insurance etc. This information is used by the City to assess ongoing needs within the Renewable Funding envelope (including growth needs as they relate to increasing numbers of clients served). The review of the annual Funding Submissions has consistently demonstrated that agencies’ staffing costs are a major pressure, 68% of their total pressures (when current, expansion and new service requests are considered).
Other Research
The City also considers trends, relevant studies and feedback from community consultations to assess specific needs. Emerging needs, as defined in the Community Funding Framework, are met through the Community Project Funding Program (up to three years) as prioritized through the Community and Protective Services (CPS) three-year strategic plan.
In November 2005, the City collaborated with the Social Planning Council on a survey to assess the salary and benefit pressures in Ottawa’s community organizations. The Snapshot Survey of Salaries and Benefits in Ottawa’s Community Agencies found that the community agency sector in Ottawa is experiencing serious labour force challenges which, in many cases, negatively affect service to the community. The findings of the survey reiterated the information provided in the Funding Submissions and in the studies conducted by other municipalities.
The
City of Ottawa also participates in a Grantmakers Forum, which includes
representation from The Trillium Foundation, Nortel, Canadian Heritage, Cognos,
the Ottawa Citizen, Senators Foundation, CEDTAP, Service
Canada, Ministries of Citizenship and Immigration, Culture;
and Tourism and Recreation, United Way/Centraide Ottawa, Cognos,
Alcatel, Bell, Minto Foundation, Harry P. Ward Foundation, Laidlaw Foundation,
CCO Coop,Cisco, Harold Crabtree Foundation, The McConnell Foundation, and
the Community Foundation of Ottawa. The
purpose of the forum is to identify opportunities and strategies to increase
collaboration and partnerships among local funders in order to make funding
processes user-friendly and leverage funds in the community.The City of Ottawa also participates in a
Grantmakers Forum, which includes representation from The Trillium Foundation,
Nortel, Canadian Heritage, Cognos, the Ottawa Citizen, Service Canada, United
Way/Centraide Ottawa and the Community Foundation of Ottawa. The purpose of the forum is to identify
opportunities and strategies to increase collaboration and partnerships among
local funders in order to make funding processes more effective, share
resources and leverage funds in the community.
DISCUSSION
Pressure to
Fund Existing Programs
The decrease in funding for core operations was cited as a common challenge in various studies and research. At the same time as the non-profit sector was dealing with the downloading of services in the 1990’s, funders began to switch from funding the basic operational capacity of agencies to project-based funding.[1]
A reliance on project-specific funding has forced agencies to concentrate service delivery on specifically targeted projects. Without the stability of sustained core funding, the sector’s capacity to work on organizational capacity issues is reduced. As an example, a survey of community agencies in Niagara found that 50% of agencies reported having no strategic plan.[2] Reductions in staffing to cover shortfalls in other areas have also impacted service delivery and organizational capacity.
In 2006, Council approved the Community Funding Framework – Phase II to address the issue of core funding. The framework increased the organizational stability by establishing that core operations costs as well as specific program costs may be considered for Community Funding. In addition, funding stability was increased by moving to three-year service commitments and agreements (subject to annual budget approvals).
An analysis of the 2007 Funding Submissions indicates
that agencies have identified $2.4
million in operational pressures to deliver existing programs. Please
refer to Table 1 below for details.
Table 1: 2007
Community Agency Budget Pressures for Existing Programs
|
2007 AGENCY PRESSURES: EXISTING PROGRAMS |
||
Reasons
for Agency Pressures
|
Amount Requested |
% |
|
Staffing |
1,206,534 |
49% |
|
Office Administration |
195,693 |
8% |
|
Occupancy |
393,837 |
16% |
|
Insurance |
34,344 |
1% |
|
Supplies and Equipment |
181,432 |
7% |
|
Other Expenses (Volunteer, Fundraising, Professional Fees,
Special Events) |
429,626 |
18% |
|
TOTAL ADDITIONAL CITY FUNDING
REQUESTED |
$
2,441,467 |
100% |
When Council approved the Community Funding Framework Phase II, Council also approved a motion to consider an investment of $500,000 each year for 10 years beginning in 2007. This would result in an increase of $5M over 10 years to the Community Funding base budget to address staffing and operating pressures in existing programs, at current levels of service.
Pressure to Expand Existing Programs
Due to Increased Need
Agencies in the community based non-profit sector are also being
seriously impacted by needs at the community level such as population growth
and demographic changes. Consequently,
the City of Ottawa, as a municipal funder is impacted as agencies’ funding needs
increase and become more complex.
The following presents a brief summary of the demographic and growth changes in Ottawa as well as findings from surveys, consultations and research on issues affecting the voluntary sector across Ontario. Issues emerging at the local level appear to be confirmed by research in other jurisdictions and at the national level.
The following table summarizes the population growth in the City of Ottawa from 2001 to 2006
Table 2: Population
Growth in Ottawa 2001-2006
|
|
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
% change 2001-2006 |
|
Population[3] |
814,195 |
828,460 |
839,566 |
854,333 |
865,550 |
877,281 |
|
|
Percent change |
N/A |
1.8% |
1.3% |
1.8% |
1.3% |
1.4% |
7.7% |
As Table 2 indicates, Ottawa’s population has increased 7.7% during the period 2001-2006. This growth rate is faster than Ontario’s rate of 6.2% and Canada’s as a whole at 4.8%. Immigration is a major reason why Ottawa’s population continues to grow faster than that of Ontario or Canada. [4]
The Community Funding Division supports agencies that address poverty reduction, social inclusion and support equal access to basics. The demographic changes that have paralleled our population growth in recent years have an impact on the service delivery needs of community agencies.
This change in demographics has resulted
in an increased demand for agencies to expand their current services to address
the increase in demand. Table 3
summarizes the agency pressures that are related to requests to expand existing
services to meet the need.
Table 3: 2007 Agency Budget Pressures
for Expanded Programs
|
2007 AGENCY PRESSURES: EXPANSION OF PROGRAMS |
||
Reasons
for Agency Pressures
|
Amount Requested |
% |
|
Staffing |
853,317 |
93% |
|
Office Administration |
6,900 |
1% |
|
Occupancy |
4,006 |
0% |
|
Insurance |
0 |
0% |
|
Supplies and Equipment |
5,722 |
1% |
|
Other Expenses (Volunteer, Fundraising, Professional Fees,
Special Events) |
49,000 |
5% |
|
TOTAL ADDITIONAL CITY FUNDING
REQUESTED |
$
918,945 |
100% |
Pressure to Provide New Programs to
Meet Emerging Needs
One of the main challenges identified by the non-profit sector and confirmed by research at the local and national levels, is that community agencies are experiencing an increased demand for service in response to the emerging needs and changing demographics of the community. As a result, community agencies have increased funding needs, which have implications for funders.
In terms of demographic change, specific trends are the ageing of our baby boomer population, an increase in the youth population, and increased immigration. These trends do not necessarily impact all communities in the same way. In 2001, the visible minority population represented 17.3 % of Ottawa’s population.[5] Population and demographic forecasts indicate that this will continue to increase.
Understanding group-specific demographic profiles is important to effectively plan and target service delivery and funding strategies. As an example, visible minority youth or/and non-visible minority seniors are not represented homogenously across the City. Therefore, the community needs related to these populations must be assessed not only by population group but also by neighbourhood.
Another important factor to consider in relation to supporting agencies that address poverty reduction and equal access to basics is the increasing income gap. While national incomes are above average in Ottawa there are many who are not able to enjoy the benefits of economic growth.[6] Trends show that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening and is greater in Ottawa than the national average.[7]
Demographic changes, including growing cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity of municipalities, have placed added pressure on community agencies to expand services. While agencies have taken on greater responsibilities and expanded services, the level and type of funding has not kept up. These findings reflect a growing concern that “the demand for services and increasing needs are not matched with resources to meet or sustain the level of service required, even with exhaustive fundraising, venture philanthropy, grant writing and other fund development initiatives”.[8]
Table 4 below presents the level of funding required to address pressures for new programs and services.
Table 4: 2007 Agency Budget Pressures
for New Programs and Services
|
2007 AGENCY PRESSURES: NEW PROGRAMS & SERVICES |
||
Reasons
for Agency Pressures
|
Amount Requested |
% |
|
Staffing |
1,347,662 |
81% |
|
Office Administration |
41,549 |
2% |
|
Occupancy |
92,806 |
6% |
|
Insurance |
1,508 |
0% |
|
Supplies and Equipment |
20,795 |
1% |
|
Other Expenses (Volunteer, Fundraising, Professional Fees,
Special Events) |
159,455 |
10% |
|
TOTAL ADDITIONAL CITY FUNDING
REQUESTED |
$
1,663,775 |
100% |
Total
Growth Pressures
For 2007, community
agencies have
identified a collective pressure of $2.5
million to address service needs identified in the
community. This pressure represents the
funding gap required to address growth requirements
and to respond to emerging needs as a result of
changing demographics, increasing population and the emergence of new needs.
Surveys at the local and national levels consistently point to a situation where staff, both paid and volunteer, are stretched to the limit to meet the challenges of increased service needs from the community as well as funding challenges.
The recent findings of the Ottawa Social Planning Council’s, Snapshot of Salaries and Benefits in Ottawa’s Community Agencies, indicates that the community agency sector in Ottawa is experiencing serious labour force challenges, with 70% of agencies reporting an impact on service delivery.[9] To preserve service levels, agencies rely heavily on volunteers and unpaid overtime. The survey revealed that over 50% of staff in the responding agencies are part time or casual, compared to the Canadian average of 25% for part time staff in the non-profit sector.[10] One third of the respondents were not able to provide any health or disability benefits, 64% do not provide a cost of living increase and only ¼ have a pay equity plan and the resources to implement it.[11] Consequently, agencies experience frequent staff turnover and have difficulties attracting, retaining, training, or supervising qualified staff.
In 2006, Council approved a motion to include an investment of $500,000 for consideration in the annual operating budget submission each year for 10 years, beginning in 2007, with a review after 5 years, resulting in a cumulative base budget increase of $5M by 2016, to help address identified agency staffing and operating pressures related to existing programs. A $2.5 million pressure identified by community agencies as a result of growth pressures and emerging needs has not yet been addressed. However, any surplus funds from the potential $5 million allocated to address existing operating pressures that become available in the future will be considered to address growth and emerging needs pressures.
CONSULTATION
Community Funding staff have consulted
representatives of the Health and Social Services Advisory Committee, Poverty
Issues Advisory Committee, Accessibility Advisory Committee, Equity and
Diversity Advisory Committee and Seniors Advisory Committee while drafting this
report. Feedback has been incorporated in the final version of this report.
There are no financial implications to receiving this report.
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION
Document
1 : 2007 Community Agency Budget
Pressures
DISPOSITION
Staff in Community and Protective Services
will proceed as directed by Council.
In July 2006, the Community Funding Division sent a letter and the 2007 Funding Submission document to community partners and associations receiving Renewable Funding for health, recreation and social services programs. Agencies receiving funding for more than one program (such as Community Health and Resource Centres) received one 2007 Funding Submission but were asked to complete a specific program section for each City-funded program. The 2007 Funding Submission document was also posted on the City’s website and sent electronically to agencies who requested an electronic version.
The 2007 Funding Submission includes Terms and Conditions as well as a Declaration of Officers. Agencies must attach specific documents to their funding submission including: the most recent Audited Financial Statement, Annual Report, Annual General Meeting report. In signing the Declaration of Officers, agencies attest to the accuracy and completeness of the information provided and agree to abide by the Terms and Conditions as set out in the document.
Agencies that did not receive Community Funding in 2006 did not receive a 2007 Funding Submission. Agencies were advised that the deadline for submitting the 2007 Funding Submission was September 15, 2006.
On February 8, 2006, Council approved the Community Funding Framework Report. The framework governs funding to external organizations from the Community Funding Division. The framework confirms that the core business of the City’s investment through the Community Funding Division is to invest in viable non-profit community-based organizations in order to sustain a strong community infrastructure that supports equal access to basics in the area of community services.
The Community Funding Framework Report also included a recommendation to increase the base budget of the Renewable Funding envelope to address sustainability issues in the community agencies delivering health, recreation and social services. Council approved a motion to consider an investment of $500,000 each year for 10 years beginning in 2007. If this investment is approved on an annual basis, it would result in an increase of $5M over 10 years to the Community Funding base budget to address staffing and operational pressures experienced by community partners as they respond to Departmental priorities.
The City identifies agency budget pressures through an analysis of annual funding submissions from the non-profit community agencies. Each year, staff review the funding submissions and summarize the agency budget pressures for Council consideration. This information is used by the City to assess ongoing needs within the Renewable Funding envelope, including growth needs as they relate to increasing numbers of clients served and changes in demographics. The City also considers trends, relevant studies and feedback from community consultations to assess specific needs, programs or services.
The
diversity of local community agencies is one of the sector’s strengths and
provides the sector with the ability to involve and engage local citizens. It is this capacity to generate citizen
involvement that makes it invaluable as an effective delivery system to provide
services on behalf of the City.
In 2006, $20 million in Community Funding was allocated to 213 agencies through 31 programs and projects. This includes $15.6 million in Renewable Funding, $3.9 million in National Child Benefit Savings Reinvestment and $510,500 in Community Project Funding. In 2006, organizations funded through Renewable Funding provided services to 1.7 million clients. Organizations receiving funding from the City leverage additional resources such as other government funding, other funding sources such as foundations, as well as significant volunteer participation. Agencies reported that volunteers contributed a total of 1.6 million hours in 2006, valued at $27.1M to enable the delivery of services in their community.
The City’s funding represents an average of 8.5% of the agencies’ total revenue. Other important sources of revenue for community agencies are: fundraising, donations, rentals, user fees where applicable, government funding, United Way, Community Foundation, Trillium etc.
Summary of Agency Pressures
Identified in the 2007 Funding Submissions:
To date, the 2007 Community Funding Division has received funding submissions from 182 agencies. Agencies that have not forwarded their 2007 Funding Submission or where there is documentation missing will not receive the initial 2007 payment until all of the required information is submitted.
Staff have reviewed the 2007 Funding Submissions. Budget pressures have been identified by 137 agencies (75.3%) resulting in additional funding requests from the City totalling $5.1 million, including for existing, expanded and new programs.
The majority of the requests, $3,407,513 (67.8%), are related to staffing pressures both in existing programs and for expanded or new programs required to meet the increased demand in the community. Requests for expansion to programs and/or new programs make up 51.4% of the increased pressure. These new or expanded requests have been identified as a result of demographic changes and emerging needs in the community. Requests for volunteer and IT coordinator, identified as budget pressures by CHRC’s since 2001 are included as new programs. Similarly, Community Houses currently do not receive funding for operating costs and their identified pressures for such are included under new programs.
Requests related to current levels of service make up 48.6% of the total request. Included in that request are occupancy costs (16.1%), other expenses such as fundraising, special events, volunteer recognition (17.6%) and staffing (49.4%).
Table 1 below provides a summary of the total community pressures identified by community agencies through their Funding Submission. This amount includes all pressures for existing, expanded and new programs.
Table 1: Summary of 2007 Community Agency Budget Pressures
2007 COMMUNITY AGENCY BUDGET PRESSURESINCLUDING FOR CURRENT, EXPANSION AND NEW SERVICE |
||
Reasons
for Agency Pressures
|
Amount Requested $ |
% |
|
Staffing |
3,407,513 |
68% |
|
Office
Administration |
244,142 |
5% |
|
Occupancy |
490,649 |
10% |
|
Insurance |
35,852 |
1% |
|
Supplies and Equipment |
207,949 |
4% |
|
Other Expenses (Volunteer, Fundraising, Professional Fees,
Special Events) |
638,081 |
13% |
|
TOTAL ADDITIONAL CITY FUNDING
REQUESTED |
5,024,187 |
100% |
SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS OF RAPIDLY GROWING COMMUNITIES
BESOINS EN SERVICES SOCIAUX ET DE SANTÉ DES
COMMUNAUTÉS EN CROISSANCE RAPIDE
ACS2007-CPS-CSF-0002 CITY
WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
While he appreciated
the information provided, Councillor Cullen thought the original direction
provided was for staff to bring forward a plan to address the growing health
needs in the community. Colleen
Hendrick, Director of Cultural Services and Community Funding advised that
staff were directed to bring back information on how other cities, communities
and municipalities plan and position themselves for the changing needs in their
community. The councillor believed the
City should be developing a strategy to deal with these demands and the
associated funding gap and proposed a Motion that would direct staff to bring forward
such a plan. The Deputy City Manager
agreed that such direction would be useful, but based on the discussion at the
time the original direction was given, believed that what staff were requested
to provide has been completed.
Moved by A. Cullen
That staff bring forward a strategy to deal with the pressures
indentified by the report “Social and Health Services Needs of Rapidly Growing
Communities”.
CARRIED
That
Community and Protective Services Committee and Council receive this report for
information
RECEIVED
[1] Toronto Community and Neighbourhood Services, Cracks in the Foundation, Community Agency Survey, (2004) p.3; Scott, K., Funding Matters: The Impact of Canada’s New Funding Regime on Non-profit Organizations, (2003) p. 4&7; Community Development Halton, Halton’s Non-Profit & Voluntary Sector Labour Force Study, (2006) p. 2; and Clutterbuck, Peter, Freiler, C., and Novick, M., Meeting the Civic Challenges of Social Inclusion, (2005) p. 34
[2] Niagara Voluntary Sector Labour Force Study, p. 17
[3] Research and Forecasting Unit, PTE, City of Ottawa
[4] City of Ottawa Long Range Financial Plan III, 2006, p. 20
[5] Social Planning Council of Ottawa, Our Social Capital, Vol. V, No. 3, Winter 2005: Ottawa’s Diverse Communities. p. 5
[6] Social Planning Council, Our Social Capital, Vol. VI, No. 1, Spring 2006, When Work Doesn’t Pay, p.6
[7] Ottawa’s Vital Signs: The City’s Annual Check Up, The Community Foundation of Ottawa, p. 4
[8] Centre For Community Leadership, Niagara Voluntary Sector Labour Force Study, (2003) p. 15
[9] Social Planning Council of Ottawa, Snapshot of Salaries and Benefits in Ottawa’s Community Agencies, (2005) p. 3
[10] Snapshot of Salaries and Benefits in Ottawa’s Community Agencies, (2005) p. 25
[11] Snapshot of Salaries and Benefits in Ottawa’s Community Agencies, (2005) p. 24