HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-2023-125 - Modernizing the City's Community Centre Operating Model
Community Services Departmentwww.kitchener
REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: June 19, 2023
SUBMITTED BY: Mark Hildebrand, Director, Neighbourhood Programs & Services, 519-
741-2200 ext. 7687
PREPARED BY: Elin Moorlag Silk, Interim Manager, Service Coordination &
Improvement, 519-741-2200 ext. 7193
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All Wards
DATE OF REPORT: June 8, 2023
REPORT NO.: CSD-2023-125
SUBJECT: Centre Operating Model and
Related Guiding Policies
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.
to cover programs offered by all Neighbourhood Associations at a city-owned
community centre, and staff be directed to build the financial impact of that program
expansion into the 2024 operating budget.
2. That, as a condition of affiliation with the City, all Neighbourhood Associations
offering programs out of a city-
Inclusion Support Worker program for all program participants who request such
support/accommodation.
3. That, starting in 2024, the City fund the cost of residents utilizing its Inclusion Support
Worker program when participating in programs offered by a Neighbourhood
Association at a City-owned community centre, and staff be directed to build the
financial impact of this change into the 2024 operating budget.
4. Guidelines for Non-Profit Groups (MUN-FAC-415) be
updated and clarified to reflect the following key elements:
a. It is vital to have a variety of programs, supports and services offered out of
a community centre that meet the diverse needs of residents living in the
surrounding neighbourhoods.
b. Neighbourhood Associations are important partners in the
delivery of programs offered at city-owned community centres. When
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
making decisions about the allocation of space at a city-owned community
centre, the space needs of Neighbourhood Association programs should be
considered alongsidethe space needs of other diverse programming
provided by other organizations and the City.
c. Leveraging community organizations that have specific skills, expertise and
experience to offer a variety of programs and supports out of a community
centre is key to the success of the centre, and the health and wellbeing of
residents living in the surrounding neighbourhoods.
d. City staff have the final decision-making authority on the allocation and
booking of space in a city-owned community centre.
5. ffiliation Policy (MUN-FAC-324) be amended to add
a condition of affiliation requiring Neighbourhood Associations that provide
programming out of a City-owned community centre to:
a. Establish and publish online an equity, diversity and inclusion policy for the
Association which, at a minimum, commits to providing a variety of
programs at city-owned community centres that meet the diverse needs of
the residents.
b. Have all Neighbourhood Association Board members participate in city-
organized and funded EDI training every two years.
6.
registration processes (including potential improvements to ActiveNet), with a focus
on improving the user experience for members of the public registering for programs
and members of Neighbourhood Associations running programs.
7.
process that would outline the staffing and financial implications of opening city-
owned centres on weekends potentially through a phased, multi-year approach.
8. That, the City work with a representative group of Neighbourhood Associations to
develop and launch a comprehensive, ongoing, city-wide promotional campaign to
educate residents on the existence of the community centres and Neighbourhood
Associations, as well as programs, services and supports that can be accessed at
those centres.
9. That the City test the creation of a multi-year partnership agreement between the City
and one of the larger, more complex NAs providing programs and other services out
of a city-owned community centre and make a determination as to whether or not there
is value in extending such agreements to other large NAs in the future.
10. Policy (MUN-FAC-324) be amended to add
a condition of affiliation requiring Neighbourhood Associations that provide
programming out of a City-ownedcommunity centre, and have generated more than
$20,000 in revenue during the previous fiscal year, to:
a. Provide the following financial information to the City on an annual basis:
(1) total revenue generated during their previous fiscal year, (2) total expenses
in their previous fiscal year, and (3) total funding held in reserves/savings.
b. Establish and publish online a reinvestment policy that will outline how the
Association will reinvest revenues generated through programming offered at
City-owned community centres into the community.
11. That, as a condition of affiliation, to support ongoing two-way sharing of information
and collaboration between the City and NAs providing programs out of a City-owned
community centre, the Ward Councillor and a City staff person be invited to all Board
12. That, as a condition of affiliation, Neighbourhood Associations providing
programming out of a city-owned community centre, agree to turn over any unspent
funding to the City prior to ceasing to operate; and that the City provide that funding
to a future Neighbourhood Association in the area or invest it into the community
centre and/or surrounding neighbourhoods previously served by that NA.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
Over many years the City has built, and now operates, 14 community centres located in
neighbourhoods across the City.
community centre operating model was created more than two decades
ago and has not been significantly updated since then.
The City is fortunate to have volunteer-run Neighbourhood Associations (NAs) who are
interested and skilled in providing programming out of some of the Citycommunity centres.
Of the 26 Neighbourhood Associations affiliated with the City, 13 offered programming at a
community centre over the past year. Of those 13, four Associations accounted for 70% of
all NA programming offered out of city-owned community centres. Several other community
centres had no Neighbourhood Association programming during that time period.
situation where significantly different levels of programming are now offered out of
14 community centres.
Analysis of the programs currently being offered at city-owned community centres indicates
that lower levels of programming tend to be offered in community centres located in lower-
income neighbourhoods and higher levels of programming are being offered out of
community centres located in higher-income neighbourhoods (with a few exceptions).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
1
and utilized, are guided largely by two City policies.These policies were created over 20 years
ago and since that time the operating model has grown outdated. As a result, the current
operating model is now inadvertently contributing to a situation where program offerings and
widely between centres. Levels of program delivery are not meeting the
under-served and lower-income neighbourhoods. In an effort
to begin to address some of these challenges, on March 20, 2023, Council unanimously
approve
responsibility
between City staff, Neighbourhood Association (NA) volunteers and other community partners.
The model relies very heavily (much more than other municipalities of similar size across
Canada) on volunteers to provide crucial recreation, leisure and other forms of programming to
Kitchener residents. Yet,
Policy, the nature of NAs has changed and evolved significantly; some NAs have flourished
under the current model and evolved into large, complex organizations who make programming
out of a community centre a priority, whereas other NAs are smaller and choose to focus on
other important priorities within their neighbourhoods such as advocacy, planning initiatives,
and/or events, and are not providing programs out of a community centre. Further, many of the
NAs currently affiliated with the City struggle to recruit and retain volunteers, a situation mirrored
by many organizations across Waterloo Region and beyond as volunteer rates have been in
steep decline post pandemic across the country.
In order to properly assess the current community centre operating model, staff undertook an
analysis of program offerings at all 14 community centres for a one-year period. Some key
findings of that analysis include:
Approximately 22 during the
one-year time period under review.
Of the 26 NAs currently affiliated with the City, in the one-year period being reviewed, 13 (50%)
offered programming out of a city-owned community centre, and of those 13, four accounted for
70% of all NA programming offered across the city.
55% of all community centre programming is happening at four centres (Stanley Park, Huron,
Doon Pioneer Park, Forest Heights). The remaining 45% of programming is unequally distributed
amongst the remaining 10 centres.
Over 50% of all programs offered across all centres fall into the category of Physical Health &
Fitness. Programs focused on Mental Health and Wellbeing and Services for Vulnerable
Populations (the top two rec & leisure program priorities identified in a recent resident survey),
are not being adequately addressed and account for less than 4% of all City-run programming
and 1% of all NA-run programming.
68% of all community centre programming is happening at the seven community centres located
in mid to higher-income neighbourhoods, and just 32% of all programming is happening at the
seven community centres located in neighbourhoods with a reported median household income
2
below the City of Kitchener median.
1
MUN-FAC-415: Facility Booking Guidelines for Non-Profit Groups Policy & MUN-FAC-324: Affiliation Neighbourhood
Associations Policy
2
Median Household income for the City of Kitchener is $87K (Stats Canada 2021, Census Profile)
Community centres located in mid to higher income neighbourhoods have an average ratio of
programs per person of one program for every 106 residents (1:106), whereas community centres
located in lower income neighbourhoods have an average program to person ratio of 1 program
for every 190 residents (1:190).
What the programming analysis indicates is a tendency for community centres in middle and
upper-income neighbourhoods to have higher programming numbers, particularly NA-run
programming numbers, than those in lower income neighbourhoods. From an equity
perspective, this kind of disparity in programs and services being offered between higher and
lower income neighbourhoods demonstrates systemic inequities through the (unintentional)
creation of systemic barriers for particular groups in this case, those living in lower-income
neighbourhoods.
It is important to stress that the City and the community are fortunate to have volunteer-run
Neighbourhood Associations who are interested and skilled in providing programming out of
community are fortunate to have dedicated and highly skilled municipal employees who work in
surrounding neighbourhoods but they are constrained by existing policies and procedures.
The challenge before Council is not with the hard-working Neighbourhood Association
outdated community centre operating model. In order to begin to rectify this situation, staff have
put forward a series of recommendations in this report related to the following actions:
cover Neighbourhood Association
programs
Require Neighbourhood Associations to uSupport Worker Program and fund
the use of that program
requirements
Conduct a review of program registration processes with a focus on user experience
Expand community centre hours of operation on weekends
Launch a comprehensive awareness campaign promoting community centres and NAs
Create multi-year partnership agreements with larger NAs
City staff recognize that implementation of these actions, if approved by Council, will require
additional work by staff, and the volunteers who run Neighbourhood Associations. Staff are
strongly committed to supporting NAs in completing this work, phased in over time, with plenty
oftransparent communication.
Many of the recommendations made in this report will not require new funding to complete.
However, there are three recommendations that will require additional funding to implement and,
if approved, should be considered as part of the 2024 budget process. These three
recommendations
Support Worker Program, and expanding community centre hours on weekends.
BACKGROUND:
Over many years the City of Kitchener has built, and now operates, 14 community centres across
the City. -
y other
municipalities was deliberate. This model can have many benefits, such as: fostering a closer
connection between surrounding residents and the centres, providing greater ability to adapt
programs/supports to reflect very local needs of surrounding neighbourhoods, and encouraging
residents to walk/roll to their centre to attend programs and events.
booked
and utilized, and the type of programs and other supports that are offered to residents from in
the centre are guided largely by two City policies:
1) MUN-FAC-415: Facility Booking Guidelines for Non-Profit Groups Policy
2) MUN-FAC-324: Affiliation Neighbourhood Associations Policy.
These policies, and the overall community centre operating model, were created over 20 years
ago. Given the substantial changes and significant shifts in social and economic norms that have
happened over the past 20 years, rown
outdated and is now inadvertently contributing to a situation where program offerings and
and in some cases is not meeting the needs of
local residents.
It is important to stress that the City, and the community as a whole, are very fortunate to
have volunteer-run Neighbourhood Associations who are interested and skilled in
providing programming out of some of the City community centres. Programming
requires a significant amount of effort and volunteer hours, and many of those Associations are
It is also important to stress that the City, and the community as a whole, are very
fortunate to have dedicated and highly skilled municipal employees that work
community centres and want to do more to activate their centres and support the
surrounding neighbourhoods but they are constrained by existing policies and procedures.
The challenge before Council is not with the hard-working Neighbourhood Association
volunteers, nbut
outdated community centre operating model.
to provide crucial recreation,
leisure and other forms of programming that are important to creating a healthy and connected
community. Unfortunately, over the years that model of relying so heavily on volunteers who
have the interest and time to run programs
where residents receive significantly different levels of programming, services and other
supports depending on which centre they live near. Some centres offer a high-level of
programming to surrounding neighbourhoods (and beyond) while other centres do not. This
under-served
and lower-income neighbourhoods and it is inconsistent with as
outlined in its Equity, Inclusion and Anti-Racism policy (GOV-COR-2025).
In an effort to begin to
community centre operating model, on March 20, 2023, Council unanimously approved the
following motion:
1. Strengthen, and modernize, collaborative partnerships between the City and
community partners including affiliated Neighbourhood Associations
operating out of City-owned community centres.
2. -owned community centres, where and when
centres are not already being fully utilized (eg. Expanding hours of operations,
attracting additional partners).
3. Diversify programs, services and supports offered out of City-owned community
centres (either directly, or through partnerships) to reflect the increasingly
diverse needs of Kitchener residents (e.g. mental health and wellness, supports
In response to this motion, staff have prepared this report which includes information about the
current community centre operating model (using data to illustrate some of the challenges and
inequities) and provides a series of recommendations for Council to consider.
REPORT:
Programming City-owned Community Centres
The operating model currently used to provide programming to residents in its community
centres, is founded on a shared responsibility between City staff, Neighbourhood Association
(NA) volunteers and other community partners. Under the current model, programming at city-
owned centres can generally be broken down as follows:
1) Indirect Programs (Neighbourhood Associations) These programs are organized
and run by Neighbourhood Association (NA) volunteers who choose to provide
programming out of a city-owned community centre. It is important to note that not all
NAs choose, or have the capacity or time, to run programs at a centre. NAs are arms-
length organizations from the City that are approved for affiliation by City Council on an
annual basis. An Association must be formally affiliated by the City in order to run
programs out of a City-owned community centre. Affiliated NAs keep the revenue they
generate through programs they offer out of city-owned community centres. They also
receive a number of benefits and supports from the City as a result of affiliation, including:
rd
free access to community centre space; 3 party liability coverage for their volunteers
y staff
who support their work and their programs, and funding for their NA newsletter to
residents. Examples of indirect programs provided by NAs include Kids in the Kitchen,
piano lessons for all ages, pickleball drop-in, country line dancing, Zumba and ballet.
2) Direct City-run Programs These programs are planned and run by City staff. Funding
for these programs is
generated through these programs are returned to the City(although not all programs
are run on a cost-recovery basis). Examples of direct programming offered at community
centres include fitness classes for seniors, Kitchener Tech Connects, summer day
camps for children, youth drop-in services and various drop-in sports for all ages.
3) Indirect Programs (Community Partners) These programs are offered through a
partnership between the City and external community partners. Community Partners are
often separate non-profit organizations, with their own structure and staff, who may or
may not be partially funded by the City of Kitchener to provided a specific service in a
neighbourhood. These community partners bring to the table specific experience and
expertise and leverage the community centre to provide specific supports needed in the
surrounding neighbourhoods. Examples of indirect community partner programming
include food security programming (e.g. food distribution, cooking classes) with House
of Friendship, Newcomer programthe
Coalition of Muslim Women, and various other programming with organizations like
YMCA, AFRO, EarlyON, Extend a Family and Camino.
The Evolution of Neighbourhood Association Programming:
Since the creation of olicy, the nature of
Neighbourhood Associations has changed and evolved
heavily on volunteer-run NAs to provide a significant amount of programming out of city-owned
community centres:
Many affiliated NAs (13 of 26 choose not to run programs in community centres, but rather
focus on other important priorities such as advocacy, planning initiatives, and/or events.
As independent organizations it is their prerogative to pick their priorities and determine
the work they will do within the community all of which is valuable.
Some NAs do not have the volunteer capacity to do the significant amount of work
required to provide programs at a community centre due to the increasing challenge of
recruiting and maintaining volunteers interested in this type of work, a situation mirrored
by many organizations across Waterloo Region and beyond as volunteer rates have been
3
in steep decline post pandemic across the country.
Other NAs have ceased to exist for a variety of reasons, leaving a void in community
centre programming while staff work to support the development of new Associations
(e.g. Kingsdale, Bridgeport)
Still, other NAs have flourished under the current model and evolved into large, complex
organizations that recruit and manage many volunteers, hire and manage multiple staff,
are responsible large budgets, and offer many programs to residents from across
Kitchener and beyond.
3
https://kitchener.citynews.ca/2023/02/07/organizations-across-region-see-steep-drop-in-volunteers-post-pandemic-6494457/
NA Revenue Generated through Community Centre Programming (2022)
Neighbourhood Associations that provide programming out of a City-owned community centre
keep the revenue they generate through those programs to fund their operating costs and other
expenses, or investments in the community they serve. Over the years there have been several
examples of Associations reinvesting their funding into significant community amenities such as
playgrounds and parks and establishing community gardens and food forests.
To begin to understand the distribution of revenues that are being generated between
Associations, staff completed some
registration program (ActiveNet). While this source of information is not fully inclusive of all NA
revenues (some NAs may generate revenues outside of ActiveNet) and it does not consider the
costs Associations incur throughout a year, it does provide a general understanding of the levels
4
of gross revenue being generated. Based on that analysis, in 2022:
1 NA committed to offering programming at a community centres made $0.
2 NAs that offer some programming at a centre made between $1 - $20,000.
1 NA that offers some programming at a centres made between $20,001 - $50,000.
4 NAs that offer programming at a centre made between $50,001 - $100,000.
1 NA that offers programming at a centre made between $101,000 - $250,000.
1 NA that offers programming at a centre made over $250,000.
Staff also looked at gross revenue generated by NAs in each year between 2018 2021.
Revenue generated by the NAs were generally consistent with the trends outlined above,
although in 2020 and 2021 the amounts were understandably lower due to COVID.
Staff have used this information to establish a benchmark of $20,000 for some of the
recommendations contained in this report. It should be noted that, while affiliated NAs can
generate substantial revenue through programming (as shown above), the current affiliation
policy does not require disclosing financial information to the City and the public for transparency
purposes, although some NAs voluntarily provide this on their own. In contrast, City affiliated
sport groups and Tier I and II community grant recipients are required to provide yearly financial
statements to the City as a condition of minor sport affiliation and receiving Tier 1 funding.
Community Centre Programming Data Analysis:
In order to properly understand and assess the current operating model within City-owned
community centres, staff undertook an analysis of program offerings at all 14 community centres
for a one-year period (April 1, 2022 March 31, 2023). The full analysis of community centre
programming is attached to this report as Appendix A.
Methodology
system, ActiveNet, which tracks both direct City-run and indirect NA-run programs offered out of
City-owned community centres. The criteria used for all programs included in the analysis was
the following: a start date of April 1, 2022 or after, AND an end date on or before March 31,
4
Three Neighbourhood Associations who offer programming out of the Mill-Courtland community centre are not included in
this analysis as they do not use ActiveNet for program registration.
2023. Thus, programs that started and finished within this one-year period are included in the
analysis for all community centres, with the exception of a few programs that run from September
to June, which were also included. Program stats for Mill-Courtland community centre are
unavailable on ActiveNet and were obtained directly from community centre staff using the same
criteria outlined above. Programs out of scope for this analysis are any drop-in programs not
tracked through ActiveNet, and programs that are run through partner organizations such as the
House of Friendship, YMCA, AFRO and Camino. There will be some margin of error due to this
imperfect tracking system, though it is not likely to significantly impact the overall trends reported.
In this analysis staff were looking specifically at the number and types of both direct and indirect
programs offered out of community centres, the number of affiliated Neighbourhood
Associations offering programs out of centres, and the overall level of use across community
centres. Population size and median income of the surrounding neighbourhoods was also
included in the analysis; these demographics were pulled from the publicly available City of
Kitchener Demographics GeoHub 2021.
Between April 2022 and April 2023, approximately
14 community centres. As illustrated in Figure 1, distribution of program frequency across the
14 community centres is widely divergent, ranging from numbers in the hundreds for some
centres, to less than 50 for others.
Figure 1: City-Run and NA Programming offered at Community Centres 2022/23
Programs offered at Community Centres
April 2022 -March 2023
D
700
E
R
E
F
600
F
O
500
S
M
400
A
R
G
300
O
R
P
200
F
O
100
R
E
B
0
M
U
N
COMMUNITY CENTRES
NA-Run ProgramsCity-Run Programs
A summary of the findings of analysis of current program is included below.
Highlights from the Data Analysis
Of the 26 NAs affiliated with the City with 2022/2023, in the one-year period being
reviewed, 13 (50%) chose to offer programming out of a city-owned community centre,
and of those 13, four accounted for 70% of all NA programming offered across the city
One Neighbourhood Association is responsible for providing 36% of all NA-run
programming across all community centres; 13 affiliated Neighbourhood Associations do
not offer programming and were focused on other priorities
55% of all community centre programming is happening at four community centres
(Stanley Park, Huron, Doon Pioneer Park, Forest Heights); the remaining 45% of
programming is unequally distributed amongst the remaining 10 centres.
Over 50% of all programs offered across all centres fall into the category of Physical
Health & Fitness. Programs focused on Mental Health and Wellbeing and Services for
Vulnerable Populations (the top two rec & leisure program priorities identified in a recent
resident survey), are not being adequately addressed and account for less than 4% of
all City-run programming and 1% of all NA-run programming.
68% of all community centre programming is happening at the seven community centres
located in mid to higher-income neighbourhoods, and just 32% of all programming is
happening at the seven community centres located in neighbourhoods with a reported
5
median household income below the City of Kitchener median
Further inconsistencies are seen when looking at the ratio of number of programs per
person by population size of the neighbourhoods surrounding the community centre.
Community centres located in mid to higher income neighbourhoods have an average
ratio of programs per person of one program for every 106 residents (1:106), whereas
community centres located in lower income neighbourhoods have an average program
to person ratio of 1 program for every 190 residents (1:190)
The results of this data analysis indicate that the operating model currently being used at the
city works very well for some community centres and Neighbourhood Associations, while it is
leaving other community centres underutilized and thus the surrounding populations
underserved. Further, despite the fact only 50% of affiliated Neighbourhood Associations choose
g model continues to rely heavily on NAs to
utilize space at city-owned community centres. While this model is likely the least expensive for
the municipality, it is creating inequities between community centres and the neighbourhoods
they serve by putting too much onus on volunteer-run Neighbourhood Associations.
When looking at demographics of the neighbourhoods surrounding the community centres such
as income and population size, the inequities are further illustrated, with a clear tendency for
community centres in middle and upper-income neighbourhoods to have higher programming
numbers, and in particular, higher NA-run programming numbers, than those in lower income
neighbourhoods. From an equity perspective, this kind of disparity in programs and services
being offered between higher and lower income neighbourhoods is the clear demonstration of
systemic inequities through the (unintentional) creation of barriers for particular groups in this
case, those living in lower-income neighbourhoods.
5
Median Household income for the City of Kitchener is $87K (Stats Canada 2021, Census Profile)
In Figure 2 below, disparities in programming numbers are illustrated by median income levels
of the surrounding neighbourhood.
Figure 2: City-run and NA-run Programming offered at Community Centres 22/23 split by Median Household
6
Income
6
Due to limitations of the available data, creating an exact split above and below the $87,000 median income for the City of
Kitchener was not possible. As household income is reported in $20,000 intervals, the closest split that could be done for
neighbourhood demographics was above and below $80,000. This minor adjustment does not significantly impact the results
Recommended Changes to Community Centre Operating Model & Related City Policies
The following is a list of changes for City Council to consider making to the current community
centre operating model. This list of potential changes has been organized according to the three
main objectives included in the motion City Council passed unanimously on March 20, 2023.
In putting together these recommendations staff worked closely with management staff within
the Neighbourhood Programs and Services (NPS) division (which includes responsibility for the
who provided helpful suggestions and feedback throughout the
stth
process. Further, between May 1 and May 28, 2023, affiliated Neighbourhood Associations
were surveyed to provide input on a number of these potential changes. Survey responses were
received from 17 out of 26 Neighbourhood Associations, and several NAs engaged in
discussions with NPS staff regarding the draft recommendations. All responses, suggestions
and questions received from Associations were considered carefully by staff, and a number of
changes were made to the recommendations and contents of this report based on their input. A
summary of the feedback received from NAs is attached to this report as Appendix B.
Objective #1: Diversify programs, services and supports offered out of City-owned community
centres (either directly, or through partnerships) to reflect the increasingly diverse needs of
Kitchener residents (e.g. mental health and wellness, supports for vulnerable populations, food
distribution)."
NA Programs
Recommendation
1.That,
to cover programs offered by all Neighbourhood Associations at a city-owned
community centre, and staff be directed to build the financial impact of that program
expansion into the 2024 operating budget.
Explanation
program is an annual financial subsidy provided to City of
Kitchener residents in order to access recreation and leisure programming at City of Kitchener
facilities. Currently, this fee assistance only applies to City-run direct programs and does not
cover residents looking to participate in a NA-run program. Having said that, there are 7 NAs
who offer their own fee assistance program for residents who need financial support to access
their programs. While some NAs have the financial means to provide this type of fee assistance
to residents, other Associations have limited funding which can be drawn down quickly when
they offer fee assistance to users accessing their programs. This means that those Associations
with limited funds who offer fee assistance have less money to invest into the neighbourhoods
they serve in other ways.
Staff considered two options for expanding the Leisure Access program to include NA programs:
1. Expand Leisure Access to NAs that generate less than $20,000 in annual revenue, OR
2. Expand to all NAs who offer programs in community centers regardless of annual revenue.
The recommended option is to expand the Leisure Access program to all NAs offering
programming at city-owned community centres. This option will be much easier to promote and
communicate to usersand will provid
centres. This option was overwhelmingly supported in the responses received by NAs to the
online survey asking for feedback. NAs that currently offer fee subsidies would be encouraged
to continue to do so, which would provide even more opportunities for residents to access
taff have
conducted a financial analysis and estimate the annual cost of expanding Leisure Access to
cover all NA programming would be approximately $30,000.
Recommendations
2. That, as a condition of affiliation with the City, all Neighbourhood Associations
offering programs out of a city-
Inclusion Support Worker program for all program participants who request such
support/accommodation.
3. That, starting in 2024, the City fund the cost of residents utilizing its Inclusion Support
Worker program when participating in programs offered by a Neighbourhood
Association at a City-owned community centre, and staff be directed to build the
financial impact of this change into the 2024 operating budget.
Explanation
To fully participate in recreation and leisure programs, some residents with a disability require
individual supports, accommodation plans, program adaptations and/or equipment. These
supports often come in the form of intensive, one to one staff support from a qualified Inclusion
Support Worker (a city staff person). This city service is currently available for all City and NA
programs. However, when required to support an individual enrolled in an NA program, the NA
is required to pay the City for the wages of the Inclusion Support Worker. While some NAs have
the financial capacity to (and do) participate in this service, other Associations do not have the
financial capacity to pay these wages, and therefore do not provide this support to a potential
participant of their programs. This means that some residents experience barriers to participating
in certain NA programs and receive inconsistent forms of support.
believe NAs should be required (through the Affiliation policy) to direct participants to use
the program, and the City should cover all related costs. This recommendation was strongly
supported by NAs who offer programming out of community centres, many of whom mentioned
the need for consistency and barrier-free access to all programs at community centres.
Staff estimates the financial impact to the City of making this change would be approximately
$30,000 however, some additional analysis is required to determine if there would be a need
for an additional part-time staff member to meet the demand for these supports. This analysis
would be done through piloting this change in 2024 to assess if additional staff supports are
needed.
Modernize
Recommendation
4. Guidelines for Non-Profit Groups (MUN-FAC-415) be
updated and clarified to reflect the following key elements:
a. It is vital to have a variety of programs, supports and services offered out of a
community centre that meet the diverse needs of residents living in the
surrounding neighbourhoods.
b. Neighbourhood Associations are important partners in the
delivery of programs offered at city-owned community centres. When making
decisions about the allocation of space at a city-owned community centre, the
space needs of Neighbourhood Association programs should be considered
alongside the space needs of other diverse programming provided by other
organizations and the City.
c. Leveraging community organizations that have specific skills, expertise and
experience to offer a variety of programs and supports out of a community
centre is key to the success of the centre, and the health and wellbeing of
residents living in the surrounding neighbourhoods.
d. City staff have the final decision-making authority on the allocation and booking
of space in a city-owned community centre.
Explanation
Booking Guidelines for Non-Profit Groups - Policy (MUN-FAC-415) was first
approved by City Council in 1994.
programming needs are changing and becoming much more complex than they were almost 30
years ago. This policy is vague and even confusing in some sections and should be clarified to
For example, although the policy already ermining community centre
space use, as well as how groups will be considered in the allocation of space, over the years
the vague language in the policy, and resulting lack of clarity, has led to different interpretations.
While the existing policy indicconsideration to facility space,
over the years this has been misinterpreted (and verbalized by some) to mean that the NA has
first right of refusal to all space within the City owned community centre. This misinterpretation
has made it challenging for staff to balance new space requests from other partners that meet
emerging needs within the community with the interests of NA. At some centres, it has also
created challenges and disagreements with NAs when staff have attempted to bring a broader
diversity of programs and supports into a centre (e.g. food distribution).
This
space for specialized programs which have been identified as priorities by the City (e.g. youth
programming, summer camps, food distribution). This should be corrected to promote a greater
diversity of programs at City-owned community centres.
Equity, Diversity & Inclusion
Recommendation
5. That, the Policy (MUN-FAC-324 ) be amended to add
a condition of affiliation requiring Neighbourhood Associations that provide
programming out of a City-owned community centre to:
c. Establish and publish online an equity, diversity and inclusion policy for the
Association which, at a minimum, commits to providing a variety of programs
at city-owned community centres that meet the diverse needs of the residents.
d. Have all Neighbourhood Association Board members participate in city-
organized and funded EDI training every two years.
Explanation
Tdoes not include a significant amount
of guidance and direction that would be included if the policy were written today including
guidance around priorities such as transparency and accountability, or equity, diversity and
inclusion. Over the past twenty years, since that policy was written, the community has become
much more diverse and the needs of residents living here are also more complex. In an effort to
modernize the affiliation policy, staff recommend the above conditions of affiliation be added to
the policy.
To support NAs in meeting these conditions of affiliation (in particular the development of an EDI
policy for the Association), the City will provide templates, guidelines and staff support as this
work is completed. A policy template will be drafted by City staff and provided to all NAs to use
in the development of their own policy if they so chose. This draft policy may be used as is, or
may be significantly revised in order to reflect the unique needs and perspectives of the NA. This
is a similar approach to how the City supported NAs when the Accessibility for Ontarians with a
Disability Act (AODA) became law. To assist NAs in meeting compliance to the associated
standards and regulations, staff provided supports such as training materials, policy templates,
compliance schedules and reference materials.
Objective #2: -owned community centres, where and when
centres are not already being fully utilized (eg. expanding hours of operations, attracting
additional partners).
Conduct a Review of Program Registration
Recommendation
6.
registration processes (including potential improvements to ActiveNet), with a focus
on improving the user experience for members of the public registering for programs
and members of Neighbourhood Associations running programs.
Explanation
The platform used by members of the public, city staff, and members of most Neighbourhood
Associations to set up and register for most direct and indirect programs at community centres
is ActiveNet. ActiveNet serves not only as the online registration system for programs, but is
also used for booking facility rentals and Kitchener Market vendor contracts. For many residents
ActiveNet is the primary form of contact with the City as they register themselves, or a family
member, for programs. We have heard from members of the public that ActiveNet is difficult to
navigate, and this sentiment was echoed in the responses from NAs to the online survey.
InDecember 2022, responsibility for ActiveNet (including existing dedicated staff) was moved to
perience and Solutions team as a recognition of the significant
opportunities to improve the user experience with this system. Between March and May of 2023
staff completed an initial internal review and needs assessment of ActiveNet. This limited initial
review was focused on the use of ActiveNet for program offerings, program registrations and
facility rentals, with a particular focus on customer experience, staff experience, equity, and
accessibility of the program. Initial results from this study indicate a need for a much more
comprehensive review of ActiveNet, and all other accompanying methods currently used for
program offerings and registrations, in order to optimize processes and improve the overall
customer experience. In particular, this review will focus on making the process more user
friendly for all groups involved (including Neighbourhood Associations). Staff recommend that
this review be launched in 2024, which will include engagement with members of the public,
Neighbourhood Associations, members of City Council and city staff to ensure comprehensive
stakeholder input.
Expand Community Centre Hours of Operation on Weekends
Recommendation:
7. That,
budget process that would outline the staffing and financial implications of opening
centres on weekends potentially through a phased, multi-year approach.
Explanation
The hours of operation for each community centre varies greatly on weekends with some open
on Saturday mornings, a small number open Saturday afternoons and only one open 9am-1pm
Sunday (and in this instance the NA is charged to cover staffing costs associated with operating
the building). No other centres are currently open on Sunday except when a group has booked
the facility to rent. Expanding the hours that community centres are open on weekends has
significant potential to increase programming available to residents (likely with a specific focus
on youth programming, mental health and wellbeing and supports for vulnerable populations),
provide a safe space for residents to gather on weekends, and bring users into the centre who
may not be able to attend during the week.
Staff believe there is a lot of potential associated with this idea but need more time to fully
understand the financial implications. Several NAs who responded to the online survey about
this potential changes were also supportive, but suggested the City take a pilot strategy to this,
starting with a few centres in order to test out the interest of residents. One approach to this
change could be to phase it in over several years instead of having all 14 centres open on
weekends starting next year.
Launch a Comprehensive Awareness Campaign Promoting Community Centres
Recommendation:
8. That, the City work with a representative group of Neighbourhood Associations to
develop and launch a comprehensive, ongoing, city-wide promotional campaign to
educate residents on the existence of the community centres and Neighbourhood
Associations, as well as programs, services and supports that can be accessed at
those centres.
Explanation
Through decades of investment in neighbourhood-based community centres, Kitchener
residents benefit greatly from a network of community centres that is almost certainly
unparalleled for a municipality of our size. Unfortunately, too many Kitchener residents still do
not know the centres exist or what programs, supports and services they are able to access at
their local centre. While the City has, from time to time, run some brief promotional campaigns,
much more can be done to make residents aware of their community centres and to promote
the programs, services and supports provided at the centres. Funding already exists within the
community centre section budget that would be prioritized to support this work.
Many of the Neighbourhood Associations who responded to the online survey about these
potential changes were very much in favor of this recommendation and in particular stressed the
importance of utilizing a wide variety of tactics that do not rely on internet access. Other
Associations suggested a committee of staff and NA representatives be established to build the
promotional campaign together staff agree and are recommending this approach.
Increase City-run Programming in Centres with Space Capacity
As highlighted in the data provided in Appendix A, given the current community centre operating
-run NAs to provide programming at its
community centres, there are several city-owned community centres that are offering levels of
programming well below the overall average across all centres. The data also demonstrates that
the centres offering the lowest levels of programming are generally located in neighbourhoods
where the residents already find themselves with limited access to resources due to their
financial position or other reasons.
programmer staff positions who will target their efforts on increasing programming in centres
where current programming levels are low.
No further recommendation is required to move forward on this idea as Council has already
approved the FTEs and funding to increase City-run programming.
Objective #3: Strengthen, and modernize, collaborative partnerships between the City and
community partners including affiliated Neighbourhood Associations operating out of
City-owned community centres.
Create Multi-Year Partnership Agreements with Larger NAs
Recommendation
9. That the City test the creation of a multi-year partnership agreement between the City
and one of the larger, more complex NAs providing programs and other services out
of a city-owned community centre and make a determination as to whether or not there
is value in extending such agreements to other complex NAs in the future.
Explanation
One of the changes that has occurred over the past 20 years is the emergence of larger, more
complex NAs that recruit and manage many volunteers, hire and manage multiple staff, are
responsible large budgets, offer many programs to residents from across Kitchener and beyond,
and sometimes provide a variety of supports to the community beyond traditional programming
(e.g. events, food distribution, capital projects). The size, scale and complexity of these larger
NAs was not anticipated when the operating model and supporting
policies were first established over two decades ago, and as a result, the City may not be set up
to provide them with appropriate supports.
Given the complexity and scale of these larger Associations, staff are interested in testing the
creation of a multi-year partnership agreement with these Associations. These agreements
would be created through the support of a third-party facilitator. Through that facilitator, the City
and the NA would work together to reach agreements and document those agreements on
important issues that could include: the core responsibilities of each partner, communication and
collaboration approaches, respect in the workplace protocols, dispute resolution mechanisms,
and the specific supports the City would provide to the NA in exchange for their services/supports
within city-owned community centres. Staff have already had some preliminary discussions with
the Stanley Park Neighbourhood Association about this opportunity and believe these
agreements have the potential to be mutually beneficial to the City and the NAs.
Make Neighbourhood Affiliation Policy Transparency
Recommendations:
10. That, the Policy (MUN-FAC-324) be amended to add
a condition of affiliation requiring Neighbourhood Associations that provide
programming out of a City-owned community centre, and have generated more than
$20,000 in revenue during the previous fiscal year, to:
a. Provide the following information to the City on an annual basis (1) total revenue
generated during their previous fiscal year, (2) total expenses in their previous
fiscal year, and (3) total funding held in reserves/savings.
b. Establish and publish online a reinvestment policy that will outline how
Associations will reinvest revenues generated through programming offered at
City-owned community centres into the community.
11. That, as a condition of affiliation, to support ongoing two-way sharing of information
and collaboration between the City and NAs providing programs out of a City-owned
community centre, the Ward Councillor and a City staff person be invited to all Board
12. That, as a condition of affiliation, Neighbourhood Associations providing
programming out of a city-owned community centre, agree to turn over any unspent
funding to the City prior to ceasing to operate; and that the City provide that funding
to a future Neighbourhood Association in the area or invest it into the community
centre and/or surrounding neighbourhoods previously served by that NA.
Explanation
The affiliation policy was first approved by City Council back in 2002 and has not been
substantially updated since that time. The policy includes: (1) the eligibility requirements for an
NA to be affiliated by the City, (2) the process for an NA to become affiliated and (3) the benefits
an affiliated NA receives from the City (e.g. free space in community centres).
This minimalist approach to the content of the affiliation policy does not include a significant
amount of guidance and direction that would be included if the policy were written today. For
example, the policy does not provide guidance on several important issues such as: how NAs
will operate in a municipally-owned facility, what NAs will do in exchange for the benefits of being
affiliated, how an NA will collaborate with City staff and other community partners within a City-
owned community centre, or how funds collected by an NA from programs run in a taxpayer
funded facility will be spent and reported to the public in the interest of transparency.
Between 2019 and 2021 the City attempted to work with all Neighbourhood Associations to fully
rewrite the affiliation policy but were unable to gain a consensus amongst the many
different Associations given the many different ideas, perspective, interests and priorities. That
work was paused without a conclusion and had not been restarted by the time Council moved
retrospect, it was likely overly ambitious to try and rewrite the entire affiliation policy and gain
consensus amongst the City and so many different Associations. Staff believe a more achievable
approach would be to look at smaller, specific changes that can be made to the policy, some of
which are
accountability of activities occurring in City-owned, tax-payer funded community centres, staff
recommend the additions to the policy outlined above.
Implementation Schedule
Staff recognize that implementation of anyof these ideas, if approved,will require some
additional work by Neighbourhood Associations that provide programming at a City-owned
community centre (e.g. policy development). Staff are committed to supporting NAs in
completing this work and heard from many of the Neighbourhood Associations through the
online survey that the changes should be phased in over time, with plenty of staff support and
transparent communication along the way. Staff agree.
The following chart outlines a schedule for the implementation of the recommendations
contained in this report which balances the need for these changes to be made with the capacity
of staff and the Neighbourhood Associations to implement them effectively:
Primary
Action Timeline
Responsibility
Expand Leisure Access to cover NA
Q1 2024 City staff
Programs
Fund residents use of Support Worker
Q1 2024 City staff
Program for NA programs
Revised policy
Association affiliation policy, as per CSD-approved by Council by City staff
2023-125. end of 2023
Revised policy
per recommendation contained in CSD-approved by Council by City staff
2023-125. end of 2023
Comprehensive review of program
2024 City staff
registration (including ActiveNet)
Budge issue paper re: expansion of
Budget 2024 City staff / Council
community centre hours on weekends
Comprehensive awareness campaign Q1 2024 develop plan City staff/ Some
promoting centres Q4 2024 begin plan NAs
City staff / Stanley
Pilot multi-year partnership agreement with
Begin in 2023 Park Community
Neighbourhood Association
Association
Timeline for New Conditions of Affiliation
A number of the recommendations in this report, if approved,
Neighbourhood Affiliation policy. Neighbourhood Associations will be supported by staff in
meeting those new conditions, however, it will still take time for NAs to come into compliance.
Staff would look to implement these new conditions on the following timeline:
Condition of Affiliation Timeline
NAs offering programs out of a city-
owned community centre are required to
NAs to provide the City with financial
information about previous fiscal year
2024 Re-affiliation process
(estimated to be approx. March 2024)
Ward Councillor & City staff invited to NA
meetings and AGM
Commitment to turn funding to the City
prior to ceasing operations
Develop training program (City) 2023/24
Establish and publish an EDI policy
Develop EDI policy (NAs) 2023/24
Participation in EDI training
Revenue reinvestment policy Condition implemented as part of 2025
re-affiliation process
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services. Further, this report is in alignment with the
-
th
2026. As outlined in CAO-2023-217, presented to Council on May 8, 2023, key priorities
identified for the 2023-2026 Strategic Plan include Connection & Belonging, Newcomer
Experience, and Physical & Mental Health.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Many of the recommendations made in this report will not require new funding to complete.
However, there are three recommendations in this report that will require additional funding to
implement and should be considered as part of the 2024 budget process:
Estimated
# Recommendation
Financial Impact
Expand Leisure Access fee assistance program to cover
1 $30,000
Neighbourhood Association programs
Fund residents use of Support Worker program when
3 $30,000
participating in NA programs
TBD (2024 budget
7 Expand community centre hours on weekends
issue paper)
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM
council / committee meeting.
stth
COLLABORATE Between May 1 and May 28, 2023, affiliated Neighbourhood Associations
were surveyed to provide input on a number of recommendations presented in this report.
Survey responses were received from 17 of 26 Associations, and several NAs engaged in
ongoing discussions with staff regarding the draft recommendations. All responses, suggestions
and questions received from Neighbourhood Associations were considered carefully by staff,
and a number of changes were made to the recommendations and contents of this report based
on the input. A summary of the feedback received from NAs is attached to this report as
Appendix B.
APPROVED BY: MICHAEL MAY, DEPUTY CHIEF ADMNISTRATIVE OFFICER
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A Community Centre Programming Review Data Report
Appendix B Summary of Neighbourhood Association Survey Responses
Appendix A: CSD-2023-125
Community Centre Programming Review Data Report
th
June 8, 2023
APPENDIX A: CSD-2023-125
Purpose:
In order to properly understand and assess the current community centre operating
model, staff undertook an analysis of direct and indirect program offerings at all 14 City-
owned community centres for a one-year period (April 1, 2022 March 31, 2023).
Methodology:
ActiveNet, which tracks both direct City-run and indirect NA-run programs offered out of City-
owned community centres. Note: Program stats for the Mill-Courtland community centre are
unavailable on ActiveNet and were obtained from community centre staff using the same
criteria outlined below.
In this analysis staff were looking specifically at the number and types of both direct and
indirect programs offered out of community centres, the number of affiliated
neighbourhood associations offering programs out of centres, and the overall level of use
across community centres.
Population size and median income of the surrounding neighbourhoods were also
included in the analysis; these demographics were pulled from the publicly available City
of Kitchener Demographics GeoHub 2021.
In collecting and analyzing program data, staff were guided by the following principles:
Programs included in this analysis have a start date of April 1, 2022 or after, AND
an end date on or before March 31, 2023. Programs that started AND finished
within this one-year period are included in the analysis for all community centres.
Any programs that run from September to June were included in the analysis as
well, which includes 26 dance programs offered by the Country Hills NA out of the
Country Hills community centre
Direct programs offered by the City and indirect programs offered by
Neighbourhood Associations were included in the program counts and analysis.
Each program offering that requires registration is counted as 1 program in the
analysis regardless of the program duration or length
Programs out of scope included any drop-in programs not tracked through
ActiveNet, and programs that are run through partner organizations (other than
NAs) such as the House of Friendship, YMCA, AFRO and Camino.
Programming offered at the Breithaupt Centre or other City of Kitchener Aquatics
Centres are not included in this analysis.
Throughout the process of conducting data analysis staff worked closely with
community centre management and staff to continually verify the data and to
ensure the numbers matched the experiences of community centre staff.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Given this imperfect tracking system (which does require
some human interpretation of program types and numbers), there will be
some margin of error within the analysis, though it would not impact the
overall trends illustrated in the results.
APPENDIX A: CSD-2023-125
Programming Levels at Community Centres
As illustrated in Table 1 (below), of the 26 Neighbourhood Associations affiliated with the
1
City in 2022 and 2023, between April 2022 and March 2023, only 13 (50%) offered
programming out of a community centre, and of those 13, four Neighbourhood
Associations accounted for 70% of all NA programming offered.
Further analysis reveals that of the 13 NAs that offer programming at a City-owned
community centre, one Neighbourhood Association (Stanley Park) is responsible for
providing 35% of all NA-run programming across all community centres. This means that
residents living in neighbourhoods surrounding the centres utilized by those top four NAs
are very well served by the current model and the strength of their NA, however, residents
living in other neighbourhoods do not have the same access to NA-run programming near
their homes.
Table 1: Programming offered by Neighbourhood Associations Apr 22 Mar 23
4 of 26 NAs
# of NA % of NA
affiliated with the
Neighbourhood Association Programs Programs
City account for
1. Stanley Park Neighbourhood Association 635 35%
70% of the NA
programming
2. Huron Community Association 336 18%
offered. These
3. Doon Pioneer Park Community Association 162 9%
NAs operate out
4. Forest Heights Community Association 136 7%
5. Mill-Courtland Neighbourhood Association 127 7%
14 community
6. Williamsburg Community Association 120 7%
centres.
7. Victoria Hills Neighbourhood Association 104 6%
8. Country Hills Recreation Association 101 5%
9. Centreville-Chicopee Community Association 46 3%
10. Highland-Stirling Community Group 33 2%
11. Cherry Park Neighbourhood Association 23 1%
12. Downtown Neighbourhood Alliance 11 1%
13. Cedar Hill Community Group 3 0.1%
14. Grand Hill Village Neighbourhood Association 0 0%
15. 0 0%
16. Lower Doon Neighbourhood Association 0 0%
17. North Six Neighbourhood Association 0 0%
13 of 26 NAs
affiliated with
18. Alpine Community Association 0 0%
the City did not
19. Greenbelt Neighbourhood Association 0 0%
provide
20. Westmount Neighbourhood Association 0 0%
programing and
21. Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association 0 0%
were focused on
22. Auditorium Neighbourhood Association 0 0%
other priorities
23. Central Frederick Neighbourhood Association 0 0%
24. Eastwood Neighbourhood Association 0 0%
25. Mt-Hope Breithaupt Park Neighbourhood Association 0 0%
26. Olde Berlin Towne Neighbourhood Association 0 0%
Total 1837 100.00%
1
Current affiliations are listed in Staff Report CSD-2023-082
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
April 2023
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Associations April 2022
11
RUN Programming
23
-
NA
33
46
Affiliated Neighbourhood Associations
101
104
120
127
136
125
-
162
2023
-
336
: CSD
: Programming offered by Neighbourhood
635
1
0
700600500400300200100
Number of Programs Offered
APPENDIX A Figure
APPENDIX A: CSD-2023-125
Illustrated in Table 2 below is a summary of all programming offered at all City-owned
community centres, with a breakdown between: (1) direct, City-run programs and (2)
indirect, NA-run programs for each centre.
Table 2: City-Run and NA Programming offered at Community Centres 2022/23
Direct ALL
NA Programming Programming PROGRAMING
Apr 22 - Apr 23 Apr 22 - Apr 23 Apr 22 - Apr 23
% of % of
all CC all CC
Community Centre N prog N prog N %
Stanley Park 635 99.5% 2 0.5% 637 100%
Huron 214 93% 16 7% 230 100%
152 is the
Doon Pioneer Park 162 81% 37 19% 199 100%
AVERAGE # of
Forest Heights 136 79% 37 21% 173 100%
programs
Mill-Courtland 163 100% - - 163 100%
offered at
Rockway - - 151 100% 151 100%
community
Downtown 18 14% 114 86% 132 100%
centres
Victoria Hills 104 81% 25 19% 129 100%
annually
Country Hills 101 81% 23 19% 124 100%
Williamsburg 86 91% 8 9% 94 100%
Centreville-Chicopee 45 69% 20 31% 65 100%
Bridgeport - - 62 100% 62 100%
Kingsdale - - 53 100% 53 100%
Chandler Mowat 9 33% 18 67% 27 100%
COLUMN TOTALS 1673 566 2239 100%
This data not only demonstrates the vastly different frequency of programming offered
also illustrates the percentage of programs that are NA-run versus City-run for each centre.
The rows highlighted in green are those where NA-run programs comprise 75% or more of
all programming offered at the centre. With the exception of Rockway and Downtown
Community Centres, the number of programs offered overall tends to be correlated with the
higher percentage of NA-run programs offered at that centre. It is different for Rockway and
Downtown because both these centres traditionally support a significant amount of direct
City-run senior programming. In Figure 2 on the following page, overall programming split
by NA-run versus City-run is presented in a stacked bar graph.
City-Run Programs
March 2023
-
COMMUNITY CENTRES
April 2022
Programs offered at Community Centres
NA-Run Programs
125
-
2023 Run and NA Programming offered at Community Centres 2022/23
-
-
: CSD
City
:
2
0
700600500400300200100
NUMBER OF PROGRAMS OFFERED
APPENDIX A Figure
APPENDIX A: CSD-2023-125
Community Centre Programing Compared to Median Household Income:
What is clearly shown in the previous tables and figures is an operating model that serves
some community centres (and residents living near that centre), while it is leaving other
community centres under-utilized and thus the surrounding populations under-served. When
looking at income demographics for the neighbourhoods surrounding each of the community
centres (below), the differences are further illustrated.
Presented in Table 3 is a list of the 14 city-owned community centers in order of all
programming numbers (these numbers include both NA-run and City-run programming),
alongside median household income of the surrounding neighbourhoods.
As shown, median household income is reported in ranges of $20,000, so although not exact
numbers, what this table indicates is a tendency for middle and upper-income
neighbourhoods to have higher programming numbers than lower income neighbourhoods.
In fact, the four community centres with the highest programming numbers account for 55%
of all programming happening in community centres (highlighted in green), and all four of
these community centres are situated in middle to high-income neighbourhoods with a
reported median income at or above the median income for all of Kitchener. In comparison,
when looking at the bottom of the table at the two community centers with the lowest
programming numbers (highlighted in orange), median household income is well below the
Kitchener median of $87K.
Table 3: Community Centre Programming and Median Household Income
ALL PROGRAMING
Apr 22 - Apr 23 Median Household
Income for surrounding
55% of all
N %
COMMUNITY CENTRE neighbourhood*
Community
28% 80K 99K
1. Stanley Park 637
Centre
10% 100K 124K
2. Huron 230
programming
9% 100K 124K
3. Doon Pioneer Park 199
is happening
8% 80K 99K
4. Forest Heights 173
in these 4
163 7% 40K 59K
5. Mill-Courtland
Centres
7% 60K 79K
6. Rockway 151
6% 60K 79K
7. Downtown 132
6% 40K 59K
8. Victoria Hills 129
6% 80K 99K
9. Country Hills 124
4% 100K 124K
10. Williamsburg 94
3% 60K 79K
11. Centreville-Chicopee 65
3% 80K 99K
12. Bridgeport 62
2% 40K 59K
13. Kingsdale 53
1% 40K 59K
14. Chandler Mowat 27
2239 100%
COLUMN TOTALS
*Median Household income for the City of Kitchener is $87K
APPENDIX A: CSD-2023-125
Another way to understand the data is to look at programming numbers for community
centres in neighbourhoods where the median household income is at or above the City of
Kitchener median, and for community centres where the median household income is below
2
the City of Kitchener median. This breakdown is what is illustrated in Figure 3 (below).
As the percentages for each side of the median household income demonstrate, the current
community centre operating model has resulted in significant inequities in service delivery
between lower income and mid to higher income neighbourhoods. Specifically, 68% of all
community centre programming is happening at the seven community centres
located in mid to higher-income neighbourhoods, and 32% of programming is
happening at the seven community centres located in neighbourhoods with a
reported median household income below the City of Kitchener median.
Figure 3: City-Run and NA-Run Programming offered at Community Centres 2022/23
split by Median Household Income
2
Due to limitations of the available data, creating an exact split above and below the $87,000 median income for the
City of Kitchener was not possible. As household income is reported in $20,000 intervals, the closest split that could be
done for neighbourhood demographics was above and below $80,000. This minor adjustment does not significantly
impact the results
APPENDIX A: CSD-2023-125
What is also made clear in Figure 3 is that the majority of NA-run programs (the blue section
of the stacked bar graph) are being offered in the mid to higher income neighbourhoods.
In order to get a clear picture of how NA-run programs are distributed, presented in Figure
4 is a version of the above figure but only showing NA-run programs across all 14 community
centres, split by median household income. As illustrated, 80% of all NA-run programming
takes place at the seven community centres located in mid to higher-income
neighbourhoods, and just 20% of NA-run programs are offered in the seven community
centres located in lower-income neighbourhoods.
Figure 4: NA-RUN Programming offered at Community Centres 2022/23 split by
Median Household Income
APPENDIX A: CSD-2023-125
Community Centre Programming Ratios by Population Size & Median Income
When looking at population size of the surrounding neighbourhoods in relation to the number
of programs offered at the community centre, inequities in programming are further
illustrated between mid to higher income neighbourhoods and those neighbourhoods with a
reported median household income below the City of Kitchener median.
As shown in Table 4, consistent with all previous data, there are disparities in programming
numbers across the , with a tendency for mid to higher income
neighbourhoods to have a lower ratio of programs per person, such as Huron with 1 program
offered for every 28 people in the neighbourhood, as compared to lower income
neighbourhoods like Kingsdale with 1 program offered for every 283 people in the
neighbourhood.
Table 4: Ratio of program numbers within neighbourhood, with median household
income
ALL PROGRAMING Median Ratio of program
Apr 22 - Apr 23 household Population numbers per
income for NA Size for NA person within
N %
COMMUNITY CENTRE boundaries Boundaries neighbourhood
1. Huron 230 11% 100K 124K 6,500 1:28
2. Stanley Park 637 31% 80K 99K 35,000 1:54
3. Mill-Courtland 163 8% 40K 59K 10,500 1:64
4. Bridgeport 62 3% 80K 99K 6000 1:97
5. Country Hills 124 5% 80K 99K 11,000 1:89
6. Victoria Hills 129 6% 40K 59K 13,000 1:100
7. Doon Pioneer Park 199 10% 100K 124K 25,000 1:125
8. Forest Heights 173 8% 80K 99K 25,000 1:144
9. Williamsburg 94 5% 100K 124K 19,500 1:207
10. Downtown 132 6% 60K 79K 28,000 1:212
11. Centreville-Chicopee 65 3% 60K 79K 15,500 1:238
12. Chandler Mowat 27 1% 40K 59K 6,500 1:240
13. Kingsdale 53 3% 40K 59K 15,000 1:283
COLUMN TOTALS 2088 100%
*Rockway Centre is not included in this analysis. Rockway Centre is an anomaly within the Community
Centre operating model, as it is predominantly
the city, not just in the immediate neighbourhood
APPENDIX A: CSD-2023-125
In Table 5 below, community centres are split by median household income, with those
situated in mid to higher income neighbourhoods above the orange line, and those situated
in lower-income neighbourhoods below the orange line. Using average program-to-person
ratio as a comparison between mid to higher income neighbourhoods and lower income
neighbourhoods, the inequities in program delivery are clearly illustrated, with an average
ratio of 1:106 for community centres located in mid to higher income neighbourhoods, and
an average ratio of 1:190 for community centres located in lower income neighbourhoods.
Table 5: Ratio of program numbers per person at community centres split by
median household income
ALL Median Ratio of program
PROGRAMING household Population numbers per
Apr 22 - Apr 23 income for NA Size for NA person within
boundaries Boundaries neighbourhood
COMMUNITY CENTRE N %
1. Huron 230 11% 100K 124K 6,500 1:28
2. Williamsburg 94 5% 100K 124K 19,500 1:207
Average
3. Doon Pioneer Park 199 10% 100K 124K 25,000 1:125
ratio:
4. Stanley Park 637 31% 80K 99K 35,000 1:54
1:106
5. Bridgeport 62 3% 80K 99K 6000 1:97
6. Forest Heights 173 8% 80K 99K 25,000 1:144
7. Country Hills 124 5% 80K 99K 11,000 1:89
8. Downtown 132 6% 60K 79K 28,000 1:212
9. Centreville-Chicopee 65 3% 60K 79K 15,500 1:238
Average
10.Victoria Hills 129 6% 40K 59K 13,000 1:100
ratio:
11.Mill-Courtland 163 8% 40K 59K 10,500 1:64
1:190
12.Chandler Mowat 27 1% 40K 59K 6,500 1:240
13.Kingsdale 53 3% 40K 59K 15,000 1:283
COLUMN TOTALS 2088 100%
*Rockway Centre is not included in this analysis. Rockway Centre is an anomaly within the Community Centre
in the immediate neighbourhood
Types of Programming Offered at Community Centres
Like the changing social climate of our city over the past 20 years, programming needs
and resident priorities for programming have also changed significantly since the
development and approval of the policies governing community centre use.
-2026 Strategic Plan,
in March 2022 the City partnered with Environics Research to conduct a statistically
representative survey of Kitchener residents on a wide variety of municipal issues,
including recreation and leisure programming. The results of that statistically valid survey
of 1,006 residents demonstrated that Kitchener residents prioritized recreation and leisure
programs that support:
(1) mental health and wellbeing
(2) services for vulnerable populations
(3) physical health and fitness
City staff have completed an initial review of the types of program types offered by NAs
and the City between April 2022 and March 2023, and found the following:
Figure 5: Programming offered within prioritized categories (2022 2023)
through the Environics survey) is well covered by current programming. However,
,
services for vulnerable populations) are not being adequately addressed at this time. The
APPENDIX A: CSD-2023-125
data analysis indicates that programming in these two categories combined account for
less than 4% of City-run programming and just over 1% of NA-run programming.
Acknowledging that physical health and fitness are certainly contributing factors to
maintaining mental health and wellbeing, these programs were categorized by their
primary purpose and are not counted as being part of mental health and wellbeing
programming.
Appendix B: CSD-2023-125
Summary of Survey Responses from Neighbourhood Associations
th
June 8, 2023
APPENDIX B: CSD-2023-125
APPENDIX B: Summary of Neighbourhood Association Survey Responses
st
On May 1, 2023, all affiliated Neighbourhood Associations were sent a link to an online
survey asking for input on how to best address challenges with the outdated community
centre operating model through a series of proposed recommended changes. Each NA
th
was asked to complete one response to the survey, and all were given until May 28,
2023 to respond. 17 of 26 affiliated associations responded to the survey.
The structure of the online survey for Neighbourhood Associations was organized
around the following potential recommendations:
1.
programs
2. Fund the costs of NAs using Inclusion Support Workers
3. Increasing resident use of community centres
4. Expanding community centre hours of operations on weekends
5.
6. Comprehensive awareness campaign promoting community centres
7. Multi-Year Partnership Agreements with Larger Neighbourhood
Associations
8. City support for changes
Neighbourhood Associations were asked for suggestions on how the City might most
effectively go about implementing the above changes if they were recommended by staff
and approved by Council. They were also asked how City staff could best support NAs in
implementing these proposed changes.
All the responses, suggestions and questions received from Neighbourhood Associations
were considered carefully by staff, and a number of changes were made to
recommendations based on the input.
The following is a high-level summary of the responses received from Associations:
1.
The majority of responses were in favor of this suggestion, citing a need for
consistency across all community centres and a focus on reducing barriers.
2. Fund the costs of NAs using Inclusion Support Workers
The majority of responses were in favor of this suggestion, citing a need for
consistency across all community centres and a focus on reducing barriers.
APPENDIX B: CSD-2023-125
3. Increasing resident use of community centres
The majority of responses were supportive of this idea, and many helpful
suggestions and considerations were provided by NAs, such as:
o Prioritization should be considered for areas of greatest social needs
o The current registration system needs to be more user-friendly
o Community needs should be assessed on an annual basis through data
collection with community members to identify programming needs
o Program development should be done in collaboration with other
community centres and NAs to avoid duplication and share ideas
4. Expanding community centre hours of operations on weekends
The majority of responses were generally supportive of this recommendation, with
helpful suggestions provided on how to best go about making these changes, such
as:
o Pilot expanded hours on weekends to test the community need, starting in
the winter months when there is more of a need for indoor gathering space
o Include additional uses within the expanded hours of operation such as
warming/cooling centres, computer use and washroom access
5. Modernizing EDI and
Transparency
Many of the responses provided to these proposed recommendations included
helpful points of consideration and suggestions around how to best implement
changes, such as:
o Staff supports to help with implementing any changes will be key to the
success for NAs, particularly with the policy development/writing
o Easy-to-use templates and example materials should be provided to NAs
for any mandatory components
o Many NAs addressed the issue of declining volunteer rates and wanting to
ensure that any changes to the affiliation policy will not play a part in
deterring volunteers to sit on NA boards
o EDI training for members of NA boards was generally supported a few
NAs indicated that doing training every 2 years is too frequent, others
indicated that it is not frequent enough
o The proposed reinvestment policy around use of surplus funds should be
designed as a flexible document
o Overall support was seen for the requirements around financial
accountability to the City, though several respondents expressed hesitation
about the requirement of publicly posting financial statements due to the
possibility of misinterpretation or a lack of understanding from the public of
APPENDIX B: CSD-2023-125
how NAs are run and the need to hold reserve funds in order to cover
unforeseen circumstances
6. Comprehensive awareness campaign promoting community centres
All survey respondents were very much in favor of this recommendation, with many
suggestions made around how to best implement this idea, including:
o Use a diversity of tactics when advertising community centre programming
that go beyond internet-based communications such as social media,
websites, and focus on flyers, door knocking, posters, and leveraging
outside promotion companies to assist in awareness-raising
o Promoting community centres at City-wide events through a booth
o Host open houses at each community centre
o Hold public events focused on vulnerable and difficult to reach populations
o and low/no cost
programs for those in underserved populations
o Advertise on busses, use digital screens throughout the City, partner with
local groups
7. Multi-Year Partnership Agreements with Larger Neighbourhood Associations
Fewer responses were gathered in response to this recommendation, as there are
just a handful of NAs who would fall into this category. For those who did respond,
some of the comments include:
o There definitely should be accountability that these associations are doing
what they set out to do and that they are reinvesting in their local community
o Multi-year agreements would support the NA and volunteers to plan for
multiple years ahead
o In our complex society, formal partnerships are very important to handle
both the Neighbourhood and City liabilities
o The priority should always be on providing programming to meet the needs
of the community, the City should ensure that these agreements with larger
NAs are taking that into account
o Rules of conduct should be included in these multi-year partnerships for
both the City and NAs, such as equitable dispute resolution mechanisms
8. City support for changes
The final question of the survey asked NAs how the City can best support them in
carrying out the changes if they are ultimately recommended by staff and approved
by City Council. Many suggestions and comments were provided in response to this
question, the most prominent themes are the following:
o Communication and transparency throughout the entire process is key
APPENDIX B: CSD-2023-125
o The City should provide staff support for all approved changes to avoid
putting more work on the already stretched volunteers who run the NAs
o Get all NAs representatives together for working sessions and face to face
consultations
o Introduce changes slowly over time, pilot some things first and then
evaluate before full implementation
o Any extra costs involved in fulfilling the recommended changes should be
covered by the City