Some things we’ve heard to date

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

• 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