Canadian Rural Partnership
Rural Dialogue



URBAN / RURAL DIALOGUE SESSION

An Urban / Rural Dialogue on
Community Development Issues and Approaches

Rural Dialogue Summary Report

Vancouver, British Columbia
March 3, 2005

This report is a summary of discussions that took place at the Urban / Rural Dialogue Session, entitled "An Urban / Rural Dialogue on Community Development Issues and Approaches", held in Vancouver, British Columbia (BC), on March 3, 2005. No limits were placed on the participants during discussions that took place in brainstorming sessions. In order to present a true report of the free-ranging discussions, recommendations made by participants that fall outside federal jurisdiction are also included. Views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the Government of Canada.

The Urban / Rural Dialogue Session was part of the Rural Dialogue, an ongoing, two-way discussion between the Government of Canada and Canadians from rural, remote and northern regions. Launched in 1998, the Rural Dialogue is a key citizen-engagement component of the Canadian Rural Partnership (CRP). The CRP is designed to support a horizontal approach to rural development within the Government of Canada that responds to rural, remote and northern priorities. The Dialogue process helps the Government of Canada to understand local and regional priorities, and provides rural, remote and northern citizens with an opportunity to influence government policies, programs and services that affect them.

Participants (24 in attendance) included representatives of: the federal, provincial and municipal governments; regional rural organizations; and community, economic and social development organizations.

The objectives of this event were to bring together a group of government representatives, representatives of non-governmental agencies, and proponents of urban and rural community development to:

• learn about the key current and emerging issues being faced by urban and rural communities, and identify the issues common to both;
• learn about the impact of the migration of rural citizens to urban settings and of urban citizens to rural settings, and about the other factors of interdependence;
• learn about the most successful approaches or models being used to address these urban and rural issues, including those supported by communities, governments, and/or non-governmental organizations; and
• form an ongoing network or community of practice to share information on urban and rural community development approaches.

After a round table of introductions, each participant gave some background information on their organization's or program's approach to community development. (A summary of their respective presentation is included as an Annex to this report.)

Based on their presentations, the following key themes were identified: community leadership, community readiness, funding, and partnerships. These themes, including the points below, were then discussed in small groups.

1. Developing and measuring community readiness.

   • Measuring and building community capacity.
   • Examining the core capacity what is it, how to retain it, ensure it engages key stakeholders and that it is inclusive.
   • Improving access to funds/programming where capacity is low - how to address.
   • Recognizing the low threshold level for smaller communities.

2. Championing action and building capacity of funding organizations that offer programs.

   • Sharing costs across government champions by working horizontally.
   • Working to coordinate the process for government funding timeframes/speedy decisions, and more commonalities in applications.
   • Determining future funding trends and implications.

3. Building partnerships.

   • Identifying how governments can better serve clients/communities.

4. Enhancing communications for sharing information informally.

   • Building a network for two way communication between funding organizations and communities.
   • Encouraging funding organizations to dialogue with one another and communities to dialogue with each other.

5. Developing success measurement and indicators.

The steering committee which was formed to plan the dialogue included the following:

• Brandon Hughes - Canadian Rural Partnership [Regional Advisor for BC]
• Gail Wallin - Fraser Basin Council
• Gordon Chow - Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) -Community Initiatives and Policy
• Joe Artibise - HRSDC (Victoria) - Labour Market Partnerships
• Phillip Lee - Western Economic Diversification - Strategic Policy, Planning and Economic Analysis
• Sherree Walter - BC Ministry of Community, Aboriginal, and Women's Services - Intergovernmental Relations
• Kelly Scarrow - HRSDC - Homelessness and Urban Partnerships - Federal Homelessness Initiative
• Linda Jacobsen - HRSDC -Community Initiatives and Policy - Partnerships
• Nicolas de Salaberry - Infrastructure Canada - Cities Secretariat
• Mauro Vescera - Vancouver Foundation
• Barb Oates - Community Foundations of Canada
• Simon Snoxell - Infrastructure Canada
• Barbara Oleschuk - Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada - National Crime Prevention Centre
• Allison McNeil - Union of BC Municipalities

A number of the important issues that were raised during this event are linked to the following Government of Canada priorities identified in the February 2004 Speech From the Throne:

• provide long-term funding for infrastructure to support quality of life and sustainable growth of communities; and
• support regional and rural socio-economic development

The results presented will help inform the Government of Canada on future actions, and will contribute to the proposed National Rural Framework (NRF) that will guide the actions of the federal, provincial and territorial governments. The over-arching goal of this federal-provincial-territorial collaborative effort is to ensure the long-term viability and sustainability of rural communities by creating an environment which will ensure that communities and citizens have access to social and economic opportunities.

The NRF is based on five policy areas that affect community sustainability. The issues and priorities discussed at this event are presented under the relevant policy area (section 4 of this report).

Sustainable Livelihoods

A range of activities, economic and social, that enable citizens to support themselves and their communities in the long-term and through changing circumstances.

Shared Environmental Stewardship

Recognition by governments and communities that all must share in the management, as well as share the benefits of our natural resources and healthy environment.

Smart Approaches to Infrastructure

Innovative, appropriate and effective means of planning, building, operating and maintaining physical, social and knowledge-based infrastructure that takes into consideration the rural context.

Engaged Population and Institutions

The active participation and collaboration of all citizens and their institutions in decisions that affect their community.

Demographic Adaptation

The ability of a community to accommodate, on an ongoing basis, the impacts or effects of changes in population, economics and services.

The issues and priorities discussed at this event focussed on the following policy areas: Sustainable Livelihoods; Smart Approaches Infrastructure; and Engaged Population. Proposed actions and solutions that could address the issues discussed are also included in this section.

4.1.1 Economic Development

One participant expressed that the socio-economic development approach that is needed is not short-term dollars for long-term issues, but a more comprehensive approach. It was noted that a socio-economic approach will build socio-economic bridges. Participants also indicated that local businesses should be supported through shopping locally.

4.2.1 Strategic Planning and Partnerships

It was noted that the "last mile" – meaning getting resources to smaller communities – is an issue for smaller communities and those with less social capacity. Participants expressed that core funding should be provided to social service organizations to ensure enabling conditions for effective social planning. The following models for social planning were cited: committees of a local government, independent groups with local government support, independent groups, the United Way, and community service agencies.

Participants indicated that community development approaches should be flexible to support creative initiatives. They noted that the measurement of a community's readiness is also linked to its capacity. Communities need to be ready to move forward by having a core group that not only broadly represents the community but also recognizes that the community needs to change and grow. It should be acknowledged that building the capacity of a community takes time. As such, the skills of capacity builders (e.g. elected and non-elected leaders) and the organizational capacity of rural organizations should be increased. The need to examine what motivates people to participate in training sessions and attend information workshops, which in turn provide good opportunities to build local capacity, was also noted.

4.2.2 New or Knowledge-based Infrastructure

Participants expressed that an Internet portal that offers a community readiness tool box should be created to assist communities identify their strengths and weaknesses and learn about the tools that can help them move forward.

They indicated that a consolidated informational resource should be developed and identify key players by issue area, for instance: Community Economic Development Officers; contractors; local, provincial and federal governments and officials; and funding organizations. Participants also advised that more one-stop hubs, by issue area, should also be established for use by stakeholders.

4.3.1 Collaborative Relationships

Participants indicated that resources should be provided to support ongoing cooperation and collaboration among social, economic and environmental organizations to ensure the work progresses without slippage. Furthermore, they indicated that creating partnerships with local businesses and working with other key stakeholders could help the community to move forward and plan for the future.

They also emphasized the importance of determining and considering the strategic benefits for people establishing cross program partnerships when identifying possible partnerships. Small, tangible common goals, with shared short-term deliverables, should also be determined. Once potential partners are identified, engagement approaches should be developed to achieve specific goals that require partnerships. One example offered by participants was for a mentorship partnership which would involve the following goals:

• identify ways to influence communities with greater capital to share resources (e.g. financial, information, tools, etc.) with lower capital communities;
• establish creative ways to exchange knowledge; and
• provide incentives to encourage mentors to assist communities with increased needs.

One participant expressed that the government's role should be to act as a catalyst to facilitate, build capacity, and champion easier access to program dollars through policy input of issues and on behalf of groups. While another indicated that the potential impact of the Service Canada initiative - a one stop window for information and access to the programs and services of 12 federal departments should be noted. Participants also indicated that the complex government processes, including the various Terms and Conditions (Ts&Cs), create challenges for communities. Western Economic Diversification is currently trying to harmonize Ts&Cs and developing horizontal ones.

• Federal government departments should work in cooperation to gain a comprehensive understanding of community issues since these cannot be cut into "silos".

Another mentioned there is a need to create a government network to share good proposal ideas, to review them together for different perspectives, to discuss who may be able to fund these proposals and to establish a list of contacts in other departments. It was also noted that the key elements for community development success include working with government and community champions, and having a committed elected leadership base.

Participants advised that communication about potential funders and networking should be increased to share information with communities instead of them having to search for funders. They noted that a "funders meeting" could help address funding issues by bringing proponents and funding organizations together to: discuss the simplification of the application process; discuss the funding of the evaluation portion of projects; establish reasonable outcomes; and explore co-funding or projects. Participants also expressed that funding organizations should streamline their application and decision processes.

They indicated that funding organizations should establish meaningful systems to seek feedback on their funding programs and procedures to find solutions to funding issues. These relate to the lack of: knowledge of funding sources; capacity to successfully apply due to complicated application forms; and sufficient partnerships to match funds – a requirement for some programs.

Participants advised that a competitive Request for Proposals process (e.g. BC Bids) – to deliver programming in smaller centres – should not be enforced as this process will give the advantage to larger organizations located in larger centres. Participants also indicated that existing and successful models of cooperation and coordination for program delivery should be examined by government departments and agencies. An example is the Service Delivery Initiative which is under the BC Ministry of Management Services. Information on this initiative is found on their Web site: http://www.mser.gov.bc.ca/sdi/projects.htm.

4.3.2 Decision-Making and Accountability

They expressed that community practitioners should be educated about how funding decisions are made and why a community's application was not accepted to ensure communities do not give up.

4.3.3 Leadership Development

Participants stated that community leadership includes the ability to: bring community groups together in an inclusive way; provide focus on issues that lead to actions; support community leaders; and help develop new leaders. They expressed that core funding should be provided for the development of community leaders since they are visionary and bridge builders. While participants recognized that "one-off" projects contribute to building leadership and mentorship, they expressed that a long-term leadership and mentorship approach should be developed.

They suggested that an inventory identifying the people involved in community leadership development should be developed. They also indicated that Community Foundations and Community Futures are good model organizations which build leadership capacity through product and board development. Participants expressed that emerging leadership should be developed by following existing models, namely: the Kootenay/Columbia Rural Leadership program; and the Canadian CED Network which offers mentoring, pods and peer learning. Other existing leadership approaches could also be examined, for instance the ones for Vancouver, Victoria and Richmond (youth), the "Sea to Sky" program (involving Vancouver, Squamish and Whistler) and the "Generation leadership" (linking youth and adult leaders through mentorship).

All participants were satisfied or strongly satisfied with the results of the event and all felt that it was an important event. Most indicated that the Urban/Rural Dialogue Session was better than they had anticipated.

As a result of this dialogue, participants proposed a number of actions, which will be led by various participants, and identified some next steps. These include:

• Developing a process or approach to share information among participants. 
• Organizing other sessions to discuss specific topics or themes. For instance, a "funders table" to share contact information and learn about effective approaches, and a session on measuring outcomes. 
• Developing protocols on partnerships (e.g. how to strengthen the capacity of local partners, or develop a list of possible partners). 
• Exploring to utilize community foundations as local community contacts. 
• Sharing information on funding sources and past funding experiences at a future event, and involve various committees and funding organizations. 
• Bringing together grass-root organizations with policy-makers. 
• Establishing a committee to set joint priorities. 
• Building community capacity by helping communities apply to the appropriate programs. 
• Making the connections, at the community level, between the numerous programs.

One key issue raised by participants related to the need to reward (e.g. fund) the best proposals or ideas which may not be the most professional or polished proposals. A second one was the need to address program accessibility challenges of small communities, which includes competing for funding.

Participants indicated that representatives from the following organizations, departments and sectors should be invited to future sessions:

ANNEX - PRESENTATIONS ON
APPROACHES TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

A. Canadian CED Network / BC CED Net

Contact:	Ellie Parks
Web Site:	http://www.ccednet-rcdec.ca/fr/pages/home.asp

• BC CED Net is growing in terms of the size of the organization and by shifting from an unofficial group to a more formalized one.
• The organization, as part of the Canadian CED Network, supports the economic and social development of BC's communities.
• BC CED Net incorporates social planning and entrepreneurship, and links social and economic goals through a community‑driven process that supports communities to find their own solutions.
• Among their members, those in urban communities are more connected and have more peer support, while the ones in rural areas are more isolated and have lower capacity to support community and economic development (e.g. fewer skills, less access to information, and a smaller network of peers).

B. Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC)

Contact:	Therese Vermette
Web site:	http://www.cic.gc.ca

• CIC has been working with the BC Ministry of Community, Aboriginal, and Women's Services and Western Economic Diversification (WD) on regional pilot projects to encourage immigrants to settle outside of Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver (often referred to as MTV).
• CIC, in collaboration with the Canadian Rural Partnership and the Community Futures Development Association (CFDA) of BC, has developed a Request for Proposals and has contracted eight communities to deliver these pilots.
• This process is helping to build community capacity by working with multi-cultural organizations.
• Due to the uniqueness of each of the communities, some have integrated immigrant services better than others.

C. Columbia Basin Trust (CBT)

Contacts:	Wayne Lundeburg, Dana Welsh
Web site:	http://www.cbt.org/programs/main.asp?ProgramID=262&fl=5

• A grass roots movement led to the creation of the CBT. This was driven by the negative impacts of the damming of rivers and flooding valleys, and due to the relocation of communities in the Basin.
• CBT supports Basin communities in building on their own strengths and assets.
• The Trust now funds hydroelectric power projects along with projects to support social and economic development, youth, the environment, the arts and culture.
• They noted that sometimes cross cutting projects cannot be considered.
• To ensure that good ideas are considered, CBT has no set deadlines.
• Each community is different and CBT tries to provide a pot of dollars for good ideas. To avoid competition among communities, the Trust uses a dialogue approach instead of a Request for Proposal process. They also build on the work that has been done before.
• They help communities develop proposals and try to replicate principals and values not models or projects.
• The CBT Youth Committee supports youth programming and networking through www.scratchonline.ca.

D. Community Foundations

Community Foundations of Canada

Contact:	Barb Oates
Web site:	http://www.community-fdn.ca

Shuswap Community Foundation

Contact:	Clyde Tucker
Web site:	http://www.shuswapfoundation.ca

• These foundations are guided by broadly-based community boards that are networked to build the foundations' capacity and to help replicate successes.
• They use networking and peer learning to scale up good ideas.
• They generally serve a community, region or trading area by building the assets of the foundation and administering the interest for the good of the community.
• Foundations offer long-term solutions to community issues as the fund never gets depleted and the approach to granting stays in place. The funding is not short-term and the objectives of programs or projects do not have to change to be funded.
• One issue arises with using a flexible program approach it is harder to evaluate the project which, in turn, puts the burden of responsibility on the organization.
• The approach builds capacity in the community since foundations work with proponents to develop proposals.
• The roles of stakeholders and their degree of support is different in each community, for instance, some stakeholders do not "come to the table".

E. Community Futures Development Association (CFDA) of BC

Contact:	Jerry Botti
Web site:	http://www.communityfutures.ca/provincial/bc/

• Community Futures Development Corporations (CFDCs) receive their core funding from WD and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. CFDCs also carry out special projects on behalf of other funders.
• CFDA supports CFDCs to foster local entrepreneurship and promote community development initiatives within their respective communities.
• Communication across 34 regional offices takes time, but these outreach activities are a good way to hear from the communities.
• Many Community Foundations (CFs) are expanding their work beyond entrepreneurship to include economic and social goals, but it takes time to build bridges and understanding among community leaders and rural organizations.
• CFs do not "tell their story well" in terms of tracking their contribution to community development including the outcomes. Additionally, measuring their impact is a challenge. (A participant added that the Voluntary Sector Knowledge Network's Website includes a section on accountability and evaluation which could be used to evaluate CFs. [http://www.vskn.ca/account.htm])
• They have to deal with government "silos" in terms of meeting the needs of communities.
• The development of social economic initiatives will not change the roles of CFs since many are already active in this area.

F. Fraser Basin Council (FBC)

Contact:	Gail Wallin
Web site:	http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/index.html

• FBC focuses on advancing sustainability throughout the entire Fraser River Basin. The Council's long-term vision is to ensure that the Fraser Basin is a place where social well-being is supported by a vibrant economy and sustained by a healthy environment.
• FBC launched the Strengthen Communities initiative to increase the capacity of rural communities facing economic and structural transitions. [http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/programs/basin_wide.html]

G. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC)

Homelessness and Urban Partnerships Federal Homelessness Initiative

Contact:	Kelly Scarrow
Web site:	http://www21.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/home/index_e.asp

Community Initiatives and Policy

Contacts:	Linda Jacobsen (Partnerships), Gordon Chow
Web site:	http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/home.shtml

• The Government of Canada's National Homelessness Initiative (NHI) is a community-based approach to addressing homelessness. It is a three-year initiative with a current mandate from 2003-2006. Discussions are currently underway for renewal of the initiative. Information on the NHI is posted on this Web site: http://www21.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/home/index_e.asp.
• Across Canada, 61 communities (7 in BC) have been identified as having significant homeless populations. The NHI is delivered in partnership with: community-based stakeholders committees which can include non-governmental organizations; faith-based organizations; all levels of government; and community members.
• Committees develop community plans which identify assets and gaps in services available for homeless and at-risk of homelessness individuals, set priorities for action, and make recommendations for project funding.
• Funding is also available through province-wide NHI initiatives to address homelessness issues in smaller, rural communities, for instance the Supporting Community Partnerships Initiative. [http://www21.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/initiative/scpi_e.asp]

H. Northern BC Community Development Vision and Strategy Project

Contact:	Leslie Lax
Web site:	http://web.unbc.ca/ geography/faculty/greg/research/edvs/index.html

• The purpose of this project is to undertake a community-driven process that will review the key challenges and opportunities relative to the economic development and diversification of northern BC communities.
• The goal is to produce a report which identifies a framework for action aimed at creating the mechanisms necessary to engage, mobilize, and coordinate key resources and stakeholders for the creation of a northern economic development strategy.
• A research team at the University of Northern BC is coordinating a process for building and collating the information required for this framework.

I. Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC) - National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC)

Contact:	Shannon Gander
Web site:	http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca

• NCPC provides broad funding to address the issues related to crime and victimization.
• The process for getting funding can be long and onerous and generally only provides short-term solutions. However, using evaluations based on outcomes can lead to more funders coming on board.

J. Smart Communities

Contact:	Chris Bywater
Web site:	http://198.103.246.211/index_e.asp

• The Smart Communities Program involves the use of information and communication technologies in new and innovative ways to empower residents, institutions and regions (Coquitlam). For instance, through the Community Access Program (CAP) and through the work experience provided under the CAP Youth Initiative (YI). [http://cap.ic.gc.ca/pub/index.html?iin.lang=en]
• This approach is building capacity in communities – by supporting community organizations, local businesses, youth and others to develop a grass roots approach – while supporting balanced economic, social and cultural development.
• The goal is to aim for sustainable economic and population growth.
• They involve policy-makers at an early stage in the process and ensure a grass roots process even though this takes time when people want fast action.

K. Smart Growth BC

Contact:	Guy Patterson
Web site:	http://www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/index.cfm

• Smart Growth BC focuses on land use planning and raising awareness around issues of land use and land use planning. Good land use planning preserves the things that people value while creating spaces for economic development.
• They develop urban and rural development strategies to reduce sprawl and encourage growth that is fiscally, environmentally and socially responsible.
• They rely on engaging citizens in discussions on the most appropriate use of land.
• They use a community design charette that engages key stakeholders in an intensive approach to achieving consensus on land use issues.
• Their approach can help bring balance to the planning process as local government may have self-interest in rapid growth.

L. Social Planning and Research Council (SPARC)

Contacts:	Jim Sands, Mat Bell
Web site:	http://www.sparc.bc.ca

• The organization supports communities to increase their capacity to build a just and healthy society for all, and promotes income security, community capacity building and accessibility.
• They are working at building networks across regions to share information on projects and best practices, as well as to link communities to resources and information through a contact person (live body).
• They provide education in the area of community development, support partnerships, assist with social planning, and create linkages between social and economic spheres.

M. Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM)

Contact:	Peter Larose
Web site:	http://civicnet.bc.ca/siteengine/activepage.asp?bhcp=1

• UBCM has been serving and representing the interests of BC's local governments since 1905 in three areas:
  • Information and advisory services (e.g., newsletters, circulars, training, surveys, etc.).
  • Advocacy of policy issues to senior governments.
  • Member services - joint services that members voluntarily take part in (such as group benefits, dog tags, etc.).
• They are supported through voluntary dues that are collected from local governments (municipalities and regional districts) and have had 100% membership for the past 25 years.
• They also promote collaboration between local governments and First Nations communities on issues of shared interest, by administering the Community to Community Forum program.
• UBCM also builds community capacity by offering training programs and courses to newly elected officials, and involving them in symposiums on specific issues.
• When advocating for local government funding to other levels of government, UBCM tries to ensure that new funding sources are consistent and predictable, where possible, to promote stability in program development.
• UBCM is presently working on developing information resources on local government's role in promoting community economic development, by surveying members on their economic development practices, achievements and main impediments.

N. VanCity

Contact:	Kyle Pearce
Web site:	http://www.vancity.com/Community/CommunityInvestments

• VanCity works with WD, the private sector and community development practitioners to support social economy projects and community development, and helps build the leadership in communities and organizations.
• The organization can provide a small amount of money to help leverage other dollars.
• VanCity is ready to partner around social enterprises since the organization is currently surveying stakeholders on the capacity of organizations to start social enterprises, and writing a social enterprise guide.

O. Vancouver Foundation

Contact:	Mark Gifford
Web site:	http://www.vancouverfoundation.bc.ca

• The Vancouver Foundation builds community capacity across BC through their work with 30 local foundations by matching local funds for community development initiatives.
• The volunteer contribution of the board members is very important to the organization.
• One challenge in grant-making is that communities must follow the Foundation's planning process and not their own.

P. Vibrant Communities

Presenter:	Joe Artibise (HRSDC employee, Victoria office)
Web site:	http://www.vibrantcommunities.ca/g2s1.html

• Vibrant Communities is a community-driven effort to reduce poverty in Canada by creating partnerships that make use of our most valuable assets - people, organizations, businesses and governments.
• Research is also conducted to provide timely and relevant information to learning community members and to help shape a policy environment that supports poverty-reduction.
• The process is taking a holistic approach by examining economic, social and environmental issues integrally, including community sustainability issues. This process also helps to build bridges across community groups.
• Part of the process is to find an issue or model that has a broad interest and energy that leads to commitment to work across stakeholders.
• Controlling the purse string changes the community's role. Other challenges include working with multiple partners (e.g. tracking who is the first funder), and dealing with different timelines, application and reporting processes.

Q. Western Economic Diversification (WD)

Contacts:	Phillip Lee, Linda Howe
Web site:	http://www.wd.gc.ca

• WD programs and services support three strategic directions: Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Communities.
• The organization has flexibility, particularly with the approval authority since it is delegated to the regional office level.
• They support community capacity building, keeping partnership and leadership in balance and the Vancouver Agreement. [http://www.vancouveragreement.ca/Agreement.htm]

Date Modified: 2005-09-16

Important Notices

[ Français | Contact Us | Help | Search | Canada Site ] [ Home | News Releases | Key Rural Initiatives | Site Map | Publications ]