Compassion and Fiscal Reality: How Should Richmond Fund Growing Social Needs?

Jerome Dickey speaking to the 2026 Health, Social and Safety Grants, building on both the General Purposes report and Council’s discussion and direction under CNCL-673.

I want to start by saying clearly: the organizations funded through these grants do essential, preventative work.

Many of them reduce isolation, support mental health, address food insecurity, and help people stabilize before challenges escalate into emergency responses.

What stood out to me in the staff report is the scale of unmet need.Thirty-nine organizations requested approximately $1.29 million, while the City’s available budget is just over $506,000—less than 40% of what was requested.

That gap exists not because the needs aren’t real, but because municipalities are being asked to carry pressures that exceed local capacity.

The Report to Committee usefully acknowledges this tension—between compassion, fiscal restraint, and the limits of municipal jurisdiction.

I think that framing is important.

I have five constructive questions for Council.

First: transparency and predictability.

Across many applications, requests increased while recommendations remained flat or were reduced.

I’d like to see a clearer, public explanation of:

• why increases were not supported,

• what criteria most influenced reductions,

• and what would meaningfully strengthen applications in future cycles.

This reduces the perception of arbitrariness and helps organizations plan responsibly.

Second: provincial responsibility and advocacy.

Many services funded here—mental health, poverty reduction, crisis support—are fundamentally provincial mandates.In the spirit of committee report, I’d ask Council to consider a coordinated advocacy approach, working alongside these organizations, so Richmond is not quietly backfilling senior-government gaps year after year.

Third: support beyond direct grants.

Given fiscal constraints, the City could explore complementary supports such as:

• coordinated public fundraising campaigns,

• stronger promotion through City platforms,

• and partnership or in-kind supports that extend impact without permanently increasing base funding.

Fourth: care as public safety—with discipline.

I agree with the premise that taking care of people is part of public safety.

But the committee report also reminds us of the importance of long-term sustainability.

That means being clear about boundaries, outcomes, and review points—so we don’t create open-ended financial obligations without defined measures of success.

Finally: defining success and next-year decision-making.

If next year brings more applications—and it will—what framework will guide decisions so they are consistent, transparent, and aligned with outcomes residents can understand?

Budgets alone don’t tell the story. Impact does.

In closing, I support these organizations and the people they serve.

Many do wonderful work helping our city residents.

I also appreciate the difficult choices you will need to make.

I’m asking Council to continue the work signalled in the committee report:

pairing compassion with clarity, advocacy, and a stronger long-term framework so Richmond can be both humane and financially responsible.

Thank you.

Watch on YouTube (at 12:00-16:00 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/live/6oPcXjCB9SQ?si=WmvYjFsTxxGnX5ok