FAQ – Frequently asked questions in addition to the mid-term review, phase 2
This FAQ, prepared by the CIP research team, is intended as a supplement to the midterm review and provides answers to questions that could not be included in the report.
There is a wide diversity of thematic areas addressed through the CIP: have any themes generated more outcomes?
Overall, none of the CIP’s five thematic areas stands out as more promising than the others. The outcomes observed - whether organizational, citizen-level, or related to systemic change - are present across all themes, and the initiatives with the most outcomes, taken together, span multiple topics.
That said, a few trends emerge. Food‑related initiatives tend to produce citizen‑level outcomes related to access to resources quickest. Conversely, initiatives in the other themes often first generate organizational outcomes, for example by improving practices or coordination among stakeholders. As for infrastructure projects, outcomes related to access to resources generally materialize later, but these initiatives contribute to citizens’ empowerment when their approach involves active participation, notably through collective deliberation or co‑design processes.
Do the neighbourhoods that participated in Phase 1 show greater outcomes than those that joined the CIP in Phase 2?
Overall, yes. Among the ten neighbourhoods with the highest number of documented outcomes, eight participated from Phase 1. The other two are neighbourhoods that, although they joined CIP later, already benefited from a strong history of local collaboration. This confirms that long-term work fosters the emergence of multiple outcomes.
However, there are exceptions: some neighbourhoods present since Phase 1 encountered significant challenges, such as high staff turnover or a less favourable context during Phase 2. These factors limited their outcomes, sometimes below those observed in neighbourhoods that joined in Phase 2.
In what ways has the CIP been beneficial for neighbourhoods that faced major start up challenges and show few outcomes?
Even in neighbourhoods that encountered challenges in launching their initiative and where outcomes are still limited, the CIP has enabled important progress. Moreover, most of these neighbourhoods have now moved into the implementing phase and are beginning to identify and use different levers to move closer to the desired change.
These neighbourhoods are often characterized at the outset by a less present collective dynamic, notably due to territorial characteristics, a limited number of organizations in the area, or a weaker history of collaboration. In this context, the CIP has mainly helped strengthen the foundations of collective work: it has brought together stakeholders who had never worked together, fostered connections among them, and better distributed roles and responsibilities among organizations to address issues collectively.
The CIP has helped create, in these neighbourhoods, a space for co construction, the development of a shared vision, and the strengthening of relationships. Stakeholders are led to make choices together, test new ways of doing things, and draw learnings. Thus, despite a later start, things are taking shape: relationships are developing, the collective dynamic is strengthening, and conditions are gradually being put in place to generate more outcomes.
When we refer to an increase in inclusive practices, what does this mean, and how is it reflected in the initiatives?
Citizen inclusion is now embedded and prioritized across all initiatives, marking a significant evolution compared to CIP Phase 1.
Inclusion is part of the vision for change for most initiatives—whether in the context of access to services, resources, housing, or community infrastructure—and it is also a means of progressing toward that change. The ways it is defined and implemented, however, vary greatly from one initiative to another.
In practice, this progress is visible in how citizens are involved. In several neighbourhoods, inclusion takes the form of consultation—for example, citizens’ assemblies or processes to better understand needs in order to adjust or develop actions. Elsewhere, it means greater participation in decision-making, for example through advisory committees, decision-making spaces, or the co-management of activities. Some initiatives go further by integrating citizens into the implementation of the actions themselves. In a few neighbourhoods, the engagement and contributions of people—particularly those experiencing marginalization—are recognized with financial compensation.
Does the CIP help reduce poverty? If so, are its effects lasting?
Yes, the CIP helps reduce poverty, primarily by strengthening collective capacities to act—mobilizing stakeholders around a shared vision, structuring collaborations, and adjusting practices through experimentation and learning. These adjustments are not an end in themselves; they directly improve citizens’ access to resources (for example, housing, education, and food) and strengthen the agency of individuals and communities. For example, in the Nord de l’Ouest de l’Île initiative, strengthened collaborations made it possible to provide direct access to resources for people affected by disasters, illustrating how inter organizational ties translate into concrete outcomes for citizens.
The midterm review shows outcomes at multiple levels: organizations, citizens, and systemic change. These neighbourhood level outcomes are not yet sufficient to “move the needle” at a large scale, but they represent progress toward the intended changes, all linked to the fight against poverty and social exclusion.
Regarding the sustainability of these changes, several gains are encouraging—the creation of community infrastructure (e.g., community centres), projects made permanent and/or transferred (Mercier Est en réseau and the Escouade salubrité in Côte des Neiges), and relationships and collaborations that endure. Some practices—such as collective work around a targeted change, uncommon at the start of the CIP—are now embedded and considered a given in several neighbourhoods. Other changes remain fragile in the face of external factors (loss of resources, crises, political changes). The sustainable reduction of poverty is a complex process influenced by many factors. The CIP contributes to it, but it is only one actor among others in a broader ecosystem.
Do collective initiatives generate stronger outcomes than those led by a single organization?
What we have learned from the CIP suggests that collaboration brings clear, tangible added value in efforts to fight poverty. Working collectively makes it possible to pool resources, share observations and expertise, and strengthen coordination among stakeholders.
In many neighbourhoods, this approach has helped address complex issues in a more coordinated way. For organizations, it reduces duplication, supports more coherent assistance for people, and enables more structured action than a single organization could typically achieve on its own. That improved coordination also leads to concrete outcomes for citizens: services are better aligned, support can be more comprehensive in response to often complex situations, and continuity of accessible services is strengthened. In Pointe aux Trembles–Montréal-Est, for example, sharing observations among organizations improved how interventions were adjusted, reduced overlap, and ensured more coherent follow-up with citizens living in community housing.
Collaboration also makes it possible to act on several fronts at once: mobilizing citizens, adjusting practices across organizations, strengthening partnerships with institutions, and, in some cases, influencing public decisions. Initiatives such as the Peter-McGill brigade and the mobilization around the Bellechasse site show how collective approaches can generate change that is broader, better coordinated, and more lasting. These examples illustrate how coordinated efforts can extend the reach of interventions and support transformations that go beyond what a single organization can accomplish alone.
Has expanding the CIP’s funding to all neighbourhoods in Phase 2 been worthwhile, or has it spread resources too thin (“saupoudrage”)?
Expanding funding to all Montréal neighbourhoods is not a case of “spreading resources too thin.” Phase 2 opened funding to 32 neighbourhoods, compared with 17 in Phase 1, five of which received intensive support. Rather than being diluted, funding amounts remain substantial: in Phase 1, the average was about $1M per neighbourhood, with significant variation depending on intensity level. In Phase 2, average funding is around $700,000. Eight neighbourhoods saw their funding decrease—mainly those that were funded intensively—while nine saw an increase, and fourteen neighbourhoods received support for the first time. In other words, funding was redistributed, not diluted. The midterm review also shows that all neighbourhoods strengthened their capacity to act, and more than three quarters generated outcomes at all three levels (citizen, organizational, systemic) by midterm. This confirms the relevance of broad support (see also the question on neighbourhoods with fewer outcomes).
Funding all neighbourhoods is first and foremost a matter of territorial equity. Collective capacity to act is never guaranteed: it varies with staff turnover, pressure on organizations, and shifts in local social issues. Phase 2 therefore set funding ranges based on objective criteria - twelve indicators of socio-economic disadvantage and population size - to adjust amounts to each territory’s realities. This approach makes it possible to support neighbourhoods proportionately that, without this funding, would risk widening pre existing gaps or seeing gains weakened.
Not funding certain neighbourhoods with high levels of socio-economic disadvantage or lower capacity to act would run counter to these principles and undermine the coherence of the intervention. Conversely, concentrating resources only in already “strong” neighbourhoods would reduce capacity to act in areas where needs remain significant, even though poverty and exclusion are citywide issues. The approach adopted in Phase 2—universal, but differentiated, funding—is therefore the most relevant for supporting collective capacity to act across the city, while allowing each neighbourhood to direct resources toward its most pressing issues.
Should the CIP continue with a broad focus on fighting poverty and social exclusion, or would a more targeted thematic focus be more appropriate?
Both approaches can make sense, but they serve different purposes. In some contexts, a targeted thematic focus can help spur action in areas that are under invested or under funded. It can also appeal to funders, since concentrating efforts on a single issue can make transformative effects easier to demonstrate. However, in a context like Montréal’s community sector - well structured and active on many issues - too narrow a focus risks missing the diversity of local realities and needs.
In neighbourhoods, stakeholders must respond to multiple issues and adapt their work to what is most pressing or most likely to mobilize their communities. Maintaining a broad focus preserves that room for manoeuvre on the ground, in line with the CIP’s philosophy and the collective impact approach: starting from local needs, supporting mobilization, adopting a trust based approach that recognizes organizations’ deep knowledge of their own realities. This also reverses the usual funding logic: in the CIP, communities set priorities—not funders. When there is a desire to support an emerging or priority theme, it can be added alongside the CIP’s broad focus, without replacing it.
Does the PIC help to counter polarization?
The PIC was not designed to combat polarization, but its key practices create conditions conducive to dialogue and understanding between actors with different perspectives.
Initiatives bring together organizations, institutions, citizens (and sometimes private actors) around common concerns (homelessness, cohabitation, or management of public spaces). Working together brings people with different experiences and values to come to terms with disagreements and listen to each other in order to serve a collective goal that transcends individual interests. Awareness-raising and mobilization efforts help reduce the stigmatization of marginalized groups and counteract "not in my backyard" reactions. These practices foster more constructive exchanges and help maintain ties in a context where they can easily become fragile.
The PIC's governance spaces also strengthen the capacity for dialogue. They bring together actors with sometimes divergent roles, interests, and perspectives, who must nevertheless analyze complex issues together, adjust priorities, and make decisions together. These forums act as places where disagreements can be worked through rather than exacerbated in silos. They also help build relationships and trust between organizations and communities. The relational capital developed in this way—the ability to continue talking despite differing points of view—is an important asset in efforts to counter polarization.