1 / 16

It’s Your Call

It’s Your Call. The Impact of the 2004 HRSDC Call for Proposal Process on Toronto’s Community Sector DRAFT – for discussion only. The CFP.

abby
Télécharger la présentation

It’s Your Call

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. It’s Your Call The Impact of the 2004 HRSDC Call for Proposal Process on Toronto’s Community Sector DRAFT – for discussion only

  2. The CFP • In 2004, HRSDC responded to pressure for greater accountability of public funds by introducing a Call for Proposals (CFP) process to award contracts for existing employment and training services • Implementation of this process resulted in upheaval, wasted time and money, and disrupted service - exactly the opposite of its intent

  3. It’s Your Call This report seeks to clarify: • When Call for Proposals and other competitive bidding processes are good tools for the selection of service providers and when they are not; • How to improve evaluation and accountability processes for new and existing services; • How to improve the CFP process when that is judged to be the best tool to use.

  4. Contents • The case studies were based on 10 service providers (about one-fifth of the service contracts operating in the GTA) • This sample included small and large agencies, for- and non-profit organizations, and those who won contracts and those who lost contracts • A literature review examined management of third-party relations, trends in service delivery policy, and practice in this sector.

  5. Findings Measured against the mandate of the CFP process, the research showed the following: • Deviated significantly from its intended goals The process led to less - not more - focus on: • needs-based delivery • transparency of funding protocols • demonstration of accountability • better integrated service networks

  6. Findings • Created disruptions in employment services for clients • Services gaps emerged in timing of process • More staff time diverted from direct service provision • Definition of target clientele altered for some • Some vulnerable clientele lost access to service

  7. Findings • Reduced the spin-off benefits for the community sector for clients • Greater competition for funding, and the adding of new players and losing old players led to less collaboration in the sector. • The result for clients was fewer inter-agency referrals, and less smooth transitions between programs than was typical in the sector.

  8. Findings • Uniformly deteriorated government-agency relationships, whether the agency won, lost or maintained a contract with the government

  9. Findings • Cost over $1 million in staff time for service providers in Toronto alone, simply for HRSDC to find out who could provide service • The cost of preparing and submitting proposals under the CFP averaged $9,365 in staff time per agency. • With 54 agreements to be signed, and the need for at least two competitors in a bidding process, an estimated $1,011,420 in staff time was used in Toronto alone. • Use of staff time was taken away from existing functions and organizations with successful bids spent more staff time negotiating terms of agreement.

  10. Findings • Mobilized and politicized the non-profit community-based sector Non-profits coalesced to share ways of coping with instability, advocate for their clients, and advocate for more appropriate funding processes by government. This led to: • Greater clarity on the processes at play and what it took to succeed at the CFP • Numerous suggestions for improving a flawed funding allocation mechanism • A strong desire to organize together for change.

  11. Conclusions The CFP process, as implemented • Increased costs of doing business with government • Drained capacity of the sector to deliver services • Undermined the goal of attaining value for money.

  12. Recommendation 1 • Call for Proposals processes should be used only to identify service providers for new and emerging needs, or to replace service providers of existing programs who are no longer deemed the appropriate agent of service.

  13. Recommendation 2 • Call for Proposals processes should be discontinued as a way of providing ongoing management of programs, or attempting to deal with performance issues.

  14. Recommendation 3 • Governments should promote mechanisms for the co-development of service delivery, where government and non-profit services providers work together to develop policy and program.

  15. Recommendation 4 • Where governments choose to continue to employ the CFP process in the community services sector, specific modifications that could mitigate the potentially disruptive nature of the process should be addressed.

  16. Thank you • United Way Toronto • Research Advisory Committee • ACTEW, OAYEC, TNC, ONESTEP, OCASI • Participating agencies and organizations

More Related