Ebrahim, johnston jewell,oikonen,scott,starkman fundingneedstobefair

F o r M e t r o l i n x ’s T H E B I G M O V E

Funding Needs To Be Fair.

Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott & A. Starkman

Funding Needs To Be Fair

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.0 OVERVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Research Question. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The Client: CivicAction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The Protagonist: Metrolinx. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.0 RESEARCH PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1 Research Timeline and Task Allocation. . . . . . . . . 7 3.1.1 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.1.2 Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.1.3 Knowledge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.1.4 Wisdom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.1.5 Client Check-In Points. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7 8 8 9 9

4.0 RESEARCH METHODS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1 Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1.1 Method #1 - Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1.2 Method #2 – Observation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1.3 Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1.4 Deliverables to Clients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 10 11 11

4.2 Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.1 Method #3 - Intercept Interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.2 Method #4 - Expert Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.3 Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.4 Deliverables to Clients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.5 Methods Tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 12 13 15 15

4.3 Knowledge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4.3.1 Method #5 – Workshop: Participatory Co-Design. . . . . . . 16 4.3.2 Method #6 – Workshop: Conceptualization of Scenarios. 18 4.3.3 Deliverables to Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.4 Wisdom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.4.1 Method #7 – Feasibility Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

5.0 RELEVANT FINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.1 Literature Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.2 9D’s Observation – Transit Talk at Evergreen Brickworks. . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.3 Intercept Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.4 Expert Interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

6.0 CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 APPENDIX A: Giga-Map from SFIN 6B04. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 APPENDIX B: 9D’s Observation Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 APPENDIX C: Intercept Interview Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 APPENDIX D: Expert Interview Guide (Aide Memoir). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 APPENDIX E: Expert Interview Audio Taping Release Form. . . . . . . . 40 APPENDIX F: Intercept Interview Aggregate Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 APPENDIX G: Application for Ethical Review of Research Involving Human Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

3

Funding Needs To Be Fair

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

We used Literature Review, 9D’s Observational Resarch, Intercept Interviews and Expert Interviews to gain public perception and insight into our research questions; How might we stimulate business investment in Metrolinx’s The Big Move? This was prepared as part of a larger, more encompassing research plan, however due to the time constraints of the project we were only able to complete the aforementioned research methods. We prepared our findings using CivicAction as our client, and determined that the fairness of public transit funding is a key point of discussion for the public transit discourse.

4

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

2.0 OVERVIEW 2.1 Background

In parallel to the corresponding project being conducted for SFIN 6B04, our research project focuses on a particular aspect of our giga-map (Appendix A). Our giga-map attempts to determine and design intervention points into the larger system of social service funding, while providing context from both political and economic systems.

To gain further insights into our wicked problem we honed in on public transit as a single social service, and set out to investigate the role that businesses could play in funding public transit as a single issue within this sub-system. Our project question was initially inspired with the quote below from a Toronto Life article, which was referring to the all too commonly asked, yet to be answered, question of how do we fund public transit with limited funding and increasing need.

“I am a fan of a dedicated transit tax. If I asked you for $60 a year to create a state-of-the-art transportation system, would you pay for it?”

- Jennifer Keesemat, Chief Planner and Executive, Toronto Life April 2013 Using this article as an initial point of entry into the conversation, we then tied it back to our Systems Project #1 (Appendix A), which identified various innovative funding models (for example Social Impact Bonds, crown corporations, private-public partnerships, etc.) for social services. Through conversation, we crafted a new question, “What is the public’s tolerance to alternate funding models for public transit?” Conceptually, we were interested in combining the innovative funding models of project #1 with the overarching theme of the article from Toronto Life.

knowledge on the state of transit talks within the City of Toronto. From this insightful talk, we were able to better grasp the challenges that face the funding of the public transit system, and thereby develop a question with stronger boundaries and more pointed structure.

The transit talks at the Evergreen Brickworks revealed a new side of the transit issue that we had previously not considered. From our observational research at the talk, we identified a hidden but critical conversation. The City of Toronto has an incentive to continue working towards lowering commercial property taxes (City of Toronto, 2013) in order to ‘enhance Toronto’s business climate’, when the panel was asked about how business’ fit into the plan to pay for transit, there was no answer. This, seemingly, leaves the entire cost burden of funding public transit solely on residential taxpayers, despite obvious advantages that businesses are sure to gain from the implementation of public transit expansion.

This revealed to us an opportunity: How can we encourage private sector involvement in public sector projects through innovative financial funding models?1 Although this was the heart of the issue we identified during the talks, we recognized that in order to get the private sector involved in public projects, we would need to specify what reason(s) businesses would have to take part in the funding of social service projects like public transit. The transit talk also focused on the larger picture of regional transit, rather than on the City of Toronto’s TTC. With this, the final iteration of our research question came to light.

We began to pursue this as our research question, and discovered that we had an opportunity to attend a public Transit Talk at the Evergreen Brickworks on March 26th, 2013 between 6pm and 9 pm. We figured that we would be able to use the event at the Evergreen Brickworks as an observational research method and gain further 1 This question is something we explored in our research for our giga-map project SFIN 6B04: Understanding Systems & Systemic Design. From this research we identified a number of mixed funding tools, citing three in the giga-map and accompanying paper. The three tools we investigated were PrivatePublic Partnerships, Crown Corporations, and Social Impact Bonds. For more information please reference our giga-map and paper, both titled “Social Service Funding Shouldn’t Be a Shell Game.”

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

5

Funding Needs To Be Fair

2.2 Research Question How might we stimulate business investment in Metrolinx’s The Big Move?

With the new, refined question now in mind, we then developed our research plan.

2.3 The Client: CivicAction

In order to provide project focus and better define the deliverables of the project, we have targeted our work toward a client that would be realistic if the project were to go into full operation, and that would find the outcomes of the project desirable. With this in mind, we chose the group CivicAction as our client for this research project.

CivicAction is a non-partisan group that “builds strategic partnerships, and launches campaigns, programs and organizations that transform our region with a mission to be an independent and nimble developer of broad civic leadership creating collaborative solutions to unresolved regional challenges” (CivicAction, 2013).

CivicAction engages with both Metrolinx and the Ministry of Transportation – as well as the public – in order to broker the conversation and ensure that it accelerates regional transportation improvements, enhances the region’s economic performance, and fosters inclusion and resilience (CivicAction, 2013). CivicAction is postured to be amongst the few unbiased organizations that can facilitate conversations about The Big Move, and has vested interest in any plans approved at the Provincial level to be representative of all constituencies – from government ministries to members of the public. Their work in cross-sector engagement would have them amongst few other organizations that could approach the private sector to broker the conversation on their preferred involvement in funding capital expansion for transit.

2.4 The Protagonist: Metrolinx

In the context of our client and of our research questions, it is also important to understand the target of our research. Although our client would be CivicAction, our protagonist would be Metrolinx. We base this decision off of the fact that CivicAction would require our research in order to aid Metrolinx in their revenue funding model decisions.

“Metrolinx was created in 2006 as a public agency at arms length to the Government of Ontario with the mandate to coordinate and integrate all modes of transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA)” (Metrolinx, 2013). The Big Move is Metrolinx’s Regional Transportation Plan that integrates transit into the GTHA’s current and future economic and population growth projections with the intent to implement a world-class transit system. Currently Metrolinx has three operating divisions, Go Transit (2007), Presto (2011) and the Union-Pearson Express (completion 2015).

6

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

3.0 RESEARCH PLAN

3.1.1 Data

At the Data level, we began our research with a survey of the current publications relative to our research question. We also researched the stakeholders and actors, including but not limited to, Metrolinx, CivicAction, the Ministry of Transportation, other transportation systems around the world, other transit funding models, and news articles. This involved all 5 members of our group, with Dustin acting as the content aggregator. We began this initial literary review research on March 15th, 2013 for 3 weeks; although it should be noted that we only slowed our literary research in replacement for other forms of research at the end of the initial 3-week literature research period. In addition, during the beginning weeks of our research, Zahra and Peter took advantage of the opportunity to attend a transit talk (described in the introduction and in the Relevant Findings sections) on March 26th, 2013, in order to test out the observational research method.

We developed our research plan using the Data Information Knowledge Wisdom (DIKW) framework for understanding. Each level of this understanding model is represented by the research tool(s) that we apply (see Figure 2). We recognize that the DIKW scheme, originally developed by Russell Ackoff, was not intended to form a research plan (Sanders & Stappers, 2012), but we found it to be an effective tool to structure our research plan as we set out to better understanding of the system and develop insights into possible design interventions.

3.1 Research Timeline and Task Allocation

As seen in Figure 1, we have allocated the tasks and timeframe it would require to complete each along with the time it would take to complete each stage of our proposed research plan.

Project Task Timeline with Group Member(s) Involvement

PROJECT TASK Client Check-Ins Feasability Study

All 5 members Research Recommendations for potential Feasibility Study

Knowledge Distillation

All 5 members Adam as content aggregator 1 week of Knowledge distillation and feedback Adam as Lead, other 4 as facilitators Karen as content aggregator 1 week

Scenario Workshop

Zahra as Facilitator, other 4 as facilitators Peter as content aggregator 1 week

Participatory Workshop

All 5 members Karen as content aggregator 1 week of Information distillation and feedback

Information Distillation Working Project

Intercept Interviews Expert Interview

Client Check-ins

Teams of 2: Dustin + Zahra, Adam + Karen, Zahra + Peter 3 weeks, 2 hours on the street, 2 to 3 sessions

Wisdom

2 Teams: Dustin + Zahra, Adam + Karen + Peter 3 weeks, 2 hours on the street, 2 to 3 sessions

Knowledge Information

Observation #2 Zahra and Peter March 26th, Evergreen Brickworks “Transit Talk�

Observation #1 Literature Review

Data Distallation Periods

All 5 members Dustin as content aggregator 3 weeks

13 1/

20

3 /3 05

1/ 20 1 /3

13

05

20

13

05 /2 4/

20

01

13

05 /1 7/

05 /1 0/

3/ 2

20

3

3 /0 05

/2

01

3 /2 6 04

04

/1 9

/2

01

3 01 /2 /1 2

04

5/ 20

13

3 /0 04

/2 9

/2

01

3 03

/2 2

/2

01

3 01 03

/2 /1 5 03

03

/0 8

/2

01

3

DATE

Figure 1. Gantt chart displaying the tasks, their allocated timeframe, and the individuals assigned to each task.

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

7

Funding Needs To Be Fair

3.1.2 Information

research questions.

From April 5th through to the 17th, 2013, we conducted both Intercept Interviews and Expert Interviews. Both interview types, and the observational research corresponds with the Information level of the DIKW framework. We conducted these research portions by splitting our team into pairs and conducting sessions of interviews whenever the team members and the interviewees could allocate the time and was convenient for the parties involved. For detailed accounts of all expert interviews, and aggregate information about intercept interviews, please see the Relevant Findings section below. Our ‘working project’ (highlighted in gray on the accompanying Gantt chat - see Figure 1) represents the research work that we completed within the time that was available. That said, our research plan articulates our proposed methodology that would enable to generate workable solutions in response to our

Before moving on from our Data and Information levels, we would give ourselves a week to begin organization and analysis of the research collected from the literature review and the intercept and expert interviews up to that point. This knowledge distillation phase (indicated in grey in Figure 1) would include all five members of the team, with Karen acting as the content aggregator. This period would allow the team to collect our thoughts and make any adjustments to the research plan that may be necessary.

3.1.3 Knowledge

Using the research collected up to that point as a launching pad, we would then host two independent workshops. The first would be a Participatory Co-Design workshop aimed at evaluating the current funding opportunities for

DIKW Model for Research Planning Context s

le

b na

Joining of wholes

e

Feasibility Study

es

flu

in

Formation of a whole

i

Workshops: Participatory Co-Design, Scenario

s

rm

o nf

Connection of parts

Gathering of Parts

c en

e ur

t Fu

Intercept Interviews, Expert Interviews

Literature Review, Observation

st

Pa

Understanding

Researching

Absorbing

Doing

Interacting

Reflecting

Figure 2. The data, information, knowledge, wisdom framework we based our process off of.

8

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

Metrolinx. Even though the actual workshop is only a single day, we have scheduled a week for the event so that we would be able to adequately prepare and then debrief. The second workshop would be a Scenarios workshop and would aim to uncover new workable funding opportunities for Metrolinx. It would aim to test scenarios developed in the participatory workshop in order to further refine them. Zahra would be the facilitator for one of the workshops and Adam would be the facilitator for the other, while Peter and Karen would act as content aggregators. The entire team would provide support to ensure smooth operation and maximum content extraction from participants.

3.1.4 Wisdom

Upon completion of the workshops, the team would again take a week to allow for information distillation. During this second period of information distillation, the team would analyze the research collected to this point in time and develop a series of recommendations that would form the final stage of research. The proposed funding models would be presented to CivicAction as workable solutions along with our recommendation that a rigorous feasibility study would be needed to adequately judge their validity.

3.1.5 Client Check-In Points

Throughout the process we would also need regular client check-in points. These would be key opportunities to keep the client informed, and gain feedback. It would also be important to have some type of deliverable for the client at each of the check-in points. This way the client understands that they are receiving value for our services.

Furthermore, it is important to bring the client along the research journey through storytelling and allowing the client to feel part of the process.

Depending on our client’s willingness to engage in the research process, we may include taking them into the field, taking part in the workshops as an observer, or having them sit in on an information distillation working day.

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

9

Funding Needs To Be Fair

4.0 RESEARCH METHODS In this section we examine the rationale, goals, objectives, materials required, timeframe, participant ID and handling, the process and the data handling for each of the seven research methods we planned for in the above research plan.

Our research methods were selected by taking into consideration two primary factors: the time and resource constraints of the project, and the need to collect necessary data to yield the best possible answer to our research question while providing our client with the information they are looking for.

Below we provide each of the methods outlines in our research plan (see Figure 1). In the Relevant Findings section below we further elaborate on our experiences with each of the research methods described.

4.1 Data

In the Data phase we used two research methods, literature review and observation.

4.1.1 Method #1 - Literature Review

The literature review provides an opportunity for the researchers to take the broader question (in this case, posed by Jennifer Keesmaat, Toronto Life, 2013) and develop a more robust internal understanding of the problem at hand. From a design thinking perspective, the suggested research question posed an opportunity to develop deeper knowledge about the problem space and enabled us to more accurately define the problem for our client.

Furthermore, the process of the literature review enables the internal research team to – very quickly – become subject matter experts in order to develop a research plan.

4.1.2 Method #2 – Observation Rationale

Our reason for using the 9D’s method is to capture information, for example, at a town hall style session where the public, private and government stakeholders deliberate possible funding model approaches for transit. The framework of the 9D’s would provide a structured way of 10

observing how public and civic leaders engage and share information. 9D’s will assist us in our understanding of the context, the behaviours in public consultation, and how decisions decisions get packaged and shared in the public realm.

Participant ID and Handling:

• Public • Civic leaders • Politicians • Professionals (doctors, lowers, publishers, etc.)

• Business people • Trades people A strong cross section of public is important to observe and solicit information from.

Goal

We will be seeking further insights from a broad public audience in order to understand how the responsibility of funding might be shared, and what the tolerance is for alternative revenue models.

Objectives

• Understand public discourse on the issue of transportation (what are the various perspectives?)

• Understand civic leaders’ political platforms • Identify key actors and drivers around funding issues • Measure tolerance of alternate funding tools • Look for significant gaps

Materials

1. Note taking devices: digital and analog (pens, paper) 2. Camera for photos (with permission) 3. Audio recording device (with permission) 4. 9D’s Framework printout (Appendix B)

Timeframe

Weekend and evening public consultation sessions and town hall meetings (take out 3-4 hour event).

Process

The 9D’s process will allow all members our research team to use a consistent architecture to extract information from public events.

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

1. SPACE: Layout of the physical setting; rooms, out door spaces, etc.

2. ACTORS: The names and relevant details of the people involved 3. ACTIVITIES: The various activities of the actors 4. OBJECTS: Physical elements: furniture etc.

5. ACTS: Specific individual actions 6. EVENTS: Particular occasions, e.g. meetings 7. TIME: The sequence of events 8. GOALS: What actors are attempting to accomplish 9. FEELINGS: Emotions in particular contexts

Data Handling

After the each public event, we would take a moment to immediately summarize the data in preparation for further review the following day.

The following day, we would distribute the data amongst members of the research team for observation and analysis. We would look at each public event within each of the 9Ds framework in order to identify patterns. Levels of abstract hierarchy approach (Convivial Toolbox: Generative Research for the Front End of Design) would help ask “why” and “how” questions, as we move from data to information.

Reference, Resources, and Resources used to support the methods and study Convivial Toolbox Metrolinx’s “The Big Move” Website

4.1.3 Reflections Literature Review

The literature review was essential to developing the broad understanding of the complexity of the challenges, opportunities, and possible entry points for the research. Fortune had it for us that Metrolinx’s The Big Move has been a timely news topic, topic, and between the development, undertaking, and method selection of our research plan - it has been in the zeitgeist of the public.

The public attention that has been given to investigating the viability of the proposed plan by Metrolinx gave us substantial amount of relevant and timely content to develop of a reasonable level of expertise on the topic in a short amount of time.

To complement the literature review, we wanted to take advantage of the timely nature of our research topic and attend public talks in order to gain firsthand knowledge from experts and decision makers, as well as to test out the 9D’s observation method. In a setting such as a public talk – when we are still in the Data stage of the research hoping to develop an understanding of the scope of the research topic – this particular observation method is not well suited. It was useful in setting up the environment for members of the research team who were unable to attend the event, but as a fact-finding exercise, the architecture of 9D’s was limiting. In this data-acquiring exercise, we were seeking explicit information, and our conclusion was that 9D’s was better suited for revealing tacit environmental data rather than to “gather parts” (as outlined by Ackoff’s DIKW method). It was useful to attend this talk in a pair, as there was a high volume of content being presented, and each member of the research team took note of different data presented by the panelists. Free-form note taking was the tool we found most useful in order to effectively gather data to combine with the knowledge gained through the literature review to then explore a more pointed research question.

4.1.4 Deliverables to Clients

In order to ensure that we keep our client engaged throughout the process we have established a series of deliverables throughout the research project.

Following the Data phase of our research we would develop and present a comprehensive report identifying the seminal research papers and how they would guide our research going forward.

Furthermore, this report would identify specific areas of focus for our research project. The report is an important tool in our process because it will ensure that our client understands and agrees to the scope and content of our research.

Furthermore, this report gives us an opportunity to develop a common language and knowledge base with our client.

Observation Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

11

Funding Needs To Be Fair

4.2 Information

In the Information phase we used two research methods, Intercept Interviews and Expert Interviews.

Willing participants in public location(s) of interviews.

4.2.1 Method #3 - Intercept Interviews Intercept interviews are advantageous when a research group requires a time and cost efficient method to quickly collect specific information in shorter time frames. These short, face-to-face interviews usually last only 3-5 minutes and are held in a public space. The objective is to make the interview convenient to the subject, while collecting the necessary data. In the case of our research project, Intercept Interviews were used to gain opinions and draw the awareness of our subjects to the specific questions we asked.

The interview will begin when the interviewer/ researcher approaches a potential interviewee/ participant who is appropriate for the study. The interviewer will introduce themselves, explaining who they are and the purpose of the study. The interviewer will also inform the participant of the amount of time that will be required to compete the questionnaire (5 minutes or less) and that they, the interviewee, are able to leave the process at anytime. Before asking the questions, the interviewer asks for permission to proceed and then after the questions have been asked and answered, and the interviewer is satisfied with the process, thank the interviewee for their participation.

Goal

Data Handling

Rationale

The goal of the intercept interview is to gain a deeper understanding of the awareness of the general public and what their opinions are in relation to businesses funding transit.

Process

Objectives

Since we are using the data for aggregate information, and none of the participants’ personal information will be recorded, the resulting answers to the questionnaire are completely anonymous.

We will treat all completed questionnaires with the same degree of attention, and transport them together in a binder back to our studio space where analysis will begin. If analysis cannot begin immediately after the intercept interview time period, then we will store them safely to ensure we do not lose our data.

Timeframe

4.2.2 Method #4 - Expert Interviews

• Face-to-face interviews of 5 minutes or less • As many interviews as possible in the available time • Represent diverse geography across the city • Represent varied times of day

2 hour periods of interview time on three separate days.

We feel, given the time and resource constraints of the project, this will be adequate enough to give us a sense of the perceptions we wish to capture.

Materials

• Pen per interviewer + backup • Clipboard per interviewer • 24 Intercept Interview questionnaires per interviewer (see Appendix C for example questionnaire) • Phone (for communication and collaboration purposes) 12

Participant ID and Handling

Rationale

As part of our research plan we have identified the need to conduct a series of expert interviews.

Specifically these interviews will provide us with the opportunity to explore possible funding models with stakeholders who have the insight and contextual knowledge needed to ensure the successful implementation of any proposed funding solution. In addition to specific technical knowledge these experts provide they will also aid us in determining whether or not any one proposed solution can successfully positioned politically and economically adopted broadly.

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

Participant ID and Handling

• Expert in municipal tax policy • Public Policy experts • Economist • Representative from Metrolinx • Senior leader from large corporations with headquarters in Toronto • Small business owner We believe that by gaining the insight from this group of experts will be valuable both in the early stages of our research plan and also in the evaluation of proposed solutions.

Goal

To explore and evaluate value propositions for businesses in Ontario to participate in funding Metrolinx’s The Big Move transit development project.

Objectives

seeking their expert opinion.

Each interview will be attended by two researchers with one acting as lead interviewer and the other acting as observer. The interview will begin by clearly stating our purpose and providing the necessary context for the interview. To the best of our ability we will conduct these interviews in a conversational manner, referring to our Aide Memoire only when necessary. The majority of questions will be open-ended, leaving the response open to the interpretation participant.

We will encourage participants to elaborate on their responses where appropriate and will ask clarifying questions when necessary.

Through a written release we will ensure that each participant is comfortable with us taking notes throughout the interview and having the interview recorded.

Leverage expert advice around issues of: • Tax legislation (corporate) • Tax implementation (corporate) • Economic effects of taxation of businesses in Toronto and Ontario • Generate new value propositions that can be prototyped and tested through our co-design workshops • Evaluate proposed funding solutions in the context of legality, implementation, public policy and political will • Validate proposed funding solutions

Data Handling

Timeframe

Expert Interviews

• 1 hour interviews with each participant or whatever participants’ schedule will allow

Materials

• Aide Memoire (see Appendix D) • Audio recording release form (see Appendix E) • Note book • Audio recorder

Process

Whenever possible we will conduct these expert interviews in the participants office. We feel that this is both respectful of the individuals’ time and will help to establish the expectation that we are

Immediately following each interview both researchers will compile their notes and produce a written summary of the interview. These notes and call reports will later be compared to the audio recording of the interview to ensure that all information has been accurately reflected and documented and will also aid in capturing key quotes that, with the approval of the participant, can be used in the final report to validate and strengthen any proposed solution.

4.2.3 Reflections The expert interview method proved to be very useful in information collection for our research project. Some of the interviews provided a new depth of knowledge, while others only affirmed what we already knew as a result of our literature review, but revealed tacit information about biases held by those involved in The Big Move. Three key factors of the expert interview method make it advantageous. Firstly, the ability to pick up on body language provided insight not explicitly communicated by our participating experts. For example, we discussed many topics surrounding the policy and architecture of Metrolinx in our expert interview with the employees from the Ministry of Transportation, however when we

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

13

Funding Needs To Be Fair

introduced the topic of an integrated regional transit plan, and the role Metrolinx plays in that plan, one of the Ministry of Transportation employees became much more enthusiastic and passionate about the topic. Seeing the enjoyment that he portrayed discussing the topic would have been very difficult to capture in literature review, and could only be captured in the face-to-face interaction that the expert interview fosters and enables.

Secondly, the intimacy the expert interview can cultivate allows for a much more organic conversation. This permits the interviewee to dive deeper into topics that they may not normally discuss, and likewise allows the interviewer to focus on points that may be of more merit in the scope of the project.

Finally, an expert interview provides a personal relationship with a stakeholder of your the research project. This relationship can lead to the creation of further relationships through the contacts and networks of the expert interview. This networking effect can be a much more efficient method for reaching some experts than trying to cold call.

It also allows for the interviewee to forward the interviewer onto an expert that may be more informative or more knowledgeable on the topic of research. For example, in our expert interview with the Ministry of Transportation, one of the interviewees mentioned another expert that would be helpful and offered to put us in contact with that individual. This was a connection that we would have otherwise not have had. It became clear that expert interviews were a great way of building a more thorough list of experts to include and engage in our research.

The logistics of the expert interview method introduced a few challenges for the interviews themselves. Scheduling becomes difficult as experts are often busy, and are donating their time and knowledge to assist your research. For the expert interview with the Ministry of Transport, we had only a half hour window between our interviewees meetings for which to complete the interview. Although thankful for the interview, this situation was not ideal.

14

We discovered that it is key to do the expert interviews in pairs as it allows one person to be responsible for note taking and recording while the other manages and leads the conversation/ interview. It can be difficult to take notes while at the same trying to keep the conversation as organic and natural as possible. This is also true for trying to watch for body language, but needing to look down to make notes on paper. These issues can be resolved with audiotape recordings (as we did) or video recordings. In the case of our expert interviews, we audio recorded them on our iPhones and found ourselves distractedly fidgeting/ fussing with the phones to ensure they were recording. We had tested our phones beforehand, but not to the extent where we were fully confident that it would record the whole interview or that the recording app would not stall when the phone went into sleep mode. For future interviews, we would ensure that this was tested so that it would not interrupt the flow of the conversation. On the topic of technology, we found that having our participants sign the audio consent form on an iPad was also a challenge (as the stylus made it challenging for participants to properly sign their names).

The expert interview Aide Memoire was set up to record answers on a per question basis, but the conversation was organic and did not always follow the question structure. In future scenarios, it is essential to ensure that we also bring a blank notebook to these interviews. It was important to stay focused on taking clear notes: little things seemed to get in the way of this task (such as not enough space on the sheet to record comments that took on a conversational tone).

Intercept Interviews

In developing the intercept interviews, it was key to create a balanced combination of “yes/no� as well as open-ended questions. It was also important to keep the number of questions within a reasonable limit so as to create an interview that could be conducted in under five minutes. Additionally, as we created the intercept interview questions, we realized that certain question formation can result in data that is difficult to codify and aggregate on the other side of the interviews.

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

Prototyping the intercept interviews before heading out into the field was an important step in our process. We tested out the questions on our classmates before using them in the field, and found that process critical to understand about how the intercepts could be used to develop user personas for different levels of transit ridership.

The prototyping process enabled us to feel confident that our interview wouldn’t take more than five minutes and gave us a comfort level with the specific questions and the overall flow of the interview. Both of these factors were important in our ability to engage individuals, and in creating a more comfortable exchange with our participants.

We conducted a series of intercept interviews on Monday April 15, 2013 outside the Queen’s Park Subway Station at College St. and University Ave. We deliberately chose to conduct these interviews during the afternoon rush hour in an attempt to intercept as many people as possible on their way home from work. We were careful not to position ourselves directly outside of the subway station entrance because while we were interested in transit users’ perceptions around funding of transit we also wanted to gain the insight and perspective of non-transit users (ensuring that our sampling was as representative as possible). Upon reflection we realize that while the choice of the afternoon rush hour did, in fact, increase the [potential] sample size of participants, the proximity to the University of Toronto meant that a large number of the people in the area were students. As we articulated in our research plan, this reaffirmed for us that it would be important to conduct intercept interviews in more than one location and at various times throughout the day in order to gain a broader perspective.

Through this process we discovered how reluctant individuals are to stop and take even the five minutes that we were asking of them to complete the survey. As quickly as possible we tried to identify ourselves as OCADU Masters students and reassure potential participants that we were not asking for donations or working for a private company. Looking down, looking in another direction, looking at their phones or media players were just some of the ways that people deliberately avoided making eye contact with us. Even those

individuals who did engage with us were reluctant to stop to answer questions and often greeted us with a variety of reasons why they couldn’t stop, or in many cases a simple “no thank you”.

As individual researchers we had significantly different levels of comfort approaching people on the street. For some of us this was a very difficult task while others were more comfortable in this role. This demonstrated to us the importance of carefully considering one’s own comfort level when selecting intercept interviews as a research method. We feel that our willingness to approach potential participants definitely impacted the number of responses that we were able to gather while in the field. For this reason we would ensure that going forward we utilized research assistants who are very comfortable in this role. This type of research would benefit most from a researcher that enjoyed engaging people and would not be deterred by the high ratio of non-participants.

In codifying the data after the interviews, it was clear to us that our design posed some challenges to successfully logging the data. Some of our questions lacked a more specific context for our participants; for example, one questions asked how much more a participant would pay without giving the context of how much they currently pay. Additionally, it was not clear to participants whether they should answer in dollar amounts, percentages, or “more/less” in response to some of the questions, leaving variable – and in some cases, incomparable - data for our research team to distill.

4.2.4 Deliverables to Clients

Informed by both our intercept and expert interviews we will develop a series of “user personas” for our Client coming out of the Information Phase of our project. These personas will enable us to segment transit users and assign relevant characteristics to the various types of users. This information is important for two reasons. First because different personas may prefer different funding options and second because it may become apparent that the perceptions of one persona are more relevant than another to our client.

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

15

Funding Needs To Be Fair

4.2.5 Methods Tested

In the amount of time allocated to do this project, we were able to test out all of the methods within our Data and Information areas of the Research Plan. Had we had more time, we would have liked to conduct a more extensive set of intercept and expert interviews, but we do believe that the content that we aggregated affirmed that our plan was, in fact, well suited to research our proposed question.

As a result of our testing the four methods in the Data and Information sections, we have been able to provide a set of Relevant Findings and Reflections for each of these two sections (respectively). In the later sections (Knowledge and Wisdom) for which we did not have a chance to test out the proposed research methods and therefore we have removed the Relevant Findings and Reflections sections, but have still provided our proposed Client Deliverables for each respective phase of the project.

4.3 Knowledge

4.3.1 Method #5 – Workshop: Participatory Co-Design Rationale

The Participatory Co-Design Workshop will be used at the stage in our Research Plan where we have collected a sufficient amount of information to take to experts and stakeholders to explore solution building. Instead of a topdown solution design that will have a significant impact on business and residents of Ontario, we want to engage all stakeholders in the process of co-designing the solution so that there is increased buy-in and accountability with surrounding the proposed funding models. We see the Participatory Co-Design Workshop as an opportunity to reveal tacit information from stakeholders that would not explicitly be revealed through the interview or observation process.

Participant ID and Handling

• 2 representatives from TTC • 2 representative from Metrolinx • 2 representatives from City Hall • 2 representatives from large corporations • 2-4 representatives from SME’s • 6-8 members of the general public (representative population sampling) • 2 representatives from financial advisory services (KPMG or PWC) • 2-4 designers • consent forms We are not going to be engaging participants under 18 years of age, the elderly, or people with mental health issues and therefore would avoid ethical conflicts associated with research with vulnerable populations.

We believe that it is in the interest of the decisionmaking bodies for The Big Move to convene a multi-disciplinary group of stakeholders representing their constituencies in order to acquire public support for the project. The incentive for a third party facilitator to take on this workshop allows for the decision-makers to engage as stakeholders and to invite the public into a space that is neutral and unbiased.

Goal

To explore a co-designed value proposition for businesses in Ontario to take on participate in financing Metrolinx’s The Big Move transit development project.

Objectives

•Use tools of generative design research and design thinking to engage a diverse and representative group of stakeholders in co-design • Inclusive and human-centered approach to a complex budget issue • Mitigate/bridge “outside/inside” approach to government policy-making and budgeting • Reveal tacit knowledge in experts and users to generate a design solution to the challenge

Timeframe

• 1 workshop, 1 day

16

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

Materials

Five Why’s to “examine and express the underlying reason for their behavior and attitudes” (IDEO, 2013). At the end of this exercise, we hope that the participants have identified a few key intervention points (2-3) that specifically focus on creating value for businesses and have developed comfortable relations with their group members to take them into the latter part of the day.

Process

The afternoon will involve taking opportunities identified in the morning session and using them as catalysts for a Business Model Canvas exercise.

Using large format paper, post-its, and the crafting supplies, we will ask the participants in their groups of 4-5 to create collaborative business model canvases to identify the clear value propositions for businesses to participate in funding The Big Move. Again, participants will be encouraged to use visual/creative methods to fill in the canvas.

After 1 hour of collaboration on the canvases, each group will present 1 final canvas to their peers at the workshop. A 30-45 minute discussion will be facilitated with the entire group to decide on the two most viable options that address the research question as well as to harvest any additional insights that were gained through the co-design process.

• Large format paper • Post-its • Markers • Tape • Tables • Wall space • Crafting supplies (felt, pipecleaners, glue, etc.)

The workshop will begin by introducing the context to the stakeholders through visual storytelling.

Facilitators will walk participants through a simple systems map that identifies the stakeholders, the processes, and the (actual and anticipated) flows of capital to finance Metrolinx’s The Big Move.

Participants will be informed that they are essential to the process of collaboratively co-design a value proposition for businesses that would provide incentive for their involvement in financing this province-wide transit initiatives. To provide context, the participants will be invited to explore the proposed revenue tools set forth by Metrolinx, and in groups of four, will conduct collaborative SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) Analyses for as many of the tools as they can in 30-45 minutes. While this may not be an exhaustive exercise, it gets the participants talking and debating the revenue tools, some of which may be new to certain workshop participants.

Participants will then break into 4-5 groups. Each group will have a large format copy of the system map of the finance system that flows capital into transit and will collectively conduct a Flow Analysis to “identify bottlenecks and opportunities for functional alternatives” (IDEO, 2013). Group members will have post-its and markers and will be able to mark up the map, identify gaps and spaces in the system where there are opportunities to create value for businesses investing in The Big Move. The groups will also have crafting supplies to build “models” to symbolize the intervention points to encourage participants to represent that which they cannot express in words using designed objects. Those participating in this workshop will be encouraged to use visual methods (drawing, mapping) to identify the opportunities, and when they encounter a challenges or conflict, will be invited to use the

Data Handling

To document the process, a videographer, photographer, two note-takers, and two graphic recorders will be present to ensure that ideas that are not captured on the Business Model Canvases are recorded. The notetakers will synthesize the information to complement the graphic recording, and along with the business model canvases, will be compiled in a report. The information from the morning session (the Flow Analysis) will be reviewed by the Research Team in order to identify key insights.

The information from the Business Model Canvas workshop will be used to create three to four “scenarios” to test in the subsequent “Scenarios Workshop”. These scenarios will be conceptualized by the research team, and vetted by participating experts before being distributed and shared in the workshop.

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

17

Funding Needs To Be Fair

Once the data from the workshop is collected and analyzed by the research team, it will be consolidated into a short report to be sent around (digitally) to the stakeholders and participants so that they have a record of the outcomes of the workshop.

References, Sources and Resources used to support the methods and study

Goal

IDEO Method Cards IDEO HCD Toolkit Convivial Toolbox Metrolinx’s “The Big Move” Document

To propose three to four scenarios that stimulate the involvement of businesses in Ontario in helping to fund Metrolinx’s The Big Move transit development project.

4.3.2 Method #6 – Workshop: Conceptualization of Scenarios

Objectives

Rationale

The Scenarios Workshop is intended to build on the insights from the Participatory Co-Design Workshop by testing scenarios that would represent and embody the context and the experience of the new funding model(s). This workshop is an opportunity to take the research and bridge into a design phase, which would better allow the decision makers to understand the public support for such a funding model. It would also allow the decision-making bodies to better understand what would need to occur in order to implement each of the scenarios, and would lay the groundwork for a feasibility study.

Participant ID and Handling

• 4-6 members of the general public • 6-8 owners of Small-Medium Enterprises (SME’s) • 6-8 executives of major corporations • 2-4 bureaucrats involved directly in The Big Move (from municipal and provincial government) • 2-4 designers We are not going to be engaging participants under 18 years of age, the elderly, or people with mental health issues and therefore would avoid ethical conflicts associated with research with vulnerable populations.

We believe that it is in the interest of the businesses to have direct input into taxation models that will affect their ability to meet their bottom line. It is in the interests of bureaucrats 18

involved in The Big Move so as to ensure support from business owners and executives. The incentive for a third party facilitator to take on this workshop allows for the decision-makers to engage as stakeholders and to invite the stakeholders into a space that is neutral and unbiased.

• Use tools of generative design research strategies to engage those directly affected by the proposed changes • Inclusive and human-centered approach to a complex budget issue • Mitigate/bridge “outside/inside” approach to government policy-making and budgeting

Timeframe

• 1 workshop, 1 day

Materials • Paper • Post-its • Markers • Tape • Tables

Process

Prior to the workshop, three scenarios would be written that would take into account the research from the previous phases. More specifically, these scenarios would focus on the outlined value propositions created by participants in the Co-Design workshop. The scenarios would fall into three categories: one of each that was positive and negative, and one that fell into a neutral space. Participants would be welcomed to the workshop and given context as to why the design team chose scenarios as a tool to move the research into possible solutions. It would be clarified that conceptualizing scenarios is an way to connect the data from the research into design

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

opportunities, and to develop a “big picture” model for the outcome (Convivial Toolbox). It is a way to integrate the insights that have been revealed and the constraints that may be present into a more readily accessible tool that can be used to get input as well as to evaluate the uptake from stakeholders and constituent groups.

Once the scenarios have been tested in the workshop, they would be returned to the participating experts to be further finessed and refined. Once the scenarios have been refined to include the participant feedback, they will be shared with the stakeholders and participants who participated in the workshop.

Scenarios would be handed out in such a way that the resulting groups to examine them would contain a proportional number of stakeholders from each category. Each group would discuss their scenario (facilitated by a designer) informally, and would explore the experience, the implications, and the context of the scenario through key thematic areas. Each theme would have an area on the wall where post-its with brief responses from the stakeholders are attached, and the group would discuss aggregating the feedback around comments that were coming up most frequently for each theme. At the end of the session, each group would summarize their findings onto a collective grid and report back to the group.

References, Sources, and Resources used to support the methods and study

Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3 Theme 4

Data Handling

Each group would have a note taker present to document the reactions of the stakeholders to the scenarios, as some of them may not be captured during the post-it exercise. The note takers will be asked to each provide a 1-2 page summary to document the feelings, feedback, and response of the group to the scenario. The final data (exhibited in the grid) would be examined by the design team to then do backcasting – what would need to be in place for each particular scenario to realize – and incorporating the workshop feedback into that process.

To document the process, a videographer, photographer will also be present at the session, and each participant will sign a consent form to allow the footage and photographs to be used in later stages of the research.

IDEO Method Cards IDEO HCD Toolkit Convivial Toolbox Metrolinx’s “The Big Move” Website

4.3.3 Deliverables to Clients

We will share the Knowledge that we gain through our participatory co-designed workshop in three ways. First we will share the Business Model Canvases that are created in the sessions as stand alone artifacts. We feel that this is an appropriate way to bring our client up to speed on the methodology and the effectiveness of the Business Model Canvas in co-creating workable business models.

Of course the Business Model Canvases represent the iterative work of the groups, and from this our research team would design a series of refined scenarios that aggregate their collective work. The variety of information that we generate through the co-designed workshops will determine the number of scenarios that we present to our client.

4.4 Wisdom

4.4.1 Method #7 – Feasibility Study Rationale

While we recognize that feasibility studies will fall outside of our research project with feel that this is an important next step and would be our recommendation to our client. Without carefully evaluating the business models that our research generated it would be ill-advised to implement any one solution.

Our research team would work with Metrolinx to facilitate an effective feasibility study but we feel that level of analysis requires a specialized team of experts.

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

19

Funding Needs To Be Fair

Goal

The primary goal of the feasibility study would be to determine if the recommendations are not only feasible, but also it they are viable and desirable.

Objective

The objective of the feasibility study is to test the recommendations in ‘real world’ scenario and identify opportunities for adjustment and refinement.

The materials needed, timeframe, participant ID and handling, process, and data handling would all be determined upon the design of the study.

As the design of the study is dependent on the accumulated research and subsequent insights from that research, it is impossible to determine these characteristics at time of writing.

4.4.2 Deliverables to Clients

Finally, we will present a final report to CivicAction that outlines our research findings and identifies one or two business models that we would recommend to them as workable solutions. These workable solutions would need to undergo a full feasibility study in order to generate the Wisdom needed for successful implementation, but these feasibility studies fall outside of the scope of our research project.

20

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

5.0 RELEVANT FINDINGS

Since we were only able to complete four of our seven research methods with the time constraints of the project, we discuss the relevant findings of the four methods we conducted: literature review, 9D’s observation, intercept interviews, and expert interviews.

5.1 Literature Review

Fortunately our research for this project and the corresponding gigamapping project brought together a great deal of work that had been done in two of our earlier systems mapping projects (alternate funding models for Social Services and the TTC specifically). Through our individual literature research, and by leveraging our collective knowledge, we were able to develop a research question that was not only relevant to our project work but that is in fact central to ongoing conversations surrounding transit in the region.

Our understanding of the current challenges facing the TTC and transit in general, the variety of funding models being considered and the limitations of those models, as well as the political and economic and political context that surround the current transit talks was vital not only in our ability to develop a comprehensive research plan but also in our ability to successfully conduct our research.

Specifically, the literature review enabled us to develop and conduct expert interviews that generated meaningful insights for our group.

Without a strong foundation of knowledge it would have been both unprofessional of us and an ineffective use of our research time to reach out to experts in the field and to ask them to share their time and insights with us. Similarly, without a deep understanding of the issues at hand it would have been impossible to design an intercept interview that provided us with any real insights into the publics tolerance for any one funding proposal.

Finally, because we recognize the various stakeholders who are involved in the discussions it was possible to develop a meaningful participatory co-design workshop that has the potential to identify and evaluate workable solutions for the Big Move.

5.2 9D’s Observation – Transit Talk at Evergreen Brickworks

We previously mentioned the shortcomings of the 9D’s, however, the event in which we used the 9D’s observational research method was the most pivotal of our research. It inspired us to re-frame our research question, become more focused and introduced us to a variety of stakeholders that we might not have otherwise considered.

The Transit Talk was an open discussion between the public and a panel of experts. The panel included Stephanie Cairns (Managing Director, Community Programs, Sustainable Prosperity), Richard Joy (VP Policy and Government Relations, Toronto Region Board of Trade), John Howe (VP, Investment Strategy and Project Evaluation, Metrolinx), Robert Hatton (Director, Strategic Initiatives and Intergovernmental Finance, City of Toronto), and Dr. Monica Campbell (Director, Healthy Public Policy Directorate, Toronto Public Health).

In particular from the talk John Howe, Vice President of Investment Strategy and Project Evaluation at Metrolinx, introduced us to five key policy principles that were delivered in reflection to citizen engagement: 1. A dedicated revenue stream, 2. Fairness in Costs and Benefits, 3.

Equality in the region, 4. Transparency and accountability, and 5. Transportation alternatives.

These five key policy principles provided us with a better understand of what a funding proposition for Metrolinx would look like. This, in turn, provided us with a framework to structure our conversation in the expert interviews and the questionnaire for the intercept interviews.

Additionally, the transit talkequipped us with an understanding of what the policy makers and influencers perceived to be unanswered questions.

The most relevant learning from these ‘questions left unanswered’ was the role of business in the funding of public transit. For example, Robert Hatton made the point that if residential households each paid $800 per year, it would cover the $2 billion per year revenue gap needed to fund The Big Move. This was followed up with

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

21

Funding Needs To Be Fair

the fact that if businesses were involved, the cost would be reduced to $400 per household and $400 per business. The context of that discussion led us to ask ourselves what role businesses had, but also what role they are responsible and should be accountable for in the funding of The Big Move.

These major points were pivotal, heart-of-thematter details that we had previously not identified, and could not had identified, had it not been for the observational research completed at the transit talk. With this new insight into our research question, we reformed it, and adjusted our direction of research.

Beside the aforementioned findings from the observational research, we were also able to reconfirm many of the findings we had previously discovered through our literature review. These included, but are not limited to, the increasing population of the GTHA, the lack of dedicated revenue for regional transit, the gap in funding between what is needed and what is currently allocated and devoted, the pertinence of the issue, and the economic barriers to completion of the proposed regional transportation plan.

5.3 Intercept Interviews

The intercept interviews were collected in order to gain a sample of the public’s perception into the funding of public transit, and business’ role in that funding. The interviews were completed, and then codified and placed into Microsoft Excel so that we could aggregate data which would provide us with insight into public perception. Due to the time constraints of the project, we were only able to obtain 25 competed responses (n=25). We recognize that this is not a holistic representation of the population (and is not statistically significant); nonetheless we present the results as an example of how we would do so given more time.

For complete tabulated aggregate data, please see Appendix F.

Question #2 – How many trips per week?

Average 7.56 times per week.

Median 6 times per week.

Maximum 14 times per week.

Minimum 1 time per week.

Question #3 – On days when you don’t use transit to get to work, what do you do? (You can choose more than one) Walk – 36% Bike – 24% Drive – 48% Taxi – 4% Other – 8%

Question #4 – Do you have a monthly pass?

Yes – 52% No – 48%

Question #5 – Do you feel that a $3.00 far is: Too low – 0% Just right – 48% Too High – 48% Don’t Know – 4%

Question #6 – Are you a: Property Owner – 40% Renter – 24% Don’t Know – 36%

Question #7 – Do you pay property taxes in the City of Toronto?

Yes – 32% No – 56% Don’t Know – 12%

Question #8 – What would you believe is the proportion of property taxes that go to support the TTC? Average 11.88% Median 10.00% Maximum 25% Minimum 5%

Question #1 – Did you take transit to work this morning?

Yes – 95% No – 5%

22

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

Question #8a - What if I told you it was 20%, what do you think it should be?

Average 18.50% Median 20.00% Maximum 25.00% Minimum 10.00%

Question #9 - Do you feel that businesses in Toronto have a responsibility to provide funding to the TTC? Yes – 76% No – 12% Don’t Know – 12%

Question #10 – Which of the following areas do you feel that the TTC needs to improve: (You can choose more than one answer) Customer service – 24% More routes – 48% More vehicles – 36% Cleaner stations and stops – 32% Accessibility – 36% Improved vehicle maintenance – 40% None of the above – 0% All of the above – 12%

Question #11 – What is the best transit system you have ever experienced?

London - 5 Tokyo – 3 Paris – 2 Munich – 2 New York – 1 Hong Kong – 1 Montreal – 1 Madrid – 1 Moscow – 1 Vienna – 1 Washington, DC – 1

Question #11– Is having a world-class transit system in Toronto important to you?

Yes – 80% No – 12% Don’t Know – 8%

Question #12 – How much extra would you be willing to pay per year to have a worldclass transit system in Toronto?

10% tax, $1.00 ridership increase, $0, $0, $0, $3.50, +$0.50, 10%, 2%, $1500 per year, 15%, $0, $300, $1.00 per ticket, $0, $25.00, 10%, double, $50.00, $300

Question #14 – If the TTC needed to raise more money to improve services (including accessibility) would you rather (you can choose more than one option):

Increase fare – 28% Increase property tax – 24% A dedicated transit tax – 48% A congestion tax – 32% Charitable donations – 28% Corporate tax – 56% Federal funding – 64% Other – Road tolls, provincial funding, enforcement of paying Despite the fact that we did not obtain enough data to properly represent the larger population, there are some key take away points, both from our actual findings and from the process of the intercept interviews.

Firstly, the findings do paint a picture of public perception on a small scale; this is especially true for questions with strong skew. For example, the fact that 95% of participants took public transit illustrates to us that where we collected our data is a high traffic area for commuters. In the future if we wanted to disseminate information specifically to transit riders, this would be a good location to do so. Secondly, with such a strong proportion of people in favor of both business participating in public transit funding, and of Toronto having a world-class transit system, 76% and 80% respectively, we have identified these as points of leverage for future conversations with potential decision makers. In particular these would be good nodes of conversation and activity in the workshops.

We also had relevant findings pertaining to the intercept interview process. One of our key learnings was the importance of question structure when aggregating the data. For example Question #12 proved to be impossible to aggregate data on since many interviewees interpreted the question differently. This led to varying units of measurement

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

23

Funding Needs To Be Fair

(some answered in percentages, others in dollars, and other still in increased fare) for what they thought would be an increase per year.

Another difficulty we identified was the unintentional bias created by the question type. As an example we already mentioned the abnormally high proportion of commuters due to our location, but also the question structure lead to bias. For example, Question #11 asks participants if a world-class transit system is important to them.

However, ‘important’ is a relative term, and would most likely be different to each individual answer.

Ideally, the information gathered in the intercept interviews would be validated with further outings, an increased number of respondents, and increased diversity of location and time.

5.4 Expert Interviews

We performed two expert interviews. The first was with Assistant Professor Matti Siemiatycki, an urban planning and geography expert at the University of Toronto. He focuses on large scale infrastructure projects and the interface between public and private sectors. This interview was conduced by Adam and Karen.

From this expert interview we were able to gain a few primary relevant findings. Because Matti’s experience was centralized around private-public interaction for large scale infrastructure projects, he was particularly knowledgeable on private-publicpartnerships, or PPP’s or P3’s, for short. This had value for our project as PPP’s are one of the mixed funding tools that we examined in the previous giga-map project, and hence was a tool we had previously identified as a possible revenue source for transit funding.

In relation to PPP’s we learned that despite being used commonly by the Government of Ontario, there is a history of projects going over budget.

That being stated, PPP’s have shown positive outcomes in the past, but it is important to realize that private sector will not fund projects, only finance them (requiring a rate of return on their investment).

24

With the understanding that private sector will not fund public sector ventures, we steered the interview into the direction of how funding for transit could be attained. To this Matti made some points that shed light on the matter for us. He informed us that although there are many ideas on the table, only a few will actually create the capital to cover the high cost ($2 billion per year) for a regional transportation plan like The Big Move.

Other proposed ideas, like a casino, which would create relatively small revenue of $100 million, when looked at the larger scheme, would only produce a drop in the bucket.

To properly finance a widespread plan, a large funding option would need to be put in place. Matti identified a gas tax, parking tax, road tolls, property taxes, sales taxes, and payroll taxes as examples of larger funding options that would be able to generate proper amounts of revenue. He also mentioned that the revenue stream would need to be ‘fair’, a remark we had heard previously from the observational research method at the transit talk.

The second expert interview was with the Ministry of Transportation and included Ian Freeman (Regional Transit Policy Office, Transit Policy Branch, Policy and Planning Division), Christine Ranking (Senior Policy Advisor, Transit Policy Branch, Regional Transit Policy Office) and Paul Chetcuti (Team Leader, Regional Transit Policy Office, Transit Policy Branch). This interview was conducted by Zahra and Dustin.

Perhaps not too surprisingly, the Ministry of Transportation was relatively closed lipped about funding plans for Metrolinx and the regional transportation plan. This is most likely a result of the increased media attention transit funding has received recently. Nonetheless, the interview did provide us with some insightful findings into the larger system of public transit. In particular, the interview introduced us to the architecture and bureaucratic process and hierarchy of the policy decisions for Metrolinx. For a funding model, Metrolinx is responsible for researching and identifying the various funding models that would finance its operations and proposed plans (like The Big Move). Metrolinx then provides

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

a short-listed set of recommendations to the Ministry of Transportation. The ministry has the responsibility to ensure that the recommendations meet policy initiatives. For example the Ministry of Transportation is interested in providing behaviour changing policy that would provide transit, reduce congestion, promote environmental sustainability, and promote healthy lifestyles. From the shortlisted options it selects one for adjustment and further recommendation to the Government of Ontario. The Government of Ontario then puts the policy into place, writing the necessary acts and legislation to enforce its action, while opening up debate with opposition and allies to the plans possible successes and failures.

We also came to understand the Ministry’s spending breaks-down into capital expenditure and operational expenditure. For the Ministry of Transportation, capital spending makes up over 50% of its budget, which is the largest proportion of all the ministries for capital expenditure.

The members at the Ministry of Transportation were also able to validate some of our previously held research findings. For example, it was clear from our conversation that a ‘fair’ plan would need to be devised so that the burden of funding transit would be shared across sectors and stakeholders. This point was made with passion, a factor that could only be derived from face-toface interviews – further demonstrating the value of expert interviews. It was also very telling to hear the ‘fairness’ discussion come up again and again.

We had heard about it in two other unrelated occurrences, from Matti in our other expert interview, and during the transit talk.

It would appear that the concept of fairness lay at the center of the conversation surrounding the discourse on funding of public transit.

With these relevant findings in mind we now have a better idea of how to continue our research project. For the workshops it has become obvious that an element of fairness must be explored when discussing the funding of public transit and the role that businesses play.

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

25

Funding Needs To Be Fair

6.0 CONCLUSION

Reflecting on the fact that our client CivicAction represents an unbiased organization that can facilitate conversations about Metrolinx’s The Big Move, it was imperative that our research plan involved a wide variety of stakeholders. Through our research we successfully engaged members of the general public, experts in the field, policy and government officials, individual tax payers and business leaders alike. In doing so our findings tell a comprehensive story around the important role that businesses play in funding public transit.

Effectively engaging businesses in the process enabled us to demonstrate the direct and indirect value that they receive by supporting public transit.

Furthermore, the fact that our findings illuminate the need for a more equitable funding model suggests to us that such a recommendation would receive the level of support that it needs to be implemented successfully.

Based on our research it is clear that there is a strong desire to have a world-class transit system across the region and there seems to be a willingness to accept the fact that this will require that all stakeholders play a role in providing the funding for this system. While it may not be possible to find a solution that makes everyone happy it appears plausible that a fair and equitable funding model could be developed.

This type of information would be valuable to an organization like CivicAction because it validates their role in the process and provides them with research that supports their mission.

26

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

7.0 REFERENCES

Alexandra, M. (2008). The Role of Public-Private Partnerships in Funding Social Housing in Canada.

Canadian Policy Research Networks. Retrieved from: http://rcrpp.org/documents/50550_FR.pdf [April 1, 2013].

Black, S. (2012). Getting Past Zero: Maintaining Services and Balancing Toronto’s 2013 Budget.

Wellesley Institute Advancing Urban Health, November 2012. Retrieved from: http:// www.wellesleyinstitute.com/wp-content/ uploads/2012/11/Getting-Past-Zero.pdf [March 18 2013]

Mercado, R. et al. (2010). Transport Policy and the provision of mobility options in an aging society: a case study of Ontario, Canada. Journal of Transport Geography, 18 (5), pp.649-661.

Retrieved from: http://journals2.scholarsportal. info/details.xqy?uri=/09666923/v18i0005/649_ tpatpoacsooc.xml [April 2, 2013].

METROLINX, (2013). The Big Move: A bold and visionary plan that outlines a common vision for transportation for one of the largest and fastestgrowing urban regions in North America. The plan introduces a new way of moving around the region. http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/ bigmove/big_move.aspx

Brittain, L. (2002). Financing Capital Expenditures.

Canadian Tax Journal, 50 (2), pp.552-575.

Retrieved from: http://www.fcf-ctf.ca/ctfweb/ Documents/PDF/2002ctj/2002ctj2_brittain.pdf [April 2, 2013].

OneCity Transit Plan for Toronto (2009).

What is “CVA Uplift?” Retrieved from: http:// onecitytransitplan.com/funding-of-onecity-transitplan/about/ [March 2013].

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, the MIT Press, 8 (2), pp.521.

Reid, D. (2008). Property taxes are weird. Spacing Toronto. Retrieved from: http://spacing.ca/ toronto/2008/03/28/property-taxes-are-weird/ [March 2013].

Bugg-Levine, A. (2013). Complete Capital.

Stanford Social Innovation Review, 11 (1), pp.1718.

HCD CONNECT, (April 2013). Human-centered design allows us to create and deliver solutions based on people’s needs. http://www.hcdconnect. org/toolkit/en [April, 2013].

IDEO, (April 2013). Method Cards for IDEO: 51card deck to inspire design. http://www.ideo.com/ work/method-cards/ [April, 2013].

McConnell, P. et al. (2010). Downtown Information Session: City of Toronto 2011 Operating and Capital Budget. Retrieved from: http://www. toronto.ca/budget2010/pdf/bb2010_full.pdf [March 18, 2013].

McKenna, B. (2012). The Hidden Price of PublicPrivate Partnerships. The Global and Mail Online.

Retrieved from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ report-on-business/economy/article4611798.ece [March 28rh, 2013].

Sanders, L and Stappers, P-J. (2013). Convivial Toolbox: Generative Research for the Front End of Design. BIS Publishers.

Siemiatycki, M. and Van Koeverden, A. (2011).

Visualizing Trends in Transportation Infrastructure Public-Private Partnerships: Introduction to Public Private Partnerships. Retrieved from: http:// individual.utoronto.ca/siemiatycki/PPP%20 About%20Us.html [March 28, 2013].

Slack, E. (2012). Is Toronto Broke, Financing the City of Toronto. University of Toronto, Munk School of Global Affairs. Retrieved from: http:// munkschool.utoronto.ca/imfg/events/?cur_ year=2011 [March 2013].

Treasury Board Of Canada Secretariat (2005).

Meeting the Expectations of Canadians: Review of the Governance Framework for Canada’s Crown Corporations. Retrieved from: http://www.tbs-sct. gc.ca/report/rev-exa/gfcc-cgse-eng.pdf [March 17, 2013].

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

27

Funding Needs To Be Fair

Yescombe, R. (2013). Public –Private Partnership: Principles of Policy and Finance. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com.myaccess.library. utoronto.ca/science/book/9780750680547 [April 1, 2013].

28

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

29

Funding Needs To Be Fair

APPENDIX A: Giga-Map from SFIN 6B04 This is a wicked problem.

Social, Public, Private & how they work.

The government funding gap

Stakeholders

Based on a March 28, 2013 study conducted by the Mowat Centre titled Filling the Gap, Ontario funds a disproportionate share of federal spending compared to other provinces even though Ontario is no longer a wealthy province.

The federal government oversees a wide range of Departments, Agencies, Crown Corporations, Special Operating Agencies and various affiliated organizations that are all responsible for providing social service funding.

The study finds “that there is roughly an $11B structural gap between what Ontarians pay to the federal government and what they receive.

The provincial government has 26 ministries with the largest spending on the Ministry of Health and Longterm Care (38%) and the Ministry of Education (18%).

Each ministry is mandated to administer financing to its specific social service under direction from the minister and the government of Ontario.

+$ –$ demand on services

+$

The City of Toronto has 47 divisions (including Parks and Recreation, Police Services, Waste Management, Water, etc.) , 2 corporations (Toronto Community Housing and Toronto Parking Authority) and oversees one body (The Toronto District School Board).

+$

+

+

–$

User Fees 15%

downloaded services

+

City Services

For the purpose of this project Social Service providers in the City of Toronto are defined as Education (TDSB), Shelter & Support, Transit (TTC) and Toronto Public Health.

approaching retirement

+

User Fees 15%

78%

of immigrants to Ontario settle in Toronto

11% 40%

1.0%

0.5%

0

Toronto

Oshawa

Oakville

Mississauga

Barrie (urban)

TTC and Transportation Services

New Canadians

Social Services 16.6% (Housing, Health, Children and Senior’s Police, Fire, EMS Services, Employment 16.6% Services) 30.5%

The population of the GTA is expected to grow to over 7.5 million by 2025

“We can solve o problems the sam thinking created th

Collection of money

Library, Culture, Parks, City Planning, Facilities 13.4% Governance and Internal Services 4.9%

13.4%

Library, Culture, Parks, City Financing (Capital and Corporate) Planning, Facilities

4.9%

15.1%

Albert Einste

Property taxes don’t work like other taxes:

Governance & Internal Services

The City of Toronto, like all municipalities faces increased challenges in funding social services in part because of the taxation policies that are imposed by the Ontario Government.

to cover the rate of inflation.

Property tax rate is tied directly to the City’s operating budget meaning that if the municipal government wants to generate more revenue from the existing property base they must increase the city’s budget.

Pri

15.1% Financing (Capital & Corporate)

16.6% Police, Fire, EMS

One might think that as the city grows, and as property values continue to rise year-over-year, that revenue generated for the city would also increase. But property taxes don’t work like other taxes.

Unlike other forms of taxation, such as sales tax, property taxes are not tied to economic growth. In fact, property taxes don’t even increase

According to a Fraser Institute report released in March 2012, “Canada’s immigrant selection policies resulted in an average fiscal burden on taxpayers of $6,051 per immigrant who came to Canada between 1987 and 2004.”

Tax System

30.5%

Police, Fire, EMS 16.6%

Other Revenues

Country of Origin by Continent: 79% Asia, 11% Europe, 6% America/USA, 4% Africa

Re-allocate funds

Financing (Capital and Corporate) 15.1%

TTC & Transportation Services

22%

* Immigration by Category: 63% Economic Immigrants, 23% Refugees, 11% Family Class, 3% Others

15.1%

TTC and Transportation Services Governance and Internal Services 4.9% 19.5%

19.5%

User Fees

Babyboomers

4.9%

Government gathers money

Library, Culture, Parks, City Planning, Facilities 13.4%

Social Services (Housing, Health, Children & Senior’s Services, Employment

15%

people moving to the city

TaxTax System Public System

19.5%

13.4%

Government Transfers (Federal, Provincial & Subsidies)

63%

$6,051

1.5%

30.5%

Property Tax

What is the role of business?

78%

Public-Private Partnerships: the funding model

Make money

Public Sector

This means that as Toronto grows and the demand for social services increases the City has no choice but to “raise taxes” which in today’s political climate is a very unpopular position.

Is built for

Pr

Partners with Pays

$50m+ Project

Private Sector

Borrows

Could borrow $ and fund directly at a lesser rate

Funds

Accepts risk

$ How the funding of social services in Toronto changed with Amalagamation

Politics & the Economy 12.68%

City of Toronto Unemployment Rate

In 1994, Progressive Conservative Candidate Mike Harris campaigned for Premier of Ontario on a plan entitled the “Common Sense Revolution.” The plan promised to reduce the size of government and lower income taxes by 30%. In order to realize his campaign promises, Harris proposed an amalgamation plan of the six municipalities of the

10.20%

Ontario GDP

49% of total reve 85,000 charities ment, and gover registered chariti of all governmen

2.0%

39%

39%

demand on services

23%

60%

s 2ELIEF OF POVERTY s !DVANCEMENT OF s !DVANCEMENT OF s /THER PURPOSES

19.5%

39% 30.5%

24%

Urbanization

3%

2.5%

Where the $ goes

24%

63%

3.0%

Children and Senior’s Services, Employment Services) Property Tax

Government Transfers (Provincial, Federal, and Subsidies) 24%

+

of immigrants to Canada are economic immigrants*

22%

3.5%

15%

immigrants that arrived in Canada settled in Toronto

40%

The activities of c are limited to:

4.0%

Vaughan

Where the $ comes(Housing, from Health,

+

+ +

under-employed compared to skill level

+$

–$

Residential

In the City of Toronto:

Other Revenues 22% Government Transfers (Provincial, Federal, 22% and Subsidies) 24%

+

–$

Multi-residential

Commercial Occupied

Ontario’s tax system supports the province’s programs and investments in education, health care, transportation infrastructure, andProperty skills.Tax

Other Revenues 22%

Ontario Gov’t Services

reduced subsidies

Industrial Occupied

4.5%

39%

Social Services

of immigrants to Canada settle in Ontario

Toronto Real Estate Board

Social Services

All citizens of the City of Toronto.

77,739

Tax structure “A well-functioning tax and benefit system is an essential part of a healthy economy, a sustainable public infrastructure, and a strong democracy.

Cana by the

They then use this tax revenue to finance programs and services for Canadians.”

+

Tax Payer

Canadian Immigration in 2011

How does Toronto’s Property Tax rate compare?

The tax revenue we collect each year is either given back to taxpayers in the form of benefit payments or tax credits, or is provided to the federal, provincial, territorial, and First Nations governments on whose behalf we collect the tax revenue.

Federal Gov’t

reduced subsidies

Why we pay taxes.

GST 1991 NAFTA 1994

Greater Toronto Area. A task force was convened to investigate the social and financial implications of amalgamation, which revealed that the most significant impact would be the download of social services (previously paid for or cost-shared by the province) to municipalities. In 1997, a referendum was held which indicated that 70-81% of voters

+

opposed the provincial government’s plan. In April 1997, the provincial government passed Bill 103, amalgamating the six municipalities, and downloading welfare, public transit, emergency services and social housing to the newly formed City of Toronto (Schwartz, 2001).

Social services were most affected by these changes.

Delays

“ A P3 wor like leas

The Canadian Council for Private Partnerships define as, “A cooperative venture b the public and private secto on the expertise of each par best meets clearly defined p needs through the appropria allocation of resources, risks rewards.”

Positives s NEW WAY TO l NANCE LARGE P s BRINGS TOGETHER THE STRENG both sectors

8.66%

SARS 2003

Dot Com Bust 2001

5.65%

6.35%

Federal Government

1995–96 “slump”

early 1990s recession

Brian Mulroney 1984–93 (majority)

early 2000s recession

Paul Martin 2003–2006 (minority)

Jean Chrétian 1993–2003 (majority) Kim Campbell 1993–93

Government of Ontario Bob Rae 1990–95 (majority)

Mike Harris 1995–2002 (majority)

Dalton McGuinty 2003–2006 (majority) Ernie Eves 2002–03

Metro Toronto

Amalagamation: City of Toronto

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

David Miller 2003–2010 Considered a “socialist” mayor

1999

1998

1997

Mel Lastman 1998–2003

1996

1993

1992

1991

1990

1995

Barbara Hall 1994–1997 Considered a “socialist” mayor

1994

June Rowlands 1991–1994 Art Eggleton 1980–91

Funding Social Services Shoul Project2_GigaMap_FINAL_R.indd 1

30

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

.

The need for a holistic view.

adian Charities e numbers

Get money.

Spend money.

F EDUCATION F RELIGION PROVEN BY CASE LAW

Canada. Charities File indicates that the largest number of donations are given to healthcare organizations, leaving remaining charities focusing on the other areas of activity struggling to diversify their funding base.

enues from Canada’s come from governnment funding of ies represents 14% nt spending in

The number of tax-filers in Canada making charitable donations has been steadily decreasing from 30% in 1990 to 23% in 2011.

As government funding to social

charities in Canada

services decreases, government offloaded the responsibility of social services to large charitable organizations to fill the gap. These charitable organizations rely on donations from the public to fulfill their mandate, and with decreasing numbers of charitable donations (as donors choose increasingly to individualize their giving), this puts these organizations at risk of losing a large part of their funding base.

Fundraising

+$

Gov’t

Gov’t Agencies

+$

Charitable System Charitable System

+$ +$

Charities

give money to

Reserve Funds

deliver

deliver are required to pay taxes

Giving to charities

+$

spend money on

+$

“…there will be more seniors than children (under 15 years) in Canada for the first time ever, sometime between 2015 and 2021.”

Governance

Earned Income

Social Services

Each of the established funding models have their advantages and their limitations.

Private Donations

benefit

optionally give money through these mechanisms

Mission-driven positive change

Gather money for a cause

Tax Payer

Organizations

Fundraising

Social Impact Bond: An emerging funding model Social Impact Bonds (SIB) are an emerging investment tool that enables the government to offer a financial return to private investors who fund vital social services. The ability to offer a financial return hinges on successfully meeting agreed upon measurements and demonstrated government savings.

n not our s with me that hem”

An example: The pilot social impact bond in Peterborough Prison in the United Kingdom is a program to reduce reoffending rates of short term prisoners. £5m was raised from 17 social investors to fund a consortium of nonprofit organizations over six years to work with 3,000 prisoners after they are

ein

Service Providers

working capital

Business

Organizations

Crown Corporations

Selling of goods & services

rks essentially sing a car.”

Publices PPPs between ors, built rtner, that public ate s and

Charitable Sector

There’s no magic pile of money.

OLG

$2.0B

Ontario Gov’t

s MAXIMIZE EFl CIENCIES OF private sector s FREES PUBLIC FUNDS FOR CORE

economic & social programs s PRIVATE SECTOR ASSUMES THE RISK

$0.9B

$4.5B

4.4% of provincial budget

There’s only one pot of money and it gets circulated in many different ways.

OPG

Through the process of understanding complex public, private and charitable systems, it is revealed that the sustainable funding model for social services lies in the movement of money.

There is no silver bullet when it comes to funding social services – the sustainable funding of social services is actually centralized around more efficiently allocating money to institutions, organizations or government that can systemically address social problems. When this happens, there doesn’t have to be an investment of money into services at the same extent as current funding and demand would

$1.6B

Negatives s LOSS OF PUBLIC CONTROL s PUBLIC DEBT GETS DEFERRED INTO the future s PRIVATE SECTOR BORROWS MONEY at a higher rate, therefore the project often costs more s CONTRACTS OFTEN @HIDDEN FROM the public s PROJECT COSTS CAN BE HIGHER than if government run

PROJECTS GTHS OF

Government

4. repayment & ROI from performancebased payment

Private Investors

Three crown corporations exist in the province of Ontario: Ontario Power Generation (OPG), Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG) and Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO).

Crown corporations are peculiar hybrid entities—somewhere between a government body and a private enterprise. They are wholly owned by the state but operate at arm’s length from government.

rivate System

performancebased payments

Organization

1.

y

Social Impact Bond-Issuing

LCBO

9.98%

The philanthropic sector by definition provides a formalized mechanism that enables charitable individuals to give in order to help those who are in need. However, the system relies predominantly on the generosity of individual donors thus creating a challenge in long-term sustainable funding.

The funding of Social Services in the City of Toronto

Public Sector

3.

funding for operating costs

Public money

ivate System

The private system has an incredible ability to generate huge amounts of revenue however it is primarily motivated by profits and therefore any private funding of social services will likely require a return on investment. This return does not necessarily have to be a direct financial return but it is important to recognize that the success of this system hinges on individualistic motivations.

Private Sector

released to reduce their reoffending, measured by convictions. If the social impact bond delivers a drop in reoffending beyond 7.5%, investors will receive an increasing return capped at a maximum of 13% per year over an eight year period. (socialfinance.ca)

2.

Private money

The public taxation system is an effective tool of collecting money from the citizens and redistributing those funds towards infrastructure and services that benefit the entire city. While this system is sustainable, due to the political cycle it is challenged in its ability to generate exponential revenue.

9.96%

EU/US Debt Crisis 2011

7.98%

dictate. Therefore government can turn taxpayers’ money towards decreasing the financial burden

The sustainable funding model for social services lies in the movement of money. created by the structural gap between what Ontarians pay to the federal government and what they receive. With the compounding

effects of the aging population, urbanization, and increased immigration escalating the stresses on the larger social systems, it is essential to think of the charitable, public, and private systems not in isolation, but rather how we can make transparent to the public which systems are best equipped to address specific problems. This would take advantage of each individual system’s strengths and experiences. The key understanding for the public is that if they do not pay for a social service through their taxes, they continue to carry the cost through the consumption of goods and services.

By comprehending that ultimately there is only so much money in the entire social system, the public can gain to understand that by deferring paying for social services through taxes, they will end up paying for the same social services downstream through charitable and/or private pathways. There is only one bucket of money.

Global Credit Crisis 2008

“Great Recession”

Stephen Harper 2006–present (minority)

Citizens Vote

(2011 election = majority)

Next Federal Election, October 2015

Kathleen Wynne 2013 (minority)

Government Elections: Federal, Provincial, Municipal

Next Provincial Election, October 2015

Rob Ford 2010–present Next Municipal Election, October 2014

2025

2020

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

The political cycle will repeat itself. Either the current government will be re-elected or the government will change which will have implications on funding, priorities and promises made.

A full list of resources/references are available in the paper.

ldn’t Be a Shell Game

How can a sustainable funding model be established to support social services in the City of Toronto?

Zahra Ebrahim Dustin Johnston-Jewel Karen Oikonen Peter Scott Adam Starkman

SFIN 6B04 Understanding Systems & Systemic Design Project 2 April 11, 2013

4/9/13 6:51:06 AM

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

31

Funding Needs To Be Fair

APPENDIX B: 9D’s Observation Template

32

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

Emotions in particular contexts

FEELINGS

What actors are attempting to accomplish

GOALS

The sequence of events

TIME

Particular occasions, e.g. meetings

EVENTS

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

33

Funding Needs To Be Fair

APPENDIX C: Intercept Interview Questionnaire

"5& *.& 0$"5*0/ /5&3$&15 /5&37*&8 $3*15 * .: /".& *4 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ". " (3"%6"5& 456%&/5 "5 /*7&34*5: */ 5)& 53"5&(*$ 03&4*()5 "/% //07"5*0/ 30+&$5 & "3& $0/%6$5*/( " 3&4&"3$) 130+&$5 50 %&5&3.*/& 5)& 16#-*$;4 50-&3"/$& '03 "-5&3/"5*7& '6/%*/( .0%&-4 '03 5)& 3& :06 8*--*/( 50 5",& '*7& .*/65&4 50 "/48&3 " '&8 26&45*0/4 06 $"/ 015 065 "5 "/:5*.& &4 !!!!

0 !!!!

*% :06 5",& 53"/4*5 50 (&5 50 803, 5)*4 .03/*/( &4 !!!!

0 !!!!

08 ."/: 53*14 1&3 8&&, !!!!! 5*.&4 8&&, !!!!! 5)&3 &7&3 / %":4 8)&/ :06 %0/;5 64& 53"/4*5 50 (&5 50 803, 8)"5 %0 :06 %0 06 $"/ $)004& .03& 5)"/ 0/& 015*0/ "-, !!!!

*,& !!!!

3*7& !!!!

"9* !!!!!

5)&3 !!!!

0 :06 )"7& " .0/5)-: 1"44 &4 !!!!

0 !!!!

0 :06 '&&- 5)"5 " '"3& *4 00 -08 !!!!

645 3*()5 !!!!

00 )*() !!!!

0/;5 ,/08 !!!!

34

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

+ 4+0 , 4 ,-+,"-/4 / 3". &* /%" &/4 +# +-+*/+ ". + +*5/ '*+2

$+ /+ .0,,+-/ /%" % / &# /+(! 4+0 &/ 2 .

2% / !+ 4+0 /%&*' &/ .%+0(! " + 4+0 #""( /% / 0.&*"..". &* +-+*/+ % 1" -".,+*.& &(&/4 /+ ,-+1&!" #0*!&*$ /+ /%" ". + +*5/ '*+2 %& % +# /%" #+((+2&*$ -" . !+ 4+0 #""( /% / /%" *""!. /+ &),-+1"

0./+)"- ."-1& "

"..& &(&/4

+-" -+0/".

),-+1"! 1"%& (" ) &*/"* * "

+-" 1"%& (".

+*" +# /%" +1"

(" *"- ./ /&+*. *! ./+,.

(( +# /%" +1"

. % 1&*$ 2+-(! ( .. /- *.&/ .4./") &* +-+*/+ &),+-/ */ /+ 4+0 ". + +*5/ '*+2

+2 )0 % 2+0(! 4+0 " 2&((&*$ /+ , 4 ,"- 4" - /+ % 1" 2+-(! ( .. /- *.&/ .4./") &* +-+*/+ +* /+, +# 4+0- / 3". # /%" *""!"! /+ - &." )+-" )+*"4 /+ &),-+1" ."-1& ". &* (0!&*$ 4+0 - /%"- * -" ." # -"

+-,+- /" / 3

* -" ." ,-+,"-/4 / 3".

"!"- ( #0*!&*$

!"!& /"! /- *.&/ / 3

"..& &(&/4 2+0(!

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

35

Funding Needs To Be Fair

36

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

APPENDIX D: Expert Interview Guide (Aide Memoir) &

& $" &.% $ & ) & +"' . &" %& $& " ( $+ ! $ + ! +"' & && & "'& +"'$ $"

$ +"' & ( + !(" ( ) & &$" !* $ !% & &+ & %# + "$ !+ "& $ &$ !% & $ & $"'#%

! +"'$ "# ! "! ) & $ & + $$ $% &" & %' %% ' # !& & "! " !+ #$"#"% &$ !% & # !

& $ +"'$ & "' &% "! & '$$ !& '! ! " % ! "!% $ + &$" !* &" '! "(

" +"' & ! & & '% ! %% % % "' # + $" ! '! ! !+ #$"#"% &$ !% & # !

$ & $ '! ! " % & & +"' ( % ! )"$ ! "& $ ! '%&$ % & & +"' & ! & '% %' %% ' + + &$" !*

") ( ' "!" + ! %" + % & &" & &+ " "$"!&" &" ( )"$ %% &$ !% & %+%& !( & & !& $( ) &" ! ) & ,)"$ %%- !% "$ "$"!&"

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

37

Funding Needs To Be Fair

38

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

39

Funding Needs To Be Fair

Matti – Expert Interview

Thursday, April 4th, 1:00pm (need to confirm) Karen notes A bit about your role?

- teach urban planning and geography at U of T - focus on large scale infrastructure projects - social infrastructure, the whole spectrum of public instrastructure - the interface between public & private - Infrastructure Ontario/AFPs (alternative finance & procurement – a new mechanism for funding) - he has spoken at Metrolinx events recently on public/private funding - other sectors have used this format more [in the past] than transportation - there is a history of large infrastructure projects going over budget - PPPs – were originally a way to keep debt off the government books (in Europe) - there were politics around the accounting of PPPs - the ideological arguments have been largely debunked - the WHY PPPs conversation is now focused mainly on risk What are the key barriers?

- the cost of administration on these kinds of projects is not cheap - 3-4% on the gov’t side (of the total) - plus private admin costs - PPPs – are not around new money - the private sector will finance IF they get a return on their investment - (I had 70 cents on the dollar written down but without the context) - there is a large public benefit but not a good return on investment - private sector will finance BUT NOT fund Role of business in funding transit?

The suite of ‘Big Ones’ (large funding options) - gas tax =$1B - Parking Stall tax = $1B - Road tolls = $1B - Property taxes - Sales tax - Payroll tax – business is taxed if they are close to a transit hub - it’s an exciting time for Metrolinx - “needs an adult conversation” - How are we going to pay for it?

- Metrolinx needs $2B a year for the next 25 years (capital only) - make that $3B a year = $75B over 25 years - where does that kind of money come from?

- efficiencies? Not enough?

- “revenue tools” – new taxes - small tools (dev tools & density) will raise some money but not enough 40

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

- advertising? Yes – but too small - casino? $100m a year = not enough How valuable is it to the city of Toronto?

- there is a theme around ‘fairness’ - this is going to impact everyone in society - rich/poor/across geographic regions - what are the incentives?

- ie. How would a parking stall tax fly in the suburbs? Or a Payroll tax for downtown business? Would they leave the city and then increase congestion?

- we should speak with Ian Slack (regarding $) - equity vs. equality - also concern about how raising fares would hit low socio-econ groups & those that need transit the most - Matti likes the parking tax (simple but controversial) + regional sales tax (everyone pays, pure revenue) - also need to consider how difficult a new tax would be to collect, ie. Setting up road tolls is expensive and requires new equipment - some agrue that congestion is the sign of a healthy city - need to mitigate congestion with alternative type of movement - congestion is a product of everyone wanting to be in the same place at the same time - the question of how to change the experience of congestion - the quickest way to fix congestion is to crash the economy - there’s no magic bullet - the current list [of funding tools] is a compilation of what other systems have done - the true costs of the choices we all make are not very transparent - the money only comes from one place - there’s no hidden pot of money - need to keep equity and geography in mind - need a sense of fairness - in some points of the region, transit is not an option - suburbs used to be the place rich people went to flee the city - it’s the opposite now, those that can’t afford to live in the city move out, to areas that don’t have access to transit - Social Impact Bonds are a model of PPPs but for social services - ‘hit the blue sky’ – it’s hard to quantify ‘savings’ - how do you measure [success/results] in a very complex system?

- a parking stall levy on a large lot could lead to positive change = develop the land where the lot is/ change your land use to have a more positive impact on the community vs. supporting the car

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

41

Funding Needs To Be Fair

APPENDIX E: Expert Interview Audio Taping Release Form

! +"( "% ' ! ' ' '" ' * ' (& & # %' " ' &' %& " '% ' "% & ' ! !!") ' "! #%" % ' ! ) %& '+ * % "! ( ' ! % & % #%" ' %"(! ) (! ! " & "% '% !&#"%' ' "! ! ' '+ " "%"!'" ' +"(% "!& !' * *"( '" ( " % "% ' & !' %) * & % "% ! * (& "% % & % #(%#"& & "! + ! * !"' (& " % +

% '" ) ' & !' %) * ( " % "% "% % & % #(%#"& &

% ' ' + " !'& ! "% % ' $("' & ! (& ! #% & !' ' "!& % #"%'& "% !+ "' % "(%& ) % & ' ' % % ' + % ' '" ' #%" % *"% & % ")

' ! '(%

42

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

43

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Funding Needs To Be Fair

Audio Taping Release Form Thank you for taking the time to meet with us. As part of the Masters of Strategic Foresight and Innovation program at OCAD University we are conducting a research project around viable funding models for transportation in the City of Toronto.

With your consent we would like to audio record this interview. This recording will be used for research purposes only and will not be used commercially.

Please check one or both of the statements below: I agree to have this interview audio-recorded for research purposes.

I agree that my comments and/or direct quotes can be used in presentations, reports, or any other course deliverables that are directly related to the program work described above.

Name: __________________________________ Date: ___________________________________ Signature: _______________________________

44

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

#$ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! # ! ! ! ! ! ! # ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

%&

,&%

!" ! & ( ) " * ' + , !# !! !& !( !) !" !* !' !+ !, &# &! && &( &) &"

/01 -./0-1/ 2/34-5 64 789

%

$,. '$"* * !) !

#% " ' " " !& !# " * " " !) !# !# !! * " & * !# ! !) !# !# !# "

(*%

.

#&'$ # ! ! # # # # # ! ! # ! # ! ! # # ! ! # # # # # #

&)%

*

#&'% ! # # # # ! # # # # # # # # # # # # # ! ! # ! # !

)+%

$%

#&'& ! # ! ! # ! ! ! # # # ! ! # ! # ! # # # # ! # ! #

)%

$

#&'( # # # # # # # # # # # ! # # # # # # # # # # # # #

+%

%

#&') # # # # ! # # # # # ! # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

"&%

$&

#( ! ! # # ! # ! # # # ! ! # # # ! ! # ! # # ! ! ! !

#%

2

#)'$ # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

)+%

$%

#)'% ! # # ! ! # # # # ! ! # # # ! # # ! ! ! # ! ! # !

)+%

$%

#)'& # ! ! # # ! ! ! ! # # ! # ! # ! ! # # # ! # # ! #

)%

$

#)'( # # # # # # # # # # # # ! # # # # # # # # # # # #

)#%

$2

#*'$ # # ! # # # # # # # # ! # # ! # ! ! ! # ! ! ! # !

&)%

*

#*'% ! # # ! ! # # # # # ! # # # # ! # # # # # # # # !

(*%

.

#*'& # ! # # # ! ! ! ! ! # # ! # # # # # # ! # # # ! #

(&%

,

#+'$ # # ! # # # # # ! ! # ! # # ! # ! ! ! # # # # # #

"*%

$(

#+'% ! ! # ! ! ! # ! # # ! # # # # ! # # # ! ! ! ! ! !

!&%

&

#+'& # # # # # # ! # # # # # ! ! # # # # # # # # # # # !!$++% !#$##% &"$##% "$##%

"$##%

&"$##% !#$##%

!#$##%

!"$##% !#$##% !#$##% !&$"#% "$##% &#$##% !#$##%

#, !#$##%

!+$"#% &#$##% &"$##% !#$##%

!#$##% &#$##%

&#$##% &#$##%

&"$##%

&#$##%

&#$##%

&#$##% !#$##% &#$##%

#,-

'*%

$.

#.'$ ! # ! ! ! ! # ! ! # ! # # ! ! ! ! ! # ! ! ! ! ! !

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

APPENDIX F: Intercept Interview Aggregate Data

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

45

46

#.'& # # # # # # # # # ! # ! # # # # # # ! # # # # # #

&

!&%

#.'% # ! # # # # ! # # # # # ! # # # # # # # # # # # #

&

!&%

&)%

*

! ! !

!

!

!

!

)+%

$%

! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

#$2'%

#$2'$

(*%

.

! !

!

! !

!

! !

!

#$2'&

(&%

,

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

#$2'(

(*%

.

! ! !

!

! !

!

!

!

#$2')

)#%

$2

!

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

#$2'*

#%

2

#$2'+

!&%

&

!

!

#$2', !

:E54@6

P8JK8 >85385 B-04A

>85385; NO

:E54@6 C-D-5 >85385 :EA@89 >85385 L4/55-

B-04A C-D-5 F851;G851 H/9;I80J

#$$ :-3043 >85385 :85<0/-7

+#%

%2

#$%'$ ! ! ! # # ! ! ! # # ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! # ! ! ! ! ! !

!&%

&

#$%'% # # # ! ! # # # # # # # # # # # # # ! # # # # # #

+%

%

#$%'& # # # # # # # # ! ! # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ?&"$##;D/0;K/-0 !#% 38EQ7/;589 ?"#$## ?(##$##

!"% # ?(##$## ?!$##;D/0;M@J/< #

!#% &% ?!"##;D/0;K/-0

#$& !#;%;<-= ?!$##;45@0/-A/ # # # ?($"# B7EA;"#;@/5<A

&+%

!

! !

!

!

! !

#$('$ # #

+

&)%

!

! ! !

!

#$('% ! #

*

Funding Needs To Be Fair

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

)+%

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

#$('& ! #

$%

!

!

! !

(&%

!

!

#$('( ! #

,

! !

! !

!

&+%

#$(') # !

+

!

!

!

!

! !

"*%

!

!

$(

! ! !

!

!

*)%

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

#$('+ ! !

!

#$('* ! !

$*

!

! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!*%

!

#$(', #

(

!

!

!

#

45S80@/2/5<;8S;S-0/AT;U2-0<;@-03;AKA</2A

B08.;;SE53451

R8-3;P877;

#$('.

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

47

Funding Needs To Be Fair

APPENDIX G: Application for Ethical Review of Research Involving Human Participants

48

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

49

Funding Needs To Be Fair

50

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

51

Funding Needs To Be Fair

52

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

53

Funding Needs To Be Fair

54

SFIN 6C01: Innovation Research Methods Winter 2013

By Z. Ebrahim, D. Johnston-Jewell, K. Oikonen, P. Scott, & A. Starkman

Submitted to Professors Peter Jones & Suzanne Stein

55