Evaluation of Grants and Contributions Programs

Evaluation Report

File#: 394-2-87

Evaluation of Grants and Contributions Programs

Evaluation Division
Policy Sector
March 2011

Acknowledgements

The evaluation team would like to thank all who participated and provided their views on CSC’s Grants and Contributions Programs. The team would like to recognize and thank the staff of CSC’s Resource Management Branch, specifically Financial Strategies and Analysis, for providing information and reports and for their patience. We would also like to express our appreciation to Cara Dowden and Brittany MacDonald for their support in creating this document.

Evaluation Team

Bernard Marquis
Director, Evaluation

Bertha May
Evaluation Officer

Elizabeth Loree
Junior Evaluator

Kossi Aziaba
Junior Evaluator

Signatures

Lisa Hardey
Acting Associate Assistant Commissioner
Policy Sector

Date

Dr. Pamela M. Yates
Director General, Evaluation Branch
Policy Sector

Date

Executive Summary

Introduction

As part of Correctional Service of Canada’s (CSC) 2009-2014 Evaluation Plan (CSC, 2009a), the CSC Grants and Contributions Programs (G and C Programs) evaluation began in August 2010. The evaluation examined CSC’s National Reintegration Assistance Class Contribution Program (NRACP), the National Aboriginal Reintegration Assistance Class Contribution Program (NARACP) and CSC’s grants. The evaluation strategy explored the issues of relevance and performance (including effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the G and C Programs as per Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s Policy on Evaluation (TBS, 2009).
The result of the examination is the following list of findings and subsequent recommendations.

List of Findings

Finding 1: CSC’s Grants and Contributions Programs addressed the ongoing needs of Canadian communities by providing funding opportunities to assist with offender reintegration. These programs complemented CSC’s mandate and reduced the gap between CSC operations and the communities’ needs.

Finding 2: The goals and objectives of the Grants and Contributions Programs are consistent with CSC’s mission and the programs’ objectives support CSC and federal government priorities.

Finding 3: Although CSC’s Grants and Contributions Programs have realized their expected outcomes, some outcomes of the funded projects have not been achieved.

Finding 4: Funded community events and projects contributed to the overall achievement of Grants and Contributions Programs.

Finding 5: While the grants functioned as anticipated, there was inconsistency in the class contribution program application process.

Finding 6: The National Contribution Program Committee (NCPC) members work well together; however, the NCPC Secretariat's roles and responsibilities were not well-defined.

Finding 7: There was confusion and a lack of information regarding NCPC’s communications with the class contribution program applicants.

Finding 8: The Class Contribution Program logic model and performance measurement strategy have become outdated.

Finding 9: There was inconsistency in the information contained in the submitted applications from communities and organizations.

Finding 10: There was limited training available for CSC staff regarding grants and contributions.

Finding 11: Grant funding was consistent and based on the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); however, the class contribution program lacked sufficient funding and required additional resources from CSC operations and maintenance funds to meet the demand.

Finding 12: There was uneven regional distribution of class contribution funding with the majority of funded projects located at CSC’s National Headquarters.

Finding 13: Financial information in the contribution administrative files was limited. Where financial information was available, delays in processing payments were noted.

List of Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The roles and responsibilities of the NCPC members require clarification and should be formally documented.

Recommendation 2: A performance measurement strategy should be developed to help support the reporting process for G and C Programs.

Recommendation 3: CSC should formulate a communications strategy for program applicants that includes standardised application procedures (program forms, checklists and templates) and should establish a training plan for CSC staff.

Recommendation 4: In order to increase the efficiency of the grants and contributions programs, CSC should examine ways to reduce the costs associated with delivering these programs to ensure demonstration of results.

List of Acronyms

CCRA
Corrections and Conditional Release Act
CFA
Community Forum Program
CSC
Correctional Service Canada
EXCOM
Executive Committee
G and C
Grants and Contributions Programs
MOA
Memorandum of Agreement
NARACP
National Aboriginal Reintegration Assistance Class Contribution Program
NCPC
National Contribution Program Committee
NHQ
National Headquarters
NRACP
National Reintegration Assistance Class Contribution Program (to 2010)
NRACCP
National Reintegration Assistance Class Contribution Program (2010 and onward)
OPI
Office of Primary Interest
PS
Public Safety Canada
RMAF
Results-based Management Accountability Framework
RPC
Regional Psychiatric Centre (Prairies)
SPAC
Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections
TBS
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

Introduction

As part of Correctional Service of Canada’s (CSC) 2009-2014 Evaluation Plan, the Grants and Contributions Programs (G and C Programs) evaluation began in August 2010. The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s (TBS, 2009) Policy on Evaluation. The evaluation examined the continued relevance of the G and C Programs and how they align with CSC and federal government priorities, roles and responsibilities, and performance (including effectiveness, efficiency and economy). The results, provided below, will enable senior management to make strategic policy and investment decisions regarding CSC’s G and C Programs.

Background

Between 2005-06 and 2009-10, CSC managed two class contribution programs:

  1. the National Reintegration Assistance Class Contribution Program (NRACP); and
  2. the National Aboriginal Reintegration Assistance Class Contribution Program (NARACP).

In addition, CSC managed four grants that provided funding to community-based and educational institutions.

The NRACP and the NARACP provided services to offenders while engaging and fostering community participation in CSC reintegration practices.  Both the NRACP and the NARACP provided conditional funding to assist with:

  • Building relationships between offenders, their families and their communities;
  • Supporting community participation and enhancing community volunteerism in the correctional process; and,
  • Creating public awareness of how CSC delivers services.

Eligibility for NRACP funding included multiple levels of government (provincial, territorial, municipal), educational and religious organizations, and private and not-for-profit organizations. The recipients of the NARACP funding were specifically required to be an Aboriginal community or organization.

Over the last five years, CSC has funded four grants:

  • University of Saskatchewan Psychiatric Residency Seat;
  • University of Saskatchewan Chair in Forensic Psychology;
  • Aboriginal Communities for Aboriginal Correctional Programs and Services; and,
  • Penitentiary Inmates Accident Compensation.

CSC’s grants and contributions funding represents approximately 0.46% of CSC’s total Departmental Performance Report spending for 2009-2010. This calculation was based on $876,946 of actual expenditures.

The Terms and Conditions for CSC’s two class contributions programs expired on March 31, 2010. In anticipation, CSC developed a proposal combining the NRACP and NARACP programs into one program; the National Reintegration Assistance Class Contribution Program (NRACCP). In August 2010, the proposal was approved and the new NRACCP had begun operation at the time of this evaluation.

This summative evaluation was conducted in accordance with Section 42.1 of the Financial Administrative Act (1985). CSC’s class contribution programs were evaluated in 2004 and were audited twice between 2001 and 2005. In 2009, CSC performed a management review of contribution recipients in lieu of an evaluation.

CSC grants were combined with the class contribution programs regarding program activities, outputs and outcomes. The grants were distributed based on a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between CSC and the recipient. The MOA was renewed every five years, with the latest MOA signed on October 2009 and effective until March 31, 2014. The intent of the grants was to create an opportunity to provide training and conduct research projects in order to further the interests of CSC.

Governance Structure

CSC is an agency within the Department of Public Safety Canada (PS) portfolio. There are five agencies and three review bodies within the PS portfolio, all of which report to the same minister. The result is better integration among federal organizations dealing with national security, emergency management, law enforcement, corrections, crime prevention and borders (Public Safety Canada [PS], 2011). Together, these responsibilities give greater focus and priority to issues of public safety, specifically to the prevention of, and coordinated national responses to, threats of terrorism, national disasters and crime.

The legislative framework for corrections and conditional release is the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA, 1992). CSC must also abide by numerous other acts, regulations, policies and international conventions in the delivery of its services
(CSC, 2006).

The initial NRACP program began in 1981 and was amended in 1991, 1997, and 2000. The NARACP program was initiated in 1999 and amended in 2000. CSC now had the authority to enter into contribution agreements. As shown in Figure 1, the approval process for CSC’s class contributions began with the submission of an application from eligible organizations, followed by a recommendation for approval by the National Contribution Program Committee (NCPC) and concluded by approval from CSC’s Executive Committee (EXCOM).

Figure 1 : Application Approval Process

Figure 1 : Application Approval Process

Source: CSC Corporate Reporting System (2010).

This figure demonstrates the Application Approval Process for CSC class contributions.

It is represented by a horizontal flowchart, which is made up of a series of boxes connected by upward pointing arrows. The boxes start at the bottom of the diagram and progresses to the top.

At the bottom it reads as follows:

  • Applications are completed by multiple levels of government, educational and religious organizations, private and not-for-profit organizations, Aboriginal communities and organizations.

An arrow pointing upward is labelled:

  • The applications are submitted to CSC Regional Offices

The next level lists the Regional Offices, which are:

  • Atlantic
  • Quebec
  • Ontario
  • Prairies
  • Pacific
  • National Head Quarters

Above is an arrow pointing upwards to the next level and is labelled:

  • Regional Deputy commissioners’ and Assistant Commissioners’ recommendations are submitted to NHQ.

The next level is the National Contribution Program Committee

An arrow points up to the next level, which is EXCOM.

An arrow points up to the top level, which is the Commissioner.

A call for applications was sent by the NCPC at least once per year to CSC’s Regional Deputy Commissioners and National Headquarters (NHQ) Assistant Deputy Commissioners. If funds remained after the first call for applications, subsequent calls for applications were made throughout the year until all annual funding allocations were committed.

Applications were then submitted to Regional Assistant Deputy Commissioners for review.  The Regional Assistant Deputy Commissioners assessed the applications to ensure they met eligibility and program criteria. If the eligible project met the criteria, it was then forwarded to the NCPC for support, and recommendations were submitted to EXCOM for approval.

The NCPC consisted of representatives at the director level from various sectors, such as Corporate Services, Parliamentary Affairs and Public Relations, Correctional Operations and Programs, and Legal Services. Their purpose was to provide support and recommendations to EXCOM regarding CSC’s transfer payment resource allocations. Prior to early 2010, there were 13 NCPC members who determined the eligibility of approximately 50 applications per year, making this a highly resource-intensive program.Footnote 1 This could be alleviated through collaboration and partnerships with other federal departments.

NCPC meetings were not held on a regular basis but were called when deemed necessary to process applications. The NCPC analyzed the class contribution applications to ensure they met the program criteria and to clarify any questions they may have had regarding the information included in the application.

The recommended applications were then submitted to CSC’s EXCOM and Commissioner for approval.

Evaluation Strategy

The evaluation strategy explored the issues of relevance and performance (including effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the class contribution programs as per TBS’s Policy on Evaluation. The evaluation questions, indicators, and sources of data are listed in Appendix A.

The purpose of this evaluation was to identify lessons learned and best practices from concluded NRACP and NARACP programs in order to provide senior management with tools to implement the new NRACCP and with information for purposes of decision-making with respect to G and C Programs. As well, the evaluation examined CSC’s grants to assess the program’s relevance and performance in order to provide recommendations to senior management regarding improving program delivery.

Methodology

The evaluation used multiple lines of evidence including qualitative and quantitative data to address the evaluation questions. Lines of evidence included the following:

Document and File Review

The documents collected and analyzed for this evaluation included: TBS submissions, reports, Acts and Policies; CSC’s Report on Plans and Priorities, Program Activity Architecture, Internal Audit reports, and Commissioner’s Directives; recipient applications, contribution agreements and final reports; and, other federal government evaluation reports. A complete list of the documents used in this evaluation is provided in the list of references.

In total, 59 NCPC files, applicant files, and recipient files opened between 2005 and 2010 were reviewed and data were collected from the documents contained in the files.

Additionally, CSC’s Infonet, federal government policy documents, and national and international websites related to grants and contributions were analyzed. An environmental scan examining national and international contribution and grant programs was prepared and used to support the findings and recommendations in this report.

Key Informant Interviews

Interviews with key informants were conducted in October and November 2010 and January 2011, which provided a qualitative view of the impact and success of the programs. A total of 31 interviews were conducted: 16 (51%) with CSC staff, 12 (39%) with contribution recipients from 2009-10, and 3 (10%) with grant recipients.

Over the examined five-year period (2005-2010), there was a total of 59 class contribution recipients and four grant recipients. Due to the small number of key informants, interviews rather than surveys were deemed the best method to collect these data.Footnote 2

Database Analysis

The evaluation team received information from CSC’s Corporate Services Resource Allocation Model regarding financial details and actual expenditures of the grants and class contributions between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. Partial data from 2010-2011 were also utilized in this report.

Limitations

The key informant interview list was specifically limited to recipients who received funding in 2009-2010. The rationale for this limitation was due to the expectation that the most relevant information would be received from those who most recently received funding.

Other limitations associated with the administration of the G and C Programs are discussed throughout the report where applicable.

Key Findings

Evaluation Objective: Program Relevance

The extent to which the program continues to address a demonstrable need and is responsive to the need of Canadians; linkages between program objectives and federal government priorities and CSC strategic outcomes; and, the role and responsibilities for the federal government in delivering the program.

Finding 1: CSC’s Grants and Contributions Programs addressed the ongoing needs of Canadian communities by providing funding opportunities to assist with offender reintegration. These programs complemented CSC’s mandate and reduced the gap between CSC operations and the communities’ needs.

G and C Programs are regulated by TBS’s Policy on Transfer Payments (2008). According to this policy:

  • 3.2 Transfer payments represent a large part of the Government of Canada's spending. Their tangible results touch the lives of Canadians and others every day, and cover all sectors of society. Transfer payments include grants, contributions and other transfer payments including those made to other orders of government, international organizations and Aboriginal peoples.
  • 3.3 Transfer payments are one of the government's key instruments in furthering its broad policy objectives and priorities. They enable and engage a wide diversity of skills and resources outside the federal government that are well-placed to further Canadian aims, contribute to building a strong society and a competitive nation that is inclusive and respectful of Canadian values and Canada's linguistic duality.

In keeping with this policy, G and C Programs enhance CSC’s capacity to better engage Canadian communities and facilitate the involvement of a greater number of individuals and partners in the correctional process via transfer payments.

The safe transition to and management of eligible offenders in the community is one of CSC’s Corporate Priorities. On an average day in 2008-2009 CSC was responsible for 8,726 offenders in the community (CSC, 2010b), some of whom participate in programs funded by the G and C Programs. However, the reintegration of offenders may be complicated because:

in recent years, the offender population has been increasingly characterized by offenders with extensive histories of violent crimes, previous youth and adult convictions, affiliations with gangs and organized crime, serious substance abuse histories, serious mental health disorders, higher rates of infection with Hepatitis C and HIV, and a disproportionate representation of Aboriginal people (CSC, 2009b, p.3).

According to PS, in 2009-2010, Aboriginal offenders comprised the highest proportion of the overall offender population (17.9%, n = 3,989; PS, 2010). CSC continues to work with Aboriginal communities to enhance their role in delivering correctional programs and services that meet the needs of their communities. CSC is also conducting a number of analyses regarding Aboriginal corrections, including an evaluation of the Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections (SPAC), with results expected by late 2011.

The majority of CSC staff members interviewed agreed that CSC’s G and C Programs met the community’s specific needs (81%; n= 13). G and C Programs strengthened community relations and assisted community partners to help offenders and their families as well as provided public education opportunities about CSC and correctional services. Concurrently, CSC was able to obtain feedback from the community partners on CSC programs and services. In some cases, the funding provided communities with the freedom to engage in projects and events that they might not otherwise have the capacity to accomplish.

The continuing agreements between CSC and the University of Saskatchewan are an example of how CSC helped meet a community’s needs through the G and C Program. CSC identified a gap in specialized psychological services and the need for research, specifically regarding Aboriginal offenders in the Prairie Region.Footnote 3 At that time, only one Aboriginal psychologist was available to treat these offenders. To address this gap, CSC entered into a MOA providing grant funding to the University of Saskatchewan. A psychiatric residency seat was created to provide psychiatric residents with financial sponsorship and, in exchange, the resident will work as a psychiatrist at the Regional Psychiatric Centre for one year for each year of sponsorship. A new position, Chair of Forensic Psychology, was also created at the university. In addition to enhancing CSC’s recruitment efforts in the Prairie Region and contributing to the continuing education of existing CSC psychologists, the Chair of Forensic Psychology was responsible for expanding teaching, training and clinical research in forensic psychology; liaising with relevant community and criminal justice partners; and, conducting research relevant to CSC’s Mission. According to the Forensic Behavioural Sciences and Justice Studies Initiative Annual Report 2009-10 (University of Saskatchewan, 2010), the following were identified as key achievements:

  • An advisory group and a steering subcommittee, both with representatives from the University and CSC, have been established and are now operational;
  • Two kinds of awards, a scholarship and a research award, have been created for graduate students and are now operational;Footnote 4
  • A research program for a forensic needs analysis in Saskatchewan has been established through the Forensic Interdisciplinary Research in Saskatchewan Team (FIRST);
  • A Research Acceleration Award was obtained from the University of Saskatchewan to fund two events that brought together university, government and nongovernmental personnel for potential research collaboration; and,
  • One partnership with the Performance Assurance Sector of CSC has been established, while another one with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Public Safety and Policing is being negotiated.

Furthermore, as per the CCRA, CSC’s mandate is to provide a range of programs designed to address the needs of offenders and contribute to their successful reintegration into the community (CCRA, 1992, para. 76). The G and C Programs assisted CSC to achieve its mandate by engaging Canadian communities in the correctional process which is also one of CSC’s priorities. Another CSC priority addressed by the G and C Programs is “the safe transition of eligible offenders into the community” (CSC, 2009a). CSC directly contributes to the strength and safety of Canadian communities through the preparation of offenders for safe reintegration. By means of the funding provided to community programs by the G and C Programs, CSC contributed to federal government strategies in areas such as drug abuse, organized crime, child protection, family violence and assistance to victims of crime.

Finding 2: The goals and objectives of the Grants and Contributions Programs are consistent with CSC’s mission and the programs’ objectives support CSC and federal government priorities.

The federal government has identified community safety as a priority. In the 2007 Speech from the Throne, the federal government stated: “Canadians feel less safe today and rightly worry about the security of their neighbourhoods and the country. There is no greater responsibility for a government than to protect this right to safety and security” (Government of Canada, 2007).

In the 2008 Speech from the Throne, the federal government identified that keeping Canadians safe, which included taking “tough action against crime” would be a priority for the Government of Canada (Government of Canada, 2008a).

Indeed, the majority of interview respondents agreed that CSC’s Grants and Contributions Programs support the role of the federal government (94%; n = 29). Nearly all of those interviewed noted the federal government has a responsibility to be part of the community and, with limited funding sources for community organizations, the federal government was obligated to provide funding through grants and contributions
(97%; n = 30). Additionally, interviewees stated that the federal government was trying to engage citizens in their own communities and that grants and contributions are one way to achieve this goal (78%; n = 24).

The majority of interviewees agreed that the goals and objectives of the G and C Programs were consistent with CSC’s mission (94%; n = 29) and also supported a number of CSC’s strategic priorities regarding the safe transition of offenders into the community. For example, by increasing the number of communities engaged in the correctional process, CSC increased offenders’ opportunities for safe reintegration by having the services and programs available for offenders in the community. The key idea was that informed and engaged citizens and communities are integral to safe offender reintegration. Thus, developing sufficient capacity in communities could contribute to public safety.

Furthermore, many communities do not have available resources to provide correctional programs and CSC contribution programs could help by providing funding projects. Half of staff members interviewed indicated that G and C Programs contributed to community projects to link offenders back into the community (50%; n = 8). Over half of the class contribution recipients noted that G and C Programs provided partners and professional agencies with additional funding to continue providing services to offenders (58%; n = 7).

Both G and C Programs met CSC’s corporate priority regarding productive relationships with increasingly diverse partners, stakeholders, and others involved in public safety by developing relationships, networking and transferring knowledge. For example, community engagement was a component of the grant MOA as it identifies establishing relationships within the university and with external agencies. Likewise, as detailed in Table 1, 26 of the reviewed contribution files identified Creating Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community participation in the correctional process as an objective of their projects (44%).

For CSC grants, the community need was to provide education and research capacity specifically related to Aboriginal offenders. As such, these objectives met CSC’s priority to enhance capacities to provide effective interventions for First Nations, Métis and Inuit offenders. CSC has met this priority by increasing research specifically related to Aboriginal issues. Additionally, CSC’s priority of improved capacities to address mental health needs of offenders was incorporated into the grants’ objectives. CSC grants were directly linked to the University of Saskatchewan’s Department of Psychology to help address offenders’ mental health issues. 

G and C Programs were also consistent with CSC’s priority to enhance capacity and involvement of community partners to provide support services to offenders, and enhancing communications with Canadians (CSC, 2010a). For example, the Community Forum Program (CFP) engaged the community through funding fora that share CSC and public safety information to communities. 

Evaluation Objective:  Program Performance

Progression toward expected outcomes is evident regarding performance targets, program reach and design, including the linkage and contribution of outputs to outcomes.

Finding 3: Although CSC’s Grants and Contributions Programs have realized their expected outcomes, some outcomes of the funded projects have not been achieved.

The majority of CSC staff interviewed agreed that CSC’s G and C Programs have been successful in achieving their strategic outcomes and goals (94%; n = 15). According to 86% of CSC staff members interviewed (n = 14), the G and C Programs’ strategic goals were achieved through the successful development and maintenance of the following outputs:

  • Research, program delivery and progress reports, and annual plans for EXCOM;
  • Increased communications such as CSC identification on community websites;
  • Development and implementation of the National Reintegration Assistance Class Contribution Program;
  • Enhanced and maintained positive relations with applicants in the community;
  • Templates and approved contribution agreements; and,
  • Funded corrections-related community projects.

The class contribution programs’ expected outcomes were to enhance CSC’s capacity to better engage Canadian communities in the correctional process and to facilitate the involvement of a greater number of individuals and partners in the correctional process. More specifically, the programs’ activities were expected to assist in maintaining relationships between offenders and their families; maintaining volunteer support to offenders; creating community/partner support to offenders; creating community awareness and knowledge of CSC; and, creating CSC knowledge and awareness of community engagement.

Of the 59 approved class contribution projects reviewed for the evaluation:

  • 35 created community participation in the correctional process;
  • 32 created community awareness and knowledge of CSC;
  • 24 created CSC knowledge and awareness of community engagement;
  • 23 created community/partner support to offenders;
  • 13 maintained volunteer support to offenders; and,
  • 7 assisted with maintaining relationships between offenders and their families.

In the majority of reviewed files, the documentation regarding the results of the activity concentrated on one or two main outcomes. However, the total number of identified outcomes was higher than the number of files reviewed as some files contained documentation identifying the project as having met multiple outcomes.

Further, in 2008-2009, CSC conducted a management review of the NRACP with the objectives of validating the approval process and its implementation within CSC, and reviewing individual contributions to ensure that they continued to meet the objectives of the policy and the established Terms and Conditions. A committee, consisting of representatives from the Comptroller’s office, Citizen Engagement sector and regional financial analysts reviewed all contribution projects between 2004 and 2008.

Both the management review (2004-2008) and the evaluation file review (2008-2010) concluded that the majority of projects met the outcome creating Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community participation in the correctional process.The outcomes of building relationships between offenders, their families and their communities and creating community and partner support to offenders were met as well. Table 1 summarizes the number of projects that met each of the outcomes.

Table 1 : Management Review and File Review Data, 2004-2010

List of Objectives (NRACP and NARACP)

Total Number of Projects
Meeting Outcome

Building relationships between offenders, their families and their communities

20

Maintaining volunteer support to offenders, including Aboriginal volunteer support to Aboriginal offenders

14

Identifying Aboriginal communities and partners who provide support to Aboriginal offenders

0

Creating community and partner support to offenders

19

Transferring Aboriginal offenders through Section 81 of the CCRA

0

Developing release plans utilizing Section 84 of the CCRA

0

Creating Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community participation in the correctional process

26

Creating awareness of CSC’s approaches to service delivery

6

However, the outcomes achieved were primarily from the NRACP. Of the 59 files reviewed, 3 files applied to the NARACP and none of those had any of the above listed Aboriginal-specific outcomes indicated. The rationale was that the NCPC combined funding for both programs and based approvals on the total amount of available funding. Therefore, the three Aboriginal-specific outcomes; identifying Aboriginal communities and partners who provide support to Aboriginal offenders; transferring Aboriginal offenders through Section 81 of the CCRA; and, developing release plans utilizing Section 84 of the CCRA were not addressed in the recipients’ final reports.

There were several suggestions regarding how to increase the achievement of all outcomes. The majority of all interviewees suggested adjusting the approval criteria so projects meeting two or more expected outcomes have priority over those projects identifying only one outcome (71%; n = 22). Over half of respondents suggested increasing the communities’ understanding of the class contribution programs (58%; n = 18), and 10% suggested encouraging applicants to address as many expected outcomes as possible (n = 3).

Finding 4: Funded community events and projects contributed to the overall achievement of Grants and Contributions Programs.

The evaluation file review showed that the majority of the 48 approved contribution projects involved the development and facilitation of fora (n = 28). The nature of these projects concentrated on offender reintegration (= 25); community engagement and awareness (= 16); and, offender mental health issues (= 5).Footnote 5 Other issues addressed included Aboriginal issues, homelessness, offender employment, issues faced by female offenders, victims’ needs, crime prevention, youth issues and restorative justice.

Of those projects that involved conducting consultations ( = 6), the themes for these meetings concentrated on increasing the collaborative relationship with CSC ( = 6). Pilot projects (n = 3) and conferences (= 6) varied in the issues they addressed, such as offender needs (= 3) and criminal justice and correctional processes (n = 6).

Comprehensive data regarding CSC’s grants’ achievement of expected outcomes were not available as the most recent MOA was signed in late 2009 and the projects were in the early stages of development. However, movement toward their outcomes was demonstrated in the University of Saskatchewan’s Forensic Behavioural Sciences and Justice Studies Initiative Annual Report 2009-2010 (2010). This report discussed the progress of the MOA and indicated that an advisory group and steering subcommittee have been established, two awards have been created for graduate students, a research program for a forensic needs analysis has begun, a Research Acceleration Award has funded two events at the University of Saskatchewan, and a partnership with the CSC’s Performance Assurance (now Policy) Sector has been established (University of Saskatchewan, 2010).

Evaluation Objective: Efficiency and Economy

Resource utilization was examined in relation to the production of outputs and progress toward expected outcomes.

Finding 5: While the grants functioned as anticipated, there was inconsistency in the class contribution program application process.

TBS’s Policy on Transfer Payments places the responsibility on Federal departments’ deputy heads for:

6.5.9 Establishing reasonable and practical departmental service standards for transfer payment programs.
6.5.11 Ensuring that opportunities are pursued to standardize the administration of transfer payment processes, procedures and requirements within the department and, to the extent possible, with other departments, to achieve efficiencies in the administration of transfer payment programs for applicants, recipients and the department (TBS, 2008).

To this end, the NCPC Secretariat created some procedures and has begun to implement these standards into the new NRACCP.

For over 20 years, CSC and the University of Saskatchewan have had signed MOAs providing funding for the university’s work in the area of forensic psychiatry and psychology. The agreements have evolved and become more specific in terms of what the funding to the university will be used to accomplish. From 1990 onward, TBS approved MOAs providing the University of Saskatchewan with increased funding from CSC to develop the university’s forensic psychology programs, from a residency position in 1990, to the establishment of a Centre for Forensic Behavioural Sciences and Justice Studies in 2009. The strong relationship between CSC and the University of Saskatchewan was an excellent example of how the G and C Programs funding can be mutually beneficial for CSC and recipients.

CSC grants are based on a MOA with the recipient. Approximately every five years, CSC renegotiated the MOA and updated the conditions of the agreement in order to ensure the continuation of the funding. The most recent MOA was signed in late 2009. The roles and responsibilities of both parties were clearly identified and included the following:

  • CSC will provide funding and access to Regional Psychiatric Centre (RPC) and correctional institutions as required; and,
  • University of Saskatchewan will appoint an Acting Director of Forensic Behavioural Science; expand their research and training in forensic behavioural science; attract and retain graduate students; strengthen their existing relationship with RPC; develop relationships with other CSC institutions and the Province of Saskatchewan; and, encourage collaborative relationships between departments at the university.

It was anticipated that CSC will benefit from more research and increased access to specialized students. It is possible that CSC’s reputation among clinicians will be enhanced but CSC may have increased access to a larger pool of applicants for positions and may receive assistance in hiring specialized front line clinicians. The Forensic Behavioural Sciences and Justice Studies Initiative Annual Report (University of Saskatchewan, 2010) showed movement towards these outcomes but it was too early in the projects’ development to see concrete results.

Regarding the class contributions programs’ efficiency, CSC formalized the application approval process. The class contribution approval process began with a call for proposals followed by approval or rejection of the application. More specifically, a memorandum (call letter) was distributed late in the calendar year from the NCPC to Regional Deputy Commissioners and NHQ Assistant Deputy Commissioners. In 2007, the responsibility for transfer payments was shifted from the Public Affairs and Parliamentary Relations Sector to the Corporate Services Sector as a result of a government-wide policy revision to the TBS Policy on Transfer Payments. All applications were prioritized by the submitting region or sector and submitted to Regional Deputy Commissioners or NHQ Assistant Deputy Commissioners. Once the supported application package was received, the NCPC reviewed the applications to ensure they met the program’s Terms and Conditions and made recommendations to EXCOM. Upon approval, all applicants were notified and contribution agreements were prepared and signed by successful applicants. If, after all supported applications were reviewed, approved or rejected, there remained contribution funding available in the transfer payment fund, the NCPC would initiate subsequent calls for applications until all the funding had been disbursed. There was inconsistency in the number of calls for applications each year, which caused difficulties for applicants and CSC staff to be able to follow the above-noted application process.

Overall, the file review of applications between 2005-2006 and 2008-2009 found that few applications were rejected, ranging from 22% (n = 9) in 2005-2006 to 10% (n = 3) in both 2007-2008 and 2008-2009.Footnote 6 Some applications were rejected because the project did not meet the requirements of the class contribution program while others were rejected because of temporary expenditure reductions made within CSC which meant that funding could not be awarded. The file review identified only one case where the project application was withdrawn, due to the organization entering receivership and ceasing operations.

Finding 6: The National Contribution Program Committee (NCPC) members work well together; however, the NCPC Secretariat's roles and responsibilities were not well-defined.

In general, key informants viewed the NCPC as a multidisciplinary committee consisting of professional and knowledgeable members who openly discussed the applications and worked well together. Committee members were selected to participate from the following CSC sectors:

  • Citizen Engagement Community Initiatives;
  • Capacity Building and Community Management;
  • Community Reintegration;
  • Interventions and Policy;
  • Legal Services Unit;
  • Executive Services;
  • Strategic and Corporate Services;
  • Integrated Strategic Business Planning; and,
  • Financial Strategies and Analysis. 

Although each committee member brought their own expertise and knowledge to the meetings, the NCPC did not provide an orientation to grants and contributions to new members. Nevertheless, the committee’s challenge function worked well with openness and respect amongst the members, although a lack of clarity regarding the NCPC members’ roles and responsibilities was identified during the interviews. Specifically, a lack of clarity amongst committee members regarding some nuances of the G and C Programs was reported, such as what constituted a contract and a contribution. As there was no information or training provided to NCPC members in advance of attending the NCPC meetings, training sessions should be established.

The NCPC Secretariat, comprised of CSC Financial Strategies and Analysis employees, was responsible for the day-to-day management of the committee and administrative activities surrounding the contributions. Some respondents identified that administrative support for the G and C Programs was generally weak and needed to be strengthened in areas such as accurate meeting minutes. Interviewees suggested the NCPC Secretariat’s roles and responsibilities need clarity and should be formally documented and made available. The result would be a more responsive and effective NCPC Secretariat.

Recommendation 1: The roles and responsibilities of the NCPC members require clarification and should be formally documented.

Finding 7: There was confusion and a lack of information regarding NCPC’s communications with the class contribution program applicants.

Both NCPC members and recipients commented on the lack of information regarding the application process (61%, = 17) and noted that stakeholders expressed confusion regarding the application process. For example, it was common for the NCPC to request further information from an applicant throughout the decision phase of the approval process. When questions arose, the NCPC would contact the applicant directly, leaving the supporting region or sector without knowledge of the issues. This process was time-consuming for the NCPC and resulted in delays while awaiting the requested information. In order to alleviate this situation, CSC staff suggested the supporting region or sector ensure that all mandatory documentation was in order and that any potential questions arising from the application were addressed before the application proceeded to the NCPC. Conversely, if additional information was requested by the NCPC, the applicants should contact the supporting region or sector with their request.

A number of respondents noted that maintaining positive relationships with recipients was imperative to the success of the programs (21%; n = 6). Interviewees made several suggestions regarding the development and maintenance of communication and relationship between CSC and recipients, such as CSC staff making site visits to projects, and, if possible, attending events.  

Finding 8: The Class Contribution Program logic model and performance measurement strategy have become outdated.

When the Terms and Conditions for the G and C Programs expired in March 2010, the logic model (a depiction of how a program intends to work and what results can be expected) and the performance measurement strategy (a description of how the program results will be measured) became outdated. In anticipation of the expiration of the Terms and Conditions, CSC developed and proposed a new program, the NRACCP. The new program combined the former NRACP and NARACP into one contribution program retaining similar objectives and criteria.

The new NRACCP began in August 2010. The program documents included neither a logic model nor a performance measurement strategy for the NRACCP. Therefore, the NCPC Secretariat does not collect information on performance indicators in either the overall G and C Programs or the individual project measures or targets. The NCPC Secretariat’s responsibility was to manage the overall G and C Programs process, which means they are the most logical choice to manage the development and maintain the new NRACCP logic model and performance measurement strategy. Indeed, key informants with the University of Saskatchewan suggested working with CSC to develop and maintain a logic model and performance measurement strategy for the grant program.

Recommendation 2: A performance measurement strategy should be developed to help support the reporting process for G and C Programs.

Finding 9: There was inconsistency in the information contained in the submitted applications from communities and organizations.

Administratively, the contribution application process was simplified by creating an application template. CSC staff suggested that these templates be updated regularly and be made available on the internet to facilitate access by organizations and communities who cannot retrieve data from CSC’s internal network (69%; = 11). However, even though application templates were available to communities and organizations, there was inconsistency in the completed contribution applications submitted by community organizations. Of the applicants that applied in 2009-2010, 83% (= 10) found the paperwork overwhelming the first time they used it and added that the tools that were currently in place were not adequate to meet their needs. To alleviate this, the regions and sectors have begun sharing past approved agreements with applicants to provide examples of the information required in an application. Providing access to approved applications would further reduce the need for the regions, sectors and the NCPC to return to the applicant for further information.

The CFP, one of the community programs funded through class contributions, developed a series of templates, including file checklists and forms regarding the administration of the projects and shared these templates with other regions or sectors. Use of the templates by project managers was not mandatory, although CSC staff suggested that the CFP forms and checklists should be used on all grant and contribution files to ensure consistent details on the status of projects and to provide snapshots of the file’s progression and status. The evaluation team reviewed files with and without the templates and found that files were more efficient and consistent when the templates were used. The use of the templates ensured that all contribution files contained the same information, were reviewed by management to ensure the project was progressing as expected and provided a quick view of the project’s current status. In addition, if there was a change in the file’s CSC project manager, the forms and checklists ensured the file remained intact.

Finding 10: There was limited training available for CSC staff regarding grants and contributions.

Similar to the lack of training for NCPC members, there was no training pertaining to grants and contributions provided or required for CSC staff working with G and C Programs. Over half of respondents reported this was a result of a lack of available training resources and expressed interest in attending training if it became available (56%; = 9). One option for relevant training is the Canada School of Public Service, which has training available on grants and contributions. The Managing Grants and Contributions course was offered at various locations nationally and was recommended for functional specialists, managers and senior managers (Canada School of Public Service, 2011). Respondents also suggested that having clear instructions would be beneficial.

Recommendation 3: CSC should formulate a communications strategy for program applicants that includes standardised application procedures (program forms, checklists and templates) and should establish a training plan for CSC staff.

Finding 11: Grant funding was consistent and based on the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); however, the class contribution program lacked sufficient funding and required additional resources from CSC operations and maintenance funds to meet the demand.

The funding distribution for CSC grants, described in Table 2, compared the total annual budget to actual expenditures. The variance between the budget and the actual expenditures has declined since 2006 and those grants that did not reflect the program’s objectives were reallocated.

Table 2 : Distribution of CSC Grants between 2006-2007 and 2010-2011

Recipient

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

University of Saskatchewan, Chair in Forensic Psychology

$122,187

$34,480

$0.00

$120,000

$122,000Footnote a

University of Saskatchewan, Psychiatric Residency Seat

$60,000

$60,000

$84,212

$88,691

$100,000

Penitentiary Inmates Accident Compensation

$176,141

$115,559

$0.00

 

 

Aboriginal Correctional Programs and Services

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

 

 

 TOTAL

$356,328

$210,039

$84,212

$208,691

$222,000

Budget from Transfer Payment

$482,000

$482,000

$509,000

$218,000

$222,000

Variance

$125,672

$271,961

$424,788

$9,309

$0.00

Footnotes

Note:

Footnote a

The 2010-11 payment was made to the University of Saskatchewan in October 2010.
Source: CSC’s Deputy Chief Financial Officer

Return to footnote a referrer

The Penitentiary Inmates Accident Compensation and the Aboriginal Correctional Programs and Services grants were reallocated internally. These grants were reallocated within CSC. The rationales for the reallocation varied. The Penitentiary Inmates Accident Compensation grant provided funding to offenders who were injured as a result of an accident while working in CSC institutions and facilities. In 2008-2009, the NCPC reviewed this program and determined it was not a grant and reallocated the funding to CSC’s Director of Financial Operations, Comptroller Branch, Corporate Services Sectors. Aboriginal Correctional Programs and Services did not receive any applications for funding between 2006 and 2009 and, since Aboriginal communities and organizations could access funding through CSC’s contribution programs, the NCPC reallocated the funding into CSC’s Aboriginal Community Reintegration Strategy.

In 2007, the University of Saskatchewan assumed full responsibility for funding the Chair in Forensic Psychology. Instead of cancelling the funding, CSC and the University of Saskatchewan agreed to use the funding to support a forensic research center.

The intent of the University of Saskatchewan’s Psychiatric Residency Seat grant was to create graduate-level positions for students at the university. Funding amounts were increased annually in accordance with the MOA. In 2009, CSC and the University of Saskatchewan combined this grant and the forensic research center grant into one MOA (Table 3).

Table 3 : University of Saskatchewan MOA 3 Year Budget

Anticipated Budget

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

CSC

$222,000

$222,000

$222,000

University of Saskatchewan

$15,800

$15,800

$15,800

Total

$237,800

$237,800

$237,800

Source:  Memorandum of Agreement, 2009

Between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010, the NCPC made 131 payments to the 59 approved community projects and contributed a total of $5,182,402 to these projects. Table 4 lists the annual total class contribution program funds and reallocated CSC funds between 2005 and 2010.

Table 4 : Contribution Funding

Fiscal Year

NRACCP Funds

Region/Sector Funds

Total Approved Funding

2005-06

$716.000

$239,390

$955,390

2006-07

$713,214

$235,187

$948,401

2007-08

$716,000

$470,453

$1,186,453

2008-09

$1,351,000

$45,104

$1,396,104

2009-10

$696,054

$0

$696,054

Total

$4,192,268

$990,134

$5,182,402

Source: Resource Allocation Model-Annex L. Financial Strategies and Analysis Branch, Correctional Service of Canada, 2005-2010

The amount of additional funding, $990,134, added to the class contribution program funds between 2005-2006 and 2008-2009 suggested there was insufficient funding available for all the eligible contribution projects.

CSC staff indicated they received applications outside of the timelines established by the NCPC and after the annual contribution funding had already been allocated (n = 2). To provide funding for the project, the sector’s Assistant Deputy Commissioner would reallocate funding from their operations and maintenance budget for the project. These applications would then be provided to the NCPC to ensure the project met the contribution programs’ eligibility criteria. Once approved by the NCPC, the project would be funded by transferring funds from the CSC sector to the contribution programs’ account. It is unclear how many projects have been funded in this manner as the files do not consistently contain financial data.

Finding 12: There was uneven regional distribution of class contribution funding with the majority of funded projects located at CSC’s National Headquarters.

Approved project contribution funding was not distributed evenly across CSC regions. It was not unexpected that the highest funding allotment was in NHQ as the majority of sector projects were included in the calculation. The lowest funding allocation was in the Prairie Region. Figure 2 illustrates the regional distribution of contribution funding between 2005 and 2010.

Figure 2 : Contribution Funding Regional Distribution

Figure 2 : Contribution Funding Regional Distribution

Source: CSC Financial Strategies and Analysis

This pie chart represents the allocation of regional contribution funding between 2005 and 2010.

  • 6% was allocated to Atlantic Region
  • 47% was allocated to NHQ
  • 7% was allocated to Ontario Region
  • 26% was allocated to Pacific Region
  • 2% was allocated to Prairies Region
  • 12% was allocated to Quebec Region.

Further analysis of the distribution of the class contribution funds and any potential linkages between applications and distribution of funding was not available for the evaluation. Applications that were not supported for approval in the regions and sectors were not monitored and data were not collected to track unsupported applications.

It is unclear if project location was considered during the NCPC approval process. There were no indications of the NCPC Secretariat monitoring the class contribution program from a national perspective. If regions and sectors reported regularly to the NCPC Secretariat regarding their contribution projects, the NCPC would have a national view of not only the funding distribution, but other trends and issues regarding grants and contributions as well. This could be alleviated with the development and implementation of a performance measurement strategy to monitor grant and contribution program performance.

Additionally, interviewed CSC staff suggested that expanding the outreach of G and C Programs could provide a more balanced distribution of funding (19%, n = 3). The objective would be to make communities and organizations involved in the correctional process aware of the available funding and the process involved to access funding.

Finding 13: Financial information in the contribution administrative files was limited. Where financial information was available, delays in processing payments were noted.

In general, contribution files were incomplete and did not contain consistent information. The file review uncovered files in which applications, signed contribution agreements and documentation indicating approval or rejection of the application were missing. Contribution files contained limited correspondence with applicants and, with the exception of the CFPFootnote 7 files, it was unclear if the files had been reviewed by management.

The lack of financial information in the files presented a challenge for the evaluation team during the review of these files. In many cases, it was unclear whether funding was provided by the class contribution program or the supporting region or sector. Of the administrative files which did contain financial information, difficulties with the iProcurement system were identified. File documentation verified that the iProcurement difficulties caused recipient payments to be late or missed altogether.

Overall, CSC staff indicated that it was not unrealistic for approved organizations to receive payments within 30 days following submission of invoice and this was not the case regarding CSC contribution files (44%; = 7). The file review discovered that processing payments was frequently delayed due to staff shortages, errors in data entry and lack of iProcurement training. As well, the regions’ and sectors’ process regarding transferring funds from operational accounts into the contribution payment accounts was unclear. CSC staff and contribution recipients indicated some confusion or need for assistance with the paperwork required in the application process (29%; = 8). Some of the comments noted a need to simplify the paperwork or application process, while others specifically requested assistance in the development of a proposal, such as what to include, or how to write the proposal.

Recommendation 4: In order to increase the efficiency of the grants and contributions programs, CSC should examine ways to reduce the costs associated with delivering these programs to ensure demonstration of results.

Conclusions

To conclude, CSC’s G and C Programs play a key role in the safe reintegration of offenders and have successfully provided services to offenders through engaging and fostering community participation in CSC reintegration practices. The examination of the NRACP and NARACP contribution programs has provided the NCPC and the NCPC Secretariat with best practices and lessons learned that are applicable to the new NRACCP. Finally, CSC grants appear to be operating effectively and efficiently according to the short-term results.

References

Canada School of Public Service (2011). Managing Grants and Contributions.Retrieved from http://www.csps-efpc.gc.ca/cat/det-eng.asp?courseno=F405

Correctional Service Canada (2004). Formative Evaluation of the National Contribution Program and the National Aboriginal Contribution Program. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada, (2005a). Grants and Contributions Audit Report. Ottawa, ON: Performance Assurance Sector, Correctional Service Canada.

Correctional Service Canada (2005b), Results-based Management Accountability Framework for Grants and Contributions Programs, Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2006). 2006-2007 Report on Plans and Priorities. Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Correctional Service Canada (2007a). 2007-2008 Report on Plans and Priorities. Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Correctional Service Canada (2007b). 2007-2010 Risk-based Evaluation Plan. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.

Correctional Service Canada (2009a). 2009-2010 Report on Plans and Priorities. Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Correctional Service Canada (2009b). Correctional Program descriptions. Ottawa, ON: Reintegration Programs Division, Correctional Service Canada.

Correctional Service Canada (2009c). Integrated Overview: CSC Transformation Agenda. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2010a). CSC Report on Transformation Priorities, As of March 01, 2010. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2010b). 2010-2011 Report on Plans and Priorities. Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Correctional Services Canada (2010c). Treasury Board Submission. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada Review Panel (2007). A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works andGovernment Services Canada.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, R. S. C. 1992, c.20.

Government of Canada (2007). Speech from the Throne. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Government of Canada (2008a). Speech from the Throne. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Government of Canada (2008b). Management Review of Contributions Program. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Financial Administration Act, R.S., 1985, c. F-11.

Human Resources and Social Development Canada (2007). A Guide to Managing Your Contribution Funds. Ottawa, ON: Workplace Skills Branch, Human Resources and Social Development Canada.

National Research Council Canada (2008). Impact Evaluation of the NRC Industrial Research Assistance Program. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Parks Canada (2008). Parks Canada Performance, Evaluation and Audit Plan 2006-2009. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Public Safety Canada (2010), Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview, Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2010-ccrs/index-eng.aspx.

Public Safety Canada (2011). Who we are. Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2011-ccrs/index-eng.aspx.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2007), Summary of the report of the Independent Blue Ribbon panel on Grant and contribution Programs. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2008). Policy on Transfer Payments. Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=13525 .

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2009). Policy on Evaluation. Ottawa, ON: Author.

University of Saskatchewan (2010). Forensic Behaviour and Sciences and Justice Studies Initiative, Annual Report 2009-2010. Saskatoon, SK: Author.

Appendices

Appendix A: Evaluation Matrix

Issues

Question

Indicator

Source/Method

RELEVANCE

Need For the Project

1. To what extent do the programs address a demonstrable need?

Linkages between program objectives, offender, and community needs

Document review (Treasury Board (TB) Submissions, RMAF, Memoranda to Cabinet, business plans, project proposals, agreements)

Number of applications per program
Number of contribution agreements

File review (administration files, applicant files, agreement files)

Perception of key informants that the programs meet the defined need(s)

Surveys and/or interviews with key informants

Alignment with Government Priorities

2. To what extent was there a linkage between the programs’ objectives and

  1. federal government priorities;
  2. departmental strategic outcomes?

Linkages between the programs’ objectives and federal government priorities

Document review of program objectives vs. the whole-of-government framework, Throne Speech

Linkages between the programs’ objectives and  CSC’s strategic outcomes

Document review of program objectives and CSC’s strategic outcomes

Federal Roles and Responsibilities

3. To what extent are the programs aligned with federal government roles and responsibilities?

 Documented roles and  responsibilities of funding recipients

 Document review (TB Submissions, Result-based Management  Accountability Framework (RMAF), Memoranda to Cabinet, business  plans, project proposals, agreements)

 Funding recipients’ perceptions that roles and  responsibilities were understood

Interviews/surveys with key informants

PERFORMANCE

Achievement of Expected Outcomes

4. Is there a clear link between the programs’ outputs and outcomes?

Presence/absence
of unintended outcomes

Document review (RMAF, agreements)
File review (administration files, agreement files)

Documented management actions and/or lessons learned/best practices from intended and unintended outcomes

Document review (final reports, management reports, meeting minutes)
 File review (administration files)

Perceptions of key
informants regarding lessons learned and best practices

Interviews/surveys with key informants

  5. To what degree have the programs achieved their strategic outcomes?

Intended outputs and
outcomes were effectively achieved

Document review (final reports, program summaries, meeting minutes) Interviews/surveys with key informants

Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy

6. What, if any, factors limited or enabled success in meeting the programs’ goals?

# and nature of limiting factors identified and mitigated (resources/equipment)

Document review (reports, management reports, meeting minutes)
File review (administrative files)

   

# and nature of successes/best practices identified

Document review (final reports, management reports, meeting minutes)
File review (administrative files)

   

Key informant opinions regarding the achievement of the goals

Interviews/surveys with key informants

  7. Were resources utilized in the most cost-effective manner?

Outputs and outcomes were
effectively achieved within
available resources

Document review (business plans,
funding proposal, TB submissions vs. actual allocations)

   

Process for acquiring funds (CSC and recipients)

Document review (business case, RMAF, agreements, TB submissions)
File review (administration/financial files)
Interviews/surveys with key informants

   

Funding reflected requirements (recipients)

Document review (applications, TB submission)
File review (administration/financial files)
Interviews/surveys with key informants

   

Amount of leveraging/reallocation of internal funds
to achieve outcomes (CSC and recipients)

File review (administration/financial files)
Interviews/surveys with key informants

   

Examination of similar programs in other federal departments

Document review (evaluation reports, audits, Report on Plans and Priorities, environmental scan)

   

Key informant opinions regarding cost effectiveness

Interviews/surveys with key informants

Appendix B: Definitions

Contribution - A transfer payment subject to performance conditions specified in a funding agreement. A contribution is to be accounted for and is subject to audit.

Evaluation - In the Government of Canada, the systematic collection and analysis of information about the outcomes of programs. The information is used to make judgments about a program's relevance, its results and cost-effectiveness as well as find alternative ways to deliver the program or to achieve the same results. Section 42.1 of the Financial Administration Act requires that every department conduct, every five years, a review of the relevance and effectiveness of each ongoing non-statutory program of grants and contributions. This review is a form of evaluation which would be conducted in a manner that would be appropriate for the risk, complexity and materiality of the program.

Funding agreement - A written agreement or documentation constituting an agreement between the Government of Canada and an applicant or a recipient setting out the obligations or understandings of both with respect to one or more transfer payments.

Grant - A transfer payment subject to pre-established eligibility and other entitlement criteria. A grant is not subject to being accounted for by a recipient nor normally subject to audit by the department. The recipient may be required to report on results achieved.

Performance measurement strategy - The selection, development and ongoing use of performance measures for program management or decision-making.

Program - A group of related activities that are designed and managed to meet a specific public need and are often treated as a budgetary unit.

Recipient - Is an individual or entity that either has been authorized to receive a transfer payment or that has received that transfer payment.

Terms and conditions - A document, approved by Treasury Board or a minister, which sets out the parameters under which transfer payments may be made for a given program.

Transfer payment  - A monetary payment, or a transfer of goods, services or assets made, on the basis of an appropriation, to a third party, including a Crown corporation, that does not result in the acquisition by the Government of Canada of any goods, services or assets. Transfer payments are categorized as grants, contributions and other transfer payments. Transfer payments do not include investments, loans or loan guarantees.

Footnotes

Footnote 1

In mid-2010, the number of NCPC members was lowered to 7.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

There were 25 individuals in the Office of Primary Interest (OPI), the NCPC Secretariat, and, NCPC.

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

Opportunity for Improvement and Problem Statement taken from the Quality Improvement Team Storyboard, internal CSC document. 

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

One of the research assistantship was awarded to a Ph.D candidate to research the effectiveness of domestic violence programs as they pertain to Aboriginal offenders.

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5

The projects’ final reports frequently identified more than one topic for the fora, therefore, the number of offender reintegration, community engagement and awareness and offender mental issues is higher than the number of files reviewed.

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6

The number of rejected applications was not available for 2009-2010.

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Footnote 7

The Community Forum Program was an approved NRACP project that redistributes approved funding to small community organizations providing for a.

Return to footnote 7 referrer