In this three-part series, we explore the findings of the national and local Vital Signs® reports issued this past Fall by the Community Foundations of Canada (CFC) and 11 local community foundations. In the first installment, Monica Patten, CFC president and CEO described the purpose of Vital Signs® and how it is different from other reports. In addition, she gave a behind the scenes look at the collaboration that went into the 2007 report release.
In this installment, we look more closely at the trends identified nationally and locally, plus find out more about collaboration in action at the local level.
In putting together the national Vital Signs® report, Community Foundations of Canada (CFC) asked its researcher to roll up the local data into a single, national picture. When they read through the information, three items jumped out at them, reports Sarah Lyons, CFC director of programs, and the one who coordinated the national Vital Signs® report:
- The gap between the rich and the poor
- The environment (with a focus on greenhouse gas emissions)
- Immigrant employment rates
These are the themes that the CFC would like to underline as needing to be on the national agenda. However, as president and CEO Monica Patten explains, “We are not experts so we brought in people who are well versed in the issues. We were honoured and delighted by the immediate response we had from these people.” People like Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, and John Ralston Saul, writer and co-chair of the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, contributed “Vital Comments” throughout the national report. In addition, the national Vital Signs® report includes “Taking Action” stories to highlight what is already happening in communities across Canada on each of the ten key indicators.
Interconnectedness of issues
Barbara Grantham, vice-president of community leadership for the Vancouver Foundation, found that their local research results were very much interconnected. In the second year of Vital Signs® in Vancouver, the foundation discovered, on the positive side of the ledger, that Metro Vancouver has low unemployment and high volunteering rates. However, they have a continuingly troublesome poverty rate – particularly among children. The second issue they uncovered was frustrations with transportation infrastructure – roads, bike paths, public transit. Third, they uncovered an increasing issue of homelessness. And fourth, opportunities for newcomers to integrate are limited.
Grantham explains how the issues relate to one another: “Newcomers to Canada are somewhat ghetto-ized in certain segments of the labour market. They are usually not at high paying jobs, which mean they can’t afford to live in the city because of housing prices. So, they live way out in the suburbs so now there are transportation issues. At the same time, says Grantham, “We don’t have enough ESL classes, etc. and it encourages pockets of immigrants rather than social inclusion. It’s a vicious cycle.”
What was very surprising to Grantham was the public reaction to one particular question in their Ipsos-Reid survey, a unique feature of the Metro Vancouver report. “We read about social problems and challenges in our communities so we wanted to ask what individuals are doing to feel like they are making a difference. We asked, ‘In the last 12 months what actions have you taken in your life to make a positive difference in this community?'” While there were responses that you’d expect to see, like volunteering, recycling, driving the car less, etc., what absolutely astounded the Vancouver Foundation was that 25% of respondents said they had done nothing in the last 12 months. “That was a striking piece of evidence and says that we have a lot of work to do to engage citizens in a proactive way,” concludes Grantham.
“Important surprises”
The Sudbury Community Foundation had a few surprises of its own. Last year was the first time they released a Vital Signs® report but, according to executive director Carmen Simmons, they’ve been looking at the initiative since Toronto started issuing reports in 2001.
Simmons said there were several, what she refers to as, ‘A-has’ or ‘important surprises’ about their community. For one, Sudbury’s greenhouse gas emissions were highest of 22 cities studied. All in all, the indicators generated considerable discussion, but occasionally organizations or individuals with invested interested didn’t like how the indicators profiled their particular issue. “That was very interesting to me,” explains Simmons. “It hammered home how important it is to remain objective and accurate doing this kind of report – to do the best job possible, to be fair with each indicator and issue area and still tell the real story. It was a matter of saying the statistics we used were grounded in real reports. We always told people to go to the expanded online report to follow the links to the sources.”
Regardless of the reason, the report generated a lot of discussion in Sudbury and that left the foundation with a strong sense of how important the report was to their community. The level of discussion also means they’ve gained new contacts and potential partners for 2008.
High level of community input
Kerry Longpre, director of communications for the Calgary Foundation, was not surprised so much with what the statistics revealed, but with just how much public participation they garnered in their first ever Vital Signs® report. The Calgary strategy was to bring in people representing the various issue areas to choose the indicators. While there was one global indicator for each key issue area used in the national report and in all 11 local reports, Calgary had an average of five indicators for each key issue area and these were chosen by community members.
Community interest was so high that the Calgary Foundation was over-subscribed at each of the indicator action events. In addition, 800 Calgarians signed up to grade Calgary’s quality of life against each indicator – 600 participated, generating 200 pages of comments.
Secret of success for working with major partners
To pull off the local and national Vital Signs® reports, not only was there extensive public input, but a great deal of collaboration needed to happen with local community partners. The Vancouver Foundation worked with three major partners (over and above advisory groups and the research team): Van City Credit Union, the Vancouver Sun, and Ming Pao (a large Chinese language newspaper).
Grantham’s approach to working with these major partners was to think from their perspective. “Who are the other key players out in the community that can help us, and also in a way that is advantageous to meet their community and corporate objectives? You need to put yourself in their shoes and think it through,” states Grantham. “What we’ve learned through the process is that it’s not only that [the partners] are doing a really nice thing for us. It’s a solid decision for them. It’s not enough, quite frankly, to say that we want you to do this because it’s the right thing to do or because it’s nice. That’s not going to get you very far. I don’t say that to be negative or critical. You just absolutely have to see it through their eyes.”
Internal collaboration
In the first installment in this series, Monica Patten alluded to the high level of collaboration between participating member community foundations. As a small community foundation, “collaborating with the other community foundations was great,” says Sudbury’s Simmons. “As I look back on it, not having the collaboration would have made it so much more difficult for us. Seeing how others went through the process was very valuable. I can’t speak highly enough of that process.”
Even though Vancouver has the largest community foundation in Canada, Grantham couldn’t imagine doing a venture like this on their own either. “Toronto blazed the trail in terms of the process – how to frame it for our board, how it fit with the goals and objectives of our organizations,” applauds Grantham. Plus, the changes that Vancouver made to its second Vital Signs® report to make it more readable and evocative, were all ideas gleaned from other community foundations. In November 2007, the 11 participating community foundations gathered for a collective debrief and 2008 planning session. They were joined by community foundations releasing their first Vital Signs® report in 2008. The collaboration continues.
In the next and final installment in this series, we explore the impact of Vital Signs® in various settings across Canada, and what local communities are doing with the findings.
Louise Chatterton Luchuk is a freelance writer and consultant who combines her love of writing with experience at the local, provincial and national levels of volunteer-involving organizations. For more information, visit www.luchuk.com.
