• Volunteer energy/input not recognized – need more recognition of in-kind contributions and CEDTAP should acknowledge the value of in-kind contributions for all projects.
• Need a clarification of what is meant by community-level results – not just numbers.
• Need a protocol for fundraising to ensure that CEDTAP is not competing with other organizations.
• There is a concern about switching to mature organizations rather than supporting organizations that are developing; also, in some communities, groups work within a network while others do not – don’t put those groups at a disadvantage.
• Offer mentorship rather than excluding or discouraging new organizations.
• Start-up groups will benefit from "big wins" – on regional basis look at projects that can produce.
• Direct resources to those that will produce external impact rather than "mature" organizations.
• Need to create higher-level jobs, not just jobs.
• Is the issue really to show external impacts rather than internal development?
• Distinction between groups that focus on threatened communities rather than individuals (structures different).
• Greater participation of providers in selection of projects.
• Link providers on a regional level for assessing external impacts as well as networking/forum activities: A more active role for providers.
• What is CEDTAP’s definition of "community" in relation to the target of 500? Regional staffing model – geographic or group by type of community (e.g. Vancouver or Toronto).
• CEDTAP needs a long term strategic vision - what opportunities are there for providers to support CEDTAP?
• CEDTAP should be a network not a program (more dynamic etc.).
• With regional offices, there is a potential of conflict of interest related to self-promotion for providers.
• Regional structure may create bureaucracy – other programs have led to fracturing; may create more problems than opportunities.
• What is CEDTAP’s role nationally and in relation to CCEDNet?
• Not enough time devoted to discussion of where CEDTAP is going/what impact to be achieved. A document should be produced for review/comments over the next 2 months.
• 5 year time limit not necessarily enough.

• Time frame of 5 years is good to enable groups to plan and develop.
• Regional offices with more mature practitioners may be able to raise local funds.
• Relevance of linking CEDTAP to international experience – potential is there for linking or to share CEDTAP experience.

• CBOs should do more joint ventures – should help each other rather than hire consultants – practitioners helping practitioners.
• Uneasy about focus on mature organizations.
• Look at strategic decisions for "ramping up", proving that this notion/system works i.e., 10 working models across the country.
• Concerns over how funding is given and to whom (giving the money to providers has both positives and negatives).
• Too much administration.
• Priority should not be in government capitals. CED was seen as being where the need is.

• Will link the CED movement to the co-op movement.
• Will provide networking for new groups to be able to have mentorship opportunities with mature groups.
• Each region could pick 2 to 3 projects to get region working together.

• 5 regional people means one more bureaucracy level – is there an understanding of their role?
• Regionalization experiences say it does not work. Time and energy for administration etc. is needed more in Ottawa, and the Ottawa office should be restructured.

Conceptualization of Community Groups

• Different regions have different structures.
• Umbrella CEDOs versus network of informal or formal groups.
• New jobs versus value-added jobs versus quality of life.
• Profile of an organization that can be funded.

Projects versus Communities

• Clarification of numbers – 500 projects, 500 communities, or a mix?

Project Money

• Community versus CEDTAP versus provider.
• Mechanisms are critical.
• Consider all aspects – capacity, administrative burden.

• Benefit of regional offices is that providers don’t want to do a lot of self-promotion as it is a conflict of interest.
• Extending mentoring aspects.
• Creating a network more so than a program.
• Raising profile of the sector.
• More providers in one project looks good.

• Going to the same source – possible competition with CEDOs and CCEDNet.
• Does the matching 5 million need to be cash?

Working with Mature Organizations

• Limited number of mature organizations in Canada.
• Organizations want developmental funding.

Evaluation

• Cascading effect of organizations on each other – look at project from day 1 through 5 years.
• Need to add funds to look at the long-term impact of our projects on our communities/economies.
• What does "community-level results" mean?
• What about the creation of long-term organizational assets – would build a foundation for greater sustainability.

Vision

• Lots of involvement in projects (practical needs), but what is the strategy/vision for the development of the field – look at the bigger picture.

Challenges at Community Level

• There is a dearth of good projects in the field, and there is a lack of staff and a need for leadership (reflects lack of funding). Also, what is the Board’s preparedness to more out of an aid-based perspective? We need to expand the cadre and need to encourage youth apprenticeship.
• Succession planning.
• Sustainability planning – no assistance, vicious circle of short-term, project-based funding. Core funding needed.

Community Targeting

• Is a target of 500 a good thing? Too diffuse.
• Is the target 500 projects or 500 communities?
• How does CEDTAP define "community"?
• CEDTAP should be concentrating on quality.

Role of Regional Coordinators

• What is the impact for the advisory committee?
• Do these people become a de facto screen for projects?
• Can you service Canada with 5 people?

• Will result in local analysis and contacts.

Other

• We do need to be concerned with results at the community level.
• This will provide an opportunity to build the sector.
• Continuity of 5 years is excellent.
• That the community groups will be funded directly is much better – more choice, and more holistic.
• Research opportunities – look at projects’ long-term impact – build CED’s credibility.
• Support long-term thinking in capacity-building and results management. Long term mentoring has been excellent.
• Volnet – potential for long-term cooperation and leveraging re. computers and information technology.
• Capacity-building assessment process for organizations is a good idea. Support 5 year time frame, and combine into a national analysis of capacity.
• Explore strategic priorities in the field: how is CED going to look 5 years from now? What are the needs of the field? Need strategic vision here.
• Need to support sustainability – core funding, long-term assets, evaluation/documentation.

• Danger of perpetuating marginalization.
• Who benefits?
• A question of ethos rather than program.
• Immigrants another target.
• Move toward integration.
• Accessibility and communication strategies – what does this mean in reality?
• Need to listen and empower marginalized – it is their choice about how to be involved.

Networks

• Where does CEDTAP fit? Question of overlap, co-ordination. There is also a danger of dissipating resources – working with communities should be the priority. Need networks to follow-up CEDTAP and link to advocacy.
• Strong concerns about regionalization.
• New specialist with mature organizations a concern – can be powerful but don’t want to dilute CED focus.

• 20% is going into program management. Is this high? What will other funders think?

Mature Organizations

• Important to still have room to fund start-up.
• Perhaps the distribution is wrong – perhaps it should be based on kinds of results instead?
• Are aboriginal organizations mature?
• Mature organizations are being approached i.e., New Dawn, but they don’t have resources to help new initiatives, so the idea of helping mature organizations is good.
• Perhaps "sector strengthening" would be an appropriate area for this.

Volunteer Component

• Important to realize that this is not all fee for service.
• Keep track of this time and convert to equivalent dollars and document the information.
• Mentoring on longer term – is needed but now is "partially funded". What is an allowable ratio between paid and volunteer work?

Development of CEDTAP

• Little time for providing input/advice. We’ve spend a lot of time on CED but little time on CEDTAP.
• Developing real partnerships – clarity of purpose of the partnerships.
• Broad picture of CED – what does CEDTAP want to know? Need from CEDTAP in the next month on defining what CEDTAP wants to do in CED: its impact, indicators of success.
• Leaning towards traditional economics and results management.
• Definition of a job – what is it? What about quality of life?
• Caution with numbers – i.e., 500 communities. CEDTAP helped 100 communities in 3 years, how will they help 500 in 5 years? An average of $12,000 equals 6 million dollars.
• Risk of local groups to source $ if CEDTAP accumulates capital.

• Longer term – developing relationships, discussion and exchange.
• More funds.

• What is the definition of a mature organization? New organizations need to have access to CED-related expertise.
• What are the needs of mature organizations?
• The mission is defined, but what are the priorities and objectives? 
• Will there be a limit on the number of mature organizations given support, as opposed to emerging groups?  There is a danger that provinces with limited numbers of CEDOs will receive little CEDTAP support. 
• Note:  Make strategic choices based on provincial disparities. 
• Challenge for CEDTAP:  Don't let emerging groups "slip through the cracks".
• Evaluation is important.

• How will providers be involved beyond contracts with community groups? 
• Are we providers or partners?
• There should be regional and thematic fora.