2010-2011 Evaluation of the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations - Final Report

2010-2011 Evaluation of the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations - Final Report PDF Version (212 KB)

Table of contents

• Executive Summary
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Profile
  • 2.1 Background
  • 2.2 Program Objectives
    • 2.2.1 Eligible Recipients
    • 2.2.2 Selection Process
  • 2.3 Resources
  • 2.4 Funded National Voluntary Organizations
• 3. About the Evaluation
  • 3.1 Evaluation Issues
  • 3.2 Data-Collection Methods
    • 3.2.1 Literature and Document Review
    • 3.2.2 Interviews with Key Representatives
    • 3.2.3 Review of Financial Information
  • 3.3 Methodological Limitations
• 4. Findings
  • 4.1 Relevance
    • 4.1.1 Continued Need
    • 4.1.2 Alignment with Government Priorities
    • 4.1.3 Alignment with Federal Roles and Responsibilities
  • 4.2 Performance—Effectiveness
    • 4.2.1 Policy Context for the Assessment of Outcomes
    • 4.2.2 Enhanced Ability to Maintain a Minimum National Structure
    • 4.2.3 Knowledge, Collaboration and Awareness
    • 4.2.4 Greater Community Capacity
  • 4.3 Performance—Efficiency and Economy
• 5. Conclusions
• 6. Recommendations
• 7. Management Response and Action Plan
• Appendix A: Grants Awarded under the Program by Fiscal Year
• Appendix B: References
• Appendix C: Eligibility Form

Executive Summary

Evaluation supports accountability to Parliament and Canadians by helping the Government of Canada to credibly report on the results achieved with resources invested in programs. Evaluation 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. Evaluation also supports policy and program improvements by helping to identify lessons learned and best practices.

What we examined

The evaluation examined the relevance (ongoing need and alignment with federal government's roles, responsibilities and priorities) and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations (hereafter referred to as "the Program"). The evaluation covers the period starting in 2005-2006.

From 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, the Program provided sustaining grants totalling $8,887,757 to 17 recipient organizations, nearly $1.8 million annually. The Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations provides funding to national voluntary organizations whose activities support and promote Public Safety Canada's mandate and priorities in the area of public safety. The funding is meant to help these organizations maintain a national structure and cover core operating expenses. Grant applications are reviewed by the Portfolio's Liaison Committee on Relations with the Voluntary Sector and are ultimately approved by the Deputy Minister of Public Safety.

Why it is important

The policy context has changed since the renewal of the Program in 2005-2006 with the recommendations of the Independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Grant and Contribution Programs (2006) and the renewal of the Policy on Transfer Payments (2008). In this context, the evaluation assessed progress against three outcomes as follows:

• To provide funding for national voluntary organizations to maintain a minimum national structure and cover core operating expenses;
• The acquisition of knowledge resulting from the recipients' work and the collaboration between Public Safety Canada and national voluntary organizations; and,
• Community capacity to work with different partners, including victims of crime and offenders.

The Independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Grant and Contribution Programs emphasized in its final report the central importance of grants and contributions as instruments of public policy. In their broadest sense, national voluntary organizations offer a wide range of services and programs for the benefit of Canadian society. Voluntary organizations are highly dependent on the grants and contributions they receive from different levels of government as nearly 50% of their funding comes from various levels of government. Generally speaking, the national voluntary organizations sector plays a substantial role in the Canadian economy, with close to two million workers, nation-wide, and nearly $27 billion spent in the sector each year on programs.

What we found

Relevance

There is a continuing need for the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations to contribute to the sustainability of national voluntary organizations. Government represents approximately 49% of total funding. The provincial contribution accounts for the main source of government funding at 40%, with 7% from the federal government and 2% from municipal authorities. The federal role remains relevant in the delivery of a program of grants to national voluntary organizations particularly in the current economic environment where resources are scarce.

The Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations remains consistent with the roles and responsibilities of the Government of Canada, and with federal priorities, as evidenced by documented government sources. Those interviewed for the evaluation also agreed that the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations is consistent with priorities that relate to community safety, family and victim support, and inmate reintegration.

The Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations is limited in scope to the Community Safety and Partnerships Branch. Other branches have expressed an interest in having access to a similar program.

Performance

In terms of providing funding to maintain a minimum national structure and cover core operating expenses, the evaluation found that the eligibility criteria do not require organizations to demonstrate how the grant funding will enable the organization to achieve this outcome. This is a digression from the spirit of the Independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Grant and Contribution Programs, which recommended that the upfront eligibility criteria provide sufficient assurance that eligible recipients will meet the objectives of the program. Neither do the eligibility criteria require that recipients report on results that assist Public Safety Canada in achieving its policy objectives. Outcome-based performance information is a requirement of the Policy on Transfer Payments and it can be requested from the recipients if relevant.

The eligibility criteria, as written, also create gaps in the information that could assist in decision-making. Public Safety Canada has not developed guidelines and criteria to support decision-making by the reviewing committee to assist in guiding them in the selection of recipients and grant amounts.

In terms of assessing the acquisition of knowledge, collaboration, and greater community capacity, in the absence of outcome-based measures, it was difficult to determine if recipients have contributed to the achievement of outcomes. However, interviewees maintained that the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations has achieved the expected outcomes noting contributions to Public Safety Canada policy development objectives; strengthened relationships with national voluntary organizations; knowledge enhancements; and, contributions to community capacity. The Program also enabled the organizations to provide services to victims of crime and reintegration services to offenders in many urban and rural communities across Canada, contributing many volunteer hours to these activities.

It appears that the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations is being delivered in an efficient manner and that the level of effort being used to deliver this program cannot be reduced. However, in the absence of benchmarks or comparables, it is impossible to state conclusively whether this is the case. The evaluation team notes that steps have been taken to improve administrative efficiency by providing multi-year funding. Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations representatives maintain that Public Safety Canada derives more benefits from this program than the amount of funds it invests.

Communication and transparency of the Program have improved in relation to the preceding period (pre-2005), particularly as a result of the on-line publication of eligibility criteria and administrative formalities.

Recommendations

It recommended that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Partnerships Branch, ensure that the Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate:

1. Amend the terms and conditions for the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations in order to strengthen eligibility criteria. The terms and conditions should be strengthened in keeping with the Independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Grant and Contribution Programs recommendation that upfront eligibility criteria will provide sufficient assurances that objectives will be met.
2. Develop guidelines and/or criteria to guide the deliberations and outcomes of the Portfolio's Liaison Committee on Relations with the Voluntary Sector. The information required as part of the application process should provide all the information necessary for informed decision-making in the selection process.
3. Develop a Performance Measurement Strategy for ongoing results-based reporting, and, if relevant, include requirements for reporting on results in the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations' Terms and Conditions.

Management Response and Action Plan

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Partnerships Branch, accepts the recommendations of this evaluation and proposes the following management action plan:

Response to Recommendation 1:

The Terms and Conditions for the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organization are currently under review as required by Treasury Board once every five years. This review responds to recommendation #1, and includes strengthening the eligibility criteria. The target date is September 2011.

Response to Recommendation 2:

The Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, in consultation with the Portfolio's Liaison Committee on Relations with the Voluntary Sector, will develop written guidelines to guide the committee's deliberations and decisions during each funding cycle. The applicants will be required to provide all the information necessary for the selection process, including: annual reports, audited financial statements, and current and projected budgets. The target date is December 2013.

Response to Recommendation 3:

The Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate will develop the Performance Measurement Strategy and will be responsible for its implementation. This will include a review and an assessment of the performance of each recipient by considering a number of key indicators that demonstrate whether the grant assisted them in meeting the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organization objectives. The target date is December 2012.

1. Introduction

This report presents the results of the 2010-2011 Evaluation of the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations. The Public Safety Canada Evaluation Directorate led this evaluation, which covers program activities starting in 2005-2006.

The evaluation meets Treasury Board requirements to provide evidence based on a neutral assessment of the relevance and performance of the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations (hereafter referred to as "the Program"), as set out in its 2009 Policy on Evaluation. As such, this evaluation assesses the extent to which a demonstrable need has been met by the Program, whether it is appropriate to the role of the federal government, and whether it is responsive to the needs of Canadians. The evaluation also assesses the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of the Program.

The evaluation supports accountability to Parliament and to Canadians by helping to credibly report on the results achieved with the resources invested.

2. Profile

2.1 Background

The Program and its predecessor, the Sustaining Funding Program, were established in 1983 to consolidate the grant programs 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 current Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat definition of a grant is "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."^{Note 1}

2.2 Program Objectives

The Program provides "funding for national voluntary organizations (NVOs) to maintain a minimum national structure and cover core operating expenses"^{Note 2}. These NVOs make significant contributions to the development of criminal justice and national security policies and deliver services in these areas that are consistent with the mandate of Public Safety Canada and the Public Safety Portfolio agencies.

2.2.1 Eligible Recipients

The classes of eligible recipients are Canadian not-for-profit bodies and NVOs whose activities are consistent with the strategic directions and policy priorities of the Department. Crown Corporations, for profit groups, provinces, territories and individuals are not eligible for funding under the Program. The criteria for receiving a grant under the program include the following:

• The organization is an NVO or a not-for-profit organization that provides a range of services in the area of corrections and conditional release, and therefore contributes directly to public safety.
• The organization's objectives and activities are directly related to those of the Portfolio.
• The organization has a Board of Directors.
• The organization has internal accountability measures.
• The organization is well established and has a high level of credibility.
• The organization is normally able to secure at least five per cent (5%) of its core funding from sources other than the federal government.
• The organization has a visible constituency.
• The organization is actively engaged in pursuing its stated objectives through strategies and activities acceptable in a free and democratic society.
• The organization agrees to provide information requested by Public Safety Canada in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Grant Program.

2.2.2 Selection Process

The eligibility criteria for the Program are clearly identified on the Public Safety Canada web site^{Note 3} and NVOs are required to meet the criteria, point by point, on the form provided to that effect.^{Note 4}

Grant applications are reviewed by the Portfolio Liaison Committee on Relations with the Voluntary Sector, which is chaired by officials from the Department, and includes the participation of the Correctional Service of Canada, the Parole Board of Canada (formerly the National Parole Board), and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Recommendations from the Committee are included in a memorandum to the Deputy Minister for his approval.

2.3 Resources

The Program provided $1,749,663 annually in grants between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. The Program is managed by a program manager of the Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate of the Community Safety and Partnerships Branch, representing approximately 30% of the manager's workload each year.

The Portfolio Liaison Committee on Relations with the Voluntary Sector, which numbers about 10 representatives, meets once per year to review applications from NVOs and award grants.

2.4 Funded National Voluntary Organizations

Table 1 lists the 17 NVOs that received grants between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010.

To provide a greater understanding of the contribution NVOs make and how they may be structured, this report presents additional information on the Program's two largest recipients:

• the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS); and,
• the John Howard Society of Canada (JHSC).

The CAEFS is a national association of self-governing, volunteer and non-profit Elizabeth Fry Societies. The CAEFS currently comprises 22 member societies located in 26 communities across Canada. The CAEFS' mission is to work with and for women and girls in the justice system, particularly those who are, or may be, criminalized. Elizabeth Fry Societies develop and advocate the beliefs, principles and positions that guide CAEFS. The CAEFS exists to ensure substantive equality in the delivery and development of services and programs through public education, research, legislative and administrative reform, regionally, nationally and internationally.

The organization's goals are as follows:

• To increase public awareness and promotion of decarceration for women;
• To reduce the numbers of women who are criminalized and imprisoned in Canada;
• To increase the availability of community-based, publicly funded, social service, health and educational resources available for marginalized, victimized, criminalized and imprisoned women; and,
• To increase collaborative work among Elizabeth Fry Societies and other women's groups working to address poverty, racism, and other forms of oppression.^{Note 5}

The JHSC is an association of more than 60 provincial and territorial societies, whose goal is to understand and respond to problems of crime and the criminal justice system "through effective, just and humane responses to the causes and consequences of crime." The JHSC is involved in the following activities in aid of its goal and mission:

• Work with people who have come into conflict with the law;
• Review, evaluate and advocate for changes in the criminal justice process;
• Engage in public education on matters relating to criminal law and its application; and,
• Promote crime prevention through community and social development activities.

3. About the Evaluation

The Public Safety Canada Evaluation Directorate is responsible for conducting evaluation activities within the Department. The 2010-2011 evaluation of the Program covers the period starting in 2005-2006.

This evaluation has the following objectives:

• Foster accountability to Parliament and Canadians by helping the Government to credibly report on the results achieved with resources invested in programs;
• Support the Deputy Minister in managing for results by informing him about whether the Department's programs are producing the outcomes that they were designed to produce, at an affordable cost; and,
• Support policy and program improvements.

3.1 Evaluation Issues

In accordance with the Treasury Board Secretariat Directive on the Evaluation Function, the five core evaluation issues were addressed as part of this evaluation, concerning the Program's relevance and performance:

Relevance

• Continued Need for the Program, Policy or Initiative: Assessment of the extent to which the program continues to address a demonstrable need and is responsive to the needs of Canadians.
• Alignment with Government Priorities: Assessment of the linkages between program objectives and (i) federal government priorities and (ii) departmental strategic outcomes.
• Consistency with Federal Roles and Responsibilities: Assessment of the role and responsibilities for the federal government in delivering the program.

Performance

• Achievement of Expected Outcomes: Assessment of progress toward expected outcomes with reference to performance targets and program reach, program design, including the linkage and contribution of outputs to outcomes.
• Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy: Assessment of resource utilization in relation to the production of outputs and progress toward expected outcomes.

3.2 Data-Collection Methods

In the course of the evaluation process, the evaluation team used a range of data-collection methods. The information and data collected were then synthesized and integrated in order to support the main findings and the recommendations.

The qualitative and quantitative data were provided by the Program's key representatives. Where applicable, additional research and analyses were conducted by the evaluation team.

Three lines of evidence were used:

• Literature and document review;
• Interviews with the Program's key representatives; and,
• Review of financial information.

3.2.1 Literature and Document Review

The literature and document review gave the evaluators an understanding of the Program's context, environment and evolution. The review also provided relevant evidence for the evaluation.

Various types of documents were studied, including previous evaluations, the report by the Independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Grant and Contribution Programs, the report by the Correctional Services Canada Independent Review Panel, various administrative documents relating to the Program and a sampling of 21 accounts payable to NVO recipients. Appendix A presents a comprehensive list of the works and documents consulted as part of this evaluation.

3.2.2 Interviews with Key Representatives

The evaluation team conducted interviews with the Program's key representatives to gain insight and understanding about the Program.

3.2.3 Review of Financial Information

The evaluation team reviewed grants received by the organizations in each fiscal year, as well as other payments made to these organizations by other federal government departments.

3.3 Methodological Limitations

The following outlines the limitation of the methodology in this evaluation.

• Results-based performance information was not available and could not be assessed. When the program was renewed in 2005, there was no requirement for recipients to provide periodic performance reports due to the unconditional nature of these grants. Furthermore, recipient organizations are not subject to audit, except for their compliance with pre-defined criteria and their obligation to provide reports as needed or as part of the annual determination of their eligibility under the Program. The evaluation relied mostly on the examination of the eligibility criteria and available financial information to determine performance.

4. Findings

The following sections present the main findings concerning the two major issues covered by this evaluation: relevance and performance. These key findings stem from the data and information collected using the research methods described in Section 3.

4.1 Relevance

In order to assess the components of Program relevance, three issues were addressed:

• Continued need;
• Alignment with government priorities; and,
• Consistency with federal roles and responsibilities.

4.1.1 Continued Need

NVOs, in their broadest sense, offer a wide range of services and programs for the benefit of Canadian society. They thus have a variety of missions, and some operate in the field of public safety. These organizations, for example, provide solutions and support for the social reintegration of offenders, intervene economically and socially among at-risk populations and their next-of-kin, ensure the training and development of criminal justice professionals, and raise public awareness by engaging in strategic consultations with the government. By definition, NVOs do not generate profits and, very often, they rely on the work of volunteers. For that reason, they are mostly dependent on the grants and contributions they receive from different levels of government. Generally speaking, the NVO sector plays a substantial role in the Canadian economy, with close to two million workers^{Note 6}, nation-wide, and nearly $27 billion spent in the sector each year to support a myriad of programs.^{Note 7}

Volunteer and community organizations depend on different sources of revenues and forms of aid to carry out their missions. For most of them, grants and contributions are crucial for their existence. The recent economic crisis has made it more complicated to find and obtain funding, thereby worsening the financial difficulties faced by many NVOs and leading to operational challenges and diminished service delivery. In light of the financial situation, some observers note that many not-for-profit organizations have had to reduce their payroll and lay off permanent employees, while relying more on available volunteers.^{Note 8} As Marcel Lauzière, President and CEO of Imagine Canada, commented on January 27, 2009, in response to the federal budget: "Over the past weeks and months, Canadians have heard and read in the media that demands on charitable organizations are on the rise. The ability of these organizations to continue to deliver often mission-critical programs and services is "increasingly at risk in light of difficult economic circumstances that tend to constrain both public grants and private giving".^{Note 9}

According to a Statistics Canada survey, voluntary organizations receive 49% of their funding from governments and obtain 35% from non-governmental sources, such as member contributions and the sale of goods and services. In addition, they receive 13% of their revenues in the form of gifts and donations from individuals, private companies and other organizations (Figure 2).

Figure 2 - Distribution of total revenue, by source (2003)

Image Description

According to a Statistics Canada survey, voluntary organizations receive 49% of their funding from governments and obtain 35% from non-governmental sources, such as member contributions and the sale of goods and services. In addition, they receive 13% of their revenues in the form of gifts and donations from individuals, private companies and other organizations; and 3% from other sources.

With respect to the 49% share of government funding, 40% of the funding comes from provincial governments; 7% comes from the federal government; and 2% from municipal authorities. It is also interesting to note that the larger NVOs are more likely to depend on government funding than smaller organizations. Those organizations with annual revenues of $10 million or more draw approximately 58% of their revenues from government sources.^{Note 10}

Interviewees maintain that there is a need for sustaining grants to NVOs. In their view, the NVOs provide external views and perspectives that influence the development and evolution of public policies and provide community service delivery and enhanced community awareness. One interviewee said that NVOs "are our eyes, ears and sometimes our voices, they drive political dialogue...by means of ongoing consultations." For the interviewees, grants provide stability to NVOs and, without them, their survival would be in jeopardy and their engagement alongside the Department would be difficult, if not impossible.

4.1.2 Alignment with Government Priorities

In recent years, the Government of Canada has repeatedly emphasized that community safety was one of its priorities, whether in the Speeches from the Throne from 2006 to 2010 or in the many public speeches by the Minister of Public Safety. In that regard, the NVOs that have benefited from the Program all operate in the area of community safety and crime prevention.

The contribution by NVOs and their volunteers to community protection and the Canadian correctional system was highlighted in a 2007 report by the Correctional Service of Canada Review Panel (Sampson Committee), which stated:

"The Panel recognizes and applauds the strong commitment and contributions made by volunteers in the correctional system. Their efforts directly contribute to safer Canadian communities."^{Note 11}

For their part, departmental officials agreed that the Program is consistent with the Department's priorities and objectives, and particularly those priorities that relate to community safety, family and victim support and inmate reintegration. Some officials indicated that the Program only benefited departmental priorities in the area of correctional services and criminal justice. They indicated that there were no grants available under the Program to NVOs that support other departmental priorities such as emergency management. This was also a finding of the 2005-2006 evaluation of the Program^{Note 12}, which stated that NVO representation did not entirely meet the emerging departmental mandate, and recommended that the Program be reviewed to ensure congruence with departmental mandate and objectives.

4.1.3 Alignment with Federal Roles and Responsibilities

The report of the Independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Grant and Contribution Programs stated that "federal grant and contribution programs represent one of the most important instruments through which the Government of Canada delivers on its responsibilities to Canadians."^{Note 13} Each year, the federal government spends close to $27 billion in grants and contributions, through more than 50 departments and agencies. That amount includes funding to sustain a broad range of community services, which are provided by non-profit organizations and their volunteers. Transfer payments (grants and contributions combined) represent some 13% of total federal spending.^{Note 14} The report further stated that the community non-profit sector "plays a vital role in Canadian civil society, a role upon which governments at all levels have come to depend."^{Note 15}

As such, the Program is an integral part of the federal grant programs mentioned by the Independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Grant and Contribution Programs. For its part, the Sampson Committee supported NVOs and concluded that they play a vital role in public safety and that their capacity to do so must be maintained, not to say improved.

4.2 Performance—Effectiveness

Effectiveness examines progress toward expected outcomes. In the Program, outcomes are defined by inception documents and are described by the program Results-based Management and Accountability Framework. In accordance with these guiding documents, the evaluation focused on the following outcomes:

• To provide funding for NVOs to maintain a minimum national structure and cover core operating expenses;
• The acquisition of knowledge resulting from the NVO recipients' work and the collaboration between the Department and NVOs; and,
• Community capacity to work with different partners, including victims of crime and offenders.

4.2.1 Policy Context for the Assessment of Outcomes

In order to understand how progress toward expected outcomes was assessed in the evaluation of the Program, the current policy context must be considered.

The evaluation team notes that the renewal of the terms and conditions for the Program occurred in 2005-2006; since that time, the policy context has changed. For example, the Independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Grant and Contribution Programs tabled its report titled From Red Tape to Clear Results in 2006. The renewal of the Treasury Board Policy on Transfer Payments occurred in 2008 and the Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation, related directives and guidelines, came into effect in 2009. These changes in the policy context in which the Program operates, has created challenges in setting out the evaluation expectations for a grants program, in particular, since there exists an apparent tension in the policy direction provided by these documents. The requirements and intentions of each of these documents are more specifically explained in the paragraphs that follow.

The recommendations of the Independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Grant and Contribution Programs sought to reduce "red tape" through a strengthening of eligibility criteria and terms and conditions in order to place less reporting burden on funded recipients. The Panel observed that grant recipients were increasingly being asked to provide additional reporting on the use of the funds they receive and that this had led to situations where, in some instances, grants imposed almost the same reporting burden on recipients as did contributions.

The Panel concluded:

• That to the extent possible, grants should remain unconditional, with limited reporting requirements.
• Grants should be the instrument chosen when upfront eligibility criteria and information received in application forms provide sufficient assurances that the objectives of the payment will be met.
• Contribution-type funding requires additional oversight and accountability, as it is based on the principle of reimbursement of eligible expenditures in the attainment of the activities specified in the funding agreement.
• Wherever possible, and as appropriate, grants should be used, as this implies a reduction of the often excessive reporting and accountability burden associated with contributions.

The assessment of outcomes for the evaluation was guided by the above-noted principles.

In contrast to the Independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Grant and Contribution Programs, the 2009 Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation suite, related guidance, and the renewed Policy on Transfer Payments requires that transfer payment programs including grants programs report on the achievement of outcomes. For example, under the Policy on Transfer Payments, deputy heads are responsible for "ensuring that a performance measurement strategy is established at the time of program design, and that it is maintained and updated throughout its life cycle, to effectively support an evaluation or review of relevance and effectiveness of each transfer payment program."^{Note 16} Additionally, the Guideline on Performance Measurement Strategy under the Policy on Transfer Payments indicates that "departmental managers responsible for preparing terms and conditions are to ensure that the following mandatory elements are addressed in terms and conditions for a transfer payment program using grants [...]

• The purpose and objectives of the transfer payment program with clear linkage to departmental and government objectives, and an identification of expected results with performance measures and indicators for monitoring and reporting [...]

Departmental managers are also to ensure that the following elements are addressed where they are relevant:

• A description of any information that may be requested from a recipient on results achieved through the use of the grant to support the program's performance measurement strategy and departmental reporting."^{Note 17}

Thus, while the Independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Grant and Contribution Programs differentiated between requirements for contribution programs versus grant programs, the policy documents do not make as strong a distinction in terms of the requirement to measure progress against outcomes. Therefore, an apparent tension exists in terms of reducing the reporting burden, while still reporting on outcomes without requiring information of the recipient.

The evaluation team addressed this issue by examining both methods of monitoring outcomes. The evaluation team assessed how well the Program eligibility criteria were working as a mechanism to provide funding that meets the objectives of the program. Additionally, in the absence of performance information from recipients, the evaluators also examined to what extent desired outcomes were being achieved through other lines of evidence.

4.2.2 Enhanced Ability to Maintain a Minimum National Structure

A fundamental objective of the Program is to provide NVOs the stability and sustainability they need to carry out their work. The Program supports these organizations in maintaining a minimum national structure so that they can achieve their objectives and mandates and, by doing so, contribute to the Department's activities and outcomes. In the view of the interviewees, the Program has definitely contributed to the maintenance, promotion and achievement of outcomes of the recipient organizations. Interviewees stated that many NVOs would probably survive without the grants, but others would be forced to end their activities. Indeed, even with grants, two organizations had to cease their activities for financial reasons, namely, the Prison Arts Foundation and the Conflict Resolution Network of Canada.^{Note 18}

The Independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Grant and Contribution Programs recommended in 2006 that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat should encourage multi-year funding.^{Note 19} In recent years, funding provided to NVOs under the Program has been disbursed over a one-year funding cycle, subject to annual parliamentary appropriations. This specific feature of the Program has had an undisputed effect on the long-term financial stability and efficacy of the NVOs because they are required to interact with the Department each year to obtain funding, thereby confining their strategy to a one-year basis at a time. To address this issue, a decision was made in 2010-2011 to provide multi-year funding to NVOs, where appropriate, starting in 2011-2012. Interviewees indicated that the decision to provide multi-year funding would provide additional organizational stability.

In order to determine to what extent the Program contributes to the sustainability of recipient organizations, the evaluation aimed to determine the organization's financial strength/capacity. A complete financial picture of the organizations was not available. NVOs provide financial statements for their national offices, but there is no information on the overall financial picture, nor is there any information on the total amounts received from the Government of Canada at all levels (regional/provincial/local).

Evaluators did find out that two thirds of the recipients have agreements for service contracts and/or other contribution programs with the Department and/or the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). This incomplete information showed that for some recipients the NVO grants represent a small proportion of the funds received from the Government of Canada. Without complete financial information, achievement of this outcome and/or alternatives to the grants cannot be fully assessed.

Under the terms and conditions of the Program, organizations are required to demonstrate that they meet the Program's eligibility criteria. More specifically, NVOs must meet nine specific criteria, with supporting proof, and provide information on their activities and finances over the previous year; however, the criteria related to disclosure of federal funding does not require a complete accounting that includes funding provided at all levels of the organization including satellite offices.

A review of Program files also showed that there has been relatively no change in the recipient NVOs and funding amounts. The number of NVOs and the amount of funding available has been stable since the Program's inception in 1983. There are no guidelines or criteria available to Liaison Committee members in their review and making of recommendations on which and to what extent certain NVOs should be supported. Program management representatives indicated that no other NVOs, other than the current recipients, had applied for a grant. In 2009-2010, all of the applications that were received were determined to be eligible, including the addition of two new NVOs.^{Note 20} The complete list of grants awarded under the Program from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 is presented as Appendix A.

4.2.3 Knowledge, Collaboration and Awareness

The 2006 evaluation concluded that the Program was effective with respect to knowledge generation and that it contributed to the development of public policies and programs and to the strengthening of partnerships with NVOs.^{Note 21} The present evaluation describes the contribution of NVOs in a similar manner.

The Program representatives who were interviewed felt that the grants awarded under the Program provided the Department with knowledge from the field—knowledge it would have difficulty obtaining otherwise. They further maintained that NVOs provide a variety of public awareness activities around various public safety issues.

In concrete terms, many of the recipient NVOs organize and participate in conferences, roundtables and expert meetings on subjects of interest for correctional services, with PS representatives participating as well. For example, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, the St. Leonard's Society of Canada and the Salvation Army—all NVOs that receive grants under the Program—participated recently in a forum on the accountability of communities and social enterprises in the area of public safety.

As a national organization whose objectives include raising awareness, the CAEFS is invited, on average, five times per month to participate in conferences in universities and with professional groups, including judges and government agencies, both in Canada and abroad.

In collaboration with various community partners, CAEFS developed a project titled Human Rights in Action, whose objective is to develop linkages with the Correctional Service of Canada and other volunteer community organizations to help incarcerated women defend their interests and develop a variety of release options to assist women upon leaving federal prisons.

Recently, the JHSC, participated in the Literacy and Policing Project, an initiative of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, whose goal is to make all players in the criminal justice system (including police officers, lawyers, attorneys and judges) more aware of the harmful consequences of the low level of functional literacy among persons in conflict with the law.

In addition, JHSC, in collaboration with the John Howard Society of Ontario, prepared a brief to propose changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

4.2.4 Greater Community Capacity

Departmental program leads maintained that NVOs are crucial resources to the Department and Portfolio's service delivery as these NVOs provide community services such as after-care services, community protection against crime, and citizen engagement in areas related to public safety.^{Note 22}

Interviewees emphasized that NVOs make a significant contribution in terms of social reintegration in areas where Correctional Service of Canada institutions are present—for example, Dorchester in New Brunswick, Montreal and Laval in Quebec, Kingston in Ontario, Edmonton in Alberta, and Abbotsford in British Columbia—as well as in several metropolitan areas and rural communities across the country where Program recipients are present.^{Note 23}

In 2009-2010, the 30 volunteers who work at the CAEFS' national headquarters, including the board of director members, put in 7,554 hours of work. When all of the societies are included, the 1,243 volunteers put in a total of 163,048 hours of work.^{Note 24}

More than 8,043 citizens are involved in JHSC and its local organizations, as volunteers, supporters and directors. They gave a total of 170,015 hours to the JHSC.

4.3 Performance—Efficiency and Economy

The assessment of efficiency and economy examines resource utilization in relation to the production of outputs and progress toward expected outcomes. In the evaluation of the Program, the evaluation team focused on the efficiency of program administration. The Program is managed by a program manager of the Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate of the Community Safety and Partnerships Branch. The level effort expended to support the Program is approximately 30% of the manager's workload per year for the management of approximately $1.8 million in funding annually. Without comparables or benchmarks it is impossible to determine if this is an efficient ratio; however, one could surmise that the FTE level could not be reduced further. Interviewees believe that there is no opportunity to improve the efficiency in program management. Program representatives maintain that Public Safety Canada derives more benefits from the Program than the amount of funds it invests in the Program.

Having stated this, the Program has recently made a management decision to provide multi-year funding which could potentially further streamline program administration. This decision is in keeping with the recommendations from the report of the Independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Grant and Contribution Programs, which points out that the Treasury Board should simplify the current wide variety of grants and contributions into three broad instruments: unconditional grants; specific project-related contributions; and, longer-term contributions.^{Note 25}

5. Conclusions

Relevance

There is a continuing need for the Program to contribute to the sustainability of NVOs. Although the federal government only represents on average 7% of government funding, it remains an important source of revenue to NVOs, and it supplements the provincial contribution, which is the main source of government revenue for NVOs. The federal role remains relevant in the delivery of a program of grants to NVOs particularly in the current economic environment where resources are scarce. The Program remains consistent with federal government and departmental priorities. The Program is limited in scope to the Community Safety and Partnerships Branch.

Performance

The eligibility criteria do not require organizations to demonstrate how the grant funding will enable the organization to maintain a national structure. This is a digression from the spirit of the Independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Grant and Contribution Programs, which recommends that the upfront eligibility criteria provide sufficient assurance that eligible recipients will meet the objectives of the Program.

The eligibility criteria also do not require that recipients report on results that assist Public Safety Canada in achieving its policy objectives. Outcome-based performance information is a requirement of the Policy on Transfer Payments and it can be requested from the recipients if relevant.

The eligibility criteria, as written, create gaps in the information that might be available for decision-making. The Department has not developed guidelines and criteria to support decision-making by the reviewing committee to assist in guiding them in the selection of recipients and grant amounts.

In the absence of outcome-based measures, it is difficult to determine if funded NVOs have contributed to the achievement of outcomes; however, some progress is noted. Interviewees noted contributions to Public Safety Canada policy development objectives, strengthened partnerships with NVOs, and knowledge enhancements. NVOs have also made contributions to community capacity.

It appears that the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations is being delivered in an efficient manner and that the level of effort being used to deliver this program cannot be reduced. However, in the absence of benchmarks or comparables, it is impossible to state conclusively whether this is the case. The evaluation team notes that steps have been taken to improve administrative efficiency by providing multi-year funding.

Communication and transparency of the Program have improved in relation to the preceding period (pre-2005), particularly as a result of the on-line publication of eligibility criteria and administrative formalities.

6. Recommendations

It recommended that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Partnerships Branch, ensure that the Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate:

1. Amend the terms and conditions for the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations in order to strengthen eligibility criteria. The terms and conditions should be strengthened in keeping with the Independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Grant and Contribution Programs recommendation that upfront eligibility criteria will provide sufficient assurances that objectives will be met.
2. Develop guidelines and/or criteria to guide the deliberations and outcomes of the Portfolio's Liaison Committee on Relations with the Voluntary Sector. The information required as part of the application process should provide all the information necessary for informed decision-making in the selection process.
3. Develop a Performance Measurement Strategy for ongoing results-based reporting, and, if relevant, include requirements for reporting on results in the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations' Terms and Conditions.

7. Management Response and Action Plan

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Partnerships Branch, accepts the recommendations of this evaluation and proposes the following management action plan:

Response to Recommendation 1:

The Terms and Conditions for the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organization are currently under review as required by Treasury Board once every five years. This review responds to recommendation #1, and includes strengthening the eligibility criteria. The target date is September 2011.

Response to Recommendation 2:

The Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate, in consultation with the Portfolio's Liaison Committee on Relations with the Voluntary Sector, will develop written guidelines to guide the committee's deliberations and decisions during each funding cycle. The applicants will be required to provide all the information necessary for the selection process, including: annual reports, audited financial statements, and current and projected budgets. The target date is December 2013.

Response to Recommendation 3:

The Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate will develop the Performance Measurement Strategy and will be responsible for its implementation. This will include a review and an assessment of the performance of each recipient by considering a number of key indicators that demonstrate whether the grant assisted them in meeting the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organization objectives. The target date is December 2012.

Appendix A: Grants Awarded under the Program by Fiscal Year

Appendix B: References

Literature and Document Review

• Correctional Service of Canada Review Panel. A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety, Correctional Service of Canada, 2007 268p.
• Goss Gilroy Inc. Evaluation of Sustaining Grants to NVOs and Contributions under the Departmental Program, Public Safety Canada, 2006.
• Independent Blue Ribbon Panel on Grant and Contribution Programs. From Red Tape to Clear Results, 2006.
• Scott, Katherine. Pan-Canadian Funding Practice in Communities: Challenges and Opportunities for the Government of Canada , Canadian Council on Social Development, 2006, 106p.
• Scott, Katherine. Funding Matters: The Impact of Canada's New Funding Regime on Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations, Canadian Council on Social Development, 2003, 233p.
• Statistics Canada. National Survey of Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations, 2003, 6p.

Media Review

• Imagine Canada. Impact of Federal Budget on Canada's Charities & Nonprofits.
  http://www.imaginecanada.ca/files/www/en/publicaffairs/pm_letter_ad_20081120.pdf.

Review of Administrative Records

• Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. Application of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies to the Public Safety Canada Sustaining Funding Program for National Voluntary Organizations and Associations, Fiscal year 2009-10.
• Public Safety Canada. Accounts Payable - Grants and Contributions.
  • Canadian Criminal Justice Association (2008-2009)
  • Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (2006-2007; 2008-2009)
  • Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec (2006-2007; 2007-2008; 2008-2009)
  • Canadian Training Institute (2005-2006; 2006-2007; 2008-2009)
  • John Howard Society of Canada (2006-2007; 2007-2008)

Web site Review

• Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec: http://www.asrsq.ca/fr/english/asrsq_eng/asrsq_mis.php
• Block Parent Program of Canada: http://www.blockparent.ca/about.htm
• Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police: http://www.cacp.ca/index/aboutus
• Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies: http://www.elizabethfry.ca/caefs_e.htm
• Canadian Criminal Justice Association: http://www.ccja-acjp.ca/en/brocheng.html
• Canadian Families and Corrections Network: http://www.cfcn-rcafd.org/text/cfcn.html
• Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime: http://www.crcvc.ca/en/about/
• Canadian Training Institute: http://www.cantraining.org/
• Church Council on Justice and Corrections: http://ccjc.ca/aboutccjc/
• John Howard Society of Canada: http://www.johnhoward.ca/about/mission/index.php
• National Associations Active in Criminal Justice: http://www.naacj.org/eweb/home.html
• Public Safety Canada: publicsafety.gc.ca
• Public Safety Canada: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/crrctns/sstnng-fndng-prgrm-eng.aspx
• Salvation Army: http://www.salvationarmy.ca/missionandvalues/
• Seventh Step Society of Canada: http://www.7thstep.ca/mission.html
• St. Leonard's Society of Canada: http://www.stleonards.ca/?s=about&p=purpose
• Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2010). Treasury Board Policy on Transfer Payments: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?section=text&id=13525
• Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2008-2009 Report on Plans and Priorities: Grants and Contributions Programs Administered by Public Safety Canada. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2008-09/inst/psp/psp04-eng.asp
• Youth Canada Association: http://youcan.ca/
• http://philanthropie.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/limpact-de-la-recession-sur-les-osbl-et-leur-financement/ (in French only)

Appendix C: Eligibility Form

Grants Program

Eligibility form

Organization
Contact person
Telephone No.
Mailing address
Email

Program overview

National voluntary organizations (NVOs) have played an important part in the development and operation of criminal justice initiatives and services in Canada. Public Safety Canada actively supports and encourages cooperation with the voluntary sector, through consultation, information sharing, exchange of expertise and knowledge, provision of resources and development of suitable accountability measures.

The Sustaining Funding Program for NVOs was established in 1983 to consolidate the funding previously provided separately by the Department, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the Parole Board of Canada (PBC). This program provides funding for National Voluntary Organizations to maintain a national structure and cover core operating expenses, including salaries and benefits, rent, translation, telephone and postage, and equipment/material for staff and board members.

Funding

Funding provided to NVOs is made in the form of grants. According to the Treasury Board of Canada Policy on Transfer Payments, a grant is "a transfer payment made to an individual or organization which is not subject to being accounted for or audited but for which eligibility and entitlement may be verified or for which the recipient may need to meet pre-conditions."

Describe how your organization meets each of the nine criteria in the spaces provided.

1. The organization is a national voluntary organization
   1. Date of incorporation:
   2. Charitable registration number:
2. The organization's objectives and activities are related to those of Public Safety Canada.
   1. Mission:
   2. Mandate:
3. The organization has a board of directors. List the names and titles of board members.
4. Describe the organization's internal accountability measures.
5. The organization is well established and has a high level of credibility. Provide history and at least two recent projects/initiatives.
6. The organization is normally able to secure at least five percent (5%) of its core funding from sources other than the federal government. Provide proof of other funding sources.
7. The organization has an active membership and formal structure. Provide information on the current membership and structure.
8. The organization is actively engaged in pursuing its stated objectives through strategies and activities acceptable in a free and democratic society. Provide a summary of current strategies and activities.
9. The organization agrees to provide information requested by Public Safety Canada according to government policy on grants. Explain your organization's procedures for reporting, project evaluation and auditing.

Date modified:

2022-07-26