Skip Triplett Blog

Thank you for participating in the Community Gaming Grant Review.

Non-profit groups do tremendous work in their communities and they need a clear and reliable community gaming grant system to help with their work.

That’s why the Premier appointed me last July to conduct an independent review to develop options for improving the gaming grant program.

I have now submitted my report, including several options – and rationales for them – to government.

Government will release the report, in full, once it has had an opportunity to thoroughly review it and determine next steps based on the options I’ve provided.

Click the image above for slide show.

The review was extensive and inclusive. More than 1,700 vigorous and articulate British Columbians participated in the process – a remarkable display of caring and engagement.

My report was informed by more than 300 presentations during 19 community forums and by more than 500 written submissions.

I thank all who took part in the review. Your contributions and your passion inspired and energized me. I was honoured and humbled to work with you.

Skip Triplett

Have a look at the community forum photos on flickr.

BC Government Information Bulletin issued October 31, 2011:
Government receives independent report on community gaming grant system

I finished the last of the public sessions on Saturday, September 17 and the last individual meeting with an interest group on Tuesday, September 20.

I am now in the second phase of my review:
•    reading written submissions;
•    reviewing my notes from the oral presentations;
•    reviewing best practices from other provinces and countries;
•    comparing and reflecting; and
•    developing options for the Government of BC to consider.

I do not anticipate any problem with having the final report ready by its 31 October due date.

Thanks everyone!
Response has been wonderful! Even after adjusting for people who provided written submissions in addition to their oral presentations, over 1,700 people participated in this review. My thanks to you all!

Based solely on my impressions from fora and meetings (without, yet, the benefit of having read the written submissions or analyses), here’s a synopsis of what I’ve heard:

Value
Community Gaming Grants (CGGs) are one of the most cost-effective ways for Government to provide community services to the people of BC.  In addition to their cost effectiveness, they engage people in serving and participating in their communities. Services directly delivered by Government cannot provide this high level of engagement.

Consider re-naming CGGs “Community Investments”.

Funding
Consider restoring 2008 funding levels and/or, in the spirit of some 1999 memoranda, the allocation of a fixed proportion of annual gaming revenues to the CGG funding pool.

Explore transparent “funding formulae” approaches that consider the value and benefits provided thorough community group service delivery and the value and benefits provided by direct government service delivery.

Explore ways to provide stable, predictable funding over a multi-year period. Consider a three-year budgeting model that includes the ability to carry-over earmarked but unspent funds and that does not penalize fiscal success,

Make capital funding, maintenance funding, operations funding, contingency funding, and partnerships with other government funders, eligible uses of CGG funds.

Consider establishing an innovation funding pool to which start-ups might apply.

Develop a process under which funding strategically significant initiatives (such as the Aboriginal strategy to use sport as a means of developing individual and community capacities) might be considered.

Align application and funding cycles as much as possible with recipient organizations’ fiscal and operational years and/or develop a system that allows some flexibility.


Eligibility
Re-instate adult arts, adult sports, environmental stewardship, and animal welfare as eligible pursuits and entities.

Explore ways to establish stable proposal criteria for eligible entities while retaining the ability to judge unusual initiatives on their own merits.

Governance
Consider both legislative and regulatory approaches.

Explore ways to make CGG decisions openly, as arms-length as possible from elected officials, and that hold the decision makers accountable.

Explore ways to make application and reporting processes more user-friendly and transparent.

--

 

Let me know what you think by leaving a comment below or sending me a tweet.

The Labour Day weekend provided a travel break and an opportunity to update this blog.

I reproduced the last blog entry with updates in italics. I have added a new Value Proposition section and have added new comments to the beginning of older sections. I hope that this will help you to see what is new.

Please remember that the thoughts below are from participants (although I take responsibility for their expression), that the lists may not be comprehensive, and that I have not yet checked for accuracy, nor analyzed trends, similarities, differences, priorities, etc.

These thoughts are primarily from public fora. I am beginning to read written submissions, but will be unable to devote much time to them until the fora are complete.

I offer this update to keep you informed and I hope that you will comment in the space below the blog, or to the email or postal addresses shown on this site.

• Watch Skip Triplett's most recent video progress report on YouTube.
• What You've Said so far at community forums and in written submissions.

The turnouts at fora continue to exceed expectations, as do the presentations. British Columbians care about their communities and about each other and I am inspired by their passion. As of September 2nd, I have heard 194 presentations and 671 people attended the fora. Thank you!

Thanks also to the Community Futures, Chambers of Commerce, and municipal offices in Cranbrook, Fort Nelson, Masset, Port McNeill, Revelstoke, Valemount and Williams Lake for hosting our video and telephone conference fora.

Finally, on this Labour Day, my special thanks to Lesya Williams and Sandra Sajko for their logistical support as they travel with me. Fourteen-hour days have been common!

The “Value Proposition” of Community Groups

• Nothing is more democratic than people volunteering their time, talent and treasure to their communities
• Cost effectiveness - volunteers can “squeeze a dime so it spends like a dollar”
• A community needs to be a whole community - arts, sports, environmental stewardship and animal care groups help make a community vibrant and inclusive - they create civic engagement that in turn creates a cohesive community - they provide life-changing role-models and creative inspiration
• People participate deeply in delivering services funded by CGG - they do not often participate in services delivered directly by government
• $1 spent on youth prevents $11 in policing
• Young people are not volunteering like previous generations - early involvement leads to higher likelihood of life-long volunteerism and engagement
• Kids in sport are not kids in trouble
• Young parent programs encourage teen-parents to go on to post-secondary education
• Animal care groups translate natural interests (witness the outrage over the Whistler wolf cull) into habits of community involvement
• Animal care prevents the spread of transmittable diseases
• Restorative Justice reduces future offences – 80% of clients do not re-offend
• Arts organizations provide mentoring
• Arts organizations with no youth memberships often provide substantial services to youth
• Environmental groups develop stewardship experience, education, and positive hands-on volunteer experience for kids
• Volunteer work trains people for paid work and provides valuable work experience for people who are unemployed
• Organizations like Rotary Clubs can often leverage project grants with matching funds from outside of BC
• Core-funding helps attract charitable donations from sophisticated givers who want to see sustainability before they will offer support

Concerns about the review process

• Not broad enough
• Summer vacations will inhibit participation
• Non-vocal groups will not participate
• Anonymous submissions should have been allowed
• A waste of time & money: just go back to 1999 funding proportions, criteria and practices
• A waste of time & money: just go back to 2008 funding level, criteria and practices
• Too urban
• Too rural
• Too short
• Too long

Ideas about review process

• Consider conducting public fora on a regular basis

Concerns about funding levels

• Communities feel cheated because gaming has been expanded, often with community support, but the availability of gaming revenues for community enhancement and development has been diluted.
• Cuts in hard times lead to depression – just when the reverse is needed
• A $4,000 cut to an organization in a small community can devastate that community
• New tertiary care unit in Abbotsford hospital is bringing in patients from across the province and putting extraordinary pressure on local hospice services
• Gaming revenue was never intended to supplement taxation
• The dollars available for Community Gaming Grants (CGG) are too few
• The proportion of gaming revenues available for CGG is too low
• The spirit of a 1999 memorandum has been lost
• CGG recipients' costs have increased but their grants have been static or reduced
• Reduced CGG will soon result in higher crime prevention and health costs
• Reduced CGG funding has resulted in more demands on municipal government funding
• Aboriginals are 6% of BC's population but get less than 3% of CGG funding
• Small, remote communities have limited fund-raising potential and often have greater needs. "You can sell only so many hotdogs."
• $100,000 funding cap inhibits group mergers

Ideas about funding levels

• Treat extraordinary circumstances, such as pressure on local services because of Provincial initiatives (such as the Abbotsford tertiary hospital care unit), as funding-level exceptions
• Consider higher funding levels for youth groups in rural areas where travel to competitions is very important and very expensive
• Consider a higher commission rate for organizations that contribute significant amounts of gaming revenues (example: the Royal Canadian Legion raises 18% of provincial gaming revenue)
• Set funding levels at 20% of gaming revenue or $200 million, whichever is greater
• Allocate $2.5 million to the Aboriginal strategy aimed at community and personal development through sports
• Allocate funding to Aboriginal groups in proportion to their proportion of BC's population
• Increase funding cap for groups which merge

Concerns about sectors

• Many small communities have only one Non-Profit service organization
• CGG vital for heritage museums - no second chance for deteriorating artifacts
• Professional arts festivals bring many tourists and economic benefits to small communities
• Adult life-long sports like curling significantly reduce the effects of diabetes and heart disease, alleviate anxiety and stress and prevent depression
• Adult sports develop ethical, moral and mental heath and reduce involvement in alcohol and drugs
• Age discrimination inherent in “youth-only” funding doesn’t make sense because all of us need help, support and inspiration
• A small local organization that provides information to youth about Internet sexual exploitation has presented to 17,000 youth throughout BC but is considered only as a local organization for funding purposes
• Cannot operate a public gallery with only a youth component
• Adult arts & sports, environmental, and animal care groups should not have been disqualified - they contribute to volunteerism, citizen engagement, community cohesion and local economies
• Aboriginals are not considered a sector
• Sectors do not consider differences in community size or isolation
• When seniors must move from small communities to access services like assisted living, their families often move with them thus depriving the communities of needed employees and professionals
• Sectors do not distinguish between groups that respond to immediate needs and groups which build future capacity

Ideas about sectors

• Consider special funding when a Non-Profit service organization is the only one in a small community
• CGG Branch must remain a partner in Rural Development
• Create sectors such as Life-Saving, Wellness, Problem-Prevention, Capacity Building, Quality-of-Life, Compassion
• Create sectors such as Large, Medium, Small and Remote communities
• Re-instate Adult Arts & Sports, Environmental, and Animal Care sectors
• Create Aboriginal sector or make First Nation Councils eligible programs similar to those offered by other CGG sectors
• Create a catch-all sector wherein applications that do not fit anywhere else, or that fit in more than one sector, can be evaluated
• Sector eligibility should not be dependent on participants' ages - all age groups need assistance
• Consider direct funding, rather than CGG funding, for essential services such as search and rescue
• Consider appointing a high-level volunteer advisory panel composed of people such as United Way and Foundation executives to advise on sector composition and on needs, priorities and proportional allocation of funds to sectors

Concerns about funding criteria, timing and stability

• Sometimes exceptions to criteria are needed for essential public safety services
• One restorative justice organization has experienced a 492% increase in referrals but can’t apply for funds because it’s in a three year contract
• Search & Rescue cannot purchase Command Vehicles and other required assets with one-year funding and cannot carry-over funds to “save-up” for them
• Lack of predictability means time spent “clamoring to exist” rather than planning for future
• Give special consideration to organizations in small communities that are hubs for other small communities (example: Terrace for Prince Rupert, Kitimat, Smithers, First Nations communities)
• Cannot use CGG for capital projects
• Cannot combine CGG with other Government funding
• Groups partially funded by small municipalities or regional districts often provide many "service club" type services but seem to be ineligible because of their other government funding
• Groups are "punished" for successful fund-raising by having their CGG reduced
• Cannot carry-over funds for contingencies even though no certainty of future funding
• Boards cannot plan nor provide prudent oversight without contingency carry-overs or multi-year funding
• Requirement for one year of successful operations before eligibility prevents innovative startups
• Insufficient notice of funding reductions
• Timing of cheques out-of-sync with many Non-Profits’ fiscal years
• Timing of cheques out-of-sync with seasonal sports groups' needs
• Time from application to cheque too long
• Some groups, such as First Nations Councils, need to form separate societies to be eligible for funding – this creates unnecessary work and expense
• Some applications may be rejected because they are too small to be worth administering
• Some requirements, such as having a minimum proportion of society members attend an AGM, are unrealistic.

Ideas about funding criteria, timing and stability

• Allow multi-organization, cross-sectorial funding for shared facilities and secretariats
• Consider separate criteria for essential public safety services
• Align funding year with BC Societies’ Act and Canada Revenue Agency requirements
• Allow spend-it-this-year extensions in extraordinary circumstances
• Allow applications for capital projects
• Allow funding for innovative startups
• Allow annual carry-overs (saving) for approved capital plans
• Allow build-up of six months operating funds in a contingency account
• Do not "punish" successful fundraising
• Align application and cheque timing with groups' needs
• Allow First Nations Councils to apply for funding for programs that would be eligible if they were not run by Councils
• Do not reject worthwhile applications because they are too small
• Remove unrealistic requirements

Concerns about stability and predictability

• Requirements, practices, eligibilities and funding amounts change too often and without sufficient notice
• Requirements, practices, and eligibilities are unclear
• Cannot plan for growth or greater effectiveness without multi-year funding

Ideas about stability and predictability

• Develop clear and stable requirements, practices and eligibility criteria
• Develop a multi-year funding model
• Consider rolling three-year core funding that adds a new year every year
• When concerns develop about a group, reduce it's funding to two years or one year
• Encourage collaboration, not competition

Concerns about application, adjudication and monitoring processes

• BC Search & Rescue not permitted to apply on behalf of small teams that lack grant-writing resources
• The reporting process is unnecessarily complex for small grants
• Volunteer Boards and workers change often and grant-writing capacity is lost
• Too much redundancy in the application process and old documents need to be re-submitted to support new applications
• Adjudication processes of some provincial Non-Profit organizations very onerous
• Adjudicators and analysts are not always aware of the differing needs of small, remote communities or of First Nations communities
• One-Size-Fits-All approach does not work for all Sectors
• Application process confusing to, and time consuming for, volunteers
• On-line applications confusing and inaccessible in poor Internet service area and to people, such as some seniors, with low computer skills
• Grants sometimes seem to go to politicians' favourite groups
• Communications about application problems or changed requirements late and one-way
• CGG personnel sometimes seem to forget the limited grant-writing experience of volunteers

Ideas about application, adjudication and monitoring processes

• Allow for community conversations about how funds will be spent
• Use non-partisan, non-political bodies to adjudicate or to set criteria for adjudication
• Reserve a portion of funds for local municipalities or committees to allocate
• Consider a core grant plus extra funds through a point system (example: % community participation)
• Permit provincial organizations to apply on behalf of their smaller members
• Develop simplified processes for small grants
• For re-applications, ask for only new or changed information
• Develop a “Cheat Sheet” with guidelines for applications and for uses of funds
• Use 2 analysts: one for eligibility/omissions, one for adjudication
• Appoint regional or sectorial facilitators to communicate, to share best practices, to encourage collaboration, and to facilitate applications
• Create local volunteer panels to advise on community needs and priorities
• Create sector adjudication panels to make funding decisions within sectors
• Create helpful drop-down menus and "need more info" warnings on web forms
• Advise applicants of additional non-CGG funding sources
• Advise applicants of similar applications for best-practice info and possible collaboration
• Ensure all CGG personnel have capacity-building training to ensure understanding of distinct community needs and of the time and training limitations faced by volunteers
• Develop simplified application and reporting processes for small grants and small groups
• Consider sector-specific criteria rather than One-Size-Fits-All
• Allow adjudicators to exercise judgment and make exceptions when appropriate

In closing, I hope that you will comment in the space below, or to the email or postal addresses shown on this site.

I am now about half-way through the public fora and I continue to be very pleased with turn-outs and participation. In most fora, I am being greeted by about twice as many people as expected and listening to two or three times the number of oral presentations that were pre-registered. I have also received well over 100 written submissions and about 90 people are following me on Twitter @skiptriplett. My thanks to all of you for your time, energy and ideas.

Click the image above for slide show.

As promised in last week's blog, I have found some time to check my notes and share with you the concerns and ideas I have been hearing and reading. Please understand that these are not my thoughts, that they are not comprehensive at this point, and that I have not yet analyzed them for accuracy, trends, similarities, differences, priorities, etc. I am sharing them now to give you some sense of the input I have received to date.

I invite your comments in the space below or to the email or postal addresses shown on this site.

Concerns about the review process

• Not broad enough
• Summer vacations will inhibit participation
• Non-vocal groups will not participate
• Anonymous submissions should have been allowed
• A waste of time & money: just go back to 1999 funding proportions, criteria and practices
• A waste of time & money: just go back to 2008 funding level, criteria and practices
• Too urban
• Too rural
• Too short
• Too long

Ideas about the review process

Consider conducting public fora on a regular basis

 

Concerns about funding levels

• Gaming revenue was never intended to supplement taxation
• The dollars available for Community Gaming Grants (CGG) are too few
• The proportion of gaming revenues available for CGG is too low
• The spirit of a 1999 memorandum has been lost
• CGG recipients' costs have increased but their grants have been static or reduced
• Reduced CGG will soon result in higher crime prevention and health costs
• Reduced CGG funding has resulted in more demands on municipal government funding
• Aboriginals are 6% of BC's population but get less than 1% of CGG funding
• Small, remote communities have limited fund-raising potential and often have greater needs. "You can sell only so many hotdogs."
• $100,000 funding cap inhibits group mergers

 

Ideas about funding levels

• Set funding levels at 20% of gaming revenue or $200 million, whichever is greater
• Allocate $2.5 million to the Aboriginal strategy aimed at community and personal development through sports
• Allocate funding to Aboriginal groups in proportion to their proportion of B.C.'s population
• Increase funding cap for groups which merge

 

Concerns about sectors

• Adult arts & sports, environmental, and animal care groups should not have been disqualified because they contribute to volunteerism, citizen engagement, community cohesion and local economies
• Aboriginals are not considered a sector
• Sectors do not consider differences in community size or isolation
• Sectors do not distinguish between groups that respond to immediate needs and groups which build future capacity

 

Ideas about sectors

• Create sectors such as Life-Saving, Wellness, Problem-Prevention, Capacity Building, Quality-of-Life, Compassion
• Create sectors such as Large, Medium, Small and Remote communities
• Re-instate Adult Arts & Sports, Environmental, and Animal Care sectors
• Create Aboriginal sector or make band councils eligible for sector-like programs
• Create a catch-all sector wherein applications that do not fit anywhere else, or that fit in more than one sector, can be evaluated
• Sector eligibility should not dependent on participants' ages. All age groups need assistance
• Consider funding essential services, such as search and rescue, directly rather than through CGG
• Seniors must often leave small communities when in need of assisted living and this causes their families to move, too, depriving the communities of needed employees
• Consider appointing a high-level volunteer advisory panel composed of people such as United Way and Foundation executives to advise on sector composition and on needs, priorities and proportional allocation of funds to sectors

 

Concerns about funding criteria, timing and stability

• Cannot use CGG for capital projects
• Cannot combine CGG with other Government funding
• Groups partially funded by small municipalities or regional districts often provide many "service club" type services but seem to be ineligible because of their other government funding
• Groups are "punished" for successful fund-raising by having their CGG reduced
• Cannot carry-over funds for contingencies even though no certainty of future funding
• Boards cannot plan nor provide prudent oversight without contingency carry-overs or multi-year funding
• Insufficient notice of funding reductions
• Timing of cheques out-of-sync with many non-profits' fiscal years
• Timing of cheques out-of-sync with seasonal sports groups' needs
• Time from application to cheque too long
• Some groups, such as First Nations' councils, need to form separate societies to be eligible for funding creating unnecessary work and expense
• Some applications may be rejected because they are too small to be worth administering
• Some requirements, such as having a minimum proportion of society members attend an AGM, are unrealistic.

 

Ideas about funding criteria, timing and stability

• Allow applications for capital projects
• Allow annual carry-overs (saving) for approved capital plans
• Allow build-up of six months operating funds in a contingency account
• Do not "punish" successful fundraising
• Align application and cheque timing with groups' needs
• Allow First Nations' councils to apply for funding for programs that would be eligible if they were not run by councils
• Do not reject worthwhile applications because they are too small
• Remove unrealistic requirements

 

Concerns about stability and predictability

• Requirements, practices, eligibilities and funding amounts change too often and without sufficient notice
• Requirements, practices, and eligibilities are unclear
• Cannot plan for growth or greater effectiveness without multi-year funding

 

Ideas about stability and predictability

Develop clear and stable requirements, practices and eligibility criteria

Develop a multi-year funding model

Consider rolling three-year core funding that adds a new year every year

When concerns develop about a group, reduce its funding to two years or one year

Encourage collaboration, not competition

 

Concerns about application and adjudication processes

• Adjudicators and analysts do not understand differing needs of small, remote communities nor of First Nations communities
• One-Size-Fits-All approach does not work for all sectors
• Application process confusing to, and time consuming for, volunteers
• On-line applications confusing and inaccessible in poor Internet service area and to people, such as some seniors, with low computer skills
• Grants sometimes seem to go to politicians' favourite groups
• Communications about application problems or changed requirements late and one-way
• CGG personnel sometimes seem to forget the limited grant-writing experience of volunteers

 

Ideas about application and adjudication processes

• Create local volunteer panels to advise on community needs and priorities
• Create sector adjudication panels to make funding decisions within sectors
• Create helpful drop-down menus and "need more info" warnings on web forms
• Advise applicants of additional non-CGG funding sources
• Advise applicants of similar applications for best-practice info and possible collaboration
• ensure all CGG personnel have capacity-building training to ensure understanding of distinct community needs and of the time and training limitations faced by volunteers
• Develop simplified application process for small grants and small groups
• Consider sector-specific criteria rather than One-Size-Fits-All
• Allow adjudicators to exercise judgment and make exceptions when reasonable

I'm delighted with the response we have been getting at our community forums, via the submission link on this website, and via Twitter @skiptriplett. People have not been shy about sharing their concerns, but the tone has been helpful and hopeful. I could not have asked for more.

At this point in my review, I have identified about 45 issues, but my list is rough and may contain some duplication. I will post it once I have had time to review and refine it.

In general, people have been telling me that they would like to see a larger portion of gaming revenues allocated for grants, with predictable, stable criteria and multi-year funding. They are also asking for a user friendly application process and decision making processes that are at arm's-length from government.

People from all sectors are all also asking for the return of environmental, animal care, and adult arts and sports groups to the ranks of those groups eligible for Community Gaming Grants.

I have to attend the first of our video conference forums in a few minutes so I'll sign-off for now.

Thanks to all who are participating for your time, energy and passion.


Skip

• Have a look at the community forum photos on flickr.