2015-2016 Evaluation of the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations

PDF (650 Kb)

Table of Contents

Final Report

2016-10-18

Executive Summary

Evaluation supports accountability to Parliament and Canadians by helping the Government of Canada to report on the results achieved with the resources invested in programs. Evaluation also supports deputy heads in managing for results by informing them about whether their programs are producing the outcomes that they were designed to achieve at an affordable cost; and supports policy and program improvements by helping to identify lessons learned and best practices.

What we examined

The evaluation assessed the relevance and performance of the Grants Program (GP) to National Voluntary Organizations (NVOs) over the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. It examined: 1) continued need, 2) alignment with federal government priorities, 3) alignment with federal roles and responsibilities, 4) progress towards achievement of intended outcomes, and 5) efficiency and economy.

Why it is important

Non-profit service delivery is an integral part of Canada’s mixed social service model and provides a cost-effective alternative to services provided by the government. In addition, the GP allows the voluntary sector to contribute its perspective to the national dialogue on correctional policies and programs. The GP also assists the Public Safety Portfolio to meet its public education and citizen engagement objectives by involving communities in the process of reintegrating offenders and supporting the victims of crime and their families. 

What we found

Relevance

There is a continued need for NVOs. They provide services that the criminal justice and corrections systems rely upon and they contribute to the policy dialogue. NVOs in the criminal justice and crime prevention field are highly dependent on government funding, which constitutes 64% of the revenue for the GP recipients, with 80% from the federal government. Unlike non-profit organizations working in other domains, grant recipients have limited opportunities to generate revenue from the sale of goods and services and obtain little in donations from households and businesses.

The GP is aligned with the federal priority of keeping Canadians safe and with the Public Safety Canada’s strategic outcomes. The Department provides strategic policy advice and support to the Minister on a range of issues and plays a key role in discharging the Government of Canada's responsibility for safety and security. NVOs supported by the GP contribute to policy advice on matters of criminal justice and corrections by providing a front line perspective informed by experience. 

The GP is consistent with federal roles and responsibilities for criminal law and penitentiaries and the government’s role to foster civil society’s participation in national policy dialogues. The GP provides a mechanism for the voluntary sector to be involved in policy dialogues and contribute its experience, expertise, knowledge and ideas.

Although the GP funds some organizations that have also received funding from Public Safety Canada’s Policy Development Contribution Program (PDCP), it does not duplicate the PDCP. The GP is a grant program that covers core operating expenses while the PDCP is a contribution program that funds projects with specific deliverables. 

Performance – Effectiveness

There is some question as to whether the GP is reaching its intended audience. Grants have been made to almost the same set of organizations for decades. Although there was a public call for applications for the current funding cycle, it was not proactively publicized and no new organizations submitted applications. Interviewees noted that there may be innovative organizations that could make a significant contribution who are not currently funded. The fact that no Aboriginal organization is funded appears to be a significant gap given the representation of Aboriginals in the criminal justice system. 

The GP has improved the capacity of NVOs to fulfill their mandates. Many grant recipients operate on limited budgets and are forced to cobble funding together from a variety of sources to cover operating costs. Funding insecurity makes it difficult for them to plan on a long-term basis, retain staff, maintain their infrastructure and fulfill their mandates. NVOs that are financially challenged may divert from their mandates to chase project funding. Core funding, such as that provided by the GP, provides greater certainty and continuity for NVOs. However, for three grant recipients, GP funding represents less than 5% of their annual revenues. These organizations have total annual revenues ranging from $1.6M to $3.4M and it is unlikely that GP funding has an impact on their ability to fulfill their mandates.

GP funding has allowed grant recipients to coordinate their services with others in the field and across sectors including the mental health groups, Aboriginal groups, etc. Interviewees were of the opinion that without the GP there would be a very limited national network of organizations and there would be a “mixed bag” of services and capacity in communities that would vary considerably from province to province.

The GP has increased knowledge and understanding of criminal justice and corrections issues.  In addition to undertaking research, grant recipients are instrumental in disseminating knowledge and fostering knowledge exchange. As the link between policy makers and service delivery, they facilitate knowledge moving up from service deliverers in the field to policy makers and vice versa. 

Without GP funding, interviewees believe that community capacity to work with victims, offenders and local officials would be compromised. The national organizations funded by the GP support local service delivery through a range of activities including training and professional development, research support, networking and fostering linkages, information dissemination, policy development and support in the preparation of project proposals and responses to Requests for Proposals for service contracts. In addition, support from NVOs allows local service providers to go beyond direct service delivery to participate in advocacy work, make linkages to other services in the communities, participate in research projects, identify lessons learned, and make improvements to help keep service delivery current and evidence-based.

NVOs are recognized as having a credible voice informed by research and service delivery experience. GP funding allows NVOs to participate in a variety of activities that contribute to the national policy dialogue including think tanks, roundtables, discussion groups, testimonies before the House and Senate committees, letters to the Ministers, press releases, letters to the editors and media interviews.

The GP provides a mechanism for communities to be engaged in policy development and allows Public Safety Canada to leverage expertise outside of the government. NVOs supported by the GP have provided input and advice on a wide range of legislative and policy initiatives over the period of the evaluation. While grant recipients have been active in providing recommendations and advice on government programs, policies and legislation, interviewees noted that the government has been less receptive to advice of late. 

Interviewees indicated that the strong networks among NVOs and continuity of NVO leadership have facilitated the achievement of GP outcomes. Strong leadership from Public Safety Canada, an attitude of mutual respect between the Department and the NVOs, and informed and supportive Public Safety Canada staff were also cited as facilitating factors. 

Several interviewees noted that the current level of GP funding and, in particular, the lack of any increases to the funding since 1994 even to accommodate inflation has hindered the achievement of outcomes.

Performance – Efficiency and Economy

With an administration ratio of 1.2%, the GP has an efficient administrative process.  Interviewees noted that multi-year funding contributes to efficiency by reducing administrative costs for both the government and the grant recipients.

While support from Public Safety Canada was identified as an element of strength for the Program, interviewees nevertheless suggested that the GP could be improved with more information from the Department such as through regular e-mail updates or a web site (for recipients only) to provide notices of upcoming events, new research studies, etc. Interviewees also suggested broadening the dialogue to include departments and NVOs involved in health care, housing and employment for offenders as well as Aboriginal justice issues. A “wrap around” approach was recommended in order to improve synergies.

Recommendations

The Internal Audit and Evaluation Directorate recommends the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch to implement the following:

Management Response and Action Plan

Management accepts all recommendations and will implement an action plan.

1. Introduction

This report presents the results of the Public Safety Canada (PS) 2015-2016 Evaluation of the Grants Program (GP) to National Voluntary Organizations (NVOs). The Program was established in 1983 under the name of Sustaining Funding Program (SFP). The SFP consolidated the funding previously provided by the former Department of the Solicitor General, the Correctional Service of Canada, the Parole Board of Canada, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation requires that all ongoing programs of grants and contributions be evaluated every five years to support policy and program improvement, expenditure management, Cabinet decision making, and public reporting. Section 42.1 of the Financial Administration Act also requires contribution programs to be evaluated every five years. The last evaluation of the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations was completed in 2011.

2. Profile

2.1 Background

The Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations assists the PS Portfolio to meet its public education and citizen engagement objectives by involving communities in the process of reintegrating offenders and supporting the victims of crime and their families. The GP also allows the voluntary sector to contribute its perspective to the national dialogue on correctional policies and programs.

The GP has an annual budget of $1.8 million and currently supports 15 NVOs. The grants provide funding for NVOs to maintain a national structure and cover core operating expenses, including salaries and benefits, rents, translation, telephone, postage and equipment/material in the area of corrections and conditional release that contribute to public safety. Recipients must also be well established, have a high level of credibility, and have a visible constituency. 

The GP issues a call for proposals every three years and provides three-year funding to successful applicants.Footnote1 NVOs receiving GP funding are required to demonstrate their continuing eligibility for funding each year by reporting annually on activities in the preceding year, providing audited financial statements, and providing current and projected annual budgets.

The Crime Prevention, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, within the Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch of PS is responsible for administering the GP. The Program Manager is responsible for ensuring that funding recipients meet eligibility criteria and monitoring performance to ensure funded organizations meet their stated objectives.

Grant applications are reviewed by the Portfolio Liaison Committee on Relations with the Voluntary Sector, composed of officials from PS, the Correctional Service of Canada, the Parole Board of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Committee’s recommendations are sent to the Minister for approval.

2.2 Program Objectives

The objectives of the GP are to assist NVOs to maintain a national structure and fulfill their mandates in order to achieve the following outcomes:

Immediate Outcomes

Intermediate Outcomes

Ultimate Outcome

2.3 Logic Model

A logic model is a visual representation that links what the program is funded to do (activities) with what it produces (outputs) and what it intends to achieve (outcomes). It also provides the basis for developing an evaluation matrix which provides a framework for the evaluation. The logic model for the GP is shown in Figure 1.

Logic Model
Image Description

The activities are: issue calls for proposals, review grant applications, provide funding to national voluntary organizations, support grant recipients and monitor for compliance.

The outputs are: services delivered by national voluntary organizations, knowledge shared by national voluntary organizations with government and others, policy advice from national voluntary organizations. The outputs lead to the following immediate outcomes: improved capacity of national voluntary organizations to fulfill their mandates, improved intersectoral / interdisciplinary/ inter-regional coordination of service delivery to offenders and victims, increased knowledge and understanding of criminal justice and corrections issues. The immediate outcomes lead to the following intermediate outcomes: increased community capacity to work with victims, offenders, families and local officials, improved national policy dialogue on matters related to criminal justice and corrections, improved government programs, policies and legislation. The intermediate outcomes lead to the ultimate outcome: A safer, secure and more resilient Canadian society.

3. About The Evaluation

3.1 Objective

The objective of the evaluation is to provide an evidence-based, neutral assessment of the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the GP. 

3.2 Scope

The evaluation assessed the relevance and performance of the GP and examined the five core evaluation issues identified in the Directive on the Evaluation Function, i.e.: 1) continued need, 2) alignment with federal government priorities, 3) alignment with federal roles and responsibilities, 4) progress towards achievement of intended outcomes, and 5) efficiency and economy.

The evaluation covered the period from 2010-2011 to 2014-2015. 

3.3 Methodology

The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board of Canada Policy on Evaluation, the Standard on Evaluation for the Government of Canada and the PS Evaluation Policy.

The risk associated with the GP is considered to be low. The Program and its predecessor have been in existence since 1983 with little or no change in program principles, design, or implementation. The previous evaluation in 2011 found the Program to be, in general, well-managed. In order to use the evaluation resources effectively, the level of effort for this evaluation has been calibrated to reflect the low program risk.

3.3.1 Evaluation Core Issues and Questions

In accordance with the Directive on the Evaluation Function, the evaluation examined the following issues and questions:

Relevance

Performance—Effectiveness  

Performance—Efficiency and Economy

3.3.2 Lines of Evidence

The methodology for the evaluation included the following lines of evidence:

Literature Review

Publicly available literature on the role and funding source for the voluntary sector were reviewed to assess the continued need and performance for the GP. Relevant literature was identified by the program staff and through an Internet search. The list of literature reviewed is provided in Annex A.

Document Review

Relevant documents such as the Speeches from the Throne and Reports on Plans and Priorities were reviewed to assess the alignment of the GP with federal priorities and PS strategic outcomes. In addition, legislation and foundational program documents were reviewed to assess consistency with federal roles and responsibilities. A list of documents reviewed is provided in Annex B.

Key Informant Interviews

A total of 12 interviews were conducted to collect information on the GP’s success in achieving its intended outcomes as well as its efficiency and economy. Interviewees included program staff (3), grant recipients (5), NVOs in the field that do not receive grants (1), and PS and portfolio agency staff (3) who are in a position to comment on the achievement of policy outcomes and value for money of the GP. Interviews were conducted face-to-face as well as by telephone using a standard interview guide for each interviewee group. Interview guides were sent to interviewees in advance.

Analysis of Program Information and Financial Data

Recipient annual reports submitted in the fall of 2014 were reviewed to assess the extent to which the GP had achieved its expected outcomes. Financial information was extracted from 2013-14 recipient annual reports and financial statements to assess the continued need for the Program. In addition, program financial information was used to assess efficiency and economy.

3.4 Limitations

The evaluators had difficulty finding NVOs working in the field that did not receive a grant and which were sufficiently knowledgeable about the Program to comment. Only one such organization was interviewed. As a result, the information obtained from NVO interviewees may lack balance. To mitigate this, evaluators interviewed PS and portfolio agency staff who could provide views on the achievement of program outcomes from a perspective outside of the Program.

There was a lack of performance information to assess outcomes. The previous evaluation recommended that a Performance Measurement Strategy be developed to support ongoing results-based management and reporting. The Strategy was developed in 2014.Footnote2 In the most recent call for proposals, grant applicants were notified that they would be required to provide information with respect to the indicators identified in the Performance Measurement Strategy at the end of the three-year funding cycle (2014-15 to 2016-17). While grant recipients provide annual reports, audited financial statements, and current and projected annual budgets each year, performance information related to the program outcome indicators has yet to be obtained. As a result, the achievement of outcomes of the GP was assessed using information provided mainly by interviewees, with supporting information provided by the Program and/or collected through literature review.

3.5 Protocols

This report was submitted to program managers and to the responsible Assistant Deputy Minister for review and acceptance. A Management Response and Action Plan was prepared in response to the evaluation recommendations. These documents were presented to the PS Departmental Audit and Evaluation Committee for consideration and for final approval by the Deputy Minister of Public Safety Canada.

4. Findings

4.1 Relevance

4.1.1 Need for the Grants Program

Voluntary organizations provide a wide variety of services and make a significant contribution to Canadian society in a number of domains. An accord between the Government of Canada (GoC) and the voluntary sector notes that “the voluntary sector has been instrumental in the development of most of the public services we rely on today” and “today, both the public and voluntary sectors are involved in the delivery of these services.”Footnote3 The Accord commits the GoC “to recognize its need to engage the voluntary sector in open, informed and sustained dialogue in order that the sector may contribute its experience, expertise, knowledge, and ideas in developing better public policies and in the design and delivery of programs.” Interviewees noted that the GP funding allows NVOs to participate in the national dialogue on criminal justice and corrections and to provide advice to government. 

In the area of criminal justice and corrections, voluntary organizations are involved in supporting victims of crime and their families, reintegrating offenders, supporting the families of offenders and improving public safety in a variety of ways (anger management, dispute resolution, Block Parent programs, etc.). Correctional Service Canada’s (CSC’s) Community Corrections Strategy notes that “CSC's community reintegration partners provide a broad range of activities and services that directly support offender re-entry and contribute to reducing re-offending." Footnote4 The Strategy also indicates that "collaborative relationships between communities, non-governmental organizations and the government are essential in providing the tools and assistance required to support offenders to make successful transitions to the community." The PS Portfolio’s Strategic Policy Framework also highlights the importance of partnering concluding that “the substantive benefits are vast.”Footnote5 A report for the Metcalf FoundationFootnote6 notes that voluntary sector organizations make attractive partners for governments because of their capacity to innovate, to deliver social programs efficiently (in part because of volunteer effort), and to join with multiple partners in producing work of public benefit.Footnote7

In order to make these contributions to the public good, voluntary organizations need to generate revenue. NVOs in the criminal justice and crime prevention field have fewer opportunities to generate revenue than non-profits at work in other domains. They are less able to generate revenue through the sale of goods and servicesFootnote8 and, because offenders and ex-offenders are not a sympathetic cause, they receive less in donations from households and businesses. Sale of publications, fees for conferences and meetings, and training fees are the most common sources of goods and services revenue among GP recipients. On average, these activities generate 21% of their annual revenueFootnote9 while other non-profits obtain 45% of their revenue from the sale of goods and services.Footnote10 GP recipients obtained only 4.4% of their revenue from donations in 2013-14 compared to other non-profits that obtain 13% of revenue from donations./p>

GP recipients are highly dependent on government funding, representing 64% of their revenue compared to 21% of revenue for other non-profits. On average 80% of government funding received by grant recipients comes from the federal governmentFootnote11 while other non-profits receive 70% of their government funding from the provinces and only 25% from the federal government.

The nature of government funding has been changing. The Metcalf Foundation reportFootnote12 notes that during the late 1990s and the first half of the 2000s, government funders moved away from core funding to project and outcome-based funding. As a result, in addition to becoming more entrepreneurial and finding goods and services to sell, non-profits were increasingly forced to support their core operations from the administrative portions of a patchwork of project grants and service contracts. Project funding is by its nature inconsistent and unstable and relying on it alone to fund core operating expenses contributes to the “precarity”.Footnote13 of the sector and, as interviewees observed, has a negative impact on the long-term planning and the ability of NVOs to retain staff and fulfill their mandates. Not only does relying on project-based funding contribute to precarity, but it also increases administrative costs as a result of more extensive accountability and reporting requirements that have been growing over the last two decades due to increasing risk aversion on the part of funders.Footnote14 Furthermore, relying on project funding and service contracts for core operating expenses also poses the risk of mandate creep as organizations chase after funding.

4.1.2 Alignment with Government Priorities and Strategic Outcomes of Public Safety Canada

One of the GoC’s intended outcomes is a safe and secure Canada.Footnote15 GoC’s program activities aim to maintain the safety and security of Canada and its citizens through crime prevention, law enforcement, securing Canada’s borders and emergency preparedness. Speeches from the Throne, media releases and speeches by the Minister over the period of this evaluation have reiterated this commitment. For example, the December 2015 Speech from the Throne,Footnote16 re-committed the government to “work to keep all Canadians safe” by, among other things, introducing legislation to provide greater support for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. 

Local branches of the NVOs supported by the GP contribute to community safety and crime prevention by providing services to victims, offenders, families and local officials. They provide a range of services in the area of conditional release and reintegration of offenders that contribute to public safety. The successful transition of offenders into the community is a key factor to achieving strong public safety results.Footnote17 While many of these services are funded by service contracts with federal and provincial government agencies, the national organizations funded by the GP provide support for the local service delivery. The national structure funded by the GP supports local service delivery through a range of activities including training and professional development, research support, networking and fostering linkages, information dissemination, policy development and support in the preparation of project proposals and responses to Request for Proposals for service contracts.

As the Portfolio lead, PS plays a key role in supporting the Minister’s leadership for public safety and emergency management.Footnote18 PS provides strategic policy advice and support to the Minister on a range of issues including national security, border strategies, countering crime and emergency management. NVOs supported by the GP contribute to policy advice on matters of criminal justice and corrections by providing a front line perspective informed by experience. Through increasing knowledge and understanding of criminal justice and corrections issues and providing input informed by experience and grounded in reality, NVOs supported by the GP contribute to improved government programs, policies and legislation.

4.1.3 Consistency with Federal Roles and Responsibilities

Under the Constitution Act, 1867, S. 91, the Parliament has authority to make laws for “peace, order and good government”, foreign affairs, defence (including border security), criminal law and penitentiaries. PS and its nine portfolio agencies have specific roles in fulfilling responsibilities conferred to the Government of Canada by the Parliament.  More than seventy (70) acts, including the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, S.C. 2005, c. 10, the Emergency Management Act, S.C. 2007, c. 15, give the Minister various responsibilities and powers with respect to national security, border strategies, countering crime and emergency management. PS, in its portfolio coordination role, brings strategic focus to the overall safety and security agenda and provides strategic policy advice and support to the Minister in fulfilling his responsibilities.

The GP allows PS to obtain knowledge and understanding of criminal justice and corrections issues as input to policies, legislation and programs. The Public Safety Portfolio’s Strategic Policy FrameworkFootnote19 highlights changing expectations among Canadians for community engagement, meaningful information sharing between governments and communities and a more collaborative approach to policy development. According to interviewees, fostering civil society is an important role of government which requires funding, information exchange and opportunities for dialogue. The GP provides a mechanism for the voluntary sector to be involved in the policy dialogue and allows PS to leverage expertise outside of the government. 

4.1.4 Duplication or Complement

Several grant recipients have received project funding from PS’s Policy Development Contribution Program (PDCP). This program supports projects that contribute to policy making and improved service delivery in the areas of public safety and emergency management. In order to obtain funding, organizations submit proposals for specific projects with identified deliverables. As a contribution program rather than a grant program like the GP, the PDCP involves closer monitoring of progress and results and greater scrutiny of the use of funds including, if necessary, a recipient audit.Footnote20 Closer monitoring, however, comes at a greater administrative cost on the part of both the government and funding recipients. 

The GP is a grant program intended to cover core operating expenses, including salaries and benefits, rents, translation, telephone, postage and equipment/material for staff and board members. Although it funds some of the organizations that receive PDCP contributions it does not duplicate the PDCP.

4.2 Performance - Effectiveness

4.2.1 Intended Target Audience

Eligible grant recipients are Canadian not-for-profit bodies and NVOs in the area of corrections and conditional release that contribute to public safety. Recipients must also be well established, have a high level of credibility, and have a visible constituency. Interviewees observed that grants have been made to almost the same set of organizations for decades and there may be other innovative organizations that should be receiving funding. Interviewees also said that only when an organization closes down does a new organization receive funding. Although there was a public call for applications for the current funding cycle, it was not proactively publicized and no new organizations submitted an application. The fact that no Aboriginal organization is funded appeared to some interviewees to be a significant gap given the representation of Aboriginals in the criminal justice system.

4.2.2 Achievement of Expected Outcomes

Improved Capacity of NVOs to Fulfill their Mandates

Most of the NVOs funded by the GP are highly dependent on GP funding. GP funding represents more than 30% of the annual revenue for seven grant recipients (47%). In one case, GP funding represents over 99% of annual revenue in the year examined even though the GP Terms and Conditions require that organizations are normally able to secure at least 5% of core funding from sources other than the federal government.Footnote21

Many GP grant recipients operate on limited budgets and are forced to cobble funding together from a variety of sources to cover operating costs. Funding insecurity makes it difficult for them to plan on a long-term basis, retain staff, maintain their infrastructure and fulfill their mandates. A report produced for the Stewardship Centre of British Columbia (BC) Footnote22 notes that “Capacity in the form of adequate funding to cover expenses and not having long term, predictable cash flow, and the ability to retain staff and volunteers are the main factors that prevent the groups from fulfilling their mandate.”

Interviewees noted that NVOs that are financially challenged may divert from their mandates to chase project funding. While project funding can help NVOs augment their revenues, it is inherently volatile and unstable. In addition, project funding typically allows for only 8-10% for administrative costs which is often insufficient. The BC Stewardship Centre report notes that “funders rarely cover all the direct and indirect costs of funded projects with many funders seeming to regard overhead or basic operating costs as a poor use of their money. The concern about overhead has led many funders not to fund any indirect project costs or to set a fixed percentage that is insufficient.” Footnote23

Core funding such as that provided by the GP affords a degree of certainty and continuity for NVOs. It allows them to make long-term plans and make progress on their mandates and priorities. According to interviewees, this results in more innovation than project funding where project proposals must respond to specific and more often restrictive criteria. In addition to providing stability, core funding gives NVOs the capacity to apply for project grants and prepare proposals for service contracts to augment their revenue.

There are three grant recipients for whom GP funding represents less than 5% of their annual revenues. These organizations have total annual revenues ranging from $1.6M to $3.4M compared to annual revenues ranging from $49,000 to $689,000 for the seven grant recipients who rely most heavily on the GP. It is unlikely that GP funding has an impact on the ability of these three organizations to fulfill their mandates.

Improved Coordination of Service Delivery to Offenders and Victims

Interviewees believed that coordination of service delivery has improved and that this is, in part, attributable to the GP. The funding gives grant recipients the capacity (staff time) to coordinate efforts and allows NVOs to attend meetings such as the National Associations Active in Criminal JusticeFootnote24 (NAACJ) annual meeting, PS’s Corrections Roundtable, and events sponsored by other NAACJ members as well as to participate in each other’s projects. According to interviewees, information shared at these meetings has fostered greater collaboration and coordination of service delivery. Interviewees pointed out that GP funding also allows grant recipients to devote time to coordinating services across sectors including the mental health groups, Aboriginal groups, anti-poverty groups, women’s groups, youth groups, legal aid and social services and to be involved at the provincial level which improves coordination and allows for cross fertilization.

The John Howard Society observed that GP funding has helped them significantly in understanding broader national priorities and how to link to them. For example, as a result of speakers invited to address Housing First at conferences and to discuss how Housing First can be leveraged at the local level, the John Howard Society in Ottawa worked with partners receiving Housing First funding to develop a 34-bed facility for people with mental health and substance abuse issues who are frequently in the justice system and clients of many social service agencies. Other examples of improved coordination of service delivery identified in annual reports submitted in 2014 are shown in Annex C.

Interviewees were of the opinion that without the GP, there would be a very limited national network of organizations and there would be a “mixed bag” of services and capacity in communities that would vary considerably from province to province.

Increased Knowledge and Understanding of Criminal Justice and Corrections Issues

Interviewees were of the opinion that GP funding supports activities that have resulted in increased knowledge and understanding of criminal justice and corrections issues. In addition to undertaking research, grant recipients are considered instrumental in disseminating knowledge and fostering knowledge exchange. As the link between policy makers and service delivery, they facilitate knowledge moving up from service deliverers in the field to policy makers and vice versa. One interviewee noted that Correctional Service Canada and PS do excellent research but it is the NVOs who disseminate it and make sure it gets into the field. A report for the Metcalf Foundation notes that “Non-profit organizations functioning across local, regional, national, and sometimes global networks can quickly combine the long view of a social issue with the close view of work in communities. They are able to produce knowledge about what works much faster than the traditional policy processes of governments.”Footnote25

Interviewees indicated that NVOs communicate through conferences, workshops, information sessions, open houses, policy briefs, newsletters, fact sheets, web sites, social media, testimonies at the House and Senate committees, letters to the Ministers, media interviews and letters to newspapers. Information is aimed at a variety of audiences including the local communities, policy makers, parliamentarians, and the general public. Some NVOs also partner with universities to reach students. Examples of contributions to increased knowledge and understanding of criminal justice and corrections issues identified in annual reports submitted in 2014 are shown in Annex C.

Increased Community Capacity to Work with Victims, Offenders and Local Officials

Non-profit service providers are situated between the government and private sectors and are defined by their orientation to serve a public or group good through private, non-profit-making organizational forms. The importance of non-profit service delivery has grown over the last few decades and it is now an integral part of Canada’s mixed social service model.Footnote26 In part, this evolution has been due to retrenchment and “right-sizing” by governments and the search for more cost effective alternatives. Interviewees pointed out that Community Residential Facilities run by NVOs are a cost effective alternative to Community Correction Centres run by the Correctional Service Canada that offer similar services but are more expensive to operate, in part because staff are unionized.

Non-profit service delivery is dependent on government funding. Funding for the services provided by local branches of the GP grant recipients comes from service contracts with federal, provincial and municipal departments responsible for corrections, crime prevention, homelessness, mental health, youth, etc. According to interviewees, funding for services is minimal and precarious. As demand levels and government budgets fluctuate so do service contract dollars making sustaining infrastructure (e.g. buildings) and retaining staff difficult. Support from national organizations is necessary in order to compensate for uncertain and minimal service contract revenues.

Interviewees were of the opinion that NVOs would not be able to perform effectively on service contracts without support from their national organizations. The national organizations funded by the GP support local service delivery through a range of activities including training and professional development, research support, networking and fostering linkages, information dissemination, policy development and support in the preparation of project proposals and responses to Requests for Proposals for service contracts. Interviewees believe that without this support, local services would be compromised. Support from NVOs allows local service providers to go beyond direct service delivery to participate in advocacy work, make linkages to other services in the communities, participate in research projects, identify lessons learned, and make improvements to help keep service delivery current and evidence-based.

Other examples of contributions to increased community capacity identified in annual reports submitted in 2014 are provided in Annex C.

Improved National Policy Dialogue

Interviewees noted that GP funding allows NVOs to participate in a variety of activities that contribute to the national policy dialogue including think tanks, roundtables, discussion groups, testimonies before the House and Senate committees, letters to the Ministers, press releases, letters to the editors and media interviews. According to interviewees, NVOs have a credible voice informed by research and service delivery experience. They are frequently called upon by the media to provide background on current issues as well as by the House and Senate committees.

Examples of contributions to improved national policy dialogue identified in annual reports submitted in 2014 are provided in Annex C.

Improved Government Programs, Policies and Legislation

The Public Safety Portfolio’s Strategic Policy FrameworkFootnote27 highlights changing expectations among Canadians for community engagement, meaningful information sharing between governments and communities and a more collaborative approach to policy development. The GP provides a mechanism for this exchange and allows PS to leverage expertise outside of the government. Interviewees pointed out that there is a public benefit to obtaining policy advice from organizations providing direct services. Their input is informed by their experiences and grounded in reality. One interviewee called the GP a “democracy grant” that allows Canadians to provide input into policy discussions. Another observed that policy input is important and without it, PS agencies risk becoming insular.

Interviewees identified a number of areas where they had provided input including the Victims Bill of Rights, Correctional Service Canada (CSC) and Parole Board of Canada’s complaint systems, Criminal Records Act reform, Corrections and Conditional Release Act, pardons, mandatory minimums, statutory release, recommendations of the Ashley Smith enquiry, peer mentoring in prisons, CSC smoking policy, etc. Other examples taken from annual reports submitted in 2014 are provided in Annex C.

While grant recipients have been active in providing recommendations and advice on government programs, policies and legislation, interviewees noted that the government has been less receptive of late. With a “tough on crime” agenda, the government has had less interest in considering issues of rehabilitation, restorative justice or other alternatives to incarceration which has made it more difficult for NVOs to contribute. However, one interviewee pointed out that the impact of policy advice could be hard to quantify but policy advice and recommendations may influence thinking in the long term.

Factors that have Hindered or Facilitated the Achievement of Outcomes

Interviewees indicated that the strong networks that have developed among the NVOs have facilitated achievement of outcomes. Continuity of leadership of many of the NVOs has meant that productive relationships have been forged and NVOs cooperate rather than compete. 

Strong PS leadership, an attitude of mutual respect between PS and the NVOs, and informed and supportive PS staff were also cited as factors facilitating the achievement of outcomes. The Metcalf Foundation report notes that “the personal knowledge and skills of the program officers and the roles they play have a critical impact on a fund recipient’s ability to achieve outcomes.”Footnote28 The report found that good relationships generate information, create flexibility to find/respond to opportunity, create trust, develop capacity and mitigate risk. 

Despite positive comments on PS support for NVOs, some interviewees were of the opinion that the recent political climate has reduced the level of involvement of senior PS officials. As discussed above, interviewees indicated that a lack of receptivity to recommendations and advice on the part of government has affected policy discussions and hindered the achievement of GP outcomes. 

Several interviewees also noted that the current level of GP funding and, in particular, the lack of any increases to the funding since 1994 even to accommodate inflation have hindered the achievement of outcomes. Grant recipients have responded to the lack of funding increases by cutting back on items such as travel, salaries, and office space. 

No unintended outcomes, either positive or negative, were identified by interviewees.

4.3 Performance - Efficiency and Economy

4.3.1 Recommendations of the Previous Evaluation

The previous evaluation recommended that:

This evaluation found that the recommendations of the previous evaluation have been implemented.

4.3.2 Resources Used and Suggested Improvements

With an administration ratio of 1.2%, the GP’s administrative costs are low indicating an efficient administrative process. The calculation of the administration ratio is provided in Annex D. Interviewees noted that multi-year funding contributes to efficiency by reducing administrative costs for both the government and grant recipients.

While support from PS was identified as an element of strength of the Program, interviewees suggested that they would like to hear more from PS such as through regular e-mail updates or a web site (for recipients only) providing notice of upcoming events, new research studies, etc. In the best of all worlds, there would be more meetings and interviewees suggested Skype or other technology could be employed to increase meeting frequency. 

Interviewees also suggested increasing the dialogue with senior levels including the Deputy and the Minister. Several noted that senior level meetings had been more frequent in the past and expressed a hope that more frequent meetings would resume. Interviewees were of the opinion that meetings at a senior level and/or attendance of senior level people at regular forums would increase the value of policy discussions and lead to increased synergies.

Interviewees also identified a need to broaden the dialogue to include departments and NVOs involved in health care, housing and employment for offenders as well as Aboriginal justice issues. A “wrap around” approach was recommended in order to improve synergies.

5. Conclusions

5.1 Relevance

NVOs have become increasingly important in delivering social services in Canada over the last several decades. The GoC recognizes the importance of the contribution of voluntary organizations to Canadian society in general and in the area of criminal justice and corrections in particular. These organizations provide services that the criminal justice and corrections systems rely upon and they contribute to the policy dialogue. GoC funding is particularly important to voluntary organizations working in the criminal justice and crime prevention field where there are fewer opportunities to generate revenue and low levels of donations from households and businesses. There is a continued need to fund these organizations in order for them to fulfill their mandates.

The GP is aligned with the federal priority of keeping Canadians safe and with PS’s strategic outcomes. As the Portfolio lead, PS provides strategic policy advice and support to the Minister on a range of issues and plays a key role in discharging the GoC's responsibility for safety and security. NVOs supported by the GP contribute to policy advice on matters of criminal justice and corrections by providing a front line perspective informed by experience. 

Under the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, the Minister is responsible for exercising leadership at the national level relating to public safety and emergency preparedness. In exercising his function, he may facilitate the sharing of information, where authorized, to promote public safety objectives. The GP allows PS to obtain knowledge and understanding of criminal justice and corrections issues as input to policies, legislation and programs. The GP provides a mechanism for the voluntary sector to be involved in the policy dialogue and contribute its experience, expertise, knowledge and ideas.

Although the GP funds some organizations that have also received funding from PS’s Policy Development Contribution Program (PDCP), it does not duplicate the PDCP. The GP is a grant program that covers core operating expenses while the PDCP is a contribution program that funds projects with specific deliverables. 

5.2 Performance - Effectiveness

There is some question as to whether the GP is reaching its intended audience. Grants have been made to almost the same set of organizations for decades. Only when an organization closes down does a new one get funded. Although there was a public call for applications for the current funding cycle, it was not proactively publicized and no new organizations submitted applications. Interviewees noted that there may be innovative organizations that could make a significant contribution who are not currently funded. The fact that no Aboriginal organization is funded appears to be a significant gap given the representation of Aboriginals in the criminal justice system. 

Many GP recipients operate on limited budgets and are forced to cobble funding together from a variety of sources to cover operating costs. Funding insecurity makes it difficult for them to plan on a long-term basis, retain staff, maintain their infrastructure and fulfill their mandates. Interviewees noted that NVOs that are financially challenged may divert from their mandates to chase project funding. Core funding, such as that provided by the GP, provides greater certainty and continuity for NVOs. It allows them to make long-term plans and advance their priorities. However, for three grant recipients, GP funding represents less than 5% of their annual revenues. These organizations have total annual revenues ranging from $1.6M to $3.4M and it is unlikely that GP funding has impact on their ability to fulfill their mandates.

GP funding gives grant recipients the capacity to coordinate their services with others.  According to interviewees, information shared at a variety of forums attended by NVOs has fostered greater collaboration and coordination of service delivery. GP funding also allows recipients to devote time to coordinate services across sectors. Interviewees were of the opinion that without the GP, there would be a very limited national network of organizations and there would be a “mixed bag” of services and capacity in communities that would vary considerably from province to province.

In addition to undertaking research, grant recipients are instrumental in disseminating knowledge and fostering knowledge exchange. As the link between policy makers and service delivery, they facilitate knowledge moving up from service deliverers in the field to policy makers and vice versa. GP funding provides NVOs with the capacity to undertake research and to participate in knowledge exchange and dissemination activities.

Non-profit service providers funded by service contracts with federal, provincial and municipal governments are an integral part of Canada’s mixed social service model. The national organizations funded by the GP support local service delivery through a range of activities including training and professional development, research support, networking and fostering linkages, information dissemination, policy development and support in the preparation of project proposals and responses to Requests for Proposals for service contracts. Interviewees believe that without this support, local services would be compromised. Support from NVOs allows local service providers to go beyond direct service delivery to participate in advocacy work, make linkages to other services in the communities, participate in research projects, identify lessons learned, and make improvements to help keep service delivery current and evidence-based.

GP funding allows NVOs to participate in a variety of activities that contribute to the national policy dialogue including think tanks, roundtables, discussion groups, testimonies before the House and Senate committees, letters to the Ministers, press releases, letters to the editors and media interviews. NVOs are recognized as having a credible voice informed by research and service delivery experience.

The GP provides a mechanism for the communities to be engaged in policy development and allows PS to leverage expertise outside of the government. Interviewees pointed out that there is a public benefit to obtaining policy advice from organizations providing direct services. Their input is informed by their experience and grounded in reality. NVOs have provided input and advice on a wide range of legislative and policy initiatives over the period of the evaluation. While grant recipients have been active in providing recommendations and advice on government programs, policies and legislation, interviewees noted that the government has been less receptive of late. 

Interviewees indicated that the strong networks among NVOs and continuity of NVO leadership have contributed to the achievement of outcomes. Strong PS leadership, an attitude of mutual respect between the Department and the NVOs, and informed and supportive PS staff were also cited as factors facilitating the achievement of outcomes. 

Several interviewees noted that the current level of GP funding and, in particular, the lack of any increases to the funding since 1994 even to accommodate inflation has hindered the achievement of outcomes.

5.3 Performance - Efficiency and Economy

The recommendations from the previous evaluation have been implemented although data collection under the GP’s new Performance Measurement Strategy will not be available until the end of the current funding cycle in 2016-17.

With an administration ratio of 1.2%, the GP has an efficient administrative process.  Interviewees noted that multi-year funding contributes to efficiency by reducing administrative costs for both the government and grant recipients.

While support from PS was identified as an element of strength of the Program, interviewees nevertheless suggested that they would like to hear more from PS such as through regular e-mail updates or a website (for recipients only) providing notice of upcoming events, new research studies, etc. Interviewees also suggested increasing the dialogues with senior levels including the Deputy and the Minister. 

Interviewees suggested broadening the dialogue to include departments and NVOs involved in health care, housing and employment for offenders as well as Aboriginal justice issues. A “wrap around” approach was recommended in order to improve synergies.

6. Recommendations

The Internal Audit and Evaluation Directorate recommends the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch to implement the following:

7. Management Response And Action Plan

The Crime Prevention, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate reviewed the evaluation and accept the recommendations.  In response, below is the Management Response and Action Plan.

Recommendation

Management Response

Action Planned

Planned Completion Date

1. Develop a strategy to intensify the efforts to publicize the call for applications more broadly in order to ensure the Grants Program is reaching its intended target audience.

Accept

  • A call for proposals (CFP) will be launched for the upcoming funding cycle and it will be posted on the Public Safety Website. 
  • An electronic call letter will be prepared to disseminate to an extended list of partners and stakeholders in the criminal justice sector to inform them that the CFP was launched and where to find additional information.
  • Given that the above process will increase the demand for limited resources, the Department will seek possibilities to increase the amount of money to be made available to NVOs.

November 2016

December 2016

March 2018

2. Implement an instrument to assess how NVOs have contributed to increasing the national policy dialogue to better inform and enhance corrections and criminal justice policy and practice.

Accept

  • Engage with other federal colleagues who provide core funding to see if an instrument that would be suitable already exists
  • Develop a process or system for collecting information on NVOs engagements
  • Create a report to correspond with the funding cycle (every 3 or 5 years).

February 2017

February 2017

April 2017 and at the end of each funding cycle

Annex A: Literature Reviewed

  1. Financial Challenges of Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations, Imagine Canada, 2006 http://sectorsource.ca/resource/search/nsnvo?page=1
  2. Caring Canadians, Imagine Canada, 2010, analysis of data from the 2010 Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating  http://sectorsource.ca/resource/file/research-note-caring-canadians-involved-canadians-2010 
  3. Trends in Individual Donations 1984 to 2010, Imagine Canada, December 2011 http://sectorsource.ca/resource/file/trends-individual-donations-1984-2010
  4. Earned Income Generating Activities Among Canadian Charities, Imagine Canada, 2013, summary of findings from Imagine Canada’s Sector Monitor http://sectorsource.ca/research-and-impact/imagine-canada-research/earned-income
  5. Sector Monitor, Vol. 4, No. 1, Imagine Canada, 2013, survey conducted between October 31, 2013 and November 29, 2013 http://www.imaginecanada.ca/our-programs/knowledge-development/sector-monitor
  6. Assets and Giving Trends of Canada’s Grantmaking Foundations, Imagine Canada, September 2014 http://sectorsource.ca/research-and-impact/charitable-sector-research
  7. Talking About Charities 2013, the Muttart Foundation, 2013, report on public opinion telephone survey in 2013 http://www.muttart.org/surveys
  8. Volunteering and charitable giving in Canada, Statistics Canada, January 30, 2015  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-652-x/89-652-x2015001-eng.htm
  9. Volunteering in Canada, 2004 to 2013, Statistics Canada, June 18, 2015 http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-652-x/89-652-x2015003-eng.htm
  10. Satellite Account of Non-profit Institutions and Volunteering 2007, Statistics Canada, December 2009  http://sectorsource.ca/resource/file/satellite-account-nonprofit-institutions-and-volunteering-2007  
  11. Charitable Donors 2013, Statistics Canada, February 2015 http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/150217/dq150217c-eng.htm
  12. Recovery Free Zone, Social Planning Network of Ontario, July 2010 http://www.spno.ca/images/stories/pdf/reports/recovery-free-zone-2010.pdf
  13. State of the Sector: Profile of Ontario Not-for-Profit and Charitable Organizations, Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade, 2013 http://www.citizenship.gov.on.ca/english/citizenship/pp_es.shtml
  14. Fair Exchange, Public Funding for Social Impact through the Non-Profit Sector, Metcalf Foundation, June 2013 http://metcalffoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/FairExchange.pdf 
  15. Providing Core Funding to Non-Profits, Stewardship Centre of BC, March 2009 http://www.stewardshipcentrebc.ca/PDF_docs/SW/Stewardship_Works_Report_on_Core_Funding_2009_SCBC.pdf
  16. Not Profiting from Precarity, Baines, Campey, Cunningham and Shields, Just Labour: A Canadian Journal of Work and Society, Volume 22, Autumn 2014, Centre for Research on Work and Society, York University http://justlabour.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/justlabour/article/view/6

Annex B: Documents Reviewed

  1. An Accord between the Government of Canada and the Voluntary Sector, Government of Canada, December 2001 http://publications.gc.ca/site/archivee-archived.html?url=http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CP32-75-2001E.pdf
  2. Federal Community Corrections Strategy, Correctional Service Canada, August 2013 http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/parole/002007-1002-eng.shtml
  3. NVO Request for Funding Form http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/crrctns/_fl/rqst-fndng-qstnnr-bil.pdf
  4. Terms and Conditions Grants Program (GP) to National Voluntary Organizations (NVOs)    http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/crrctns/grnts-prgm-trms-cndtns-eng.aspx
  5. Performance Measurement Strategy for the Grants Program (GP) to National Voluntary Organizations (NVOs), September 2014.
  6. 2010–2011 Evaluation of the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations, September 19, 2011.
  7. Whole of Government Framework, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, February 23, 2015 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ppg-cpr/frame-cadre-eng.aspx
  8. Media Releases - 2011, 12, 13, 14, 15 http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/nws-rlss/index-eng.aspx
  9. Speeches by Minister 2011, 12, 13 http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/spchs/index-eng.aspx
  10. Speech from the Throne, December 4, 2015 http://www.speech.gc.ca/en/content/making-real-change-happen
  11. Ahead of the Curve A Strategic Policy Framework for the Public Safety Portfolio http://infocentral/cnt/pol/_fl/hdfthcrv-eng.pdf
  12. Report on Plans and Priorities, 2015-16 https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rprt-plns-prrts-2015-16/index-en.aspx

Annex C: Examples Of Achievement Of Program Outcomes

Improved Coordination of Service Delivery

Increased Knowledge and Understanding of Criminal Justice and Corrections Issues

Increased Community Capacity to Work with Victims, Offenders and Local Officials

Improved National Policy Dialogue

Improved Government Programs, Policies and Legislation

  • St. Leonard’s Society of Canada facilitated a dialogue with the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies in Peel Region resulting in increased cross-sectoral networking to improve client service and increased awareness of existing programs available in the community.
  • Canadian Training Institute established a partnership with the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health and the Department of Psychiatry at Dalhousie University.
  • Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec publishes an information product for the public twice a year
  • Canadian Families & Corrections Network conducted a study of current family-victims programs with the objective of determining best practices in the field of family-victim program services, examining challenges and opportunities for the governance of family-victim programs, and identifying questions and areas for further research that might assist family-victim program development.
  • St. Leonard's Society of Canada co-developed and delivered a workshop designed to encourage and increase knowledge and understanding of community corrections for government and non-government personnel.
  • St. Leonard's Society of Canada piloted strategies informed by the Homes for the Hard to House model to further knowledge in this area.
  • John Howard Society of Canada’s Criminal Justice Education Program reached 64 schools, delivered 190 presentations to 3,400 students.
  • The Church Council on Justice and Corrections developed a curriculum and training for volunteers in a program to develop empathy in offenders with respect to the harm their victims have experienced.
  • Canadian Families & Corrections Network developed Correctional Service Canada (CSC)/Non-governmental Organization training and delivered training to new CSC Victim Services Officers.
  • Canadian Families & Corrections Networks developed a resource in electronic and print form offering parents and caregivers information and support on how to explain incarceration of a loved one to children.
  • YOUCAN initiated the Step Up and Step In project designed to address issues with at risk newcomer youth by providing mentorship and learning opportunities.
  • Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police produced media releases in response to federal decisions and legislation
  • John Howard Society of Canada increased use of social media including Facebook and Twitter
  • Church Council on Justice and Corrections featured the Justice Storytelling Quilt in its Restorative Justice Week resource kit. A full article about the history of the quilt highlighted this unique tool created to spark dialogue about justice.
  • Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police provided input offered principles to be followed in formulating new law on prostitution, which was introduced in June as Bill C-36 (Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act)
  • Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies made recommendations at the inquest into the death of Ashley Smith
  • Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime wrote to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in Support of Bill C-479, amending the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
  • St. Leonard’s Society of Canada submitted a comprehensive brief to the Department of Justice on the proposed Victim's Bill of Rights

Source: Extracted from the recipient annual reports (fall of 2014)

Annex D: Program Administration Ratio

The program administration ratio refers to the total program administration cost as a percentage of the grants paid.

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION COSTS

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

Program Staff - up to the level of Director (based on estimated % of time spent on the GP)

 

 

 

 

 

Salaries - 20% of PM 5 Salary

16,434

16,434

16,434

16,434

  16,434

Operations and Maintenance

Subtotal

16,434

16,434

16,434

16,434

  16,434

DG's office (based on estimated % of time spent on the GP)

 

 

 

 

 

Salaries

0

0

0

0

0

Operations and Maintenance

-

-

-

-

-

Subtotal

0

0

0

0

0

TOTAL PROGRAM COST

16,434

16,434

16,434

16,434

  16,434

Internal Services

 

 

 

 

 

Salaries

  -  

-  

   -  

   -  

  -  

Operations and Maintenance

  -  

-  

   -  

   -  

  -  

Subtotal

  -  

-  

   -  

   -  

  -  

Employee Benefits Plan
(20% of Salary Expenditures)

  3,287

3,287

   3,287

   3,287

  3,287

PWGSC Accommodation Allowance
(13% of Salary Expenditures)

  2,136

2,136

   2,136

   2,136

  2,136

TOTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION COST

21,858

21,858 

21,858

21,858 

  21,858

TRANSFER PAYMENTS (Vote 5)

 

 

 

 

 

Budget

   1,796,144

  1,796,144

   1,796,144

    1,796,144

   1,796,144

Grants paid

   1,796,143

  1,796,143

   1,796,143

    1,796,143

   1,796,143

Budget minus Grants

    1

  1

    1

     1

    1

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION RATIO

 

 

 

 

 

Annual

1.2%

1.2%

1.2%

1.2%

1.2%

Five year average

1.2%

1.2%

1.2%

1.2%

1.2%

Footnotes

  1. 1

    Prior to the current funding cycle (2014-15 to 2016-17), grants were for only one year.

  2. 2

    Performance Measurement Strategy for the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations, September, 2014.

  3. 3

    An Accord Between the Government of Canada and the Voluntary Sector, December 2001, http://publications.gc.ca/site/archivee-archived.html?url=http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CP32-75-2001E.pdf

  4. 4

    Federal Community Corrections Strategy, Framework for Action, Correctional Service Canada, Aug. 2013, http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/parole/002007-1002-eng.shtml

  5. 5

    Ahead of the Curve. A Strategic Policy Framework for the Public Safety Portfolio  http://infocentral/cnt/pol/_fl/hdfthcrv-eng.pdf

  6. 6

    The Metcalf Foundation is a private family foundation, based in Toronto, dedicated to advancing innovative approaches to sustainability, equity, and creativity. The mission of the Foundation is to enhance the effectiveness of people and organizations working together to help Canadians imagine and build a just, healthy, and creative society.

  7. 7

    Fair Exchange – Public Funding for Social Impact through the Non-Profit Sector, Metcalf Foundation, June 2013 http://metcalffoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/FairExchange.pdf

  8. 8

    Imagine Canada found that charities in the areas of the arts, culture, sports and recreation are most likely to engage in earned income generation. Source: Earned Income-Generating Activities Among Canadian Charities, Summary of Findings from Imagine Canada's Sector Monitor, Imagine Canada, 2013, http://sectorsource.ca/research-and-impact/imagine-canada-research/earned-income

  9. 9

    2013-14 financial statement submitted by grant recipients

  10. 10

    Statistics Canada, Satellite Account of Non-profit Institutions and Volunteering, Revenue by Source 2008 (core non-profit sector excluding hospitals, care homes, universities and colleges), CANSIM Table 388-000 , http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/091221/dq091221b-eng.htm

  11. 11

    Provincial and local governments provide 12% and 4% of the funding respectively.

  12. 12

    Fair Exchange – Public Funding for Social Impact through the Non-Profit Sector, Metcalf Foundation, June 2013 http://metcalffoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/FairExchange.pdf

  13. 13

    Not Profiting from Precarity: The Work of Nonprofit Service Delivery and the Creation of Precariousness, Donna Baines, Ian Cunningham, John Campey, John Shields, Just Labour, Canadian Journal of Working and Society, Vol. 22, Autumn 2014 http://justlabour.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/justlabour/article/view/6

  14. 14

    Fair Exchange – Public Funding for Social Impact through the Non-Profit Sector, Metcalf Foundation, June 2013 http://metcalffoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/FairExchange.pdf

  15. 15

    Whole of Government Framework http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ppg-cpr/framework-cadre-eng.aspx?Rt=1038

  16. 16

    Making Real Change Happen, Speech from the Throne to Open the First Session of the Forty-second Parliament of Canada http://speech.gc.ca/en/content/making-real-change-happen

  17. 17

    Federal Community Corrections Strategy, Framework for Action, Correctional Service Canada, Aug. 2013, http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/parole/002007-1002-eng.shtml

  18. 18

    Report on Plans and Priorities, 2015-16 http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rprt-plns-prrts-2015-16/index-eng.aspx

  19. 19

    Ahead of the Curve. A Strategic Policy Framework for the Public Safety Portfolio  http://infocentral/cnt/pol/_fl/hdfthcrv-eng.pdf

  20. 20

    Directive on Transfer Payment, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, October 1, 2008, Appendix B Core Design Elements  http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=14208

  21. 21

    This grant recipient, the Seventh Step Society of Canada, suggested in The Request for Funding Questionnaire completed in September 2013, that the 800 hours of time contributed by their volunteers should be valued at $16,000 or 33% of their annual budget. The proposed budget for 2015-16 indicates funding of $5,835 (10.7%) from sources other than the federal government. This amount includes $5,500 from donations and in-kind contributions.

  22. 22

    Providing Core Funding to Non-Profits, Stewardship Centre of BC, March 2009 http://www.stewardshipcentrebc.ca/PDF_docs/SW/Stewardship_Works_Report_on_Core_Funding_2009_SCBC.pdf

  23. 23

    Ibid

  24. 24

    The NAACJ was established to provide a forum for members to share and generate information, ideas, expertise, values and support.

  25. 25

    Fair Exchange – Public Funding for Social Impact through the Non-Profit Sector, Metcalf Foundation, June 2013 http://metcalffoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/FairExchange.pdf

  26. 26

    Not Profiting from Precarity: The Work of Nonprofit Service Delivery and the Creation of Precariousness, Donna Baines, Ian Cunningham, John Campey, John Shields, Just Labour, Canadian Journal of Working and Society, Vol. 22, Autumn 2014 http://justlabour.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/justlabour/article/view/6

  27. 27

    Ahead of the Curve. A Strategic Policy Framework for the Public Safety Portfolio  http://infocentral/cnt/pol/_fl/hdfthcrv-eng.pdf

  28. 28

    Fair Exchange – Public Funding for Social Impact through the Non-Profit Sector, Metcalf Foundation, June 2013 http://metcalffoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/FairExchange.pdf

Date modified: