FAQ – Frequently asked questions in addition to the mid-term review, phase 2
These frequently asked questions, prepared by the PIC research team, are intended to complement the mid-term review and answer questions that could not be included in the report.
There is a wide variety of topics covered at PIC—are there any topics that have generated more impact?
Overall, none of the five PIC themes stands out as more promising than the others. The benefits—organizational, civic, and systemic—are present in all themes, and the initiatives that offer the most benefits, taken together, cover a variety of topics.
That said, a few trends are emerging. Food initiatives tend to produce faster results in terms of access to resources for citizens. Conversely, initiatives in other areas often generate organizational benefits first, for example by improving practices or coordination between actors. As for infrastructure projects, the benefits related to access to resources generally take longer to materialize, but these initiatives contribute to the empowerment of citizens when their approach provides for active participation, particularly through consultation or co-construction processes.
Do the neighborhoods that participated in Phase 1 have greater benefits than those that joined the PIC in Phase 2?
Overall, yes. Of the ten neighborhoods with the most proven benefits, eight participated in Phase 1. The other two are neighborhoods that, although they joined the PIC later, already had a strong history of local collaboration. This confirms that long-term work promotes the emergence of multiple benefits.
However, there are exceptions: some neighborhoods that were involved from Phase 1 experienced challenges (staff turnover, less favorable context) that limited their benefits, sometimes to a lesser extent than those of neighborhoods that joined in Phase 2.
How has the PIC been beneficial for neighborhoods that have faced significant start-up challenges and have seen little impact?
Even though the start was difficult and the impact remains limited, the PIC has enabled progress to be made. Most of these neighborhoods have now moved on to the deployment stage and are beginning to identify and use various levers to move closer to the desired change.
These neighborhoods are often characterized by a less developed collective dynamic at the outset, particularly due to the characteristics of the area, a limited number of organizations operating there, or a weaker history of collaboration. In this context, the PIC has mainly contributed to strengthening the foundations for collective work: it has brought together actors who had never worked together before, fostered links between them, and better distributed roles and responsibilities among organizations to address issues collectively.
The PIC has helped to create a space in these neighborhoods for co-construction, the development of a shared vision, and the strengthening of ties. The actors are encouraged to make choices together, test new ways of doing things, and learn from their experiences. Thus, despite a late start, relationships are developing, collective dynamics are taking shape, and the conditions are being put in place to generate further benefits.
When we talk about an increase in inclusive practices compared to Phase 1, what does that mean and how does it translate into initiatives?
Citizen inclusion is now integrated and prioritized in all initiatives, marking a significant evolution from Phase 1 of the PIC.
Inclusion is part of the vision for change in most initiatives—whether it involves access to services, resources, housing, or community infrastructure—and is also a means of advancing that change. However, the ways in which it is defined and implemented vary greatly from one initiative to another.
In concrete terms, this progress is tangible in the ways residents are involved. In several neighborhoods, inclusion takes the form of consultations—for example, citizen assemblies or initiatives aimed at better understanding needs in order to adjust or develop actions. Elsewhere, it translates into increased participation in decision-making, particularly through advisory committees, decision-making forums, or the co-management of activities. Some initiatives go further by involving citizens in the actual implementation of actions. In a few neighborhoods, the commitment and contribution of individuals—particularly those who are marginalized—are recognized through financial compensation.
Does the PIC help reduce poverty? Is its impact sustainable?
Yes, the PIC contributes to reducing poverty, mainly by strengthening collective capacities for action: mobilizing actors around a common 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 (e.g., housing, education, food) and empower individuals and communities. For example, in the Northwest Island initiative, strengthening collaborations has provided direct access to resources for disaster victims, illustrating how inter-organizational links translate into concrete benefits for citizens.
The mid-term review shows organizational, civic, and systemic benefits. These are not yet sufficient to "move the needle" on a large scale, but they represent progress in line with the fight against poverty and social exclusion.
As for the sustainability of these changes, several achievements are encouraging—the creation of structures (e.g., community centers), the continuation of projects (Mercier-Est en réseau) or their transfer (L’escouade salubrité de Côte-des-Neiges), as well as ongoing relationships and collaborations. Certain practices, such as collective work toward a specific change, which were uncommon at the beginning of the PIC, are now integrated and considered a given in several neighborhoods. Other changes remain fragile in the face of external factors (loss of resources, crises, political changes). Sustainable poverty reduction is a complex process influenced by many factors. The PIC contributes to this, but it is only one player among many in a larger ecosystem.
Do collective initiatives have a greater impact than those carried out by a single organization?
The lessons learned from the PIC indicate that collaboration brings tangible added value to poverty reduction efforts. Working collectively makes it possible to pool resources, share observations and expertise, and improve coordination between actors.
In several neighborhoods, this approach has made it possible to address complex issues in a more coordinated manner. For organizations, these practices reduce duplication of effort, facilitate more consistent support for individuals, and contribute to more structured actions than any one organization could accomplish alone. This improved coordination also translates into tangible benefits for citizens. It makes it possible to offer better-aligned services, provide more comprehensive care and support in often complex situations, and strengthen the continuity of accessible services. In Pointe-aux-Trembles–Montréal-Est, for example, sharing observations between organizations has improved the adjustment of interventions, reduced overlap, and ensured more consistent follow-up with residents of community housing.
Collaboration also makes it possible to take action on several levels simultaneously: mobilizing citizens, adjusting practices between organizations, strengthening partnerships with institutions, and, in some cases, influencing public decisions. Initiatives such as the Peter-McGill wellness brigades or the mobilization around the Bellechasse site show that collective action can produce broader, better coordinated, and more sustainable change. These examples illustrate how concerted efforts can broaden the scope of interventions and support transformations that exceed the capacity of a single organization.
Was extending PIC funding to all neighborhoods in Phase 2 relevant, or was it just "spreading the money around"?
Extending funding to all Montreal neighborhoods is not a case of "spreading resources too thinly." Phase 2 opened funding to 32 neighborhoods, compared to 17 in Phase 1, five of which received intensive support. Contrary to the idea of dispersion, the amounts remain substantial: in Phase 1, the average was approximately $1 million per neighborhood, with significant variations depending on the level of intensity. In Phase 2, the average funding is around $700,000. Eight neighborhoods saw their funding decrease—mainly those that received intensive funding—while nine saw an increase, and fourteen neighborhoods received support for the first time. This is a redistribution, not a dilution. The assessment also shows that all neighborhoods strengthened their capacity to act, and more than three-quarters generated impacts at all three levels (citizen, organizational, ecosystemic) by the midway point. This confirms the relevance of broad support (see also the question on neighborhoods with fewer impacts).
Funding all neighborhoods is primarily a matter of territorial equity. Collective capacity to act is never a given: it varies according to staff turnover, pressure on organizations, and changes in local social issues. Phase 2 therefore established funding ranges based on objective criteria—twelve indicators of disadvantage and population size—in order to adjust the amounts according to the specific realities of each territory. This approach makes it possible to provide proportionate support to neighborhoods that, without this funding, would risk exacerbating pre-existing disparities or seeing their achievements weakened.
Not funding certain neighborhoods with high levels of deprivation or weaker capacity to act would be contrary to these principles and would compromise the consistency of the intervention. Conversely, concentrating resources solely in already "strong" neighborhoods would reduce the capacity for action in areas where needs remain significant, even though poverty and exclusion are issues that affect the entire city. The approach adopted in Phase 2—universal but differentiated funding—is therefore the most appropriate for supporting collective capacity for action everywhere, while allowing each neighborhood to direct resources toward the most pressing issues.
Is it still relevant for the PIC to maintain a broad thematic focus on combating poverty and social exclusion, or would a focus on specific themes be more appropriate?
Both approaches can be relevant, but they do not serve the same purpose. In certain contexts, a targeted thematic focus can be useful for stimulating action in areas that receive little investment or funding. This approach can also be attractive to funders, as it allows efforts to be concentrated on a single issue and demonstrates a transformative effect more clearly. However, in a context such as the community sector in Montreal—which is well structured and active on many issues—too narrow a focus may not respond to the diversity of local realities and needs.
In neighborhoods, stakeholders must respond to a multitude of issues and adjust their actions according to what is most pressing or mobilizing for their communities. Maintaining a broad thematic framework allows for this flexibility, in line with the PIC philosophy and the collective impact approach: starting with local needs, promoting mobilization, and adopting a position of trust toward organizations that understand their reality. This dynamic reverses the usual logic of funding: in the PIC, it is the communities that decide the priorities, not the donors. In cases where there is a desire to support an emerging or priority theme, this could complement the broad framework of the PIC, 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.