Evaluation of the Cultural Spaces Fund Program 2018-19 to 2022-23

Evaluation Services Directorate
November 1, 2024

On this page

• List of tables
• List of figures
• List of acronyms and abbreviations
• Executive summary
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Program profile
• 3. Evaluation approach and methodology
• 4. Findings
• 5. Conclusions
• 6. Recommendations, management response and action plan
• Annex A: Supplementary tables
• Annex B: Evaluation Matrix
• Annex C: Program governance
• Annex D: Bibliography

List of tables

• Table 1: CCSF expected results
• Table 2: CCSF resources (actual expenditures $ millions), 2018-19 to 2022-23
• Table 3: CCSF human resources, 2018-19 to 2022-23
• Table 4: Evaluation questions by core issue
• Table 5: Summary of methodology
• Table 6: Limitations and mitigation strategies
• Table 7: Total CCSF applications requested and approved, 2018-19 to 2022-23
• Table 8: CCSF and non-CCSF funding ($ millions), 2018-19 to 2022-23
• Table 9: CCSF administrative costs by fiscal year ($ millions), 2018-19 to 2022-23
• Table 10: Opportunities for efficiency improvement
• Table 11: Innovative approaches and models
• Table 12: Recommendation 1 – Action plan
• Table 13: Recommendation 2 – Action plan

List of figures

• Figure 1: Potential consequences of no CCSF funding on recipients’ projects
• Figure 2: Cultural infrastructure projects funded, 2015-16 to 2022-23
• Figure 3: Trend between planned and actual spending, 2018-19 to 2022-23
• Figure 4: Percentage of service standards achievement, 2018-19 to 2022-23

List of acronyms and abbreviations

2SLGBTQI+

Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and additional people who identify as part of sexual and gender diverse communities

CCSF

Canada Cultural Spaces Fund

EDI

Equity, diversity, and inclusion

GCIMS

Grants and Contributions Information Management System

Gs&Cs

Grants and Contributions

HQ

Headquarters

ICIP

Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program

IDEA

Inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility

O&M

Operations and Maintenance

OECD

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

OLMC

Official Language Minority Community

PCH

Department of Canadian Heritage

Executive summary

Program description

The Canada Cultural Spaces Fund (CCSF), a program delivered by the Department of Canadian Heritage (PCH) since 2001, seeks to improve physical facilities that support arts and heritage-related creation, collaboration, presentation, preservation, and exhibition across the country. The CCSF provides financial support in the form of grants and contributions (Gs&Cs) to non-profit arts and heritage organizations, non-profit entities, provincial governments and their agencies, as well as Indigenous institutions and organizations. This funding aids in enhancing, renovating, and constructing cultural facilities, acquiring specialized equipment, and conducting feasibility studies for cultural infrastructure projects.

Findings

Relevance

The CCSF continues to be relevant to Canadians. The Program has adapted to a certain extent to current and emerging needs for cultural spaces, including those related to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the CCSF continues to be challenged by the effects of the pandemic as well as rising costs and the lack of increases in program funding. It must continue to adapt, including through increasing efforts to reach and better support equity groups and Indigenous communities.

The CCSF is aligned with PCH’s strategic objectives and core responsibilities, as well as with government priorities. The CCSF is the only federal program primarily dedicated to cultural infrastructure and is seen as a leader in this area. The CCSF complements other federal, provincial, and territorial programs, allowing access to a wider range of financing options.

Effectiveness

Overall, the CCSF achieved its short- and medium-term expected results and contributed to the achievement of its long-term result during the period covered by the evaluation. The additional funds that the Program received from budgets 2016 and 2017 facilitated the achievement of results. Nonetheless, the Program has ongoing challenges including high demands for funding and achieving results for equity groups and Indigenous communities.

Efficiency

The evaluation concludes that the CCSF was delivered in an efficient manner. Actual spending aligned with planned budgets for the evaluation period, except for cost overruns resulting from additional funding received to address the COVID-19 pandemic-related issues. The administrative cost ratio is relatively stable and service standards were generally met. Despite the complex nature of the Program, stakeholders are generally satisfied with the delivery of the CCSF, particularly the management of the COVID-19 funding.

There are certain challenges to efficient program delivery, including a somewhat complicated application process and reporting requirements. Given the higher costs of infrastructure projects and growing demand, there are opportunities to consider changes to program design. This includes exploring how the CCSF can support alternative approaches of meeting community cultural infrastructure needs through new partnerships, social enterprise models, sustainable funding, and more flexible funding options.

Recommendations

Considering the findings and conclusions presented in this report, the evaluation makes two recommendations.

Recommendation 1

The evaluation recommends that the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of the Cultural Affairs Sector should continue efforts to address barriers faced by equity groups, and Indigenous, rural and remote communities by revising eligibility criteria and definitions, while also enhancing outreach and assistance for these groups and communities.

Recommendation 2

The evaluation recommends that the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of the Cultural Affairs Sector should ensure that the CCSF adapts its funding mechanisms and criteria to continue to address the evolving and emerging needs of Canadian communities in terms of cultural spaces, particularly in the context of reduced program resources.

1. Introduction

This report presents the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the evaluation of the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund (CCSF). This evaluation addresses evaluation requirements outlined in the Treasury Board Secretariat Policy on Results (2016) and the Financial Administration Act, as well as senior management information needs. It was conducted as prescribed in the Departmental Evaluation Plan 2023-24 to 2027-28 of Canadian Heritage (PCH).

The evaluation was undertaken by the PCH Evaluation Services Directorate with support from an external evaluation consulting firm. It covers the five-year period from 2018-19 to 2022-23 and examines the relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency of the CCSF.

2. Program profile

2.1. Program context and objectives

The CCSF was established in 2001 and supports infrastructure improvement projects that enhance access to arts and heritage spaces. The Program aims to enhance the physical conditions of cultural spaces across Canada. Its objective is to provide Canadians in all regions, including underserved communities, with access to new or improved arts and heritage cultural facilities in their communities for creation, collaboration, presentation, preservation, and exhibition.

The Program provides financial assistance in the form of grants and contributions (Gs&Cs) for the construction and renovation of arts and heritage cultural facilities, the acquisition of specialized equipment, and the development of feasibility studies of cultural infrastructure projects. Eligible organizations include not-for-profit arts and heritage groups, provincial and territorial governments, and Indigenous governing bodies.

2.2. Expected results

Table 1 lists the expected results of the CCSF. The complete logic model can be found in Table A-1, Annex A.

Source: Internal Program documentation

2.3. Program management and governance

Accountability for the CCSF lies with the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs Sector. The Director General of the Arts and Cultural Sector Strategy is responsible for program management in collaboration with the five regional PCH offices. The respective responsibilities of headquarters (HQ) and regional offices are presented in Annex C. A National review committee supports the program's project approval process.

2.4. Program resources

The CCSF spent over $347 million over the 5-year period of this evaluation (Table 2). Of this total, $317 million was in Gs&Cs and $30 million in salaries, operations and materials (O&M). Spending in Gs&Cs increased in 2021-22 and 2022-23 due to supplementary funding related to addressing the impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Source: CCSF financial data.

Note: Amounts are rounded, which explains the difference in some totals.

Until 2014-15, the CCSF’s annual Gs&Cs budget was $25.4 million. It received $168.2 million over two years (2016-17 and 2017-18) through Budget 2016, as part of the Government of Canada’s commitment to social infrastructure. Budget 2017 built on this commitment by adding $300 million over ten years ($28.8 million in Gs&Cs annually), starting in 2018-19, to supplement the Program’s core funding to construct, renovate, and better equip creative spaces and hubs^{Footnote 1}. This additional funding, part of the social infrastructure component of the Investing in Canada Plan^{Footnote 2}, essentially doubled the Program’s Gs&Cs budget.

The human resources dedicated to program delivery remained relatively stable during the evaluation period, with a slight decrease over time (Table 3). To deliver the additional funding from Budget 2017, there was an increase in human resources at the beginning of the evaluation period, when compared to the previous two fiscal years (49.2 for 2016-17 and 55.3 for 2017-18)^{Footnote 3}.

Source: Chief Financial Officer Branch

3. Evaluation approach and methodology

3.1. Evaluation scope and calibration

This evaluation addresses the continued relevance and performance of the CCSF. It was designed to focus on issues of highest importance for decision-making including:

• changing needs related to cultural spaces, particularly due to the significant disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic;
• the specific and unique cultural space needs of equity groups, as well as Indigenous, rural and remote communities; and,
• the future of the CCSF, given the additional funding will sunset in 2028-29, coupled with a context of inflation and funding demand exceeding available budget and resources.

In addition to careful scoping, the evaluation was calibrated through:

• the use of available program data as possible including completed studies, performance measurement and outcome data, literature, and media information; and
• a reduced number of interviews with key informants using a sampling strategy to ensure balanced perspectives, including geographical representation.

3.2. Evaluation questions

The evaluation issues and questions examined are presented in Table 4. The evaluation matrix outlining the indicators for each question along with the data collection methods is presented in Annex B.

3.3. Data collection methods and quality control

A mixed-method approach was used to answer the evaluation questions. The methodology included the following: literature review and media analysis; document review and administrative data analysis; key informant interviews; survey; and an expert panel (Table 5).

The following quality control measures were put in place for this evaluation:

• It was led by professional, experienced evaluators internal to PCH with support from an external consultant firm.
• Multiple sources of primary and secondary data were used to obtain reliable results.
• Findings were validated through appropriate analysis and triangulation.
• The document review and administrative data technical report as well as the preliminary findings were reviewed with Program representatives and evaluation management to ensure clarity and validity of analysis and communication.
• The final report was reviewed by peers and by the Program for validation and feedback.

The following legend explains how the evaluation summarizes responses from the survey and interviews:

• Few: findings reflect less than 25% of the observations.
• Some/several: findings reflect at least 25% but less than 50% of the observations.
• Half: findings reflect 50% of the observations.
• Majority: findings reflect more than 50% and less than 75% of the observations.
• Most: findings reflect 75% but less than 90% of the observations.
• All/almost all: findings reflect 90% or more of the observations.

3.4. Evaluation limitations and mitigation strategies

Table 6 presents the limitations of the evaluation, as well as the mitigation strategies adopted.

4. Findings

4.1. Relevance

4.1.1. Current and Emerging Needs of Canadians in Terms of Cultural Spaces

Evaluation question: To what extent does the CCSF meet the current and emerging needs of Canadians regarding cultural spaces?

Key findings:

• There is a clear continued need for investment in cultural infrastructure, but the Program’s ability to respond to these needs has been limited by the global pandemic, rising costs and lack of adequate funding.
• The CCSF has responded to a certain extent to current and emerging needs for cultural spaces and has demonstrated its ability to adapt, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

There is a continued need for investment in cultural infrastructure

The evaluation found that there is a clear continued need for cultural infrastructure funding. Cultural infrastructure investments were highlighted as important during consultations held in 2022-23 for the renewal of the Museum Policy, both by stakeholders and the general public. In fact, in terms of federal government support, stakeholders indicated infrastructure support as the highest priority^{Footnote 5} (70%) and that deteriorating capital infrastructure is the second greatest^{Footnote 6} challenge faced by the museum and heritage sector. When asked what the Government of Canada should do to support Canadian heritage institutions, the second most popular answer^{Footnote 7} by Canadians was to provide funding to protect and maintain heritage buildings and spaces.

CCSF funding was critical to the success of projects from across the country. Of those recipients surveyed, only 1% believed that their projects would have proceeded as planned without the CCSF support. Almost all (99%) indicated that without the Program’s contribution, their projects would have suffered negative consequences. As shown in Figure 1, those consequences^{Footnote 8} ranged from not being able to do the project (48%) to delays (28%) to needing to scale down projects (19%).

Figure 1: Potential consequences of no CCSF funding on recipients’ projects – text version

• 48% would not have materialized
• 28% significant delays
• 19% need to scale down projects
• 4% other consequences
• 1% proceed without CCSF support

The need for funding is enhanced by a challenging context for the arts and culture sector

The challenges associated with rising rent costs and limited studio availability are increasing within the cultural landscape. The gentrification of neighbourhoods and rising rents has led to the loss or displacement of cultural spaces. Artists and creators are disproportionately affected by rising rent prices and displacement, with marginalized groups facing additional pressures related to costs, accessibility issues, and a shortage of dedicated spaces.

Small and rural communities frequently lack the donors, audience or markets necessary to sustain cultural activities or small cultural businesses. Remote regions may also encounter the hurdle of insufficient broadband internet service, hindering their ability to operate online and collaborate virtually with others.

Challenges associated with climate change increasingly require adaptation or modernization of existing infrastructure. A total of 74 % of the participants to the Museum Policy Stakeholder Survey reported that the museum and heritage sector is or will be negatively impacted by climate change and supported changes to capital infrastructure for such things as upgrading windows and lights, or for HVAC systems.

There is also a growing need for funding to support technological advancements and virtual shifts, including specialized equipment. Digital and immersive art is increasing in importance and cultural organizations often need specialized equipment and digital infrastructure to support these practices. The public has also increased expectations for digitized business processes.

Demand for CCSF funding greatly outweighs available resources

The 2019 Grouped Arts Evaluation indicated a strong demand for the CCSF funding, with an average of 75% of total applications being approved. The gap widened further between 2018-19 and 2022-23, with the approval rate dropping to 69% on average (Table 7).

Source: Internal Program data

The CCSF website was modified in 2023 to manage expectations. It included a clear statement that the Program is in high demand, but funds are severely limited and requests for funding exceed available resources.

The CCSF responded to a certain extent to current and emerging needs

CCSF responds to a certain extent to needs for funding to support cultural infrastructure in Canada. During the evaluation period, the Program approved 1006 distinct projects^{Footnote 10} for a total of $309 million. While the number of applications accepted was fairly balanced between the construction/renovation and specialized equipment/feasibility studies streams (between 36% and 45%), a large proportion of the Program budget was devoted to the construction and renovation stream (84%).

Almost all (95%) of surveyed recipient organizations confirmed that the CCSF had been responsive to their current and emerging needs concerning cultural spaces. In addition, most interviewees were of this view, with examples that underscore its significance and recent achievements, including the support for creative hubs.

The CCSF has adapted to address changing and emerging needs during the period covered by the evaluation. Funding for the Program was increased through Budget 2017 with an additional investment of $300 million over 10 years starting in 2018, to develop Canadian talent and entrepreneurship in the arts and cultural sectors. The majority (75%) of Program recipients reported that the CCSF adapted to changes since 2018; 57% reported significant adaptation.

The Program adjusted to address barriers for equity groups and Indigenous communities. This included updating its terms and conditions for broader access, and increasing eligibility and funding amounts for ethnocultural, racialized, and Indigenous groups. The CCSF also conducted research in 2023 to better understand and adapt to the evolving sector’s needs. This research intended to increase and improve access to arts, culture, and heritage to Canadians, including underserved communities.

The CCSF responded to evolving needs during the COVID-19 pandemic period. In particular, it delivered two emergency funding initiatives: the Making Cultural Spaces Safe During COVID-19 and the Supporting the Foundations of Cultural Infrastructure Initiatives.

Stemming from the 2021 Budget, the Making Cultural Spaces Safe During COVID-19 Initiative was open to not-for-profit arts or heritage organizations and provincial/territorial governments and municipal administration. The fund aimed to increase the number of cultural facilities able to safely re-welcome workers and the public to their spaces through renovating or adapting spaces, and to purchase and install health and safety-related specialized equipment. Through this fund, a total of $14.8 million was distributed to 184 organizations. Examples of how some recipient organizations used the fund to adapt to public health requirements include:

• purchase of mobile concert trailer and stage adaptation;
• purchase of portable outdoor skating rink-theatre;
• provision of live-streaming access and rooftop unit conversion;
• health and safety upgrades; and
• purchase of ceiling air purifiers and digital equipment for hybrid performances.

The second initiative, Supporting the Foundations of Cultural Infrastructure, was part of PCH’s Recovery Fund for Heritage, Arts, Culture and Sport Sectors. Its objective was to support existing Program recipients who, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, were struggling with the operational viability of infrastructure projects already underway. Through this initiative, $6 million was distributed to 2 projects in 2021-22, and over $9.8 million was distributed to 26 projects in 2022-23. Supporting these existing projects facing cost overruns not only helped meet immediate needs, but also protected government investments.

4.1.2. Alignment of the CCSF with Canadian Heritage’s strategic outcomes and core responsibilities and government priorities

Evaluation question: To what extent is the CCSF aligned with the strategic outcomes and core responsibilities of Canadian Heritage and government priorities (including IDEA, official languages, environment, and reconciliation)?

Key findings:

• The CCSF is aligned with Canadian Heritage’s strategic objectives and core responsibilities.
• It is also respects to a certain degree the government’s priorities regarding the environment, official languages, IDEA and reconciliation.
• There are challenges in reaching underserved and Indigenous communities as well as rural and remote areas and those lacking arts and cultural infrastructure.

The CCSF is aligned with Canadian Heritage’s strategic objectives and core responsibilities

Overall, the CCSF is a well-established program that supports cultural infrastructure and allows PCH to play a leadership role in this commitment. It is consistent with the department’s strategic goals, supporting access to cultural infrastructure, as outlined in Core Responsibility 1: Creativity, Arts, and Culture^{Footnote 11}, ensuring Canadians have access to cultural spaces in their communities. Recognizing the significance of the creative sector to Canada’s economy, the federal government has made substantial investments through the 2016 and 2017 Budgets, reflecting strong public support for arts and culture.

There are some gaps with environmental, IDEA and reconciliation government priorities

The Program respects key government priorities related to official languages, the environment, IDEA and reconciliation, but the evaluation found some gaps with regards to environment, IDEA and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

The CCSF has well-defined environmental targets and supports cultural and heritage institutions to reduce the environmental impact of their facilities and activities. For example, the CCSF funded the construction of a new facility to the benefit of the Alliance Française de Vancouver, which was designed with sustainable building practices and built to a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold standard. However, the evaluation identified the lack of budget as a barrier to adding greening requirements to construction or renovation projects.

There is evidence that the CCSF implements certain valuable practices relating to IDEA. These include engaging in community consultations to understand needs and supporting intergovernmental coordination, increasing the maximum percentage of eligible expenses, accepting certain types of projects previously deemed ineligible, and consulting with the PCH Reconciliation Directorate and stakeholders from equity groups and Indigenous communities.

The Program also participated in an internal equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) review, aimed at identifying and addressing systemic barriers encountered by ethnocultural and racialized arts and heritage organizations. It began integrating IDEA and reconciliation perspectives in its application and project selection review process. This funding prioritization toward equity groups and Indigenous communities is based on regional investment strategies that were developed by each of the five regional offices, according to their specific regional context and needs.^{Footnote 12}

Despite these efforts, the needs of equity groups and underserved communities are not being fully addressed. Interviewees suggested that some needs could be better addressed by making changes to application guidelines. This could include broadening definitions, project criteria, eligible expenses or eligibility to accommodate the needs of diverse communities. Recipients surveyed echoed these sentiments, calling for the Program to review and revise definitions and criteria and enhance consultations, communications, and outreach efforts with potential applicants. They pointed to prioritizing rural and remote communities, as well as regions lacking art and heritage cultural infrastructures. Experts from the panel discussion also called for a more inclusive cultural funding approach, expressing concerns about regional disparities and accessibility.

Based on insights gathered from various lines of evidence, lessons learned, and best practices have emerged related to IDEA for the CCSF’s consideration in Table A-3, Annex A.

4.1.3. CCSF overlap or complementarity with other programs

Evaluation question: To what extent does the CCSF overlap with or complement other programs in Canada and within the department?

Key findings:

• The CCSF is the only federal program primarily dedicated to cultural infrastructure and is seen as a leader in supporting the federal government's commitment in this area.
• The CCSF complements other federal, provincial, and territorial programs, allowing access to a wider range of financing options.
• Collaboration with other federal departments, provinces, and territories ensures a wider reach for cultural spaces projects.

The CCSF is a unique and important federal cultural infrastructure program

The CCSF stands out as the sole federal program exclusively dedicated to arts and heritage infrastructure. According to experts and other lines of evidence, the federal government, and the CCSF particularly, has been a leader in supporting cultural infrastructure across the country and bringing departments and stakeholders together. The CCSF is part of an overarching federal framework designed to support creation and access to Canadian content.

The CCSF complements other federal, provincial, and territorial programs, ensuring wider reach

The CCSF effectively complements other federal, provincial, or territorial programs and initiatives, as well as those administered by PCH, ensuring broader financial support for cultural spaces. A comparative analysis is presented in Table A-2, Annex A

The majority of interviewees confirmed its complementarity, noting that the objectives of other programs, such as PCH’s Community Space Fund, and Infrastructure Canada’s Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP), differ from that of the CCSF. Some interviewees highlighted that CCSF funding criteria are less restrictive than that of the ICIP, allowing for a wider reach. There was also acknowledgement that being able to direct potential applicants and recipients to other funding sources is beneficial in a context of oversubscription. However, some concerns were raised concerning potential confusion among prospective recipients due to the range of existing federal infrastructure programs.

4.2. Effectiveness

Evaluation question: To what extent is the CCSF achieving its expected short-, medium- and long-term results?

Key findings:

• Overall, the CCSF achieved its short- and medium-term expected results and contributed to the achievement of its long-term result during the period covered by the evaluation.
• The additional funds, particularly those stemming from the 2017 budget, contributed greatly to the achievement of the Program’s results.

4.2.1. Short-term result

The CCSF succeeded in approving infrastructure projects with diverse sources of funding

Between 2018-19 and 2022-23, the CCSF achieved its short-term expected result by approving an average of 169^{Footnote 13} projects annually, exceeding its target of 125. The numbers remained quite stable, except for a decline to 121 projects in 2022-23.

The cultural infrastructure projects had diverse sources of funding. Through the CCSF, the federal government fulfills its leadership role in supporting cultural infrastructure across the country and leveraging other partners. CCSF provides only a small percentage of overall funding to projects, ranging from 10 to 22 % over the period. An average of 82% of project funding was from sources other than the CCSF, exceeding the Program target of 70%. The average remained stable during the evaluation period (80%), except for an increase in the last year, reaching 90 % in 2022-23. The majority of recipients surveyed reported receiving funds from other sources aside the CCSF, including other federal programs, provincial and territorial and municipal governments, foundations, Indigenous organizations, private donors, and non-profit organizations.

Source: Arts Branch internal database

Note: Data does not include funding in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

4.2.2. Medium-term results

Overall, artists and creators have access to professional cultural facilities

A portion of the $300 million additional spending for cultural spaces from the federal government for 2018 to 2028 was earmarked to build, renovate, and equip creative hubs^{Footnote 15}. As a result, a total of 56 creative hubs were funded through the CCSF during the period covered by the evaluation^{Footnote 16}. In a 2018 study on cultural hubs and cultural districts conducted by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, representatives of hubs across Canada highlighted the pivotal role of cultural hubs and districts in nurturing community cohesion.

The CCSF supports the availability of arts and heritage experiences for Canadians across the country

The CCSF has a considerable reach nationwide and benefits from the connections and awareness of local context afforded by regional delivery. It supports arts and heritage organizations to improve facilities and infrastructure and enhance access to a variety of arts and heritage experiences by investing in communities of all sizes, in all regions of the country.

The CCSF provides support to arts and heritage projects from diverse communities. During the period covered by the evaluation, the Program supported 564 projects in unique communities, including 100 large urban centres, 54 medium urban centres, 70 small urban centres, 149 rural communities, and 191 remote communities. An average of 42% of funding was dedicated to urban centres^{Footnote 17}, which aligns with its plans to maintain at least 50% support to projects in smaller communities. In addition, an average of 93 communities benefited from improved cultural facilities, exceeding the Program target of 80.

Almost all recipients surveyed (97%) felt that diverse arts and heritage experiences are available in their community, supporting the positive impact of CCSF-supported initiatives. However, some stakeholders expressed a need for the Program to support a wider variety of arts and heritage experiences in a wider variety of locations. For example, funding community-engaged arts initiatives and organizations with enhanced focus on underserved communities, rural, remote and northern areas. Also, beginning in March 2020 with the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadians’ access to arts and culture events and facilities was severely limited, particularly due to closures, cancellations, and postponements necessitated by public health measures.

The CCSF took measures to improve access to cultural spaces for underserved communities

The CCSF has a vital role in funding capital improvement projects that enable better access to cultural spaces by equity groups and Indigenous communities. An average of 20% of CCSF funding was directed to underserved communities, below the Program target of 25%^{Footnote 18} but rising over the evaluation period. An average of 36% of projects focused on these communities, exceeding the same target (Table A-8, Annex A).

Despite efforts made to prioritize equity groups and Indigenous communities, challenges remain for these communities in the arts and heritage sector. The 2018 Culture Track: Canada survey revealed that 14% of Indigenous peoples and people of colour shared a lack of participation in cultural activities due to the activities not reflecting people of all backgrounds. Similarly, a Canada Council for the Arts survey^{Footnote 19} highlighted that there is a perception of a lack of artistic and cultural venues run by and dedicated to black, Indigenous, and people of colour artists.

These findings underscore the importance of continued efforts to address disparities and ensure equitable access to cultural opportunities for all Canadians, particularly underserved communities.

4.2.3. Long-term result

The CCSF contributed to Canadians valuing and accessing arts and heritage spaces

Canadians value arts and heritage spaces. Almost all (98%) of recipients surveyed as part of this evaluation believe that Canadians appreciate art and heritage spaces. Furthermore, the 2020-21 Arts and Heritage Access and Availability Survey (Table A-4, Annex A) indicated that:

• 70% of Canadians feel that artistic and cultural activities are at least somewhat important to their quality of life and that of their families. This represents an upward trend compared to the results of the surveys conducted in 2017 (69%) and in 2012 (66%).
• 26% of Canadians rated the quality of arts and culture establishments as "very good". The trend in Canadians' opinion of the quality of arts facilities is upward, with 60% rating them as “good or very good” in 2021, compared to 56% in 2017 and 55% in 2012.

These results are in line with the 2023 Museum Policy Survey, which reports that 89% of Canadians agreed with the statement that heritage institutions contribute to their quality of life, and that 85% agreed that the government should highly value heritage institutions.

The Program contributes to Canadians having access to cultural facilities in their communities. According to PCH Departmental Results Reports^{Footnote 20}, an average of 41% of Canadians had access to improved cultural facilities in their community^{Footnote 21}, reaching its target of 40%.

4.2.4. Facilitators and barriers to the achievement of results

The 2016 and 2017 additional funding contributed to the achievement of results

The number of CCSF cultural infrastructure projects grew from 106 in 2014-15 to a peak of 204 in 2020-21 (Figure 2) with additional funds from budgets 2016 and 2017 which essentially doubled the Program budget. The increase in funding played a crucial role in the Program's performance by substantially increasing its capacity to fund a greater number of cultural infrastructure projects. However, this additional time-limited funding will sunset on March 31, 2028.

Figure 2: Cultural infrastructure projects funded, 2015-16 to 2022-23 – text version

Fiscal year	2015-16	2016-17	2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23
Creative hubs (included in total projects funded)	-	-	-	11	10	11	11	13
Total projects funded	106	180	191	178	185	204	193	160

Source: Data published by PCH (Information on transfer payment programs - Departmental Results Report 2016-17 to 2022-23 and Departmental Performance Report 2015-16).

Stakeholders acknowledged that the additional funds contributed to the Program’s results, enabling better project management, supporting projects in various communities, and preventing closures in rural, remote, and small municipalities. While the funding increase was generally well received, some stakeholders agreed that it did not address the growing challenges faced by Canadian communities in meeting cultural needs, particularly the increased demand for funding. They highlighted that the funding amount remained insufficient when compared to evolving needs and environmental context.

4.3. Efficiency

4.3.1. Program Design and Delivery

Evaluation question: To what extent has the design and delivery of the CCSF resulted in optimal efficiency of program resources?

Key findings:

• The CCSF is delivered in an efficient manner. Actual spending aligned largely with planned spending, except for cost overruns resulting from additional funding received to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The Program’s administrative ratio was relatively stable. The Program generally met its service standards.
• There are mechanisms in place to support efficient delivery of the Program. Despite its complex nature, stakeholders were generally satisfied with the excellent service received from Program officers, and particularly with the management of the COVID-19 funding.
• The evaluation notes some areas for improvement related to: the funding model in consideration of equity groups and Indigenous communities; application processes; resource management; and outreach and communication with clients and partners.

Alignment between planned and actual spending with cost overruns largely due to the pandemic

The trend between planned and actual spending was relatively stable at the start of the evaluation period, with less than 5% differences in 2018-19 to 2019-20. In 2020-21, the first year of the pandemic, the difference was -7%. Then the actual spending rose dramatically in 2021-22, and exceeded plans by 45%, representing $27.3 million. This continued in 2022-23 to a lesser extent with a spending surplus of 15% compared to the planned, representing $10.6 million (Figure 3 and Table A-6, Annex A).

The increased spending from 2021-22 to 2022-23 is explained by additional funds allocated to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, including cost overruns experienced by funded projects. It was further affected by variations caused by project postponements from one fiscal year to another, and through transfers from other departmental programs for emerging priorities. These combined factors underscore the dynamic nature of the CCSF’s financial management in response to evolving circumstances and priorities, highlighting the Program’s flexibility and adaptability in response to an unexpected shift in situation and needs.

Figure 3: Trend between planned and actual spending, 2018-19 to 2022-23 – text version

Financial resources	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22	2022-23
Planned spending	$60,103,039	$60,649,843	$60,152,530	$60,168,557	$69,972,662
Actual spending	$62,849,306	$61,010,514	$55,899,165	$87,463,439	$80,559,274
Difference ($)	$2,746,267	$360,671	$-4,253,365	$27,294,882	$10,586,612
Difference (%)	4.57%	0.59%	-7.07%	45.36%	15.13%

Source: PCH Departmental Results Report and Chief Financial Officer Branch.

The administrative ratio was relatively low and stable

During the evaluation period, the administrative ratio of the CCSF remained relatively low and stable (Table 9). This ratio gives an indication of the cost to operate the Program by PCH ($30.3 million) compared to the Gs&Cs funding delivered to clients ($317 million). Overall, with an average of 9% for this period, the ratio is slightly higher compared to 7% for the last two evaluations (2017-18 and 2012-13). Notably, the ratio was higher in the initial three years of the evaluation period, with 10% recorded in 2018-19 and 2019-20 and peaking at 11% for 2020-21. Subsequently, the administrative ratio declined alongside an increase in Gs&Cs spending, reaching 7% in 2021-22 and 8% in 2022-23.

Source: Data published by PCH (Departmental Results Report) and Chief Financial Officer Branch

Breaking down the administrative ratio by region, excluding indirect costs, reveals similarities across the Western, Ontario, and Quebec regions, with recording ratios of 7%, 5%, and 5% respectively. However, higher administrative ratios of 13% are observed for the Prairie and Northern^{Footnote 23}, as well as Atlantic regions. These variations highlight potential differences in administrative processes and expenses across different geographic areas.

Service standards were generally respected

The CCSF surpassed the departmental service standards target of 80% (Figure 4, as well as Table A-5, Annex A). In summary, the service standards for:

• The acknowledgement of receipt of application^{Footnote 24} was met an average of 96% of the time.
• Funding decision^{Footnote 25} was met an average of 84% of the time. It was met 99% of the time on average for the Making Cultural Spaces Safe During COVID-19 Initiative in 2021-22, which demonstrates high efficiency in the funding decisions for this initiative.^{Footnote 26}
• The issuance of payments^{Footnote 27} was met an average of 91% of the time.

Figure 4: Percentage of service standards achievement, 2018-19 to 2022-23 – text version

Process	Administrative review	PCH target
Acknowledgement of receipt	96%	80%
Funding decision	84%	80%
Issuance of payment	91%	80%

Source: Data published by PCH (Service standards for Canadian Heritage funding programs) and recipient survey.

There is general satisfaction with the CCSF delivery process and accountability mechanisms

General satisfaction with the CCSF delivery – text version

93% of recipients are generally satisfied with the CCSF

Overall, evidence suggests that CCSF maintains high standards of client service. There was a high level of satisfaction among Program recipients with the CCSF application process and accountability mechanisms. Most (89%) recipients expressed satisfaction with the application process, with 56% being very satisfied. Similarly, 85% of recipients expressed satisfaction with accountability mechanisms, with 58% indicating that they were very satisfied.

Funding allocation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was particularly deemed efficient. This funding allocation was characterized by rapid decision-making and funding delivery processes, reduced level of complexity in the application process, and overall satisfaction with efficiency. These measures collectively underscore the CCSF’s commitment to delivering resources efficiently to support cultural infrastructure projects, especially amid the context of COVID-19. The survey respondents also indicated efficiency for the two initiatives in response to COVID-19 (99%^{Footnote 28} and 100%^{Footnote 29}).

The CCSF has mechanisms in place to support efficient delivery

Clear and complementary roles and responsibilities and effective coordination between HQ and regional offices, as well as implementation of strategies and measures to manage additional funds and evolving needs during the COVID-19 pandemic, support the efficient delivery of the Program.

A critical factor contributing to the Program’s efficiency is the shared responsibility between HQ and regional offices. This collaborative approach ensures effective coordination and distribution of responsibilities, allowing for streamlined operations and successful execution of the CCSF’s activities and, thus, enabled program adaptation to diverse client needs. While HQ focuses on policy development, design, procedures, performance reporting and coordination, regional offices handle delivery, implementation, and client engagement. In particular, the Program is delivered by regional officers with a deep knowledge of local conditions and with a better ability to respond to specific strengths and challenges of clients in different communities across the country^{Footnote 30}.

Several internal interviewees perceived that the roles and responsibilities of HQ are complementary to those of the regions. They considered the delivery of funds at the regional level to be a quality approach and highlighted the importance of maintaining an open communication and effective coordination between the central administration and the regions.

Furthermore, interviewees highlighted several positive elements of the application process, including the continuous application intake, the anticipated introduction of a new application portal and forms, and the work of Program officers. These elements combined are expected to streamline the application process, enhancing efficiency and accessibility for applicants.

To further support efficient program delivery, the CCSF implemented several new management frameworks over the period of the evaluation:

• A consolidated management framework was implemented in June 2022^{Footnote 31} to guide decision-making and for Program operations. It details how the CCSF management is supported by relevant and effective governance, control and risk-management processes that are in line with and in support of the policy direction provided by the Government of Canada.
• A protocol governing fund reallocation between regional offices was established in 2019 to facilitate the administration of additional funding and better address infrastructure investment differences across the five PCH regions.

As of May 2023, new CCSF measures were implemented to address cost overruns resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic for arts and culture infrastructure projects^{Footnote 32}. These changes were intended to support arts and heritage projects and organizations, particularly those in remote and rural communities or underserved communities, experiencing inflationary pressures and pandemic-associated challenges. Key changes included:

• Increase of maximum amount of grants from $100,000 to $150,000.
• Increase of eligible expenses for organizations from a population facing barriers to cultural participation or presenting underserved discipline, from 75% to 90%.
• Amendments to the CCSF terms and conditions, with clarification of eligible projects, recipients, and expenses. This involves specific funding criteria on exceptional circumstances for projects targeting underserved communities and underrepresented disciplines.^{Footnote 33}
• Updates to the application guide, application form, and supporting documentation to further align with the policy direction of the government for creative hubs.
• Implementation of a requirement for new renovation and construction projects, with a total cost of $5 million or more.^{Footnote 34}
• Request for supporting documentation, such as quotes and estimates less than six months old from the date of the funding application submission.

There are certain delivery challenges and suggestions for improvement of efficiency

The evaluation identified some challenges that impact efficient delivery of the Program to some extent:

• not only do program officers face a high level of workload due to consistently high demand for funding and the continuous intake process, but they also need program-specific training to fulfill their responsibilities;
• internal departmental tools for information management, such as the GCIMS database, are perceived as outdated and can complicate applications and reporting;
• there are fluctuations in the available Program budget due to the need to fund multi-year projects, raising concerns about the potential risks of overspending in some years as well as the possibility of losing unspent financial resources within a given fiscal year;
• there are gaps in cultural infrastructure programs across certain provinces and territories, making it difficult for certain organizations to secure necessary additional funding required for eligibility in some regions; and
• application forms do not reflect the different needs and realities of applicants.

The evaluation identifies some opportunities for improvement to address three broad challenge concerns related to: funding model and application processes; resource management; and outreach and communication. These opportunities are summarized in Table 10.

4.4. Future prospects

4.4.1. Potential impacts and options for the future of the Program

Evaluation Question: Given the current issues and trends facing cultural infrastructure, what are the implications and possible options regarding the future of the Program?

Key findings:

• With a range of challenges facing the sector, notably post-pandemic financial pressures and ongoing barriers to equity groups and Indigenous communities, the Program must continue to adapt to emerging and evolving needs and trends.
• There are examples of innovative approaches and models for the CCSF’s consideration moving forward, including new partnerships, social enterprise models, ways to support more sustainable funding, and flexible program design and adjustments.

The CCSF must continue to adapt to address challenges facing the arts and culture sector

There are a number of challenges facing the sector (see section 4.1), impacting the CCSF's ability to effectively address emerging and evolving needs and trends.

The CCSF conducted internal research in 2023 that highlights ways that Canada’s arts, culture, and heritage sectors can address cultural space problems. It speaks to opportunities for more flexible use and definition of cultural space, an increase in the use of technology, and greater engagement in funding partnerships for equity groups and Indigenous communities.

Based on this report and other findings of the evaluation, it appears that efforts to better support flexibility, equity, collaboration, and knowledge are important considerations to inform the future of the CCSF. In summary:

1. Flexibility: allow funding of new types of spaces, public, outdoor, and digital, as well as new operating models to better serve Canadian organizations. Doing so allows more diversity and supports creative and cultural facilities in rural and remote centres, as well as the accessibility of spaces for low-income and other groups.
2. Equity: further build on work to advance the program’s IDEA engagement with equity groups and reinforce partnerships with Indigenous communities and demonstrate ongoing commitment to reconciliation.
3. Collaboration: foster connections and partnerships within the sector, particularly among those with common interests and needs. Support connections with other government funding programs, notably those led by Infrastructure Canada.
4. Knowledge: increase understandings of Indigenous cultural practices and that of equity groups. In addition, continue to develop knowledge and awareness of technology and specialized equipment.

There are a range of innovative approaches and models that may inform the future of the CCSF. Table 11 provides some examples for consideration moving forward.

5. Conclusions

The evaluation confirms the CCSF to be a relevant, effective, and efficient program. There is high demand and clear ongoing needs for cultural spaces, which are important to Canadians. The CCSF is aligned with federal government priorities and PCH core responsibilities and complements other programs supporting cultural infrastructure. The Program has delivered the expected results, supported by the additional funding in 2016 and 2017. Despite its complex nature, the CCSF is generally delivered in an efficient manner.

Nonetheless, the cultural landscape is evolving and challenges persist, particularly related to increased costs for infrastructure projects. The pandemic escalated already rising project costs, resulting in overruns that put additional pressure on the CCSF budget.

CCSF budget pressures will probably only become more difficult. Budget 2023 announced a plan to bring government spending back to pre-pandemic levels. In response, the PCH 2024-2025 Departmental Plan^{Footnote 41} highlighted a reduction of spending to a total of $39.7 million over the next three years and moving forward. The CCSF is one of the departmental programs being affected by this measure. This, coupled with the time-limited additional investment of $30 million per year planning to sunset in 2027-28, will have an impact on the Program starting in 2028-29.

The Program recognizes the underrepresentation of equity groups and Indigenous communities and is committed to mitigating barriers to funding. However, in the context of limited resources and high demand, it will be challenging for the CCSF to increase financial support to these communities. Therefore, the CCSF should focus on areas under its control, such as improved outreach and consideration of changes to program criteria, to better reach these groups and communities.

It will be important for PCH to continue to examine CCSF objectives, priorities, and activities so that the Program remains relevant and performant moving forward. Considering that most of the CCSF’s budget is dedicated to construction and renovation projects, the Program has an opportunity to realign how it supports its clients within the current context. Specifically, there are opportunities for the Program to consider some strategic changes to its model and funding mechanisms. For example, by focusing more on renovations of existing infrastructure versus new builds, or supporting current cultural spaces adapt to climate change.

6. Recommendations, management response and action plan

Considering the findings and conclusions presented in this report, the evaluation offers two recommendations. The recommendations reflect the need for the Program to continue to address barriers faced by equity groups and Indigenous, rural and remote communities as well as to consider ways to adapt its funding mechanisms and criteria in the context of the evolving pressures faced by cultural spaces.

Recommendation 1

The evaluation recommends that the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of the Cultural Affairs Sector should continue efforts to address barriers faced by equity groups and Indigenous, rural, and remote communities by revising eligibility criteria and definitions, while also enhancing outreach and assistance for these groups and communities.

Management response

The Canada Cultural Spaces Fund accepts this recommendation. The program acknowledges the need to reconcile the program’s objectives and expected results with the operating realities of Indigenous and equity groups and rural and remote communities to increase equitable access to funding and remove barriers. The program has already started to implement modifications related to this recommendation by revising program tools and expanding eligibility criteria to allow more flexibility for these communities. The program acknowledges the importance of a continued and focused outreach plan to further enhance the program’s reach to Indigenous, equity, and rural and remote communities.

Full implementation date: April, 2028

Recommendation 2

The evaluation recommends that the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of the Cultural Affairs Sector should ensure that the CCSF adapts its funding mechanisms and criteria to continue to address the evolving and emerging needs of Canadian communities in terms of cultural spaces, particularly in the context of reduced program resources.

Management response

The Canada Cultural Spaces Fund accepts this recommendation. The program acknowledges the need to maximize the impact of reduced program resources while continuing to remain relevant and adaptable in the current infrastructure context. The program has already started to implement this recommendation by expanding the feasibility studies component and funding new construction projects only under exceptional circumstances. The program will continue its effort to maximize its resources by exploring alternative funding mechanisms and criteria outside of the current terms and conditions.

Full implementation date: April, 2027

Annex A: Supplementary tables

Source: Internal Program documentation.

Source: Arts and Heritage Access and Availability survey, 2020-21

Source: Data published by PCH (Service standards for Canadian Heritage funding programs).

Source: Data published by PCH (Departmental Results Reports and Chief Financial Officer Branch).

Note: The funds for the Supporting the Foundations of Cultural Infrastructure Initiative are presented in a broken-down manner, while the funds for Making Cultural Spaces Safe During COVID-19 Initiative were received in the regular funds of the CCSF via submission to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. The funding amounts are rounded, which explains the difference in the total amount.

Source: Data published by PCH (Departmental Results Reports and Chief Financial Officer Branch).

Note: The funds for the Supporting the Foundations of Cultural Infrastructure Initiative are presented in a broken-down manner, while the funds for Making Cultural Spaces Safe During COVID-19 Initiative were received in the regular funds of the CCSF via submission to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. The funding amounts are rounded, which explains the difference in the total amount.

Source: Arts Branch internal database.

Note: Data includes funding in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Annex B: Evaluation Matrix

Annex C: Program governance

Source: Internal Program documentation.

Annex D: Bibliography

Andrew, C. & Klein, J-L. 2010. Social Innovation: What is it and why is it important to understand it better. Centre de recherche sur les innovations sociales.

Business for the Arts. 2018. Culture Track Canada 2018 Report.

Canada Council for the Arts. 2021. Report on our engagement exercise.

Canada Council for the Arts. 2021. 2021 Arts and Heritage Access and Availability Survey. [PDF document]

Canada Council for the Arts. n.d. Strategic Innovation Fund. Strategic Innovation Fund | Canada Council for the Arts. Strategic Innovation Fund | Canada Council for the Arts.

CAST. n.d. Real Estate Solutions. Real Estate Solutions - CAST - Community Arts Stabilization Trust. Home - CAST - Community Arts Stabilization Trust (cast-sf.org).

Dabrusin, Julie. 2018. A Vision for Cultural Hubs and Districts in Canada. House of Commons Chambre des Communes Canada.

Government of Canada. 2019. Grouped Art Evaluation.

Government of Canada. 2021. Canadian Heritage’s 2020-2021 Departmental Sustainable Development Strategy Report.

Government of Canada. 2022. Canadian Heritage’s 2021-2022 Departmental Sustainable Development Strategy Report.

Government of Canada. 2022. Cultural Spaces Fund. Canadian Heritage.

Government of Canada. 2023. Departmental Sustainable Development Strategy 2023 to 2027.

Government of Canada. 2023. Overview: PCH Transition - July 2023.

Government of Canada. 2023. Raison d’être, mandate and role - Canadian Heritage.

Government of Canada. 2023. Departmental Plan 2023-24 — Canadian Heritage.

Government of Canada. 2023. Cultural Spaces in Indigenous Communities Program.

Government of Canada. 2023. Highlights of Museum Policy Stakeholder Survey

Government of Canada. 2023. What we heard: 2022-2023 consultations on the renewal of the Canadian Museum Policy.

London.gov.uk. n.d. Culture Community Spaces at Risk. Culture and Community Spaces at Risk | London City Hall. Culture and Community Spaces at Risk | London City Hall.

London Community Foundation. 2023. London Endowment for Heritage. London Endowment for Heritage — London Community Foundation. London Endowment for Heritage — London Community Foundation (lcf.on.ca).

Nesta. 2018. Cultural Impact Development Fund. Cultural Impact Development Fund | Nesta. Cultural Impact Development Fund | Nesta.

OECD. 2022. The Culture Fix: Creative People, Places and Industries.

OECD. 2022. The Culture Fix: Creative People, Places and Industries. The Culture Fix: Creative People, Places and Industries | en | OECD.

Oman, Katie. 2018. Toward Sustainable Cultural Infrastructure. Grantmakers in the Arts.

Schermer, M. & Kroismayr, S. 2020. Social innovation in rural areas. Österreich Z Soziol.

Wilhelm, Kelly. 2019. A balancing act: Supporting the arts in Canada. The Philanthropist Journal.

221A. 2018. Cultural Land Trust. Cultural Land Trust - 221A. Cultural Land Trust - 221A.

© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, 2024
Catalogue No.: CH7-75/2025E-PDF
ISBN: 978-0-660-74698-2