HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-09-036 - CIS Tier 1 Value of Money AuditsREPORT
REPORT TO:
Community Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:
May 11, 2009
SUBMITTED BY:
Pauline Houston
PREPARED BY:
Ingrid Pregel
WARD(S) INVOLVED:
N/A
DATE OF REPORT: May 4, 2009
REPORT NO.:
CSD-09-036
SUBJECT:
Community Investment Strategy Tier 1 VALUE FOR MONEY
AUDITS
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That notice be given to Leadership Waterloo Region that it will no longer be a Tier
1 Community Grants Program beginning January 1, 2010 and that staff be
instructed to consider Leadership Waterloo Region as an external supplier of
leadership development services for City staff.
2. That notice be given to Social Planning Council of Kitchener-Waterloo that
effective July 1, 2009 it will receive an annual grant in the amount of $43,000 to
support the Community Information Centre and that City staff will purchase
planning services on a project by project, purchase of service basis as needs and
priorities present themselves.
BACKGROUND:
At its August 11, 2008 meeting Council approved report CSD-08-070 that provided funding
recommendations for 10 annual grant recipients in Table A: Funding Recommendations for
Existing Annual Grant Recipients Who Do Not Meet Tier 1 Criteria. The recommendation for
Leadership Waterloo Region and Social Planning Council of Kitchener-Waterloo was “Value for
money review to be done in 2009 by CoK internal auditor”. Value for money reviews have been
completed and this report presents the findings of the reviews and the recommendations from
staff responsible for the Community Investment Strategy and the Tier 1 Community Grants
Program.
REPORT:
Leadership Waterloo Region
has been successful in creating a network of professionals who
are enthusiastic volunteers with a good understanding of community issues. Appendix A
contains the full report from the internal auditor.
Policy I-525 Community Investment approved by Council on November 24, 2008 provides the
rationale for Tier 1 grants. In part the policy states “… Tier 1, called foundational or core
í ó ï
services, comprise services that are considered by the community to be essential to a healthy
and vibrant community and are provided by longstanding, credible organizations.”
Given the intent of the policy, Community Service staff does not believe providing personal and
professional networking opportunities for a limited number of individuals each year is an
appropriate use of the Community Grants Program. Because program participants are so
enthusiastic about the benefits they receive from the Leadership Waterloo Region Program,
staff recommends that Leadership Waterloo Region be considered as a supplier of leadership
development services and that as appropriate, the City enter into a purchase of service
agreement when priorities and training budget permit.
Social Planning Council of Kitchener-Waterloo
provides the Community Information Centre
and a variety of social planning services. As indicated in the internal auditor’s report attached
as Appendix B, stakeholder-clients value the organization’s work. However, there is no
demonstrable association with the expectations of the funders who provide financial support to
the organization.
Policy I-525 Community Investment approved by Council on November 24, 2008 provides the
rationale for Tier 1 grants. In part the policy states “… Tier 1, called foundational or core
services, comprise services that are considered by the community to be essential to a healthy
and vibrant community and are provided by longstanding, credible organizations.”
Community Services staff believe the community expects access to a Community Information
Service as part of the community’s core services. Staff recommends the City enter into an
agreement with the SPCKW annually to support the Community Information service. An
amount of $43,000 is recommended for the year 2009, to come into effect beginning July 1,
2009.
Staff also recommends any social planning services be purchased on an as needed basis
through the City’s purchasing policy.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Savings in the amount of $7,803 (2009 dollars) in the Tier 1 Community Grants budget will
result beginning in 2010 because of the Leadership Waterloo Region recommendation.
Annualized savings in the amount of $43,154 ($86,154 less $43,000) will result beginning July
1, 2009 because of the SPCKW recommendation. The savings impact for the second half of
2009 will be $21,577.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Senior staff and Board Chairs of Leadership Waterloo Region and the Social Planning Council
of Kitchener-Waterloo have received a copy of this staff report and the report of the internal
auditor.
CONCLUSION:
The Community Grants program plays a key role in the Community Investment strategy of the
City. The recommendations contained in this report are part of the ongoing process to align
grants and other support for not for profit groups with Council’s priorities and provide
consistency in the applications of the Community Investment Policy.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY:
Pauline Houston
í ó î
City of Kitchener Audit
Leadership Waterloo Region
Final Report
April 20, 2009
Prepared by:
Loretta Alonzo, Internal Auditor
City of Kitchener
í ó í
Table of Contents
............................................................................................................................................................................2
Review Objectives
..................................................................................................................................................................................................2
Scope
.....................................................................................................................................................................................2
Methodology
.................................................................................................................................................................2
Background Information
History and Purpose......................................................................................................................................................................2
Leadership Program......................................................................................................................................................................2
Funding..........................................................................................................................................................................................2
Organization Structure...................................................................................................................................................................3
Financial Information.....................................................................................................................................................................3
Community Impact Evaluation Study – Report Highlights...........................................................................................................3
.....................................................................................................................................................................................4
Key Findings
......................................................................................................................................................................................5
Conclusions
...........................................................................................................................................................................5
Recommendations
........................................................................................................................................................................................5
Appendices
Appendix AFinancial Statements............................................................................................................................................5
Appendix BBudget....................................................................................................................................................................5
Appendix CCommunity Impact Evaluation Report.................................................................................................................5
í ó ì
Review Objectives
This audit was undertaken at the request of Council to assist Community Services staff in determining if
Leadership Waterloo Region (LWR) meets the criteria for continued funding through the City’s Community
Grants, Tier 1 program and whether the programs and services offered by LWR align with the community and
corporate directions of the City of Kitchener.
Scope
The scope of this review is limited to the following issue:
Does the program offered by Leadership Waterloo Region align with the community and corporate
directions of the City of Kitchener in order to qualify for continued funding?
Methodology
The following research and analysis was completed for this review:
- Interviews with 4 sponsors-funders of Leadership Waterloo Region (LWR)
- Interviews with the Executive Director and staff of LWR
- Interviews with 6 of the 16 Board members for LWR
- Interviews with 5 alumni of the LWR program
- Review of the financial statements for LWR
- Review of the core and organizational budgets for LWR
- Review of the Community Impact Evaluation Report prepared for Trillium Foundation
- Interviews with City of Kitchener staff responsible for managing grants program
- Review of the City of Kitchener’s Community Investment Strategy
Background Information
History and Purpose
Leadership Waterloo Region (LWR) is a not-for-profit registered charity operating in the region since 2002. The
organization’s stated purpose is “To expand the number of individuals who accept leadership roles in business,
government and not-for-profit organizations and to develop networks of people with a sense of community”; “To
increase individuals understanding of this area’s history, issues and activities”; “To encourage dialogue between
our area’s present leaders and our emerging leaders”; “To develop networks of people with a sense of
community trusteeship…..”. Since their inception there are approximately 190 graduates of the program.
Leadership Program
They deliver an annual program which consists of 8 classroom or “community learning” days, a 3-day opening
workshop and a 2-day closing workshop between September and June. Participants apply to enter the
program and are selected following an interview with committee volunteers. The average intake is between 20
and 30 students. Volunteer speakers, presenters and facilitators deliver the curriculum on the designated
learning days with a different theme for each day. The 2009 tuition fee for the program is $4500.
Funding
Funding is through financial grants and donations from the following organizations as stated on LWR’s website:
Union Gas CIBC Region of Waterloo
City of Kitchener City of Cambridge Waterloo Region Record
Barrday Com Dev Car Donation Service
Donate-Junk-Car.com
In-kind donations are also provided by:
Simple Denison Print Bingeman’s
Eastwood Printing Inc. Peter Benninger Realty CHYM-FM
- 2 -
í ó ë
570-News BAM Creative
Organization Structure
Full-time staff 2 positions - Executive Director and Administrative Assistant
Board of Directors 16 members
Committee Chairs 6 positions
Financial Information
Revenues for the year ending June 30, 2008 were $222,220 comprised of:
Tuition fees $59,500
Fundraising, donations $77,196
Grants $83,804
Interest $1,720
Expenses for the same period were $241,754 comprised of:
Salaries and benefits $113,759
Programming $ 70,166
Fundraising $21,801
General operating $36,028 (space is donated, valued at $10,000)
Community Impact Evaluation Study – Report Highlights
The Trillium Foundation of Ontario provided a grant of approximately $50,000 in 2008 to fund a community
impact study on LWR. The assessment was prepared by an independent consultant who is identified in LWR’s
literature as a volunteer and community supporter. The auditor questions whether this is a truly independent
evaluation or if there is a relationship that forms a bias in the report.
The report states that 124 respondents were interviewed and that 72% were alumni of the program, 6% were
other agencies and 22% were other volunteers. The overall conclusion of the report is that “Leadership
Waterloo Region and the program have had multiple, meaningful impacts on various stakeholders and on the
broader community” and further that “Leadership Waterloo Region is achieving its program objectives”.
The recommendations made in the report are:
- Increase LWR’s public profile
- Clarify the goals of the program and maintain ongoing curriculum development
- Enhance the use of networks
- Continue to gather data on the impact of the LWR program
- Build partnerships and strengthen collaboration
The key results presented in the impact evaluation report are as follows:
Impact on program participants:
1. Broadening professional networks
2. Deepening personal connections
3. Expanding knowledge of community issues
4. Greater access to opportunities in the community
5. Honing and developing leadership skills
6. Developing the leader within
7. Active leadership in the workplace
8. Greater community involvement
9. Greater engagement in leadership roles
10. Perspective of others
11. Role of alumni gender
- 3 -
í ó ê
Impact on staff and community representatives:
12. Broadening professional connections and network
13. Strengthening personal connections
14. Greater community engagement
15. Enhancing work environment through community engagement
16. Personal growth and development
17. Building a stronger community
Impact on community agencies:
18. Raising LWR’s awareness and visibility
19. Benefits of collaboration
Key Findings
1. The financial statements of the organization have been prepared and audited by an independent
chartered accountant and the organization appears to be reasonably sound.
2. The community impact assessment prepared for LWR is not statistically balanced in that 62% of
respondents were alumni and only 6% were from community agencies who purportedly receive the
greatest benefit of the program and 22% were volunteers and funders.
3. 61% (from the impact report) of alumni attribute improvements to their personal networks to the
LWR program
4. 50% (from the impact report) increased their community involvement because of the program
5. The majority of alumni are zealous in their praise of the LWR program describing it as “inspiring”,
“unique”, and “valuable”.
6. Our interviews with other funders did not identify any specific strengths or benefits of LWR program
and most were unable to confirm that LWR is achieving its objectives. Continued funding was not
confirmed by any of the respondents at the time of this review.
7. The community information presented in the LWR curriculum is available through a number of
other sources within the Region.
8. The majority of interviewees emphasized the personal and professional networking opportunities
resulting from their participation in the program and subsequent social gatherings.
9. The impact evaluation report was produced by an individual who is a volunteer and supporter of
LWR and the auditor questions whether there is a bias in the reporting.
10. The organization appears to lack diversity in its membership as noted by some alumni we
interviewed. The impact report also states that their respondents were comprised of 63% female,
92% Caucasian, 85% employed full-time, 93% with post-secondary education, and 70% were in
management positions.
11. Although our alumni interviews generated only positive responses we note that there are some
conflicting opinions including in the appendices of the impact report which provide some balance to
our findings. To summarize, those comments include:
- “fine for 20-year-olds but seasoned mangers could have presented the info
themselves.”
- “did not really help build leadership skills”
- “adequate…really only a start in regards to leadership training….”
- “focused more on understanding how the community worked…..it did not provide specific
leadership skill development…..nor do I think it was supposed to”.
- “I went into the program expecting to learn various leadership skills, but I did not feel this was
accomplished”.
- “It is providing …foundations to build leadership……through network development, however I
think this is happening at the entry level”.
- “I still don’t have a strong sense of what LWR is working to accomplish”.
- 4 -
í ó é
Conclusions
Leadership Waterloo Region has been successful in creating a network of professionals who are enthusiastic
volunteers with a good understanding of community issues.
Participants in the program are extremely positive in their assessment of the organization. While the alumni
interviews were overwhelmingly favourable they also emphatically identify that the greatest benefits are the
personal and professional networking opportunities created through participation in the program and ongoing
attendance at LWR events.
Our review is unable to conclude that the program actually delivers leadership training or that actual leadership
skills are developed through the curriculum. The program appears to be successful in providing participants
with an understanding of social issues facing the community and provides a network of like-minded individuals
interested in volunteerism and community engagement.
The auditor questions whether there is a lack of balanced perspectives in our review based on the information
we received and the list of former participants provided by the organization. Because we received less than
50% response to our board member surveys, we question whether this is an indicator of apathy or an
unwillingness to express any negative opinions about the organization.
Other sponsors-funders expressed concern about the increase in tuition fees by over 28% to $4500 per
participant and whether the program offers sufficient value to justify this price. It will be increasingly difficult for
the organization to recruit participants when the cost of eight classroom days compares to a full-semester of a
university or college program with measurable results and professional instructors and facilitators. Many
employees who may be required to share the cost of this type of training and development with their employers
may find even half the cost difficult to pay.
The organization has no apparent financial resources to sustain it should they experience a drop in revenues
from tuition fees. They will need to obtain additional funding through grants or fundraising if they are not
successful in recruiting more participants.
Recommendations
That the City of Kitchener reduce or eliminate its general grant to Leadership Waterloo Region and
further, that any financial support for the organization be limited to tuition contributions for City
participants as approved by appropriate management.
Loretta Alonzo
Performance Measurement,
Internal Auditor
City of Kitchener
Appendices
Appendix AFinancial Statements
Appendix B Budget
Appendix C Community Impact Evaluation Report
- 5 -
í ó è
Appendix B to CSD-09-036 CIS Follow Up Value for Money Report
City of Kitchener Audit
Social Planning Council of K-W
Final Report
April 20, 2009
Prepared by:
Loretta Alonzo, Internal Auditor
í ó ç
Table of Contents
............................................................................................................................................................................2
Review Objectives
..................................................................................................................................................................................................2
Scope
.....................................................................................................................................................................................2
Methodology
.................................................................................................................................................................2
Background Information
History and Purpose......................................................................................................................................................................2
Agency Objectives.........................................................................................................................................................................2
.................................................................................................................................................................3
Organizational Structure
.......................................................................................................................................................................3
Financial Information
.......................................................................................................................................................5
Activity Synopsis – 2007-2008
.........................................................................................................................................................7
Stakeholder-Client Feedback
.........................................................................................................................................................9
Funders-Sponsors Feedback
...................................................................................................................................................................................10
Key Findings
....................................................................................................................................................................................12
Conclusions
.........................................................................................................................................................................12
Recommendations
......................................................................................................................................................................................13
Appendices
Appendix AMaterials Reviewed.............................................................................................................................................13
Appendix BFinancial Statements, December 31, 2007.......................................................................................................13
Appendix CFinancial Statements, December 31, 2008.......................................................................................................13
Appendix DOperating Budget, 2009......................................................................................................................................13
í ó ïð
Review Objectives
This audit was undertaken at the request of Council to assist Community Services staff in determining if the Social
Planning Council of K-W (SPCKW) meets the criteria for continued funding through the City’s Community Grants, Tier
1 program and whether the programs and services offered by SPCKW align with the community and corporate
directions of the City of Kitchener.
Scope
The scope of this review is limited to the following issue:
Do the programs and services offered by SPCKW align with the community and corporate directions of the
City of Kitchener in order to qualify for continued funding?
Methodology
The following research and analysis was undertaken for this review:
- Interviews with 4 sponsors-funders of SPCKW
- Interviews with the Executive Director of SPCKW
- Interviews with Board Chair, SPCKW
- Survey of 9 Board members for SPCKW
- Interviews and Survey of 11 Stakeholders/Partners of SPCKW
- Review of the 2006, 2007 and 2008 financial statements
- Review of operating summaries for 2008
- Interviews with City of Kitchener staff responsible for managing grants program
- Review of the City of Kitchener’s Community Investment Strategy
- Review of 44 publications, reports, studies, pamphlets produced by the SPCKW
- Interview with Executive Director of Thunder Bay Social Planning Council
- Interview with staff of Halton Region Social Planning Council
- Interview with staff of Cambridge Social Planning Council
Background Information
History and Purpose
The Social Planning Council of K-W is a not-for-profit registered charity operating in the region since May 1967.
The organization’s stated mission is: “To cultivate community knowledge to advance social justice in Waterloo Region.
Their objectives are:
To gather and manage comprehensive information on community needs and human services in Waterloo
Region.
To prepare and distribute information in meaningful and accessible ways to community citizens.
To collaborate with others in developing a community which offers a desirable quality of life for all its citizens
Agency Objectives
The agency is currently divided into two separate functions; 1) social planning council, 2) community information
centre.
As a Social Planning Council their objectives are to:
Build linkages between and among issues, community groups and agencies
Facilitate positive social change through partnerships
Assist government with public policies
As a Community Information Centre their objectives are:
Research on social issues and resources
GIS mapping of Census, local asset and service information data
Database support and maintenance
Enquiry service, (walk-in, email and phone)
Publications and specialized lists
Electronic, web and mobile services
- 2 -
í ó ïï
Organizational Structure
Total staff complement is fifteen (15) varying with the number of project staff at any given time.
Full-time: Executive Director (1)
Enquiry Director (1)
Information, Technical Manager (1)
Part-time: Project Manager (1)
Resources Specialist (1)
Administrative Assistant (1)
Resource Counselor (1)
Contract/Temp ConnectKW Youth Workers (6)
Living Wage, Market Basket Survey Coordinator (1)
Livable Communities, Aging and Disabilities Project Coordinator (1)
Board of Directors Members (11)
Staff functions are generally split between social planning and community information centre activities. The only fully
dedicated resource to social planning activities is Trudy Beaulne, Executive Director. Contract staff are brought in to
work on specific social planning projects. The balance of work is primarily related to the operation of the community
information centre.
Financial Information
200820072006
Assets
$205,060 $148,093 $144,476
Liabilities
$77,604 $28,740 $23,030
Net Assets $127,456 $119,353 $121,446
Revenue
City of Kitchener $84,465 $82,809 $81,185
City of Waterloo $20,690 $20,690 $20,000
Region of Waterloo $74.400 $72,230 $70,125
United Way $50,000 $51,612 $57,500
Other Grants 0$38,813 $58,166
Total Grants $229,555 $266,154 $286,976
Subsidies $23,213 00
Products-Services $165,801 $102,109 $106,684
Donations-Membership $6,208 $4,929 $5,908
Other $1,799
Total Revenue $426,576 $373,192 $399,578
Expenses
Salaries-Benefits $268,748 $261,339 $267,164
General-Admin $149,723 $$113,946 $143,987
Total Expenses $418,471 $375,285 $411,151
Net Income(Loss) $8,104 ($2,093) ($11,573)
- 3 -
í ó ïî
Total expenditures and City of Kitchener grant funds by activity are shown in the charts below.
Social Planning Council of K-W 2007
Allocation of City of Kitchener Grant
Research-
Data
Management
12%
Community
Building
38%
Community
Information
50%
Social Planning Council of KW 2007
Expenditures by Activity
Community
Research-
Building
Data
30%
Management
38%
Community
Information
32%
The organization appears to be fiscally responsible and there have been no significant financial deficits in their
operations over the past several years. The expenses are within reasonable parameters for this agency and there
have been no extraordinary swings in assets, liabilities, revenue or expenses for the three years reviewed by the
auditor.
We note that the organization carries a substantial cash balance on their balance sheet. For both 2006 and 2007 this
balance was approximately $120,000 which may be indicative of surplus funds or may just be the timing of grant
receipts. No cash flow was provided for the review so no conclusion can be drawn from this.
- 4 -
í ó ïí
Activity Synopsis – 2007-2008
The organization has well-documented records of events, publications, projects and initiatives in which they have either
taken a lead, partner, host, facilitator or participant role. They have been summarized as follows:
Neighbourhood leadership, Inclusion:
th
Kitchener Festival of Neighbourhoods (14 annual), co-sponsor-coordinator,
Sponsored summer student grant, 2008 Neighbourhood Connections Award
Worked with Kitchener Housing for summer pilot project in 3 housing complexes
21 Union Lane Support Project, lead
Centreville-Chicopee Neighbourhood Engagement Project, facilitator,
Kitchener Neighbourhood Association –Neighbourhood Summit, co-host, partner
Neighbourhood Association Network sessions, coordinator
City of Waterloo Community Action Forum – Focus on Inclusion, partner, lead
Disabilities Inclusionand Human Rights:
Disabilities and Human Rights Group, coordinator, facilitator
InformOntario Fall Symposium, partner, participant
Bill 107 consultation with Minister of the Attorney General for Ontario, participant
Event planning for disability advocacy, meeting coordinator
Visioning a Community for All Community Forum, lead, facilitator
Multicultural Inclusion:
Nuer Community needs assessment discussions, lead, facilitator
Multicultural Film Festival community discussions, ten events, co-sponsor, facilitator
Ethno-cultural Diversity and Volunteer Management, co-sponsor, partner, coordinator
Ethno-culturally Diverse Communities for Central West Ontario conference, designed, lead Provincial election
all candidates sessions on topic of poverty, women and disabilities, facilitator
Social Development-Community Building Initiatives:
Social Data Studio series, lead, coordinator
Social and Economic Inclusion Initiative, coordinator, facilitator
Outcomes Measurement workshop, coordinator
1st
annual Local Film Festival Social Justice Award, sponsor
Executive Director Network meetings with Volunteer Action Centre, ongoing, Co-host
Livable Communities – Aging and Disabilities in Waterloo and Woolwich, coordinator, participant
John McKnight-Canada Speaking tour, topic of engaging community assets, co-host, sponsor
Policy consultations, Regional Official Policy Plan, Healthy Communities Coalition, assistant, advisor
Waterloo District School Board Equity and Inclusion Advisory Group, invited member
Livable Wage and Market Basket Project, for Region of Waterloo, lead, coordinator
Digital Inclusion:
Student Link, Wilfred Laurier Student Service, Learners/Trainers for Connect KW sites
ConnectKW network, coordinator, partner
Intelligent Waterloo Committee, advocate, participant
Various computer training sessions, coordinator
- 5 -
í ó ïì
:
Poverty Reduction Initiatives
Hosted/Co-hosted 23 events, estimated over 1500 participants, provided local K-W link to poverty reduction
campaign and consultation for Social Planning Network of Ontario, the “25 in 5” Network, assisted with
Minister Matthews consultation, presented 8 events locally and on province-wide conference in Ottawa
Public Policy Advisor Group, province-wide campaign, participant, promoter
Youth Services
2007 Youth Leadership Awards, 2007 sponsor
Community Exchange, partnership with Wilfred Laurier Students Public Interest Research Group
Youth Grand Trunk
Community Information Centre Initiatives:
th
Published 2008 (28 edition) of the Blue Book, hard copy and web edition
Database support for Region of Waterloo’s Employment and Income Support Team
Published Basic Needs Guide, 2007
Published Parent and Child Program and Community Connections booklets
GIS mapping in collaboration with the Social Planning Network of Ontario using 2006 Census
Online Geomatics Community Information and Mapping Project, in partnership with Ottawa Social Planning
Council, using social data studios as model for developing community training
Maintain up-to-date resource library, catalogue for both online and print distribution
Maintain publishing of all community information directories, booklets, brochures
Development of online searchable database and publication sub-sets, pilot project in progress
Complete Alliance of Information and Referral Services (AIRS) taxonomy conversion for Blue Book and
Community Care Access Centre records
Community Surveys:
Summer Student Grant Agency
Ethno-cultural Diversity and Volunteer Management, survey of 519 and 905 area codes
Newcomer On-Line Waterloo Region user feedback
Nuer Community Needs Assessment
ConnectKW:
The Community Information Centre also operates a program called “ConnectKW” which provides free computer and
internet access to citizens of Kitchener and Waterloo. There are currently 29 partners of ConnectKW providing 33
public access sites across Kitchener Waterloo. The City of Kitchener purchased, maintains and supports 18
computers at various locations throughout the city including 10 of our community centres.
In 2007 more than 76,000 users accessed these free public sites.
While the City has also benefitted from accessing these network installations, it incurs annual costs estimated at $3150
to provide upgrades, technical and help desk support for these computers. This cost is over and above the City’s
operating grant. Currently, there is no signed agreement in place between the SPCKW and City of Kitchener therefore
no guidelines, criteria or defined responsibilities have been established to govern this arrangement.
It would be reasonable to expect that the City of Kitchener should be prominently branded as the host and provider of
these free public access stations.
- 6 -
í ó ïë
Community Information Centre Analysis
In 2007 approximately 10,000 Kitchener residents accessed the information distributed by the SPCKW. This
represents roughly 5% of the city’s population. Of those users, approximately 4000 people were directly assisted by
the Referral Counselors either by phone or walk-in contacts.
Internet access is the most widely used method of enquiry. In 2007 there were 624,836 visits to the SPCKW website
and over 101,400 downloads of reports and other documents. These numbers increased substantially in 2008 but
statistics were not yet available for this review.
The agency has agreements with other partners for data sharing arrangements both locally and provincially. They are
currently working with other community information centres to develop a consolidated Ontario database that is used in
provincial help lines and web portals such as Telehealth, Newcomer Professionals, Youth and Victim Services as well
as 211 service delivery in Toronto, Niagara and Collingwood.
The Blue Book is a directory of community services for Waterloo Region. It includes a comprehensive listing of local
human service agencies. There are two versions available. The print version features cross-referenced Name and
Subject Indexes and the electronic version provides keyword-searching and reporting capabilities.
There are currently over 500 licensed users of the electronic Blue Book.
Stakeholder-Client Feedback
The auditor interviewed and/or surveyed a total of 18 stakeholders, clients and partners of the SPCKW from a wide
variety of community user groups from a list provided by the SPCKW. A total of 11 responses were received. The
feedback was overwhelmingly positive in terms of client satisfaction and meeting stakeholder expectations. The
following is a summary of the survey responses:
Question Agree Agree NotDisagreeDisagree
Strongly SureStrongly
1. The Social Planning Council of KW (SPCKW) is actively
64%37%
and effectively meeting the needs of the communities it serves.
2. The SPCKW is providing valuable, up-to-date community
55%45%
information to the communities it serves.
3. The SPCKW is meeting its objective of providing community
55%45%
building in the communities it serves.
4.The services provided by the SPCKW are easily accessible
55%27%18%
to the diverse communities it serves.
5. The information you receive from the SPCKW is always
45%45%9%
current and relevant and meets your needs.
6. The products and services delivered by the SPCKW are
unique and are not available through other organizations 73%27%
in the community.
7. The SPCKW is successful in its mission to advance
social justice and improve the quality of life in the 73%27%
communities it serves.
8. You regularly (minimum weekly) refer to the Blue Book 36%
18%18%9% 18%
as a resource either in print or on-line. N/A
9. The website for the SPCKW is a valuable tool that contains 18%
9%64%9%
up-to-date information about the organization and its services. N/A
10. The SPCKW is an active and valuable partner when
82%18%
initiating, planning and organizing events, projects etc.
- 7 -
í ó ïê
Highlights from the written section of the stakeholders’ survey are summarized below:
.
Please list the core services you believe are critical to the success of the SPCKW
Social research, community information resources
Inclusion practices and advice, consensus building advice,
Source of valuable information about our community, barriers, opportunities
What do you think are the strengths and benefits of the organization? What do they do well?
The SPC is an invaluable resource for community research. Although there are other organizations
that offer this resource few if any do so in a way that is affordable for smaller charity and not-for-profit
organizations.
The gathering of information which is local is a tremendous benefit to the Kitchener community at
large and the SPCKW does it extremely well.
Good social research and analysis skills - Convenor of community members for discussion of
important social and public policy issues (attracts participation from a diverse community background
Strong technical capacity - Very good collaborator with other partners on joint projects – always
contributes
The greatest strength of SPCKW is Trudy Beaulne and her staff, who personify the principles of
inclusion, dignity and a voice for everyone who wants to be heard.
What are some areas where you think they could improve their products and services? Please describe
.
It would benefit both the SPC and the community if they were to make themselves and their services
more visible to the greater community.
Things can always improve, more funds, more resources would allow SPC to respond to the
diversifying needs of our community
They could advertise their services & products…they need to promote their organization in Kitchener
so that local residents and local companies understand the wealth of services & products that they
offer.
How is the Social Planning Council of KW different or better than other similar organizations?
As far as I know, the SPCKW is unique in this community
I am not aware of similar organizations that produce such information as the Blue Book or provide
tools such as the Community Information Centre.
Focussed, arms length from governments (who should not be advising themselves), excellent track
record, limited size helps it stay relevant in light of changing trends, well managed and lean.
More cooperative and collaborative than many organizations - Technical research standards are
better than some - More sensitive to needs of people with disabilities and more inclusive in that
regard than more similar organizations
Please add any comments you wish to make about the organization.
I believe that SPC is an extremely important place in our community but as is often the case, not fully
appreciated in the “homeland”
I believe that SPCKW is a valuable agency and would like to see it continue to grow and develop
further.
Every interaction at every level has been a professional and informative one.
Wealth of information. Need a higher visibility so that the community is aware of this organization.
Great organization that works in the background of so many areas within our community to ensure
that voices are heard, that all the information gets to the table so that sound decisions can be made
Note:
The auditor questions whether there is a lack of balanced perspectives in this review based on the information we
received and the list of stakeholders provided by the organization. It is difficult to ascertain if a 100% favourable
response rate represents an objective, accurate assessment of the organization and therefore, we cannot conclude
that the opinions of all stakeholders and clients are unconditionally favourable.
- 8 -
í ó ïé
Funders-Sponsors Feedback
The auditor interviewed and/or surveyed all 4 key funders of the SPCKW and received responses from all.
The majority of funder’s interview responses are not favourable and are clear indicators that funders do not perceive
value and express dissatisfaction in the services provided by the organization. The following is a summary of the
responses:
Question Agree Agree NotDisagreeDisagree
Strongly SureStrongly
1. The SPCKW is meeting its objective of providing research
25%50% 25%
and data management services to the communities it serves.
2. The SPCKW is meeting its objective of providing community
50% 50%
information to the communities it serves.
3. The SPCKW is meeting its objective of providing community
25% 75%
building in the communities it serves.
4. The services provided by the SPCKW are easily accessible
25%50% 25%
to the diverse communities it serves.
5. The activities of the organization are consistent with its
25%25% 50%
objectives.
6. The products and services delivered by the SPCKW are
unique and are not available through other organizations 25% 50% 25%
in the community.
7. The SPCKW is successful in its mission to advance
50% 50%
social justice and improve the quality of life in the
communities it serves.
8. The products and services delivered by the SPCKW are
relevant, up-to-date and meet the needs of clients and 25% 75%
stakeholders.
9. The SPCKW is providing a valuable service to the
50% 50%
communities it serves.
10. We will continue to provide funding and/or sponsorship to
the SPCKW in the foreseeable future. 75% 25%
Note *
* One funder indicated that they are only funding specific projects and will likely continue to do so, but noted that they
do not fall under the general grant category of funder.
Highlights from the written section of the funders’ survey are summarized below:
What do you think are the strengths and benefits of the organization? What do they do well?
Database development
I’m not sure they are actually providing a valuable service to the community. Perhaps the Community
Info Centre is disseminating information to those who need it
Some products and services seem to be valuable (blue book, some agencies have spoken well of the
data studio sessions)
What are some areas where you think they could improve their products and services? Please describe
Turnaround time on info requests, lack of transparency, meeting deadlines, updating and making
agency info available, duplicating efforts of others
They should probably target their services and research to those which are needed and wanted by
the funders
Inflexibility when working with partners (not able to adapt products and services to the needs of
clients, but suggest that this is possible); unwillingness to work together with others to jointly deliver
- 9 -
í ó ïè
service; concerns regarding facilitation of community planning processes (eg inclusion forum didn’t
take accessibility issues into consideration)
Participation and coordination in current community initiatives rather than taking projects on
independently
Are there any gaps in meeting expectations or stakeholder satisfaction? Please describe.
Sometimes not seen to collaborate with other community partners
For the most part they are invisible to me…..and to the community
CIC isn’t very accessible – no web access, limited hours, cost per blue book
Unable to meet specialized needs and timelines
How is the Social Planning Council of KW different or better than other similar organizations?
Not sure – generally each SPC is quite unique, with a specific focus. Their mandate has shifted over
time, not clear on their mandate
Many other organizations provide a more tangible service but theirs is more esoteric
No ‘storefront’ for CIC - Not sure how other SPCs are working
Seems to have an internal agency focus rather than a community focus
Please add any comments you wish to make about the organization
.
Looking ahead, should 211 become a reality for our region, the CIC would no longer be relevant (and
not sure that SPC KW has capacity to deliver the data needs of 211)
Key Findings
Stakeholders’ and Funders’ Feedback:
Comparators:
When comparing the SPCKW to other social planning councils there are some notable gaps. Other agencies have
strong relationships with their municipal councils and are working directly with local government to develop social policy
and to identify gaps in programs. Interviews with Halton, Cambridge and Thunder Bay indicate that they are more
actively involved in advocacy for marginalized groups within their communities and they are a valuable resource to
local government leaders in this capacity. They are frequently called upon as consultants and advisors to community
leaders responsible for policy development and program creation. In addition, some agencies maintain a “storefront”
location that encourages walk-in traffic and results in a higher public profile.
211 Ontario Service:
211 is a phone and web service that connects people with reliable information, and provides access to a broad range
of community resources, social, health and related government services and programs. It is a free public information
service, accessible anytime via an easy to recall three-digit phone number (2-1-1) or via the internet.
In Ontario, 211 service is currently available to residents of Halton Region, Niagara Region, Simcoe County,
Windsor-Essex, Thunder Bay and District, Ottawa, Peel Region and Toronto. The United Way is currently
working on expanding 211 service to other regions of Ontario and Waterloo Region is expected to come online
in the next two years.
Their service identifies community resources in all of the following areas:
Abuse, including sexual assault
Child and family services
Consumer protection and complaints
Emergency and crisis services
Employment, education and training
Financial assistance
- 10 -
í ó ïç
Food
General community services
Government officials
Health
Homelessness
Housing
Legal
Seniors
Settlement and newcomer services
Youth
Impact:
While the SPCKW has participated in numerous forums and events related to inclusion and poverty reduction, it is
difficult to evaluate the impact of this work. There is no measurement to determine if outcomes are directly related to
the contributions of the agency and in fact, whether they are acting in a lead or support capacity in many instances.
Interviews with stakeholders/clients indicate that the vast majority find value in the organization and believe that
SPCKW is unique in its role within the community while funders express skepticism that the organization is meeting its
objectives or that it has a positive influence in the community.
In reviewing over forty reports, publications and research papers produced by the SPCKW we can confirm that the
organization has generated volumes of material, much of it high-quality, for distribution to the community. The difficulty
is in linking the output of the organization to the outcome of its work (i.e. What was the outcome of the project detailed
in the report?) Who benefits from these efforts? Is there any direct cause and effect that can be measured? Our
review was unable to identify or confirm any specific results that can be linked to specific initiatives originating with the
SPCKW in terms of measuring social planning activities.
For example, there are a number of organizations and community groups working on diversity, inclusion, and ethno-
cultural issues. It would be more effective for the SPCKW to join forces with these groups by consolidating their efforts
and bringing their work to the community as a united power rather than working independently to develop their own
findings and reports with limited range and influence. Work that is done in isolation, without benefit of collaboration
with other community partners could impact the sustainability of the outcomes.
We acknowledge that determining impact is imprecise and that in order to more fully understand the scope of the
organization’s influence it may be necessary to conduct a community impact study that could more clearly define a link
between the output and the outcomes. This type of study would require external consultants and the cost may be
prohibitive unless it could be shared among the funders concerned with identifying the value of the organization’s work.
Image and Reputation:
The relationship between the organization’s and a number of its funders is undefined. Clearly, a majority of key
funders have expressed their dissatisfaction with the organization’s services and believe that many of these services
are available through alternate sources within the community. Funders have also expressed concern that the SPCKW
appears to act in isolation by duplicating work and research that has been undertaken by other groups and this lack of
collaboration results in wasted resources and conflicting efforts.
Of equal concern is the fact that a 75% of funders have stated that they find the SPCKW a challenge to work with and
inflexible at times. This breakdown in relationships poses a threat to the organization’s ability to deliver service to the
community, meet their stated objectives, and to meet funders’ expectations.
Conversely, client stakeholders are more than satisfied with the services they receive from the organization and are
almost unconditional in their support of the SPCKW. It is unfortunate that these user groups do not necessarily
represent the vision and direction of the key financial supports of this social planning council.
Our audit highlights the polarization of feedback among stakeholders, clients, and funders and suggests that the
organization and its funders need to focus on improving their relationships in order to advance their respective
mandates.
- 11 -
í ó îð
Conclusions
The SPCKW has a loyal stakeholder-client base that supports them and finds real value in the organization’s services.
Our review concludes that the majority of these stakeholders derive benefit from both the social planning council as
well as the community information centre activities of the SPCKW.
From a City of Kitchener perspective, the community information enquiry centre is servicing only 5% of the population
which is an indicator that these services are available from alternate sources which is confirmed by the funder’s
feedback.
It is reasonable to conclude that while these clients may be extremely satisfied with the product and services they
receive from the SPCKW, there is no demonstrable association with the expectations of the funders who provide the
financial support required to sustain the organization.
There is clearly a lack of established criteria from some funders defining the anticipated outcomes or deliverables from
the SPCKW. The result is that the organization continues along its current path, unaware that it is not creating value
for its funders and believes that as long as it appears to meet the expectations of its clients, it has been successful in
meeting its objectives.
Recommendations
The auditor acknowledges that staff of the Community Services Department are responsible for making their
recommendations to Council with respect to the Community Grants program and whether applicants meet the criteria
for funding under the program.
Staff have indicated that it would be helpful for the Auditor to express an opinion based on this external review.
It is the Auditor’s suggestion that the following actions be considered:
Provide grant funding to the SPCKW for social planning activities stipulating that the funds be used
for specific projects or initiatives that the City deems valuable and that align with the City’s community
and corporate directions
Continue to provide grant funding to the SPCKW to support the Community Information Centre until
such time as the province launches its 211 service in the Region and it can be determined whether
the SPCKW is in a position to assume the delivery of that service. It is anticipated that 211 may be
introduced to the Region within two years.
Consider reducing the general grant to the SPCKW by 50% until such time as specific social planning
projects may be defined and contracted with the SPCKW
Develop criteria for social planning projects that align with Kitchener’s corporate and community vision
that may be outsourced to agencies such as the SPCKW
Assign staff to further explore 211 Ontario initiative to learn more about its potential impact on the City
of Kitchener and how we might participate in this initiative
Value for money criteria should be developed by the City of Kitchener to establish guidelines and a
framework for general operating grants under the Community Grants Tier 1 program
Loretta Alonzo
Performance Measurement,
Internal Auditor
City of Kitchener
- 12 -
í ó îï
Appendices
Appendix AMaterials Reviewed
Appendix B Financial Statements, December 31, 2007
Appendix C Financial Statements, December 31, 2008
Appendix D Operating Budget, 2009
- 13 -
í ó îî
í ó îí
í ó îì
í ó îë
í ó îê
í ó îé
í ó îè
í ó îç
í ó íð
í ó íï
í ó íî
í ó íí
í ó íì
í ó íë
í ó íê
í ó íé
í ó íè
í ó íç
í ó ìð
í ó ìï