HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-2025-326 - Community Grants Review UpdateStaff Report
J
IKgc.;i' r� R
Community Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Special Council
DATE OF MEETING: August 25, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: Elin Moorlag, Manager, Service Coordination & Improvement
PREPARED BY: Elin Moorlag, Manager, Service Coordination & Improvement
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All Wards
DATE OF REPORT: August 21, 2025
REPORT NO.: CSD -2025-326
SUBJECT: Community Grants Review Update
RECOMMENDATION:
For Information and Discussion
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
The purpose of this report is to share with Council highlights from the comprehensive
Community Grants Review that was conducted by an external consultant throughout 2025
to ensure that the City's community grants program remains transparent, equitable,
strategically aligned, and responsive to the diverse needs of the community.
The findings of the community grants review reflect the insights and perspectives of over 90
community organizations, grant review committee members and city staff through targeted
community engagement via survey, one-on-one interviews, and focus groups.
Key findings of the Community Grants Review indicate that the City's Community Grants
Program plays a vital role in sustaining grassroots and community-based organizations
across arts, culture, recreation, sport and community development, though in the 16 years
since the program was created, there is growing recognition that the current program could
more effectively reflect Kitchener's strategic priorities, demographics or the realities of
today's nonprofit landscape.
There are no immediate financial implications tied to this report; the review is focused on
how the City's current community grant funding can be utilized more effectively to meet the
needs of the community and advance priorities identified in the City's strategic plan.
Best practices in grant making were explored across all dimensions of analysis as part of
the review; in this report 10 core best practices are identified as foundational to addressing
the community grant program's most pressing challenges.
BACKGROUND:
History of the Community Grants Program at the City of Kitchener:
The City of Kitchener's Community Grants Program has operated under the same policy
framework since 2008 when the newly developed Community Investment Policy was approved
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 3 of 16
by Council. Under this policy, there are three distinct types of community grants: Tier 1 and Tier
2, as well as an in-kind facility grant that organizations can access as a separate grant or in-kind
support can be rolled into their community grant allocation.
Tier 1 community grants are designed to support organizations' core services and long-term
operational funding and thus serves as a non-competitive stream of funding that does not require
an application evaluated by a review committee to be awarded funding. To be eligible for Tier 1
funding, organizations must be providing services to the community within the areas of Arts and
Culture/Special Events, Sports and Recreation, and/or Community Support and Development,
must be incorporated as a not for profit and must have been funded by the City of Kitchener
consistently for a minimum of 5 years through the Tier 2 community grant program. Once placed
in the Tier 1 funding stream, organizations sign multi-year agreements with the City, and funding
continues indefinitely as long as annual reporting criteria are met (which are minimal), with
agreements renewed without the need to compete for available funding. This funding stream
was put into place to provide organizations with a steady, predictable stream of financial stability
to focus on long-term goals and core services. The Tier 1 granting stream currently accounts for
85% ($1.5M in 2024) of the City's total community grant funding on an annual basis. The average
annual grant allocation for Tier 1 groups is $14,000, with some ranging as high as $250,000.
Tier 2 community grants are open for community applications on an annual cycle and funding
is focused on specific projects, events, or operational organizational needs. Eligible groups
providing services to the community can apply for operating support, project support, special
event support, or materials/equipment support within the areas of Arts and Culture/Special
Events, Sports and Recreation, and/or Community Support and Development. Organizations
applying for Tier 2 funding must meet 12 criteria listed on the City website and fill out an 18 -page
online application which includes a mandatory budget template. Eligibility screening is
embedded throughout the application, with the twelve different criteria interspersed across
multiple pages of the grant application. Applicants are not provided with a rubric or evaluation
weights to clarify how applications will be assessed, nor is there a minimum or maximum funding
limit indicated. Tier 2 applications are annually assessed by a Peer and Staff Review Committee
comprised of three community members and number of city staff who serve as subject matter
experts in each of the four areas of support. The Tier 2 granting stream typically accounts for
roughly 15% of the City' total community grant funding on an annual basis. The average annual
grant allocation for Tier 2 groups is $4,000.
In -Kind Facility Grants are in-kind (non-cash) facility grants provided to groups and
organizations offering events to the general public in the areas of arts and culture, minor sports
and recreation, and community support and development. The purpose of the in-kind facility
grant is to waive facility rental fees for events held at City -owned facilities, and cover rental and
staff costs for basic set-up.
Over the past 16 years, while this community grants funding model has been in place, the city
and its communities have undergone significant transformation, but the grant policy has
remained constant. Shifting demographic trends, accelerated population growth, changes in the
funding landscape, and substantial societal change have all contributed to evolving community
needs and priorities. While the grant program has continued to serve local organizations, it has
become clear that its original design no longer fully aligns with, or most effectively supports, the
Page 4 of 16
City's broader strategic goals, particularly in the areas of user experience, transparency,
accountability, equity and excellence in customer service.
In 2019, a preliminary review of the community grants program by an external consultant
surfaced key challenges and opportunities for improvement. Some of the key recommendations
to come out of this preliminary review included:
• The need for a clear assessment mechanism and criteria for grant approvals
• The need to improve customer service elements throughout the application process to
make it easier for grant applicants (most of whom are volunteers)
• The need for clarification around how to ensure community grant support is being used
toward the City's strategic priorities
• The need to better understand benchmarking of funding support in peer municipalities
In addition to these points above, the preliminary review recommended that comprehensive
review of the grants program be undertaken in order to update the program's purpose, criteria,
assessment methods, and overall administration. Taking action on this recommendation was
delayed by the onset of COVID in 2020. A review of the community grants program was added
to the Council approved 2023-2026 Strategic Plan under Fostering a Caring City Together.
In 2024, the City launched the process to engage an external consultant to complete a
comprehensive review of the community grants program to ensure that it remains transparent,
equitable, strategically aligned, and responsive to the diverse needs of the community. The
review was driven by the growing recognition that the current program structure no longer fully
reflects Kitchener's strategic priorities, or the realities of today's nonprofit landscape.
Comprehensive Review of the Community Grants Program
Over the course of the community grants review, which began in March of 2025, the following
research and evaluation activities took place:
• targeted community engagement with 90 community grant recipients and applicants
via survey, 1:1 interviews, and focus groups
• benchmarking against a comparative peer group of 15 lower -tier municipalities within
southern Ontario, as well as a larger group of 40 municipalities across Canada (see
Appendix A for a full list of benchmark municipalities used in the review)
• environmental scan of grant -making practices of comparable programs at over 40
municipalities across Canada
• a current state assessment of Kitchener's Community Grant policies, processes, and
practices, including conducting interviews with City staff and volunteer community
members who sit on the Peer and Staff Review Committee.
• research into best practices recommended by current grant recipients, peers, industry,
and academic literature.
The next step in the community grants review will be to share key findings and identified best
practices with grant recipients and applicants who participated in the targeted community
engagement in order to validate the findings, offer opportunities for feedback, and support in the
Page 5 of 16
creation of program recommendations. This second round of community engagement/feedback
will take place in the Fall of 2025.
REPORT:
Key Findings
Findings from the community grants review reflect the insights and perspectives of 90 community
organizations, grant committee members, city staff, and the grant -making practices of a
benchmarking cohort comprised of over 40 other municipalities, selected for their relevance to
Kitchener in terms of population size, and municipal structure.
Program strengths: what we are doing well
1. Consistent support for community organizations
Findings from the review clearly indicate that the City of Kitchener's Community Grants Program
plays a vital role in sustaining grassroots and community-based organizations across arts,
culture, recreation, sport and community development. Many organizations report that the City's
community grant is their most stable or only reliable source of operational funding, and some
described the grant as essential to their continued existence.
2. Robust funding investment in community grants
Findings from the financial benchmarking component of the review indicate that Kitchener's
investment in the community grants program is robust.
Kitchener's total funding envelope for 2024 was $1.77 million, comprised of $1,294,878 in Tier
1 funding (including $248,022 for local sport groups), and $233,653 in Tier 2 funding. This
equates to $5.80 per capita and 0.32% of the City's gross operating budget, ranking second-
highest in per capita funding and fourth highest by budget share among the 15 lower -tier
municipalities reviewed. On a topline level, Kitchener's funding envelope is a leader among the
peer group, comparable to single -tier cities, which average $6.50 per capita and 0.24% of
operating budgets.
3. Predictable, multi-year funding through the Tier 1 Grant Stream
Many municipalities provide multi-year funding (MYF) as a strategic tool to strengthen
organizational stability, reduce administrative burden, and support long-term service planning.
Kitchener offers multi-year funding through its Tier 1 grant stream, which is available to
organizations that have received continuous annual funding from the City's Tier 2 stream for five
or more years. Once approved, organizations enter into a renewable three-year funding
agreement, subject to Council approval and continued compliance with program requirements.
This funding stream is open-ended in duration, and non-competitive once admission is granted,
allowing organizations to remain in the program indefinitely without the need to compete for
funds against other applicants.
Page 6 of 16
Program Challenges
Findings from the community grants review reflect the insights and perspectives of 90 community
organizations, grant committee members, city staff, and the grant -making practices of a
benchmarking cohort comprised of over 40 other municipalities, selected for their relevance to
Kitchener in terms of population size, and municipal structure.
Due to the fact that the Tier 1 grants program is a non-competitive grant stream that is
not available to community organizations to apply for, the majority of the findings from
the review are focused on the application, review, and granting processes for the Tier 2
community grant program, which runs on an annual cycle. It is worth noting though, that
one of the prominent themes to come out of this review is the significant incompatibility between
the total funding provided to the community and the amount of time and effort being asked of
predominantly volunteer members of grassroots and not-for-profit organizations in order to
receive that funding. Specifically, in 2024, 87% of the community grants funding envelope of
1.77M was awarded to Tier 1 groups for a total of $1,542,900, and 13% of the funding envelope,
$233,653, was awarded to Tier 2 groups.
Overall, key findings from the review have been summarized into the following four categories:
1. customer service/user experience
2. strategic alignment & program structure
3. transparency
4. equity
Customer Service/user experience (e.g. grant applicants/recipients):
Findings from user engagement with current and past grant recipients indicate that repetitive
Tier 2 applications, complicated budget templates, and the absence of a publicly available
eligibility screener contributed to inefficiency and confusion for applicants. The grant
application's length (18 pages), repetitiveness and lack of clear organization/structure pose
burdens, particularly for volunteer -run groups. Further, data analysis, document review,
benchmarking and research comparisons highlight the following points:
• The Tier 2 community grant application is a significant burden on applicants (most of
whom are volunteers) that is disproportionate to the funding handed out through Tier 2
vs. other grants funding provided by the City.
• Kitchener's Tier 2 grant application was the longest (18 pages) among municipal peers.
0 52% of Tier 2 applicants spent over 6 hours applying; (for an average grant of $4,000).
• 43% of unsuccessful applicants spent over 10 hours applying, and 71 % didn't understand
why they were declined.
• New/emerging organizations serving racialized, refugee, and newcomer groups reported
the highest time burden of 10+ hours when completing the application.
Page 7 of 16
• Budget templates and financial documents were reported to be the most difficult parts of
the application; many respondents found them to be poorly aligned with their realities,
and that volunteers often don't have the financial literacy to complete them.
• The Tier 2 application process lacks transparency on funding amounts, typical grant
sizes, and evaluation criteria, which results in volunteer -run organizations wasting time
applying for grant amounts that are completely unrealistic (eg. asking for way more
funding than Tier 2 could provide).
Strategic Alignment & Program Structure:
Kitchener's Community Grants Program references strategic alignment in its assessment
framework, but the guidance is vague and inconsistently applied. Alignment with community
priorities is noted as a scoring criteria, yet the relevant plans or policy documents are not listed,
summarized, or linked within application materials. Applicants must self -navigate the alignment
process without prompts, examples, or framing tools within either the application or the program
guidelines.
Further, engagement findings highlight that the uniform design of Kitchener's Community Grants
Program creates persistent challenges for small, new, and equity -deserving organizations.
These groups consistently reported that the approach disadvantages applicants with lower
administrative capacity (e.g., volunteer run organizations), non-western, community -driven
mandates that do not align with conventional grant program expectations. Data analysis,
document review, benchmarking and research comparisons highlight the following points:
• The current grants program is not fully aligned with Council -approved strategic priorities
as outlined in the City's Strategic Plan. As a result, funding provided to the community is
likely not being used most effectively to advance Council's top priorities.
• Nowhere in the application process are applicants told what the City's priorities are, how
to align their work with the City's priorities, or whether alignment significantly impacts
funding decisions. Kitchener applies a uniform assessment process for Tier 2
applications, with no lower -barrier options or differentiated supports for small, emerging,
and/or equity -deserving organizations.
• Unlike many peer municipalities, Kitchener's current grant policy does not organize its
grant funding by themes. While it funds a mix of arts, culture, community development,
festivals, and sports, these categories are combined under a single program with no
internal allocation by theme, which means arts groups are competing with community
development organizations or sports groups for the same funds.
• Kitchener's program lacks the flexibility and targeting found in portfolio -based systems.
Peer cities increasingly use streams to align funding with policy goals, expand reach, and
support a broader mix of organizations.
• Kitchener is the only lower -tier municipality in the benchmark group to integrate a formal
in-kind facility rental grants program; engagement feedback revealed that while in-kind
facility access is a valuable aspect of the Community Grants Program, it often falls short
of meeting organizations' needs.
Transparency
Page 8 of 16
Transparency was revealed to be an important concern throughout many components of the
City's community grants program. Applicants frequently cited a lack of clarity around evaluation
criteria, decision-making, the evaluation and review process, and the rationale for funding
amounts. Tier distinctions were poorly understood and perceived as inequitable by many.
Applicants expressed a strong desire for feedback and learning opportunities when they are
unsuccessful. Transparency was also viewed as a concern within funding allocations between
Tier 1 and Tier 2 streams and the City's reporting model for grant recipients. Data analysis,
document review, benchmarking and research comparisons around transparency highlight the
following points:
• The evaluation criteria for how Tier 2 grants are selected and who is eligible is reported
to be unclear and difficult to understand, both for applicants, members of the review
committee, and city staff.
• Unlike peer municipalities, Kitchener does not provide a description of its staged
adjudication process. There is no explanation of whether multiple rounds of review take
place, whether deliberation occurs between reviewers, how applications are disqualified
for funding, or how funding amounts are decided for successful applicants.
• Kitchener's assessment process for grant applications is not transparently communicated
to applicants; there is no indication of what qualifies a good from a poor response, what
information is being sought, which application questions are being assessed for these
criteria, how they are scored, and whether thresholds are used.
• Unlike many of its peer municipalities, Kitchener does not maintain a public list of grant
recipients or funding amounts on its community grants webpage; there is no consolidated
annual report or summary document that outlines which organizations received funding,
how much they were awarded, or for what purpose.
Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI)
Kitchener's Community Grants program currently reflects an early-stage integration of EDI
principles. This appears in the voluntary demographic survey section of the Tier 2 application,
which signals an interest in monitoring participation and representation within the program. The
application also includes questions about accessibility and affordability; however, it's unclear
how these questions influence eligibility or scoring. The program's four core evaluation
categories (which were created and approved by Council in 2008) do not include EDI -related
expectations or indicators.
• The Community Grants program demonstrates an intention to engage with EDI principles
but currently lacks mechanisms to make these intentions actionable.
• Feedback from grant applicants and recipients reveal persistent structural inequities in
how the Community Grants Program supports EDI; barriers were reported across
eligibility, decision-making, and support structures, particularly for grassroots, newcomer -
led, culturally specific, and emerging organizations.
• Respondents repeatedly expressed concern that eligibility and evaluation criteria
excluded or undervalued equity -oriented programming.
• Respondents observed that funding decisions tended to favour highly visible, event -
based activities that conform to western and institutional perceptions of what qualifies as
Page 9 of 16
professional arts and culture, limiting recognition for less conventional but equally
impactful community work.
Kitchener's Tier 1 funding model is unique from all other municipal peers as a non-
competitive, rolling funding stream, open-ended in duration
10 Key Best Practices for Further Consideration
Best practices in grant making were identified across all dimensions of analysis, many of which
are administrative or tactical in nature. However, 10 core best practices were identified as
foundational to addressing the community grant program's most pressing challenges. These ten
are supported by data and engagement input, and if implemented, would directly advance the
review's four objectives: (1) strategic alignment, (2) supporting community organizations and (3)
equity, and (4) improved customer service/user experience (effectiveness, efficiency,
transparency).
1. Integration of Council -approved strategic priorities into program design
Most peer municipalities use their grant programs to operationalize Council approved
strategic plans and frameworks. These typically include overarching strategies such as
community wellbeing plans, arts and culture strategies, equity and inclusion policies,
reconciliation commitments, and climate or sustainability goals.
Jurisdictions differ in how clearly these priorities are communicated. Stronger examples
provide detailed program guidelines and stream -specific objectives that explicitly connect
to strategic pillars like equity, belonging, health, and vibrancy. These frameworks are
often accompanied by defined outcomes and criteria that guide funding decisions and
applicant expectations.
Strong programs embed strategic priorities directly into grant guidelines, application
forms, and evaluation criteria. Municipal goals are clearly referenced within funding
streams, often supported by definitions, examples, or framing prompts to help applicants
align their work.
2. Simple & clear eligibility criteria
Municipalities use eligibility criteria as a core mechanism to ensure that public grant funds
are directed to appropriate, capable, and community -serving organizations. Best
practices in eligibility requirements include providing clear categories such as "who can
apply," "what we fund," and "what we do not fund." Some peer municipalities include
eligibility checklists, and illustrative examples to aid applicant understanding.
Best practices also reflect a service mindset, focusing on who can apply and for what,
rather than a compliance mindset that emphasizes exclusion. Strong examples show
eligibility criteria that is clearly defined, free of ambiguity, and based on objective
thresholds that applicants can self -assess against. This improves transparency, reduces
inconsistency in screening, and ensures fairness.
Page 10 of 16
3. Clear and robust guidelines
Guidelines inform applicants of key informational needs. Most of the benchmark
Municipalities provide guidelines as downloadable PDFs, consolidating all relevant
program information in one place, which allows applicants to easily review, print,
annotate, and share the material. The best guidelines outline the grant program's
objectives, strategic priorities, associated outcomes, and example results. Guidelines
should be written in plain, respectful language that welcomes applicants and reflects a
service-oriented tone.
4. Application accessibility
Best practices strongly indicate that application complexity should scale to the size and
type of grant. This respects applicants' time and ensures that effort is appropriate to the
value of funding. Strong systems avoid requesting information that isn't evaluated,
overusing open -text prompts, or asking applicants for data already held by the funder.
The median length of an application form in the benchmark group for grant programs
comparable to the Community Grants program was 7-12 pages. Strong applications
present eligibility criteria upfront to prevent applicants from proceeding unnecessarily.
Well-designed forms use visual cues to support navigation through headings, spacing,
and grouped content. Where alignment to municipal strategies is expected, the
application should not require guesswork. Forms should reference relevant plans,
provide short summaries or prompts, and offer examples of outcomes that meet
alignment expectations.
5. Separate granting portfolios within community grants
Municipalities that take a portfolio approach to grant -making anchored in clearly defined
themes attached to funding ratios are better positioned to support the full spectrum of the
nonprofit ecosystem. This approach recognizes that different organizations contribute in
different ways, and that equitable, effective public investment must respond to a range of
needs, capacities, and roles across the sector. In doing this, many municipalities define
fixed funding percentages for each thematic area to support balance, transparency, and
responsiveness to strategic priorities and demonstrated community need.
Peer municipalities increasingly provide support for arts via dedicated grant programs as
a means of bolstering core civic arts -based institutions by peer municipalities. Best
practices point to establishing a dedicated program for arts & special events with distinct
eligibility criteria, application forms, and a unique review process administered by the
Arts -focused municipal team and volunteer industry experts on the review committee.
6. Competitive Multi -Year Funding
Many municipalities provide multi-year funding (MYF) as a strategic tool to strengthen
organizational stability, reduce administrative burden, and support long-term service
planning. MYF agreements are typically structured with limited, renewable terms, based
Page 11 of 16
on periodic competitive review. This maintains stability while allowing for reassessment
of fit and performance. Entry into MYF should be merit -based and transparent, with
selection grounded in demonstrated impact, financial health, and alignment with
municipal priorities, not historical funding alone.
Terms are typically between 2-5 years, with an average of 3 years, and once the term is
complete, all recipients must reapply through the standard competitive process on an
equal basis. MYF recipients are organizations typically seen as integral to the
municipality's strategic goals, widely accessible, and impactful across priority
populations.
Best practices within MYF programs point to the necessity of streamlined reporting
requirements and robust financial oversight. To ensure fairness, MYF must be accessible
to a wide range of organizations, including those historically excluded; entry pathways
should be clear, and equity in distribution actively monitored.
7. Supports for smaller, new/emerging & equity -deserving organizations
Strong applicant supports are central to community buy -in, equity objectives as well as
application quality and alignment. The best programs combine individualized assistance
with accessible toolkits and guidance materials that support applicants from start to finish.
Equity -oriented supports include assigning equity liaisons, hosting targeted info sessions,
or providing technical assistance through partnerships with intermediary organizations.
These models recognize that equitable outcomes require differentiated support, and that
inclusion begins with application guidance.
Direct access to knowledgeable program staff is a cornerstone of best practices,
particularly for equity deserving groups, high-value or complex requests. Programs often
pair these with live and recorded webinars, downloadable slide decks, walkthroughs, and
plain -language FAQs that applicants can refer to independently. These resources ensure
applicants receive consistent information and reduce the burden on staff by pre-empting
common questions. Several cities also provide grant -writing workshops or access to grant
coaches during peak periods. Translation services and accessible format options are
sometimes offered.
8. Transparency in decision-making
Across the peer group, 70% of municipalities state their evaluation criteria, and those with
stronger evaluation design typically include a complete list of review criteria, assigned
weights or scores for each, brief explanations or guiding questions, and a description of
how decisions are made and by whom.
A well-defined evaluation framework ensures that funding decisions are aligned with
program goals, consistently applied across applicants, and understandable to both
reviewers and the public. The absence of clear evaluation frameworks reduces applicant
confidence and increases the risk of inconsistency in responses as well as funding
decisions. When expectations are not transparent, experienced applicants may navigate
the process more effectively, while newer or equity -deserving groups are disadvantaged.
Page 12 of 16
Internal reviewers also face higher cognitive load and less consistent reference points for
assessment.
9. Embed EDI principles across the program
Grant programs that integrate EDI principles throughout their policies and practices are
most likely to succeed on these objectives and best practices call for a whole -system
approach where EDI is integrated as a defining lens across all stages of program design,
delivery, and evaluation. Strong EDI integration should be formally embedded within the
stated purpose and goals of the grant program, aligning funding objectives with
community needs, and identifying measurable outcomes as indicators of success.
Collecting self-reported demographic data on leadership, staff, program participants, and
communities served allows for tracking equity in both access and impact. This data should
be used to identify participation gaps and evaluate whether EDI goals are being met.
Programs should use these to refine outreach, design, and funding priorities.
10. Reconsider In -Kind Supports
Kitchener is the only lower -tier municipality in the benchmark group to integrate a formal
in-kind facility rental grants program.
While in-kind contributions represent modest direct costs, they often involve significant
operational impacts where approvals are decentralized or not coordinated across
departments. Staff time, custodial support, and scheduling complexity can exceed the
value of the waived fees.
Equity issues are common among in-kind support programs. First -come -first-served
models tend to favour experienced or well -resourced groups, leaving newer or equity -
deserving organizations with limited access. Informal or departmental -level decision-
making can further reinforce these patterns.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports Fostering a Caring City Together: Focuses on welcoming residents of
all ages, backgrounds & experiences; residents working on decisions with a meaningful
influence; healthy, thriving residents with easy access to diverse & inclusive programs &
services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no immediate financial implications tied to this report; the review is focused on how
the City's current community grant funding can be utilized more effectively to meet the needs of
the community and advance priorities identified in the City's strategic plan.
Page 13 of 16
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
CONSULT — Findings from the community grants review reflect the insights and perspectives of
90 local community organizations, grant committee members, city staff, and the grant -making
practices of a benchmarking cohort comprised of over 40 other municipalities, selected for their
relevance to Kitchener in terms of population size, and municipal structure.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
CAO -2023-337 Strategic Plan Development — Proposed Strategic Plan Content
APPROVED BY: MICHAEL MAY, DCAO & GENERAL MANAGER, COMMUNITY SERVICES
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A — Benchmarking and Environmental Scan comparisons
Page 14 of 16
APPENDIX A— Benchmarking & Environmental Scan Comparisons
Benchmarking
To support a fulsome comparison of community grant practices, a benchmarking cohort
comprised of a primary peer group of 15 lower -tier municipalities were selected for their
relevance to Kitchener in terms of population size, geographic proximity, and municipal
structure. The benchmark focuses on a comparative analysis of practices relative to Kitchener.
The peer group focuses on Southern Ontario municipalities with populations ranging from
100,000 to 1,000,000, with an emphasis on mid-sized communities between 100,000 and
500,000. All are lower -tier municipalities operating within a two-tier governance system
comparable to Kitchener.
To complement the primary group, an auxiliary benchmark cohort of 9 single -tier municipalities
was included. These municipalities provide insight into how governance structure influences
grant design and administration, and offer a broader regional perspective on funding models,
practices, and programs. This tiered benchmark allows for both like -for -like comparison and an
expanded view of institutional variation.
Municipality
Population
Municipality
Population
LOWER TIERSINGLE
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
TIER
Waterloo121,436
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Peterborough
83,651
Ajax126,666
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Brantford
104,688
Milton132,759
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Kingston
132,485
St Catherines136,803
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Guelph
144,356
Cambridge138,479
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Barrie
147,829
Whitby138,501
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Windsor
229,660
Oshawa175,383
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
London
422,324
Burlington186,948
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Hamilton
569,353
Richmond Hill202,022
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Ottawa
1,017,449
Oakville213,759
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Kitchener304,000
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Vaughan
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
323,103
Markham338,503
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Brampton656,480
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mississauga717,961
Environmental Scan
An environmental scan was conducted to review the range of approaches to grant program
design, common challenges, and best practices. The scan includes the 24 members of the
benchmark group as well as an additional 17 municipalities from across Canada to explore a
Page 15 of 16
broader diversity of approaches and explore if there are practices from outside the peer group
that may be relevant for consideration. These municipalities are:
MunicipalityPopulation
Burnaby,
263,046
Kelowna,
•0
Nanaimo, BC
.�
Richmond, :-
1101
Vancouver, BC
*,
Victoria,BC10
Alberta,::
00
Edmonton,•-
8•00
Deer, Alberta
Saskatoon,Red
008
Regina,00
ThunderBay, Ontario
128,815
.-
Fredericton, New Brunswick
Moncton, New Brunswick
178,5•*
Halifax, Nova Scotia
503,037
Newfoundland
Programs Reviewed
The scope of the review included grant programs that are comparable to the Community Grants
program. A preliminary review noted that municipalities apply many different approaches,
programs, and streams to serve the same or similar objectives and community needs as
Kitchener's Community Grants program. The grant programs that are benchmarked for
comparative purposes operate under many different names, but share the following core
characteristics in common:
• Fund arts, culture, community, sports & rec, and social development projects
• Are funded and administered directly by the municipality
• Are directed at nonprofits and community organizations
This entails, in many cases, inclusion of several related programs at a given municipality. Certain
programs however were not included, due to a clear difference from the Community Grants
program criteria and objectives. These include programs comparable to the 'Neighbourhood
Grants' program, programs explicitly for social services and critical needs, heritage, capital
projects, and economic development and business revitalization. Grants that are disbursed by
an Arts Council, which may be in part supported by municipal funds were not included the
granting agency was not a municipality and the share of funds from municipality are difficult to
distinguish.
Page 16 of 16