2005CSW055
Attachment 5
FCSS Policy Review
Consultation Summary Report
July 2005
For: City of Edmonton FCSS
Completed by:
WS Analytics Consulting Group
For Internal Use Only
FCSS Policy Review Consultation Report page 1
Consultation Summary Report
i. Introduction
As part of the FCSS policy review and amendment process, WS Analytics was requested to
gather community input in a number of key areas related to the FCSS funding process. A number
of stakeholders were invited to focus group sessions where a series of questions were presented
and discussed (please see attached power point presentation). These consultations took place on
June 23, 8:30 – 12:30 with FCSS funded agencies; June 23, 2 – 4 with community partners; and
June 24, and 8:30 – 12:30 with FCSS funded agencies. A total of fifty-nine people attended the
consultations (see attachment for the list of participants). The presentation and consultation
questions were then sent out to all FCSS funded programs in order to encourage those agencies
that did not attend to provide feedback. A total of seven responses were received.
The findings from these consultations coupled with the information gathered in the research
phase of this project will be used to develop an updated and amended FCSS Policy. The
following is a summary of the findings based on the focus groups and the questionnaires.
1.0
FCSS Priority Setting Process
Based on the research phase, the following recommendations for the FCSS priority setting
process was presented to the participants for feedback:
1. FCSS funding priorities to be set every 3 years
2. Every 3 years FCSS to conduct research and do broad-based community
consultations (with funded agencies, clients, community members)
3. Create sector tables to provide input annually to FCSS
The majority of participants supported this recommendation. Several suggestions were made to
enhance the process. These include:

Research based, broad community consultation priority process takes place every 3-5
years. This would include a review of information gathered through statistical review,
community consultations, sector table input and discussions with other agencies and
government.

It was suggested a community mapping process to asses needs/gaps and assets in the
community could be part of the 3-5 year priority setting process.

A variety of research methods should be used to ensure diverse voices are included.
FCSS could form partnerships with other organizations (university, research institutions,
aboriginal community, and other funders) to look at the broad social issues.

Research phase should be supported by the City rather than using FCSS funds.

Citizen/clients must be included in the process of data collection.
FCSS Policy Review Consultation Report page 2
2.0

FCSS should use information provided in the agency applications and reports as part of
priority setting. Agencies spend significant time gathering and providing this information
and feel it could be used more effectively.

Use information in the Canadian Outcomes Research Institute database to identify
priorities and emerging needs.

Use funders forum as part of priority setting and identification of emerging needs.
Allocation of Funds: Core funding and meeting emerging needs
All participants agreed that the role of FCSS as an ongoing, multi-year, sustainable funder is
essential to the survival of most agencies. All participants agreed that FCSS provision of core
funding should not change. Stable funding enables agencies to retain good staff, provide long
term support to clients and have a longer term impact in the community.
It was suggested that FCSS adequately fund their current agencies before addressing emerging
needs.
Several participants recommended a percentage of funds be put aside each year to create a pool
of resources for emerging needs, new organizations and new programs. However, the priority for
new money should be an annual increase for existing agencies based on cost of living.
Another suggestion included that FCSS set up two funding streams. One stream to provide ongoing support to existing agencies to build long term relationships. Another stream (a smaller
percentage of funds) could be established to support emerging needs and new organizations.
Participants felt that it is important to provide opportunities to new organizations/programs and
to ensure that agencies remain responsive to changing demographics and social issues.
In addition, it was suggested that a portion of funds be set aside for capacity building among
agencies.
Some felt that “new/emerging” needs is a misnomer. These social issues have been present but
there have not been resources to address them. It was suggested that emerging needs can be met
through the existing organizations with additional resources and they should have priority.
3.0
Assessing Risks and Opportunities
Participants suggested that it would be important that the revised policy include an explicit
statement about agency accountability.
FCSS should establish a set of core standards in regards to governance, financial stability and
outcome performance. These should be based on existing standards and would have to be
adhered to by all funded agencies. It was suggested that FCSS convene a group of agencies to
develop these standards over the next 6-12 months. The standards would then be applied through
FCSS Policy Review Consultation Report page 3
a capacity development approach to enable funded agencies to meet the standards (not a punitive
approach).
Agency reviews should be outcome based with greater emphasis on quality than quantity. All
reviews should include consultations with clients/citizens.
FCSS needs to develop a policy on defunding that would ensure that if and when defunding
occurs it takes place through a transitional period.
Participants felt accountability expectations need to be aligned with levels of funding. For
example, if FCSS is only funding $20,000 of a $1 million organization they cannot expect the
organization to be accountable to FCSS for the entire $1 million. Issues about attribution of
results and accountability need to be considered.
Participants suggested that the policy include an appeal process that supersedes the planners.
4.0
Peer Review versus Establishment of Sector Tables
The majority of participants support the establishment of sector tables. Most felt that the risk of
conflict of interest, competition among agencies and existing time/resource demands make a peer
review process inappropriate and unworkable.
5.0
Establishment of Sector Tables
Participants suggested that it will be important to clearly define “sector”. Is this issue based or
geographically based or client-based? FCSS should consult with the agencies on the composition
of the sectors; could use a participatory process to establish the tables.
It was suggested FCSS could use existing bodies/relationships for the sector tables. Participants
warned against redundancy and over burdening the agencies with the establishment of new
tables. Therefore they recommended clearly articulating the role of the sector tables prior to
commencement.
The participants identified a challenge of sector tables is to reflect the needs of the communities
rather than of the individual agencies.
Sector Tables should be co-chaired with an FCSS Liaison Consultant and a community member.
It was suggested that the FCSS Liaison Consultant be responsible to coordinate the meetings.
It was recommended by several participants that clients/citizens should be represented on the
sector tables.
It was suggested that sector tables could include broader representation then just funded
agencies.
For example, different provincial ministries, faith groups, service groups,
corporations, clients, justice, health, police, other funders, etc. It would depend on the purpose
of the sector table.
FCSS Policy Review Consultation Report page 4
Sector Table members would decide when and how often the Tables would meet.
One participant group cautioned FCSS that sector tables could segment groups and may limit
discussion. They explained, “It could be artificial in its design and a funder construct which
doesn’t fit with community.
May be convenient for funders but it may silo the
issue/agency/community.” It is important for FCSS to remember that agencies rarely fit into one
sector as they deal with complex and multi-layered issues.
6.0
Role of the Sector Tables:
Sector tables could be responsible for the following:





Identify gaps in services, emerging issues, needs, strengths and opportunities on an
annual basis.
Identify other funding opportunities beyond FCSS.
Bring funders and agencies together to identify needs and find solutions.
Capacity building among agencies.
Ensure that client/citizen voices are included in the sector table discussions.
7.0 Role of FCSS
Participants also wanted to discuss what they felt is the role of FCSS. This included the
following:



To work in partnership with community to address community needs and build capacity.
To translate knowledge and information – FCSS needs to speak to many people i.e.
politicians, bureaucrats, community and bring the issues together.
To work closely with other funders to support the social infrastructure in the city.
Participants suggested the role of the FCSS Liaison Consultant is to:












Educate City Counselors, managers on social issues and FCSS related issues
Advocate on behalf of community issues
Translate information to different stakeholders to create social change
Use information from proposals/meetings as part of planning/priority setting process
Liaison between agencies
Network: bring agencies and funders together
Liaise with other funders to help agencies find alternative funding
Conduct and disseminate research
Facilitator/catalyst
Convener of other stakeholders
Repository of historical information
Be a partner with the agencies
FCSS Policy Review Consultation Report page 5
8.0
Other Suggestions from the Community
It was suggested by several participants that there be a preamble to the policy that includes some
of the following values: Partnership, building trust and respect, working with agencies to address
social issues, works from a strength/asset based perspective.
That there be a discussion piece on the impact of the last decade of downloading of services and
cutting of funding (the political/economic climate in Alberta) on the not for profit
sector/community.
9.0
General Recommendations from Participants
Broader recommendations not necessarily related to this project but put forward by the
participants included:



Review the role/relationship between FCSS and Service Groups.
Review the role of Faith Groups in providing social services and government’s
relationship.
FCSS should be responsible for monitoring trends i.e. change in volunteerism, and
monitor impact upon agencies, funding, etc. Agencies suggested that FCSS or the City of
Edmonton produce briefs and/or research documents and ensure they disseminate the
information in the community.
FCSS Policy Review Consultation Report page 6
Attachment One: Agencies/Names of Participants that attended Consultations
Thursday June 23, 2005 8:30 – 12:30 p.m. @ Central Lions Senior Centre
Kim Turcotte
1
Abbottsfield Youth Project (AYP) Society
2
Alberta Caregivers Association
3
Assist Community Services Centre
4
Association of Adult Day Support Programs
5
Beverly Daycare Society & Family Resource Centre
Gigi Bitangcol
6
Boyle Street Community Services Co-operative Ltd.
David Billing
7
Canadian Arab Friendship Association of Edmonton
Nora Abou-Absi
8
CANDORA Society of Edmonton (The)
9
Changing Together...A Centre for Immigrant Women
Sabah Tahir
10
Community Options-A Society for Children & Families
Lana Sampson
11
Edmonton City Centre Church Corporation
Jasmin Hoeven
12
Edmonton Meals on Wheels
13
Edmonton Mennonite Centre for Newcomers
14
Elizabeth Fry Society of Edmonton, Alberta (The)
15
Family Centre of Northern Alberta (Association) [The]
16
Franciscan Sisters Benevolent Society
17
Fulton Child Care Association
18
Jasper Place Child & Family Resource Centre
19
Jewish Family Services
20
Mediation & Restorative Justice Centre
Sara Ahlstrom
21
Native Counselling Services of Alberta
Sheila Courtorielle
22
Native Senior's Centre
23
Norwood Child & Family Resource Centre
Bev Parks
24
Oliver School Centre for Children
Avril Pike
25
Operation Friendship
26
Primrose Place Family Centre
Dorothy Korbut
27
Seniors Outreach Network Society
Fran Matthews
28
Support Network (The)
Joan Wright
29
Y.M.C.A. of Edmonton
Jackie McGowan
Diana McIntyre
Jeff Huang
Susan Morrissey
Kristi Beckett
Liz Tondu
Maria Jagiello
Valerie Meaney
Rob Rode
Sister Nancy Sargent
Monica Gregoire
Anna Beres
Linda Aris
Anne Cardinal
Gail Sopkow
FCSS Policy Review Consultation Report page 7
Thursday June 23, 2005 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. @ Central Lions Senior Centre
1
EAUAC
Laura Auger
2
EAUAC
Karen Fox
3
Edmonton Chamber of Voluntary Organizations
Val Mayes
4
Edmonton Social Planning Council
Phil O'Hara
5
Grant MacEwan College
6
Seniors Coordinating Council
Sherill Brown
Val Larsen
Friday June 24, 2005 8:30 – 12:30 @ Central Lions Senior Centre
1
ABC Head Start Society
Kathy Lenihan
2
Ben Calf Robe Society
Marg Mitchell
3
Big Brothers Big Sisters Society of Edmonton & Area
4
Bissell Centre
5
Boys' & Girls' Clubs of Edmonton
Larry Scarbeau
6
7
8
Calder Seniors Drop-In Society
Sheila Hallett
Tony Hudson
Shelly Coertzen
9
Catholic Social Services
10
Dickinsfield Community Partnership Society
11
Edmonton Healthcare Citizenship Society
Ivon Pereira
12
Edmonton Immigrant Services Association
Christina Nsalliwa
13
Inner City Youth Development Association
Alexina Dalgetty
14
KARA Family Resource Centre
Pam Christensen
15
Lansdowne Child Care & Family Centre
16
Pakistan Canada Association of Edmonton, Alberta
17
Partners for Youth Outreach Society of Edmonton
18
Planned Parenthood Association of Edmonton
19
Society for the Retired & Semi-Retired
20
South East Edmonton Seniors Association
21
22
Strathcona Place
Terra Association-Meeting the Challenge of Teen
Pregnancy
23
West Edmonton Seniors
Ursula Altman
24
Y.M.C.A. of Edmonton
Paula Hayduk
Canadian Red Cross Society (The)
Liz O’Neill
Marilyn Fleger
Sandra Mintz
Lisa Kaye
Joan Ison
Sofia Yaqub
Jerry Ojo
Larry Brockman
Roger Laing
Mary Anne Jaedicke
Jefferys Allen
Karen Mootershead
FCSS Policy Review Consultation Report page 8