By Adonis Huggins
Adonis Huggins is a staff journalist with RPTV.

The Regent Park Social Development Plan, also known as the SDP, is a community wide initiative aimed
at fostering unity and togetherness among all the different residents and stakeholder groups in the
community. The Social Development Plan is built around 4 areas of priorities of the SDP. Each priority
area is represented by a different working group. The SDP Working Groups are Safety, Communications,
Employment and Economic Development and Community Building. In addition to the four committees,
there is a SDP Planning Committee that meets weekly to help guide the activities of the SDP.

Over the past two meetings, the SDP Planning Committee has been engaged in discussions on how more community members can be involved in facilitating meetings and reviewing the status of its 2022 work plan in order to begin development of a 2023 work  plan.

The February 16, 2023, SDP Planning Committee took place over Zoom from 5 pm to 7 pm.
The meeting was chaired by Marlene DeGenova, the market resident chair of the SDP.  The first item on the agenda was a report back from the Funding Task Group which was formed by the SDP Planning Group on January 17, 2023, initially in response to the City Community Funding Units failure to inform the SDP about their decision to allocate 2023 funds to 2022 applicants.

The presenters were Sarah Jane, a market resident member of the SDP, and Adonis Huggins, an agency member of the SDP.

Adonis began the presentation of the report by stating that, after a review of the 2022/2023 allocation, the Funding Task Group has come to the conclusion that the City of Toronto Community Funding Unit, redirected the SDP funds from the SDP network to the wider community and that the SDP Stakeholders Table no longer has control of the funds that was allocated to SDP network. Adonis went on to say that the task group conclusions were based on four actions that the Community Funding Unit carried out related to the 2022 funding and that the task group expects that them to do the say with regards to the 2024 funding unless there is an intervention by the SDP. Adonis and Sara Jane then went on to describe the four actions.

The first action was the Opening of the SDP Funds to non-involved groups.  Adonis Huggins explained that in the past all funded projects derived from an applicant’s involvement in the SDP network as part of a collaborative process for determining how funds should be spent. In 2022, the Community Funding Unit insisted that the SDP funds should be open to any applicant operating in Regent Park regardless of their involvement in the SDP. Furthermore the Community Funding Unit opposed the view that all successful applicants awarded with SDP funds had to join the SDP.

The second action, presented by Sara Jane, was the use of an independent panel to decide the allocation of SDP funds. Using the argument of conflict of interest, Sara Jane explained that the Community Funding Unit was not interested in any communal process enabling the SDP network to self-determine the allocation of the SDP funds as was done in the past. Instead, they insisted on the establishment of an independent review panel made up of non-SDP residents of Regent Park. Only after objections did the Community Funding Unit agree to add four SDP members, provided that they were not involved in the development of the project applications. These members were not allowed to disclose their participation on the panel or seek council from the SDP on any of the applicant projects they were reviewing, or get advice from the SDP membership on how aligned an applicant’s project was to the SDP.  Although all members would undergo a training session, the Community Funding Unit resisted the SDP involvement in co-designing or co-participating in the training session.

The third action was the lack of attention paid to the importance of the SDP Priority Areas. Here, Adonis reminded the members, that the SDP revolved around four priority areas each represented by a working group. They are Community Building, Safety, Communications and Employment and Entrepreneur. The initial 2022 draft application that the Community Funding Unit released for consultation with the SDP had no mention about funded projects needing to be aligned to the four priorities of the SDP.  The four priorities criteria was only added to the application after much opposition by the SDP.

The fourth and final action that the Community Funded Unit did was making a decision to allocate the 2023 SDP funds to 2022 applicants without consulting with the SDP.  Sarah Jane explained that this was in total disregard of the SDP network and the year long review that the SDP Funding Committee undertook with the Community Funding Unit.

Sarah Jane concluded by stating that whether CFU staff realizes it or not, their actions have in the view of the Funding Task Group, diminished the effectiveness of the SDP and reduced the network’s ability to identify funding priorities and to undertake collective action strategies that respond to community needs.

Adonis ended the presentation by calling upon the SDP planning committee members to support and validate the concerns identified by the Funding Task Group, as well as direct the co-chairs to set up a meeting between SDP Co-chairs, selected representatives of the Funding Task Group and senior City Staff, to seek resolutions of the concerns raised by the funding task group.  

Following the presentation there was a lively discussion about the concerns that were raised in the report. City Development Officer, Richard Kiwan, argued that he felt that much of the concerns outlined in the report had already been resolved and rather than rehashing these complaints the group should move on. This sparked a backlash by Deany Peters, argued that it wasn’t his place, as a City Toronto representative who is in a position in conflict, for Richard to make this comment. Marlene agreed arguing that he as a non-resident and fairly new to the SDP, which has been going on since before the redevelopment started, for him to comment on these concerns.  Other members, including City staff Lucky Booth, Gail Lynch and YSM agency member Joel Klassen, agreed with Richard stating that the report’s concerns were too adversarial in nature and rather engage in a complaint driven process, the group should identify positive ways that the SDP Planning Group could move on.  Following this discussion, the SDP voted on the two resolutions – 1) evaluating the concerns identified by the Funding Task Group and 2) directing the co-chairs to set up a meeting with the City involving themselves and (yet to be decided) members of the Funding Task Group.  Both resolutions were unanimously approved.