Representatives from Emergency Management B.C. (EMBC) and the British Columbia Search and Rescue Association (BCSARA) are continuing discussions on the Alternative Funding Model for Search and Rescue in B.C. proposal. The model proposed is a major shift designed to provide adequate and sustainable funding to SAR volunteer groups, while reducing administrative workloads for volunteers and government staff.
A meeting on February 13th 2014 resulted in an plan to engage additional expertise on how the conceptual model would work within the Provincial government fiscal structure, meeting with Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch on how the Search and Rescue Foundation of B.C. would align with their regulations, and seeking information from the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation which is similar in structure to the conceptual model. Meetings will continue every 2 weeks with updates provided to the SAR community and agencies. A series of on-line presentations on the model for SAR Groups and volunteers will be developed, as well a email address provided for questions and answers.
Jim McAllister
Director at Large
BCSARA
Funding model discussion paper attached for reference
Thanks for the update. Is there anything the public can do to learn about the model? I think that engaging with user groups & tax payers early in the process will help to ensure success.
Great point A hiker. We will look at posting the discussion paper, which provides the background and explanation of the model, to the public area of the BCSARA website and include a link in updates. Thanks much!
Hopefully this isn’t the questionable bandaid of BCSARA managing gaming funds? Would love to see discussions about a line budget sufficient to support SAR team costs based on number of calls and infrastructure/capital costs.
Redistribution is not going to fix the problem of below adequate funding province wide.
Number of calls shouldn’t dictate funding. SAR groups are already compensated for calls and typically the busier groups are located in larger catchment areas allowing for multiple fundraising options. The smaller rural halls are struggling to maintain readiness with minimal opportunities to sustain themselves without government funding.
Hi Darren.
Tried to leave a response awhile ago, didn’t take… probably this lundite hit the wrong button.
One of the major benefits of the proposed model is that at the start of each year every recognized SAR group in the province could receive funding to cover such costs as insurance and licenses, which will address the cash flow issue while waiting for response reimbursement to start. A formula will have to be developed in consultation with all SAR groups, once that is in place SAR groups know what they will get each year. While the proposal does include some increases to funding, the model is also designed to ease the administrative burden for SAR groups, and the uncertainty of year to year funding. Hope this helps.
Jim
Darren, that’s why this is a bandaid approach. I agree that need must be part of the formula too. Redistribution doesn’t fix the problem, it just places a greater burden on some teams to fundraise. What we need is a bigger pot that can be distributed fairly.
Redistribution is neither sustainable or predictable. Looking forward to hearing how this will be addressed.
Curtis, there’s no mention of redistribution in the discussion paper
There is an explicit recommendation to increase funding for SAR by over 1.5 million dollars, an 18% increase (see page 12).
An increased level of funding, a lower workload to access the funds, possibly even a guaranteed yearly grant without the requirement for paperwork, and people knowledgeable in SAR to manage the foundation – this is a marked improvement over the current system which is opaque, and we’re never sure why certain decisions are made.
This seems to meet all of the requirements to be called “sustainable” to me.
Thanks Jim. The discussion paper floated many ideas so I wasn’t sure if there were more details available about which specific approaches were being pursued.
Whatever you do, I encourage you to think BIG. SAR teams provide an incredibly valuable service to the province and anything less than $30,000,000/year is probably still an amazing deal for the people of BC.
The benefits of well supported volunteer SAR teams can be quantified in a few ways:
– It’s not an option for people to die in the woods when they have a broken leg. As pointed out in the paper, if volunteers were not providing the SAR service, the cost of a paid force could be $20,000,000 to $50,000,000.
– If it wasn’t for SAR, fewer people would be willing to venture into the outdoors. Although it’s hard to quantify, that would have a ripple effect on our health care system (obesity, etc.) This may be the largest benefit of a SAR system.
– A highly functional SAR system is essential for supporting tourism.
I’d like to see something like this:
– A new act is passed that is similar to the Health Special Account Act and it establishes a $20,000,000/year “SAR and Outdoor Activity Promotion Fund” from the gaming revenue.
– Each year, SAR expenses would be covered first.
– At the end of the year, the remainder of the funding would be allocated to activities that help to promote the safe use of the backcountry (avalanche education, trail building/marking, etc.)
$20 million sounds like a lot but it’s a drop in the bucket when you consider the cost of the alternatives (paid SAR teams,) and when you consider all of the direct and indirect (health of the population, tourism, etc.) benefits of a highly functional system.
Best of luck!
Thanks for the clarification and for all the hard work that has been put into this. For our SAR group the challenge has been less about the amount of money we receive but instead the restrictions attached to it. The inability to create a replacement reserve fund leaves our assets (Hall) extremely vulnerable. BC Housing funding in dispersed with a requirement that a percentage be put into a separate replacement reserve account for big ticket items – like a new roof, or other capital expenditures. This sort of reshaping of the funding model is very important for our sustainability.
Again, my respect and gratitude for the work you are doing beyond your own SAR group.
Darren
[…] came to present on various topics such as the provincial Swiftwater NIF grant, the BCSARA proposed Alternate Funding Model , the SAR Safety matrix NIF project, and other topics of interest for the BCSAR […]