Grouped Evaluation of the Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Program and Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy, 2017-18 to 2021-22

Evaluation Services Directorate
October 27, 2023

On this page

• Executive summary
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Program profile
  • 2.1. Program history
  • 2.2. Program objectives, expected outcomes, and activities
  • 2.3. Program management and governance
  • 2.4. Program resources
• 3. Evaluation approach and methodology
  • 3.1. Scope, timeline, and quality control
  • 3.2. Calibration
  • 3.3. Evaluation questions
  • 3.4. Data collection methods
  • 3.5. Evaluation limitations and mitigation strategies
• 4. Findings
  • 4.1. Relevance
  • 4.2. Effectiveness
  • 4.3. Efficiency
• 5. Conclusions
• 6. Recommendations, management response and action plan
• Annex A: Evaluation Matrix
• Annex B: MARP objectives and expected outcomes
• Annex C: CARS Principles, Objectives and Expected Outcomes
• Annex D: Adherence to Service Standards, 2017-18 to 2020-21
• Annex E: Other tables
• Annex F: Actual Operational costs by directorates
• Annex G: Glossary of definitions
• Annex H: Bibliography

List of tables

• Table 1: MARP and CARS resources, 2017-19 to 2021-22 (M$) – Reference Levels
• Table 2: MARP and CARS resources, 2017-19 to 2021-22 (M$) – Actual Expenditures
• Table 3: program staffing levels in Full-time Equivalents (FTEs), 2017-18 to 2021-22
• Table 4: evaluation questions by core issue
• Table 5: summary of methodology
• Table 6: methodological limitations and mitigation strategies
• Table 7: applications by component and amount requested and approved, 2017-18 to 2021-22
• Table 8: administrative Ratio for the delivery of G&Cs, 2017-18 to 2020-21 (millions of $)
• Table 9: recommendation 1 – action plan
• Table 10: recommendation 2 – action plan
• Table 11: recommendation 3 – action plan
• Table 12: recommendation 4 – action plan

Alternate format

Grouped Evaluation of the Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Program and Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy, 2017-18 to 2021-22 [PDF version - 769 KB]

List of acronyms and abbreviations

AHM

Asian History Month

ARAP

Anti-Racism Action Program

ARSEC

Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat

BCAH

Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage

BHM

Black History Month

CARS

Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy

CCB

Community Capacity Building

CFP

Call for Proposal

CSBCY

Community Support for Black Canadian Youth

CSMARI

Community Support, Multiculturalism, and Anti-Racism Initiatives

EBP

Employee Benefits Plan

EDIA

Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Accessibility

ESD

Evaluation Services Directorate

FAA

Financial Administration Act

FY

Fiscal Year

FPTORMIA

Federal-Provincial-Territorial Officials Responsible for Multiculturalism Issues

FTE

Full-time equivalent

GBA Plus

Gender-Based Analysis Plus

GC

Government of Canada

Gs&Cs

Grants and Contributions

GCIMS

Grants and Contributions Information Management System

IRCC

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada

IT

Information Technology

MARB

Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Branch

MARP

Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Program

MIMS

Multiculturalism Information Management System

MOU

Memorandum of Understanding

MRAP

Management Response Action Plan

O&M

Operating and Maintenance

PCH

Canadian Heritage

PRG

Policy Research Group

TB

Treasury Board

UNDRIP

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples

Executive summary

The evaluation covers the five-year period from 2017-18 to 2021-22 and examines targeted issues related to relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency of the Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Program (MARP) and Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy (CARS).

MARP and CARS aim to support the Government of Canada’s Multiculturalism Act (1988) and to address systemic racism and discrimination in its various forms. With a focus on community-based projects and initiatives, MARP and CARS administer grants and contribution (Gs&Cs) through two funding programs:

• Community Support, Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Initiatives (CSMARI) has three funding components: Events, Projects, and Community Capacity Building. During the evaluation period, there were also two special initiatives, the Paul Yuzyk Youth Initiative for Multiculturalism, and the Community Support for Black Canadian Youth Initiative.
• The Anti-Racism Action Program (ARAP) provides funding to help address systemic barriers in employment, justice, and social participation among Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, and religious minority communities.

MARP and CARS also support public engagement, research, and horizontal federal action related to multiculturalism and anti-racism through the Anti-racism Secretariat (ARSEC) and other policy activities.

Relevance

MARP and CARS respond to important, complex and changing needs. Over the evaluation period, it evolved to put greater focus on a range of anti-racism initiatives. Given the complexity of the issues, there are clear needs to further enhance these efforts, including through stronger federal coordination.

Despite the expansion of the programming^{Footnote 1} over the evaluation period, needs outweigh the available resources. The rapid increases in available funding and the broadening of scope led to an increase in funding requests and other activities, putting stress on the programming, including on its staff, partners, recipients and applicants.

The objectives and activities of MARP and CARS align with government roles, responsibilities and priorities pertaining to multiculturalism and anti-racism. While they contribute to priorities related to equity, diversity, inclusion and Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus), there remain barriers to accessing the programming, particularly for equity communities and smaller organizations.

MARP and CARS are complementary with other PCH initiatives. However, there is overlap between its funding programs, CSMARI and ARAP, on objectives, eligibility criteria, and results. A certain level of duplication of efforts was also identified on policy-related activities and between some other internal activities, which appears to stem from gaps in communication and coordination.

Effectiveness

MARP and CARS have contributed to achieving their immediate expected outcomes by providing over $89 million to support 1,708 projects that focused on promoting multiculturalism and combatting racism. ARSEC supported interdepartmental coordination and community outreach to address issues of racism and discrimination.

However, the achievement of outcomes was affected by various barriers including the pandemic, tight timelines, program design challenges and project approval delays. There were also important challenges to reporting on results including weaknesses in the logic model and a lack of performance and disaggregated data which affected the tracking and reporting of results.

Efficiency

There are mechanisms in place to support efficient delivery to some extent. However, the programming underwent complex organizational changes over the evaluation period, including the addition of CARS. It also faced high demands for funding and other supports. These factors contributed to the reprofiling of funds and heavy staff workload.

Despite having made changes over time to improve efficiency, notably by separating one policy directorate into two directorates in 2021 and introducing a new information management system to support program delivery and reporting, roles and responsibilities are not clear.

Specific efficiency challenges remain regarding resource management, project approval delays and client service, a lack of clarity of funding priorities and differences between funding programs and an absence of delegation of authority. Opportunities to further enhance the delivery of funding were identified.

Recommendations

This evaluation makes four recommendations to address risks and opportunities outlined in this report:

Recommendation 1

The evaluation recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting Hate in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage, and Regions, improve the efficient achievement of results and client service by:

• clarifying funding objectives and priorities for ARAP and CSMARI programs; and
• improving coordination and communication among headquarters directorates and regional offices.

Recommendation 2

The evaluation recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting Hate, reinforce the whole-of-government coordination of CARS by working with internal and external partners to:

• further identify clear priorities, roles, and responsibilities; and
• develop a performance strategy to support measuring and reporting progress.

Recommendation 3

The evaluation recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting Hate, in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions improve access and results for equity groups by identifying and mitigating barriers, including but not limited to enhancing program capacity to engage and support more directly with communities, project applicants and recipients.

Recommendation 4

The evaluation recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting Hate, work with internal partners to strengthen performance measurement for stronger program management and reporting on results by:

• updating the logic model and Performance Information Profile (PIP) to reflect all activities and expected outcomes; and
• improving the availability of reliable and disaggregated data.

1. Introduction

This report presents the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Grouped Evaluation of the Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Program (MARP) and Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy (CARS). MARP refers to all activities in the Performance Information Profile (PIP) of the Branch. This includes activities such as the delivery of Gs&Cs programming; public education & awareness campaigns; research on relevant topics; as well as federal interdepartmental engagement and coordination.

CARS originates from recent engagements held across Canada in 2018 and 2019 to gather input from Canadians. The Strategy is led by the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat (ARSEC)^{Footnote 2} in collaboration with the Strategic and Operational Policy Directorate. It also includes the delivery of the Anti-Racism Action Program created as a response to the Strategy, public engagement, research, and whole of federal government action and community outreach work to address issues of racism and discrimination.

The evaluation was completed to address evaluation requirements outlined in the Treasury Board (TB) Policy on Results (2016) and the Financial Administration Act (FAA), as well as senior management information needs and commitments made to Treasury Board through funding submissions.

The evaluation covers the five-year period from fiscal year (FY) 2017-18 to 2021-22 and examines questions of relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency.

2. Program profile

2.1. Program history

Canada has a prolonged history of policies and programming for multiculturalism. The MARP^{Footnote 3} was designed to support the policy objectives set out in the Government of Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy (1971) and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (1988). It has received continued funding since 1988 for activities aimed at building an inclusive society that is open to, and respectful of, all Canadians. Originally launched at PCH, it was with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, currently known as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), from October 2008 to November 2015. It was then transferred back to PCH.

Over the course of the evaluation period (2017-18 to 2021-22), the programming underwent important changes to align with new and changing priorities on addressing racism:

• Through budget 2018, Canadian Heritage received $23 million over two years to strengthen the Multiculturalism Program.^{Footnote 4} This included $21 million in grants and contributions (Gs&Cs) funding to address racism and discrimination with a particular focus on Indigenous peoples and racialized women and girls; and $2 million for cross-country consultations on a new national anti-racism approach.
• Following the Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, “Taking Action against Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination including Islamophobia^{Footnote 5},” the Multiculturalism Branch was created in 2018; it was renamed the Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Branch (MARB) in 2022.
• In June 2019, the Government of Canada (GC) unveiled Building a Foundation for Change: Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy (CARS) 2019-2022 with an initial investment of $45 million over three years.
• In October 2019, a new Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat (ARSEC) with a direct reporting to the Deputy Minister^{Footnote 6} was established and housed under the MARB to lead and coordinate, harmonize, and integrate anti-racism initiatives across federal institutions. It also works and engages with external stakeholders and partners, including other levels of government, communities, academics, private and not-for-profit sectors.
• The 2020 Fall Economic Statement provided $50 million over two years, starting in 2021–22, to expand the Community Support, Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Initiatives (CSMARI) funding program, the Anti-Racism Action Program (ARAP) funding program, and ARSEC.

2.2. Program objectives, expected outcomes, and activities

Together, the MARP and CARS focus on promoting multiculturalism and addressing anti-racism in Canada. The MARP objectives are to:

1. reinforce cooperation among federal institutions to identify and address systemic barriers that result from racism and religious discrimination;
2. strengthen research and evidence to build understanding of the disparities and challenges faced by racialized and religious minority communities;
3. support communities in confronting racism and discrimination, promoting intercultural and interfaith understanding and fostering equitable opportunities to participate fully in Canadian society; and
4. promote and engage in discussions on multiculturalism, diversity, racism, and religious discrimination at the domestic and international levels.

CARS, with its whole-of-government approach, aims to address racism and discrimination in its various forms. It focuses on increasing equity of access and participation of racialized communities, religious minority communities, and Indigenous peoples, as well as increasing public awareness of the barriers and challenges those groups face. CARS has three guiding principles:

• Demonstrating federal leadership.
• Empowering communities.
• Building awareness and changing attitudes.

The MARP and CARS’s expected immediate outcomes are improved awareness and capacity to address racism and promote multiculturalism. Their expected intermediate outcomes are twofold: to improve practices when dealing with people of diverse cultures, ethnicities, and faiths; and, to increase capacity of equity groups, organizations, and federal departments to address systemic racism. Annex B presents the programming’s objectives, immediate and intermediate expected outcomes in detail.

The MARP and CARS have four main activities: community investments, public outreach and promotion, support to federal and public institutions, and domestic and international engagement. Community investments are made through two funding programs: CSMARI and ARAP.

CSMARI has three main funding components:

• Events – funding for community-based events that promote intercultural or interfaith understandings, promote discussions on multiculturalism, diversity, racism, and religious discrimination, or celebrate a community’s history and culture.
• Projects – funding for community development, anti-racism initiatives and engagement projects that promote diversity and inclusion by encouraging interaction among community groups.
• Community Capacity Building (CCB) – funding for projects that contribute to the recipient’s ability to promote diversity and inclusion of Indigenous peoples, and racialized and religious minority communities.

In addition, two temporary initiatives were also delivered during the period of the evaluation:

• Paul Yuzyk Youth Initiative for Multiculturalism (PY) provided funding for youth-led projects that promote diversity and inclusion while addressing racism and discrimination in local communities; and
• Community Support for Black Canadian Youth (CSBCY) provided funding for projects that address the unique challenges faced by Black Canadian youth.

The second funding program, ARAP, is designed to address systemic barriers to employment, justice and social participation among Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, and religious minority communities. It can also fund projects with a focus on Online Hate and digital literacy.

In addition to the general public, CSMARI and ARAP’s target populations are racialized communities, Indigenous peoples, and religious minority communities. Stakeholders include not-for-profit organizations, the private sector and municipal governments, non-federal public institutions, and First Nations and Inuit governments, band councils and organizations.

2.3. Program management and governance

Accountability for the programming lies with the Assistant Deputy Minister, Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting Hate. The Director General of Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism manages the programming through three directorates: Programs, Policy and ARSEC.

The Programs Directorate administers the two Gs&Cs funding programs, CSMARI and ARAP, in collaboration with the PCH’s five regional offices: Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies and Northern, and Western. Regional offices are under the governance of PCH`s Official Languages, Heritage, and Regions Sector.

The Policy Directorate carries out overall strategic and operational policy development on multiculturalism, diversity, inclusion, racism, discrimination, and hate. It supports federal institutions through evidence-based policy advice and conducts performance measurement and reporting activities, research, and analysis. Further it supports Canada’s participation in international agreements and bodies, such as the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, including serving as Canada’s co-deputy head of delegation to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. In May 2022, the Policy Directorate was reorganized into a Planning, Results and Operational Policy Directorate and a Strategic Policy Directorate.

Supporting a whole-of-government approach, ARSEC coordinates federal action and drives “Building a Foundation for Change: Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy 2019–2022.” ARSEC works with federal organizations, other levels of government and civil society, to identify systemic racial barriers and gaps, and develop new initiatives. It considers the impacts of new and existing policies, services, and programs on Indigenous peoples, racialized and religious minority communities.

2.4. Program resources

While total reference levels for the MARP & CARS were $114.7 million, actual expenditures were $134.6 million over the five-year period. Tables 1 and 2 show financial resources, both reference levels and actuals, from 2017-18 to 2021-22.

Fiscal Year	Vote 1 Salary and EBP	Vote 1 O&M	Vote 5 Grants	Vote 5 Contributions	Total
2017-18	6.2Footnote 7	1.2	3.0	5.6	16.0
2018-19	3.4	0.6	4.5	4.1	12.6
2019-20	5.4	1.0	9.7	8.1	24.2
2020-21	5.9	3.7	8.9	12.3	30.8
2021-22	7.2	2.8	7.0	14.1	31.1
Totals	28.1	9.3	33.1	44.2	114.7

Source: PCH Financial Services

Fiscal Year	Vote 1 Salary & EBP	Vote 1 O&M	Vote 5 Grants	Vote 5 Contributions	Total
2017-18	7.2	0.8	2.9	5.1	16.0
2018-19	6.1	1.5	4.7	6.1	18.4
2019-20	7.4	0.9	11.8	18.9	39.0
2020-21Footnote 8	9.3	0.5	3.4	12.0	25.2
2021-22	10.8	1.5	5.4	18.4	36.1
Totals	40.8	5.2	28.2	60.5	134.7

Source: PCH Financial Services

Staffing levels includes both PCH head office employees and regional employees who deliver the funding programs. As with financial resources, staffing levels were also higher than reference levels (Table 3).

FTE	2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22
Reference	41.5	44.9	71.9	89.4	77.3
Actual	55.7	63.3	77.9	87.3	105.9

Source: PCH Financial Services

3. Evaluation approach and methodology

3.1. Scope, timeline, and quality control

This evaluation covers the period of 2017-18 to 2021-22 and focusses on issues related to relevance, efficiency, and effectiveness. The evaluation scope:

• Includes the Gs&Cs programs, most activities funded under CARS within PCH, including those of the ARSEC, and some policy activities.
• Excludes programs and activities led by other government departments, except for questions of complementarity and/or best practices, as well as the international activities of the Policy Directorate and ARSEC.

Interviews conducted with senior management and internal stakeholders during the planning of the evaluation highlighted the following specific information needs:

• clarity of programming objectives and priorities;
• extent of program funding demand and sustainability;
• complementarity or overlap between the funding programs (CSMARI & ARAP) and between these programs and others delivered by the Government of Canada;
• program delivery, client experience, and improving efficiency, both at headquarters (HQ) and the regions; and
• impact of the programming and availability of data to support evidence-based decision-making.

As outlined in its five-year Departmental Evaluation Plan, 2021-22 to 2025-26, PCH is committed to examining key horizontal questions across programs. These questions and indicators relate to equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility (EDIA) using a Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) lens, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on program delivery and outcomes.

The evaluation of MARP and CARS was conducted in a manner consistent with the TB Policy on Results (2016) and the Directive on Results (2016), and included the following quality assurance measures:

• the evaluation was led by a professional, experienced and diverse team of evaluators internal to PCH with support from a consultant firm;
• the evaluation features multiple lines of evidence, a mix of primary and secondary data sources and both qualitative and quantitative methods;
• findings were validated through appropriate analysis and triangulation;
• preliminary findings were reviewed with program representatives and evaluation management to ensure clarity of communication and analysis; and
• the evaluation team relied on currently approved analytical approaches to apply GBA Plus and EDIA considerations, including the integration of questions and indicators.

3.2. Calibration

The evaluation was calibrated to address specific needs, timing, and resource constraints in the following ways:

• Strategic consultations were conducted with senior management through scoping interviews to identify their most important information needs.
• A limited number of evaluation questions were identified, and effort was focused on the key information needs and requirements.
• Examination of effectiveness focused on results of expected immediate and intermediate outcomes^{Footnote 9}.
• As much as possible, existing data sources were leveraged including performance data, program documentation and literature.
• The lines of evidence were chosen to target specific areas of inquiry, to cross-reference questions, and validate any findings during triangulation.
• The format of the report is streamlined.

3.3. Evaluation questions

Table 4 presents the evaluation questions related to the relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency of the programming.

3.4. Data collection methods

The evaluation’s data collection methods are outlined in Table 5.

3.5. Evaluation limitations and mitigation strategies

Table 6 outlines the key challenges for this evaluation and associated mitigation strategies.

4. Findings

4.1. Relevance

4.1.1. Program responsiveness to current and emerging needs

Evaluation question: To what extent is the programming responding to current and emerging needs?

Key findings:

• MARP and CARS are responding to important, complex, and changing needs related to multiculturalism and anti-racism. Notably, it responded to the increased need to address racism and to have coordinated federal action through the introduction of CARS, including support offered by ARAP and work of ARSEC. It provided financial supports to organizations serving equity communities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, MARP and CARS adapted by providing increased flexibility to funding recipients.
• Aligned with the expansion of the scope over the evaluation period, there is growing complexity in the environment due to a range of factors such as increased diversity in Canada, higher immigration rates, a spike in police-reported hate crimes, the COVID-19 pandemic, and greater societal and institutional recognition of issues of systemic racism and discrimination.
• The rapid expansion of the scope and the increasing complexity poses strategic risks to its ability to respond to all diverse and emerging needs. Furthermore, the demand for program funding and other supports is much greater than available resources. The lack of clarity and focus of the two programs objectives and funding priorities may have encouraged more applications than possible to fund.
• There are needs for: even greater focus on anti-racism and whole-of-government coordination, longer-term funding; and supports to address barriers for community organizations.

There are increased needs for the programming, notably for anti-racism components

There are clear needs for government initiatives and programs that support multiculturalism and address racism and discrimination in Canada. Despite Canadians generally positive views towards immigration, diversity and multiculturalism, there continues to be discrimination and racism along with socioeconomic disparities between cultural, ethnic, and religious groups. The promotion and appreciation of diversity and inclusion is necessary to ensure an equitable participation in society.^{Footnote 10}

However, multiculturalism as a concept has been criticized for not sufficiently addressing discrimination and inequalities^{Footnote 11}. Over recent years, there have been a series of hate crimes and incidents of racism including:

• missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Canada;
• the murder of George Floyd;
• the death of Joyce Echaquan and recognition of systemic racism in healthcare;
• the discovery of residential school unmarked graves;
• the Quebec Mosque shooting and Islamophobia in Canada;
• the display of antisemitic and racist symbols at the 2022 Freedom Convoy; and
• the rise of the alt-right movement in Canada.

There are a range of other drivers over the period of the evaluation that have brought additional attention and responses to issues surrounding racism and multiculturalism, including:

• the emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement;
• Canada’s welcome of many refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine;
• COVID-19’s disproportionate impact on racialized people which exacerbated pre-existing inequality and widened the gap between racialized and non-racialized communities;
• a slower economy and more competitive job market post-pandemic, which may deepen inequities, particularly for racialized women and Indigenous peoples;
• the rise of disinformation and online hate;
• the persistence of discrimination against Black peoples and unequal outcomes between Black peoples and other Canadians;
• an increase in food and financial insecurity within Indigenous communities and the need for action towards reconciliation, including reclaiming lands, language, and culture; and
• the need for greater understanding among Canadians of the impacts of colonization, residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples (UNDRIP), reconciliation, land rights, and Indigenous self-determination.

The greater focus on anti-racism efforts is supported by a series of important government reports and policy decisions in the last five years:

• the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage report published in 2018, “Taking Action Against Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination Including Islamophobia”;
• concerns expressed by the United Nations (UN) Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent about the Black inequality in Canada (UN. Human Rights Council, 2017);
• Canada’s official recognition of the United Nations International Decade for People of African Descent; and
• Canada’s adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples Act.

MARP and CARS address a range of important needs, but gaps remain

MARP and CARS have responded in many ways to changing needs and demands for more action on racism. They contribute to addressing recommendations made by the Standing Committee report on acting against systemic racism, islamophobia, and antisemitism. The programming supported PCH’s cross-country engagement activities in 2018 and 2019 with communities, experts, and other stakeholders which informed the development of CARS^{Footnote 12}.

The introduction of CARS, including ARAP and ARSEC, put greater focus on addressing racism. Survey respondents explained that ARSEC allows for:

• the centralization and consolidation of the network and guidance for federal departments;
• attention and action to be brought to the issue of racism;
• information, knowledge, and research to be shared within the federal government; and
• the avoidance of duplication within the federal government.

While there is a clear need for coordinated federal action on anti-racism and for a centralized Secretariat, interviews and the survey of federal partners called to step up federal leadership further, including through education. They highlighted gaps and needs to:

• enhance federal efforts to combat Islamophobia, antisemitism and anti-Black racism;
• focus less on Eurocentric Canadian history education and instead teach the history of Indigenous people and the long history of specific racialized communities in Canada and their experiences;
• combat disinformation;
• take action against online hate and hate crimes; and
• address the rise of right-wing extremism groups in Canada and the spread of alt-right/veiled White nationalist narratives and rhetoric in Canada.

In addition to the content gaps, there are also outstanding needs related to federal coordination that are partially met by ARSEC or the programming more broadly, including:

• clearer priorities for federal action;
• increased understanding of federal partners on their individual role and efforts to combatting racism;
• more sharing between departments regarding investments and activities; and
• more integration of anti-racism tools with GBA Plus.

Financial supports for community-based efforts are also critical. According to interviews with stakeholders, there is a continuing need to provide financial supports to organizations serving and led by equity communities. Furthermore, some noted that core and long-term funding are outstanding needs for many communities’ organizations. Others mentioned outstanding needs, especially of smaller organizations, for better supports to apply for funding.

The two temporary funding initiatives responded to the needs of specific target groups of Black youth and youth organizers. That said, some organizations which received funding from Community Support for Black Canadian Youth (CSBCY) noted that the targeted support did not meet the needs of the other communities they serve.

Increasing demand poses risks to the ability to respond to needs

Clearly, issues related to multiculturalism and racism are becoming more complex as public discourse and ideas continue to evolve. Economic, environmental, political, and technological changes in the broader societal context will likely continue to emerge and require the programming’s attention. Further changes to the programming are also expected with work on the renewal of CARS, increased needs for federal coordination against racism, potential legislation to redress environmental racism, and the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples.

Requests for funding for CSMARI and ARAP exceed their current capacity. Furthermore, many interviewees indicated that the lack of clarity and focus on program objectives and funding priorities may have encouraged more applications than it was possible to fund. As shown in Table 7, from 2017-18 to 2021-22:

• 4,696 applications for $794.4 million were received and only 1,708 approved (36%) and $87.4 million (11%) in funding was approved; and
• less than 15% of applications and less than 9% of funding requested was approved under ARAP’s and CSMARI’s Projects components respectively.

Component	Applications (#)	Approved (#)	Application Amount Requested (M$)	Application Amount Approved (M$)
ARAP
Anti-Racism Action Program – National Projects	7	5	1.6	1.1
Anti-Racism Action Program – Online Hate	66	25	22.4	4.9
Anti-Racism Action Program – Projects	1,041	145	354.3	29.0
CSMARI
Community Capacity Building	521	99	54.5	6.3
Multi Inter-Action – Events	1,981	1,226	65.7	23.3
Multi Inter-Action – Projects	872	109	248.0	14.3
Temporary initiatives
Community Support for Black Canadian Youth	160	58	44.5	8.0
Paul Yuzyk Youth Initiative for Multiculturalism	41	40	0.03	0.03
National Anti-Black Racism Education and Awareness Campaign	7	1	3.0	0.4
Grand Total	4,696	1,708	794.4	87.4

Source: GCIMS

Program data shows for CSMARI and ARAP that 66% were recurrent applicants (34% new). The recurrence rate was the highest for the Multi Inter-Action – Events component at 71%. Recurrence levels for other CSMARI components vary between 8.3% and 23.9%. Since ARAP is a new initiative, it is not surprising that 92% of applicants are new.

The programming adapted well to the COVID-19 pandemic

The programming made efforts to respond to emerging needs that arose due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While recipients did not benefit from emergency funds, many funding recipients highlighted the flexibility offered when changes were required to project design, delivery, and timelines. Given the virtual nature of work during the pandemic, electronic signatures were introduced to expedite the execution of funding agreements.

Federal committee members also agreed that ARSEC was responsive and adaptable to the changing needs brought by the pandemic. For instance, the Secretariat established the Equity-Seeking Communities Covid-19 Taskforce (ESACT), which served as an opportunity to engage promptly with equity communities and to rapidly bring departments together to assess and address gaps in its initiatives. As a result, they were able to better understand challenges experienced by communities and adapt to their changing needs during the pandemic.

4.1.2. Program alignment with government priorities, roles and responsibilities

Evaluation question: To what extent is the programming aligned with and advancing government priorities, roles, and responsibilities?

Key findings:

• There is good alignment between MARP and CARS and federal and departmental priorities, roles, and responsibilities, including applicable legislation and policy for both multiculturalism and antiracism.
• MARP and CARS contribute to priorities related to EDI and GBA Plus. However, barriers exist to inclusion, particularly related to the capacity of community organizations to apply for government funding, representation and participation of Indigenous communities, and the tracking and reporting of desegregated project data.

MARP and CARS are aligned with federal government priorities, roles, and responsibilities

MARP and CARS support the Department’s fourth Core Responsibility (CR4) in the 2022-23 Departmental Plan: Diversity and Inclusion.^{Footnote 13} The Departmental Plan also states that the Department will pursue the renewal and continue to implement CARS, and foster dialogue with provinces and territories and equity communities to ensure a coherent whole-of-government approach to advancing multiculturalism and combatting racism.

CSMARI and ARAP provide funding to community-based projects, initiatives, and activities that promote multiculturalism and equity in Canada and tackle racism and discrimination. These planned activities are aligned with the government’s priorities, including commitments to combatting hate and racism, a renewed Anti-Racism Strategy, and investments in the empowerment of Indigenous peoples, Black peoples, and racialized Canadians.

Moreover, the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion’s Mandate Letter (2021) required that PCH “include and collaborate with various communities, and actively seek out and incorporate in your work, the diverse views of Canadians. This includes women, Indigenous peoples, Black peoples, and racialized Canadians, newcomers, faith-based communities, persons with disabilities, LGBTQ2 Canadians, and, in both official languages.”

In addition, the programming supports and aligns with:

• The Minister of Canadian Heritage’s mandate, as derived from the Department of Canadian Heritage Act (1995) ^{Footnote 14} which includes programs related to Canadian identity and values, cultural development, human rights, fundamental freedoms, and related values.
• The objectives and activities of the Multiculturalism Policy of Canada and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (1988). In fact, CARS is consistent with section 4 of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act which states that “The Minister, in consultation with other ministers of the Crown, shall encourage and promote a coordinated approach to the implementation of the multiculturalism policy of Canada and may provide advice and assistance in the development and implementation of programs and practices in support of the policy.” ^{Footnote 15}
• The 2018 Standing Committee Report on Taking Action Against Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination including Islamophobia, directly responding to 10 of the report’s recommendations.

While the analysis of documents demonstrates the alignment between the programming and the federal government priorities, roles, and responsibilities, there were three concerns or questions raised by some interviewees:

• PCH’s role in leading and coordinating anti-racism efforts across government. This can be a common challenge when a whole-of-government federal strategy is led by one department. Placing a Secretariat in a department, such as ARSEC in PCH, which is responsible for leading CARS, requires clear roles, strong coordination, and the participation of many other departments.
• The application assessment and funding of specific types of projects under ARAP. Some projects focus on barriers to employment and justice, which are more closely related to the mandates of other federal departments such as Employment and Social Development Canada and Justice Canada.
• How the concept of multiculturalism relates to Indigenous peoples. Some Indigenous communities do not consider themselves a part of the Canadian multicultural mosaic for a range of historical and political reasons.

EDIA and GBA Plus are considered but there are barriers to the participation of equity communities

By virtue of its design and objectives, the programming serves to advance government priorities related to EDI. There is evidence of GBA Plus considerations in strategic documents, including at the inception of CARS.

However, the application of GBA Plus is inconsistent across activities and processes of both funding programs, including project selection criteria. Additionally, they do not track, analyze, or report on project data with a GBA Plus lens. Having said that, efforts are underway through ongoing research and data initiatives that are expected to better collect disaggregated data.

CSMARI and ARAP serve, to an important extent, community organizations with limited capacity and experience with funding applications. Many of these organizations face systemic barriers to accessing government funding. Key informants noted recipient organization gaps in financial and human resources, skills, experience, and language capacities. Furthermore, there were time constraints on the development and submission of funding proposals. Other barriers include awareness of what funding is available and how to apply, a “come-to-us” basis of funding, rather than outreach and capacity development, and historic mistrust on the part of Indigenous peoples and racialized communities towards the government.

Given that the two funding programs have much higher demand than available resources, there are even greater barriers to meeting the needs and reaching equity groups. Funding is highly competitive. Relatedly, there is evidence that PCH program advisors have inadequate time for strong engagement and to support capacity development. With increased funding and other changes, including the addition of ARAP, program workload increased. The ability of program advisors to work closely with communities and organizations to develop projects and to complete the application process was hindered.

Based on the literature review and input from interviewees, the following best practices that could be further considered and implemented to promote inclusive delivery:

• more extensive outreach with equity communities and potential recipients during the planning and design of projects;
• ensure staff are able to respond to enquiries and support clients’ applications adequately;
• community capacity development and better information sharing with applicants;
• encouraging more partnerships in projects;
• innovative application processes such as expanding eligibility criteria and/or introducing a two-stage process; and
• coordinated delivery with other levels of government and organizations.

Reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, accessibility and environmental priorities

Indigenous issues are clearly outlined in CARS and in some areas of MARP. Reconciliation is not distinctly identified as a priority.

Indigenous recipients highlighted the importance of both program funding priorities in providing services to communities by Indigenous-led organizations. Interviewees noted that ARAP was designed to support Indigenous peoples, alongside with racialized peoples and religious minority groups. In addition, ARSEC held community engagement activities that explicitly deal with issues of reconciliation. However, there were concerns with regards to the degree of participation of diverse Indigenous communities and organizations in the programming. Finally, a few interviewees pointed to the lack of Indigenous representation within the department.

Any focus on accessibility or greening is not well described in Program documentation or practices.

4.1.3. Degree of Program overlap or complementarity with other programs

Evaluation question: To what extent does the programming overlap or complement other programs delivered through PCH or other government departments, agencies, or Crown corporations?

Key findings:

• Overall, MARP and CARS complement rather than duplicate initiatives delivered through other federal government departments, provinces, and territories as well as through certain other PCH funding programs.
• However, there is clear overlap between the two co-existing funding programs, CSMARI and ARAP, which creates confusion for staff and applicants, and poses risks on the ability of the programs to achieve specific objectives.
• There is also a duplication of efforts among some internal activities stemming from gaps in communication and coordination.

The programming complements with other initiatives

There are a range of other initiatives that aim to combat racism and foster community development across the Government of Canada, provinces, and territories. A review of these programs shows complementarity rather than duplication, given the scope of the issue, respective roles and responsibilities of each organization and jurisdiction to support multiculturalism policy and anti-racism action.

CSMARI and ARAP seem to be complementary rather than overlapping or duplicating other PCH funding programs. Most interviewees noted that the funding from other programs allows organizations to complete their financial package to meet the matching funding requirements. CSMARI and ARAP also provide funding for specific activities within larger projects. However, some evidence from the document review and interviews suggests that there is potential for overlap among programs and initiatives within PCH that could be further explored. For example:

• The Digital Citizen Initiative provides time-limited financial assistance for research and citizen-focused activities to enhance and support efforts to counter online disinformation and other online harms and threats. This is similar to the online hate projects supported by ARAP.
• The Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage (BCAH) program funds community events, like the Events stream under CSMARI. BCAH is meant to increase opportunities for local artists, artisans, heritage performers or specialists to be involved in their community through festivals, events, and projects. BCAH project criteria are more defined than for CSMARI and ARAP, and project eligibility includes no other federal source of funding.
• The Celebrations and Commemorations Program (CCP) funds events to celebrate specific days, including Canadian Multiculturalism Day and National Indigenous peoples Day. There has been an increase in the number of events organized by ARSEC which may parallel its content and expertise. However, there is limited overlap with CSMARI’s Events stream and funding for the same event may be possible for separate activities.

There is overlap between the funding programs, CSMARI and ARAP

There is strong evidence of overlap between the CSMARI and ARAP including:

• purpose and objectives;
• expected results and performance indicators; and
• eligibility of applicants and projects.

The newer ARAP, with specific objectives targeting systemic change to address racism, was intended to complement CSMARI through a focus on specific themes. ARAP aims to help address barriers to employment, justice, and social participation among Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, and religious minority communities.

The longstanding CSMARI has broader objectives that overlap with ARAP. This overlap includes support for community initiatives to confront racism and discrimination and promote and engage in discussions on racism and religious discrimination at the domestic and international levels. In fact, the wording of the CSMARI and ARAP objectives are the same.

A review of the project names and descriptions found that many projects aiming to address racism were submitted under CSMARI components even after 2019-20, the year ARAP became available for community organizations.

The duplication between the funding programs leads to confusion for clients and program staff. There is a perception that the funding program eligibility is highly flexible. This perceived flexibility contributed to the high demands for funding, oversubscription, and heavy workload of program staff. There is anecdotal evidence that applicants rejected under the ARAP component reapplied under the CSMARI component in many cases.

There is also evidence that HQ and Regions have sometimes different interpretations of project criteria and scope, which resulted in some rejected projects at the national level being accepted regionally. Interviewees noted the need for more clarity and focus of program objectives and priorities to improve program understanding among communities as well as transparency and accountability.

There is duplication of efforts on some other internal activities

There is also overlap between some activities of the Policy Directorate and that of ARSEC. Given ARSEC was established during the evaluation period, it is reasonable to assume there would be a period of transition to clarify policy and other roles. There was high demand on ARSEC, and its mandate and activities expanded over the period.

However, interviewees pointed to a lack of communication and coordination leading to duplication of efforts in the work on funding requests, as well as on policy development. Both ARSEC and the Policy Directorate also work on commemorative events such as Asian Heritage Month and Black History Month. Additionally, ARSEC also has a research team that collects information on communities’ needs through engagement work. This information is not necessarily used to inform the work of the Programs Directorate.

The reorganization of the Branch in May 2022 led to separating its Policy Directorate into two new Directorates: the Strategic Policy Directorate and the Planning, Results, and Operational Policy Directorate. This should alleviate to a certain extent overlap since it brings clearer roles and responsibilities within the Branch.

4.2. Effectiveness

4.2.1. Achievement of expected outcomes

Evaluation question: To what extent has the programming achieved its expected objectives?

Key findings:

• MARP and CARS made progress towards achieving their expected immediate outcomes. The programming provided over $87 million to support 1,708 projects that focused on promoting multiculturalism and combatting racism over the period of evaluation. CARS supported federal coordination and community outreach on issues of racism and discrimination.
• Barriers to the achievement of outcomes included the complexities raised by the introduction and implementation of CARS; tight timelines in project design and delivery; the pandemic; increased needs and demands; and project approval delays. Program design issues include clarity of objectives and priorities, certain elements of the funding process, human resources, and organizational capacity.
• Areas for further improvement for the achievement of expected outcomes include improving the whole-of-government approach with an associated performance measurement framework, stronger federal coordination, identifying clearer program objectives and funding priorities, putting in place longer-term funding and capacity supports for community-led projects.
• Despite progress, gaps remain in performance measurement which hinders the tracking and the reporting on the achievement of results including a lack of disaggregated data and weaknesses in the logic model.

Immediate outcomes were mostly achieved

Between 2017-18 and 2020-21, the programming provided $87.4 million in Gs&Cs to support 1,708 projects (Table 7, section 4). To at least some extent, project activities funded led to the following immediate outcomes:

• increased awareness of and appreciation for a multicultural society that values diverse cultures, ethnicities, and faiths;
• increased awareness of systemic racism faced by equity-deserving populations; and
• increased capacity among federal and non-federal organizations to address systemic barriers faced by equity-deserving populations.

While project-level evidence of the achievement of expected outcomes is limited, the evaluation considered the logic between activities and the achievement of outcomes as well as the analysis of information from interviews and case studies^{Footnote 16}. Projects funded through CSMARI encouraged contact and interactions between different ethnocultural groups, likely improving awareness. Projects under CSMARI, and to some extent ARAP, have helped recipient organizations to increase their capacity. Interviewees noted examples of improving knowledge of newcomers about rights in Canada and opportunities for participants to learn about other cultures.

The short-term funding initiatives, CSBCY and PY, impacted youth involvement and awareness to some extent. The impact of PY was less profound since it funded only 40 individuals, largely concentrated in Ontario. Evidence shows that the two initiatives were effective in targeting specific needs. They provided less competition for funding to youth. However, their limited duration and funding make assessment of outcomes difficult.

There was progress made on the achievement of the non-funding expected outcomes of CARS through a variety of activities^{Footnote 17} that contributed to:

• Enhanced coordination with other federal government departments, other levels of government, and community organizations geared at reducing barriers (immediate/intermediate).
• Increased access to data, evidence and community insights regarding disparities experienced by Indigenous peoples, racialized communities and religious minority communities (immediate).
• Improved organizational practices (initiatives, policies, programs, and services) by federal and non-federal organizations to reduce barriers (intermediate).

The Policy Directorate established several memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with StatCan, Public Safety Canada and Justice Canada related to research products.

ARSEC was established during the evaluation period and it enhanced coordination with federal government departments on addressing issues of racism and discrimination. It worked with federal partners to provide advice and supports related to existing programs, policies, and laws, as well on the development of new programs, policies, and initiatives to support anti-racism. Bilateral and multilateral mechanisms for communication and coordination are in place. During the end of the evaluation period, ARSEC:

• built a network of community organizations and communities;
• hosted national summits on antisemitism and islamophobia and held a series of townhalls with almost 1,000 participants that mobilized the leaders of key sectors of society to support efforts to address systemic barriers, discrimination, and bias throughout Canadian society;^{Footnote 18}
• improved existing websites and added additional tools for both Black History Month (BHM) and Asian History Month (AHM); and
• joined the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Network of Officials Responsible for Multiculturalism, Inclusion, and Anti-Racism (FPTORMIA), which is led by the Policy Directorate.

Most federal partners surveyed agreed that ARSEC has been effective in its role^{Footnote 19}. The Secretariat has provided oversight for all new and existing federal initiatives for combating racism. It has provided updates on progress of CARS and identified priorities for new action.

There were barriers to the achievement of expected outcomes

Due to a range of circumstances, MARP and CARS were unable to implement all their intended activities over the evaluation period. The National Public Education and Awareness Campaign, planned for 2022, did not proceed due to a series of unanticipated interruptions to activities, including the federal election in Fall 2021.

The main obstacles to the achievement of results were related to heavy demands on the programming, driven in part by high-profile incidents and long-standing issues of racism as well as the launch of CARS in mid-2019. The short timelines to design and implement CARS were difficult and affected the achievement of the outcomes. Some delays were also caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Barriers to the achievement of outcomes are also linked with the design of the funding programs. Particularly, some interviewees noted that short-term, temporary and sunsetting funding does not facilitate moving the bar on complex issues of racism and multiculturalism. While there is funding to support community actions and movements, there remains a lack of long-term, sustainable operational funding for Indigenous peoples, racialized, or religious minority community-led organizations and groups. Since organizations vary in resources, funding organizational capacity building such as competitive salaries, technical support, and training could have more sustainable impacts.

While the flexibility of CSMARI and ARAP to fund many types of projects was raised as positive in many ways, it may also be a barrier to the achievement of outcomes. The lack of clarity and focus between the two funding program objectives and priorities caused some confusion among staff and stakeholders, affecting the achievement of outcomes.

Another challenge to achieving expected results over the evaluation period was adapting to COVID-19. Funding recipients explained that they had to reschedule or cancel activities due to pandemic restrictions including mandatory closures, social distancing rules and quarantines, slowing down the implementation of projects and reducing participation in the activities. Some funding recipients noted that their remote work and their move to online platforms reduced the effectiveness and take-up rate of some activities.

There were also challenges with the timelines for funding proposals and decisions. Many recipients interviewed for case studies wanted more notice of upcoming call for proposals, more time to prepare applications and support clients, and more timely approvals. There were differences between planned and approved schedules, and activities taking more time than anticipated.

The evaluation recognizes that community-based efforts to promote multiculturalism and address racism are complicated. The recipient organizations mentioned a range of other challenges, such as budget limitations, wanting feedback on unsuccessful applications, and issues with planning, building partnerships, technological capacity, finding accessible sites, funding for transportation for participants, stigma of participants, and translation of deliverables. Human resources capacity was an issue for some recipients. A few recipients interviewed for the case studies highlighted challenges such as securing volunteers, insufficient number of staff, or lack of proper skills and knowledge to effectively deliver certain activities.

The programming is applying some best practices

Most funding recipients noted that the funding provide by CSMARI and ARAP was necessary for a successful project. A few noted that the funding helped them leverage funding from other sources. Other facilitators to the achievement of outcomes were:

• organizational, leadership and partner support and buy-in;
• community and staff input to project design;
• early planning;
• flexible project implementation;
• ensuring good participation in funded activities;
• recipient organizations’ leadership and capacity including personnel, having multiple funders;
• the proximity and assistance to clients by regional offices, as well as their knowledge and representativeness of local communities; and
• consultation with the community regarding needs.

The programming has integrated, or is in the process of integrating, many of the best practices for addressing racism as identified through the literature review and interviews. For example:

• incorporating funding for community-based organizations and includes delivery through regional offices which provide adapted local services;
• using a whole-of-government approach;
• community outreach (“nothing about us without us”);
• working on having disaggregated data and an intersectional lens; and
• developing an anti-racism impact assessment framework.

Some best practices could be better leveraged. This includes enhanced client outreach through and work to support quality applications, longer-term funding for community-led projects and narrowing of the programming’s focus to better communicate priorities and meet expected outcomes. Best practices identified in other jurisdictions to consider are funding for community-led organizations that are already doing work on the ground and investing in PCH employee awareness and diversity training.

Whole-of-government coordination could be enhanced to maximize outcomes

More work needs to be done to fully achieve strong federal coordination according to some interviewees and survey respondents. Existing mechanisms for whole-of-government coordination include the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Officials Responsible for Multiculturalism Issues (FPTORMIA), virtual town halls with communities, research conducted by the programming, and communications with federal partners. Some of these mechanisms were created only in more recent years. Also, the FPTORMIA, the main information sharing body on multiculturalism and anti-racism practises, has been inactive since 2017.

Feedback from federal partners indicates that they would like to see more integrated coordination with other federal departments and anti-racism units. Most federal partners noted that the tools developed by ARSEC, such as the Anti-Racism Framework, are effective. However, some indicated that the consultation process lacked sufficient communication with or input from partners and that there has not been sufficient instruction regarding how to use the framework alongside GBA Plus tools. Feedback from federal partners was mixed regarding whether there have been improved organization practices to reduce barriers to initiatives and services.

Other suggestions for improvement suggested by federal partners include:

• the provision of a proactive and regular update on research and guidance on initiatives, tools, and policies through newsletters, public report, or digital space; and
• the development of a performance measurement framework that federal departments and agencies could use on an ongoing basis to measure progress and identify persistent issues that require attention.

Despite progress, there are gaps in performance measurement

It was difficult to assess the progress towards the outcomes of MARP and CARS due to the lack of performance data being tracked and reported.

The MARP and CARS share a logic model as well as performance indicators. However, the combination of the objectives and outcomes adds confusion to the logic model, lengthens the list of indicators, and makes attribution difficult. The program activities and the chain of causality is not clear. It is difficult to identify which components are responsible for certain outcomes and indicators. The activities of ARSEC are not reflected in the logic model and some indicators do not have data sources.

The lack of race and other identity characteristic disaggregated data was noted as a critical barrier to understanding needs and therefore reaching key communities. The expected increase in the availability of such data through CARS and Program-funded research projects will support more strategic investments.

There are other positive steps noted. CARS’s foundational documentation includes a Results Tracking Table, which sets out outcomes, performance indicators, targets, and dates to achieve targets. The programming is working to address the lack of performance data through action on recipient surveys, a new project final report template, and the introduction of the Multiculturalism Information Management System (MIMS).

Data collection instruments and processes were revised to enable the collection of better quality and relevant outcome data particularly from contribution agreement funding recipients. This work includes the development of new data collection instruments, the review and revision of current reporting templates, and the revision of contribution agreement templates to reflect new reporting requirements. Finally, contractors were hired to provide updated performance measurement plans and tools, but these have not been implemented.

4.3. Efficiency

4.3.1. Efficiency of Program delivery

Evaluation question: To what extent is the programming delivered in an efficient manner?

Key findings:

• While there is evidence of mechanisms in place that support the efficient delivery of the programming, MARP and CARS faced high demand, unstable resources and many changes over the evaluation period. The integration of CARS was complex, bringing heavy workload and delays.
• There are challenges which pose risks to strong resource management, achievement of results and client service: the lack of clarity of program objectives and funding priorities; unclear roles among the programming components, including between ARSEC and federal partners; high project refusal rates; absence of financial delegation authority, delays in project approvals; reprofiling of funds; lack of time for engagement and capacity development with communities and recipients; and staff training needs, high workloads, and retention issues.
• Some steps were taken to improve efficiency: the Policy Directorate being separated into two units; the introduction of an information management system; and measures put in place to respond to COVID-19. Opportunities for further improvements were noted.

MARP and CARS have some mechanisms in place to support efficient delivery

Despite a range of pressures on the programming over the evaluation period, efforts have been made to ensure efficient delivery. The programming follows the required processes and procedures for administering Gs&Cs and has service standards in place.

Program interviewees pointed to a new hybrid program delivery model whereby regions would jointly deliver national projects with headquarters. This has had the effect of standardizing criteria and increasing the visibility of PCH’s work across the country.

The use of modern technology to track projects, including their outcomes, with the introduction of Multiculturalism Information Management System (MIMS) in 2022, is an effective practice identified by some interviewees. While it was too early to fully assess the impact of this mechanism, it is expected to improve the efficiency of data collecting and results reporting. Some interviewees, particularly program staff and management, offered some cautions related to this information management system.

The reorganization of the Branch in 2022 led to separating its Policy Directorate into two new Directorates: the Strategic Policy Directorate and the Planning, Results, and Operational Policy Directorate. This should improve efficiency since it brings clearer roles and responsibilities and allows the Branch to support more effectively the work with other partners through several activities such as research and the development of analytical tools. However, as mentioned earlier, internal interviewees pointed to the need for clearer roles and responsibilities and improved communication and coordination among different directorates and the regions to decrease duplication of efforts for some activities and improve program delivery and client service.

The different roles of ARSEC, other federal organizations, provinces and territories are documented. Some interviewees reported that roles were clear, though others noted that some confusion still existed in the day-to-day work. As previously noted, federal partners called for more integrated coordination, guidance, and communication among ARSEC, departments and anti-racism units, including improved understanding of roles, priorities, and efforts.

The evidence gathered through the evaluation noted that MARP and CARS’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic was organized and effective.

A range of factors led to challenges in efficiency and reprofiling of funds

While obviously important, the heightened attention on racism with the implementation of CARS was challenging to the efficient delivery of activities and the achievement of objectives over the period of this evaluation. Setting up a whole-of-government mechanism for federal coordination to address racism is complex.

CSMARI and ARAP received increases in funding over the evaluation period. Some of the increases were unexpected and without adequate time for planning and to optimally manage new funds and increased applications. There were changing and unclear funding priorities and program objectives. Also, extended waiting periods for funding approval delayed the signing of funding agreements, and the start and payments for projects. Furthermore, some funding recipients needed less money than expected due to challenges related to the pandemic.

The increased funding, short timelines, delays in approval, and related challenges led to the reprofiling of more than $25 million of Gs&Cs^{Footnote 20} during the last four fiscal years of the evaluation period.

High demands led to heavy workloads and contributed to delays

The high demand for the programming, the lack of clarity and focus of program objectives and priorities, and insufficient time for planning and preparing for calls for applications resulted in heavy workloads. In 2019-20 and 2020-21, 33 FTEs were delivering two funding programs. Although there was an increase of 18 FTEs,^{Footnote 21} the effort required by the staff to meet the demand and timelines was considerable, especially for regional staff.

The publicity surrounding the introduction of ARAP led to a larger than anticipated number of funding requests which well-exceeded program capacity. Interviews with program personnel highlighted two decisions that exacerbated workload issues: extending the application deadline for ARAP in 2021, which increased the number of applications threefold; and re-examining and recommending previously rejected applications received in the first intake of ARAP, in the subsequent intake.

The processing of applications and administration of new funding placed high burdens on program staff. Interviews and case studies suggest that staff did not have sufficient time and support to provide adequate assistance to applicants prior to submitting applications, to conduct a follow-up once funding has been issued, or to respond to client enquiries. These pressures also mean that the application review process may not allow staff sufficient time to look for synergies between projects.

Temporary funding puts pressures on efficient delivery

Internal program representatives highlighted that reliance on temporary funds made it difficult to plan and manage budgets and activities. For example, in 2021-22 the share of permanent funds allocated was only 49% (refer to Table E-1, Annex E for more details on the distribution of permanent and temporary funds).

Funding instability negatively impacted planning, staffing and retention. It prevented permanent staffing and interfered with the ability of MARP and CARS to meet all objectives, according to some internal interviewees. After 2019, the number of employees increased, mostly in ARSEC (Table E-2, Annex E). Nearly a third of employees did not have permanent positions with PCH.

Operation expenditures and administrative ratio fluctuated with unstable resources

Operation expenditures increased with new roles and programming, notably related to coordination and policy roles with the implementation of CARS and ARSEC in 2019. For example, ARSEC’s operational and management expenses (O&Ms) increased from $56,056 in 2019-20 when it was established, to $1.2 million in 2021-22 (Annex F). Over time, ARSEC took on greater roles in promotion and event planning, notably related to Black History Month and Asian Heritage Month.

The administrative ratio provides an indication of the costs to deliver Gs&Cs funding, calculated as operational costs as a percent of total costs. In the case of the administrative ratios presented in Table 8, the evaluation considered only the operational costs most directly related to the delivery of the funding programs, rather than other activities.

The ratio has varied over the period of the evaluation, from 30.3% in 2018-19 before the implementation of ARAP through CARS, to a low of 17.7% in 2019-20; it was 24.7% in 2021-22 (Table 8). The evaluation chose not to focus on the data from 2017-18 because the operational expenditures appear higher than normal due to a financial error^{Footnote 22}. The decrease and fluctuation in the administrative ratio for subsequent years are attributable, in part, to the increase in funding for Gs&Cs and use of temporary resources.

The current average administrative ratio of 26%, is lower than the 47% reported by the previous evaluation of the Multiculturalism Program (2011-12 to 2016-17). During the last evaluation, this ratio varied between 23% (2016-17) and 60% (2011-12)^{Footnote 23}.

Actual Expenditures	2017-18	2018-19	2019-20	2020-21	2021-22
Operational Expenditures (all activities)	8.0	7.6	8.3	9.8	12.3
Operational ExpendituresFootnote 24 (delivery of funding activities)	8.0	4.7	6.6	7.3	7.8
Gs&Cs Expenditures1	8.0	10.8	30.7	15.4	23.8
Admin ratio (%)	50.0	30.3	17.7	32.2	24.7

Source: PCH Financial Services (actual expenditures)

Note 1: For 2019-2022 CARS has a three-year commitment of $45M, of which $4.6M was to establish ARSEC.

While the administrative costs to deliver funding is higher than most other programs at PCH, there were important changes and developments over the period that impacted delivery. Most importantly perhaps was the implementation of CARS, new funding and initiatives, and a higher level of community and stakeholder engagement over the evaluation period. Interviewees also noted the following influencing factors:

• unstable funding, including temporary nature of CARS and unexpected increases;
• lack of adequate time for planning prior to calls for funding proposals, including impacts on the ability to hire and train staff;
• overtime costs due to staffing gaps and a high workload; and
• administrative burden associated with the renewal of CARS and the reprofiling of funding; and
• greater needs for PCH support to applicants and recipients during project development and application, implementation and monitoring given the focus on equity communities and community organizations, many of which had limited experience applying for or managing government funding projects.

The funding programs had challenges meeting service standards in certain years for funding decisions

While service standards for acknowledging applications and for issuing payment were met most of the time, client service was affected by inability of PCH to meet service standards for funding decisions for ARAP and CSMARI. PCH has set service standards for the timely delivery of its funding programs for three transactions: acknowledging applications, funding decisions, and issuance of payments.^{Footnote 25 Footnote 26} Using the threshold of 80% of applications meeting the service standard (see Annex D):

• Acknowledging applications within 2 weeks: met the service standard most of the time.
• Funding decision within 26 weeks: met the service standard most of the time other than:
  • In 2017-18, the funding decision standard was met for only 13% of CSMARI applications.
  • In 2020-21, the funding decision standard was met for only 4% ^{Footnote 27} of ARAP applications and 74% of CSMARI.
• Issue payments within 4 weeks: ARAP and CSMARI met service standards (all years).

Recipients who were interviewed noted frustration with long and delayed notification of decisions. It is possible that many did not realize that the service standard is 26 weeks. According to internal interviewees, funding decision delays were mainly due to four factors:

• Intake process: There were rapid launches, resulting in lack of time and resources to plan, resource and update guidelines, tools, and other documents prior to launching. As well, the backlog of applications since 2017-18, ongoing intake of applications for the Events component, and the increase in application volume, all led to delays in review.
• Lack of financial delegated authorities to approve funding^{Footnote 28}: all funding for both funding programs must be approved by the Minister^{Footnote 29}.
• Delays in approvals: There are frequent and lengthy delays after recommendations for approval.
• COVID-19 pandemic: Many of the delays in the 2020-21 FY were also due to the pandemic.

Since the reports on service standards are only at the funding programs level, and not at the sub-component level such as events or projects, there are challenges in understanding cases where the service standard was not met and implementing mitigations. More recently, the Programs Directorate has taken steps to improve their service standards data and reporting.

Opportunities to further enhance delivery of funding

Overall, strong communication and coordination are important facilitators to efficient delivery of the programming and management of resources. Gaps were identified in communication and coordination among the different internal groups: program staff at headquarters, regional program staff, policy and ARSEC. For example, program personnel delivering the Gs&Cs programs in HQ and regions were not always aware of the expertise and tools developed by other directorates. Although communication and coordination issues may be broader, the reorganization of the Policy Directorate should help to address some issues.

Regional delivery of the funding programs is an important element of the Program design. Regional delivery allows for on the ground community supports and better knowledge of local realities and capacities. Good relationships and communication among regional offices and HQ supported efficiency. However, the lack of formal accountability between senior management and the regions was highlighted as an issue by a few interviewees. The regional employees delivering Gs&Cs report to different senior management than those managing the programming from headquarters.

Recruitment, retention, and training of staff were noted as issues by some interviewees, particularly for regional employees. Some highlighted that lower classifications made it difficult to retain regional staff, leading to the need to staff and retrain new employees.

In summary, following an examination of best practices within PCH^{Footnote 30} as well as outside the department, and interviews, the evaluation identifies these best practices:

• clarity and focus in program objectives and funding priorities;
• simplified application process and language, including online platform for receiving applications;
• more notice of upcoming call for proposals, more time to prepare applications;
• adequate time and training for programs advisors to support applicants and clients;
• batching payments;
• increasing the duration of funding for better project implementation;
• consideration of fund distribution options;
• financial delegated authority, based on risk; and
• more internal coordination and communication, including between HQ and regional offices.

5. Conclusions

Overall, the evaluation concludes that MARP and CARS are relevant and achieving immediate results, despite a range of changes and pressures. There are opportunities to address certain risks to better achieve results and address needs moving forward.

Through funding for community-based organizations and the introduction of CARS, MARP and CARS are responding to clear and important needs, particularly towards efforts to address racism. It operates within an increasingly complex environment, driven by domestic and international events, and where there is greater societal and institutional recognition of systemic racism and the need to address continued socioeconomic disparities between cultural, ethnic, and religious groups.

This rapid expansion and complexity put pressure on MARP and ARSEC in a variety of ways. With respect to MARP, the demand for funding and other supports outweighs available resources. Consequently, the strategic priorities deserve to be reviewed and clarified, particularly in light of existing overlap in some areas and the high demands. This includes duplication between CSMARI and ARAP. More clarity and focus of programs objectives and priorities is needed for both applicants and program advisors for better transparency and accountability.

With respect to ARSEC, there was an important increase in mandate while still growing and finding ways to rapidly respond to unprecedented demand for services. As well, there are duplication of efforts within the branch, notably between ARSEC and the Policy Directorate, and a need for improved internal communication and coordination, including with regional offices.

MARP and CARS are well aligned with government priorities, roles and responsibilities and applicable legislation and policy for both multiculturalism and anti-racism. By virtue of its design and objectives, the programming serves to advance priorities related to EDIA and GBA Plus. However, funding supports could be more accessible to equity groups by increasing outreach and decreasing barriers for new applicants, community organizations and Indigenous communities. These groups sometimes have limited experience with funding processes as well as historic mistrust of government.

MARP and CARS met its immediate expected outcomes related to promoting multiculturalism and combatting racism. It supported some organizations to increase their capacity to deliver services to their communities. Through the implementation of CARS and the establishment of ARSEC, it supported strengthened government-wide coordination and community outreach aiming to address issues of racism and discrimination. Given the scope of the issues, even greater coordination on anti-racism is justified, including improved communication, and having shared results and reporting. ARSEC’s priorities and roles could be more clearly identified to improve understanding and coordination among stakeholders.

There were barriers to the achievement of outcomes including the COVID-19 Pandemic, increased demands, and the complexity of launching CARS. Additional barriers are linked to program design. Having longer term and more stable funding would allow for larger and more in-depth projects, required to address societal issues such as racism. There is also an opportunity for improved program capacity to allow program advisors to do more outreach and to support applications from equity groups. Better access to disaggregated data would support more strategic investments and better reach to equity groups. In general, the lack of ongoing performance data combined with funding delays make conclusions on effectiveness beyond immediate expected results difficult.

While the programming has mechanisms in place to support efficient delivery to some extent, there are a range of challenges that pose risks to the achievement of results and client service. The rapid implementation of CARS, unexpected infusions of funding, huge demands for funding and other supports, and broad and unclear priorities led to oversubscription and an environment of heavy workload for frontline PCH staff, and delays in funding community projects and reprofiling of funds.

For improved efficiency, there are opportunities to clarify and perhaps narrow funding priorities, decrease overlap and clarify roles and responsibilities, and improve planning and delivery for the efficient achievement of results.

6. Recommendations, management response and action plan

Based on the findings and conclusions, this evaluation offers four recommendations to address risks and opportunities related to clarifying programs priorities, coordination and communication, whole-of-government coordination, access of equity groups to programming, and performance measurement.

Recommendation 1

The evaluation recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting Hate in collaboration with the ADM, Official Languages, Heritage, and Regions, improve the efficient achievement of results and client service by:

• clarifying funding objectives and priorities for ARAP and CSMARI programs; and
• improving coordination and communication among MARB’s directorates and regional offices.

Management Response

The Assistant Deputy Minister Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting Hate agrees with this recommendation and will work in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage, and Regions to improve the efficient achievement of results and client service. A number of activities are already underway to contribute to this recommendation.

The Federal Budget 2022 has provided $85M over three years, to support Canada’s New Anti-Racism Strategy and develop Canada’s Action Plan on Combatting Hate. This includes funding in the amount of $69.95M to Community Support, Multiculturalism, and Anti-Racism Initiatives Program (CSMARI) and a new Anti-Racism Action Program (ARAP).

In addition to this amount, the Federal Budget 2023 provides $25.4 million over five years, starting in 2023-24, and $0.6 million ongoing, to the Department of Canadian Heritage to continue to support Canada's Anti-Racism Strategy and fight all forms of racism, including but not limited to anti-Indigenous racism, anti-Black racism, anti-Asian racism, antisemitism, and Islamophobia.

The Program Directorate of Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Branch (MARB) will continue to enhance the integrity of its transfer payment programs by strengthening how applications are assessed, requiring new attestations for applicants and provisions in funding agreements, and improving its monitoring function.

Improvements will be made towards the efficient achievement of results, including client service engagement, by harmonizing the CSMARI and the ARAP transfer payment programs’ terms and conditions and related guidelines. These actions are expected to address feedback received from communities and recipients related to issues of oversubscription and overlapping / duplicative objectives and current guidance and will include ensuring a stronger alignment with the renewed CARS. This work will be supported with revised performance instruments that align with a renewed vision, goals, and objectives.

On July 2023, after nearly five years of being housed and supported in Canadian Heritage, the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat (ARSEC) was transferred to the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada, where it will continue to act as a centre of expertise and a hub for federal institutions. Similarly, MARB will continue its work for combating racism and discrimination and delivering policies and programs that preserve and enhance the multicultural heritage of Canadians. MARB will review its organizational structure to clarify and delineate roles and responsibilities between Directorates to support new programming and initiatives that will be delivered under the renewed Canada’s new Anti-Racism Strategy.

Action Plan Item	Deliverable(s)	Implementation Date	Program Official Responsible
Clarifying funding objectives and priorities for ARAP and CSMARI programs
1.1 Develop policy options that will articulate vision, mandate, goals/objectives, priority actions, roles and responsibilities and the expected results for CSMARI and ARAP moving forward.	1.1.1 A rationale and briefing information paper for decision-making approved by DG.	September 2023	NHQ Multiculturalism Programs Director and the regions DGs in consultation with the Centre of Excellence (COE), the Planning, Results and Operational Policy Directorate
1.2 As part of Program renewal, review the objectives, guidelines and terms and conditions for CSMARI and ARAP with a goal to harmonize and remove duplication in both the Terms and Conditions and related guidelines.	1.2.1 Modified Terms and Conditions for eligibility and funding criteria, guidelines, application, and assessment forms approved by DG.	March 2024	NHQ Multiculturalism Programs Director and regions in consultation with the Planning, Results and Operational Policy Directorate
1.3 Develop new communications strategy, approaches and products on the program renewal to communities in Canada.	1.3.1 Direct public program outreach and promotional activities/products to communities in Canada.	March 2024	Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy in collaboration with Regions, NHQ, Communications Branch and the National Service Call Centre
1.4 Conduct efficiency review to identify other opportunities to streamline and ensure alignment with internal best practices.	1.4.1 Options document for consideration by senior management by DG.	March 2024	Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy in collaboration with Multi Regions, NHQ, and PCH Chief Financial Officer Branch
Improving coordination and communication among MARB’s directorate and regional offices.
1.5 Work with Human Resources Directorate, to review and update the current MARB executive-level structure.	1.5.1 Updated functional organization chart and revised job descriptions, as appropriate, approved by DG.	March 2024	Assistant Deputy Minister Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting Hate in collaboration with MARB Directorates
	1.5.2 Revised or new process maps for regular exchanges of information and collaboration between functional areas in the Branch, approved by DG.	March 2024	Assistant Deputy Minister Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting Hate in collaboration with MARB Directorates
1.6 Ensure regular exchanges with the regions for a more efficient delivery of funding.	1.6.1 Agenda and documents supporting the hosting of an Annual Managers’ meetings to engage in strategic planning and identify solutions for improved coordination and communication approved by DG.	November 2023	NHQ Multiculturalism Programs Director with a participation from regional managers
1.7 Co-develop a client outreach approach, specific to the Multi program, that links to regional outreach strategies and priorities.	1.7.1 Approach for improved client services, approved by DG.	March 2024	NHQ Multiculturalism Programs Director and regions in consultation with the Planning, Results and Operational Policy Directorate
1.8 Streamline business processes and administrative functions.	1.8.1 Information note or paper identifying centralized functions at HQ for an enhanced assessment process.	March 2024	NHQ Multiculturalism Programs Director and regions in consultations with the Planning, Results and Operational Policy Directorate in support to the COE

Full Implementation Date: March 2024

Recommendation 2

The evaluation recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting Hate, reinforce coordination on CARS by working with internal and external partners to:

• further identify clear priorities, roles, and responsibilities; and
• develop a performance strategy to support measuring and reporting progress.

Management Response

The Assistant Deputy Minister Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting agrees with this recommendation.

As the Assistant Deputy Minister Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting Hate continues to engage on roles and responsibilities with ESDC, management will seek to stabilize the Branch and to reinforce accountability mechanisms. MARB will take steps to improve coordination and communication mechanisms between internal and external stakeholders to increase CARS efficiency and effectiveness.

A number of activities are already underway to contribute to this recommendation. For example, the Strategic Policy Directorate of the Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Branch may seek the participation of steering committees, an advisory council and FPT tables to guide the implementation of CARS and information related to anti-racism and combatting hate and to address strategic and emerging issues.

The Planning, Results and Operational Policy Directorate of the Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Branch will also be establishing a Performance Measurement working group to provide guidance and ensure a coordinated approach to the program renewal exercise.

Action Plan Item	Deliverable(s)	Implementation Date	Program Official Responsible
2.1 Clarify mandates, roles and responsibilities for the implementation of CARS following ARSEC’s move to ESDC.	2.1.1 Document on mandates, roles and responsibilities approved by the ADM.	December 2023	Assistant Deputy Minister Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting Hate in collaboration with MARB Directorates
2.2 Establish a working group on performance measurement to ensure a collaborative and coordinated approach to measuring the performance of existing and future MARB activities.	2.2.1 Terms of reference and work plan approved by DG.	March 2024	Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy, Strategic Policy and Regions and NHQ, and Corporate functions, including PERB.
2.3 Establish a working group to build the capacity of departments to implement CARS and to support report on progress.	2.3.1 Terms of reference (including priorities, roles, responsibilities) and work plans (including subject-related topics on measuring, reporting progress of CARS), approved by DG.	March 2024	Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy and ARSEC in collaboration with relevant OGD’s
2.4 Improve data collection practices to report on the accomplishments of CARS from 2021-22.	2.4.1 Review questionnaires to federal institutions for gathering data on the achievements of CARS, approved by DG.	December 2024	Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy in consultation with MARB Directorates
	2.4.2 Develop an Anti-Racism Report Card to guide practices from other federal institutions, approved by the ADM.	March 2024	Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy in consultation with MARB Directorates
2.5 Enhance mechanisms for reporting on the accomplishment of CARS in 2021-22.	2.5.1 Review the lay out of the 2022-23 Annual Report on the Operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, approved by the ADM.	December 2023	Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy in consultation with the Assistant Deputy Minister
2.6 Promote partnerships with Justice, Statistics Canada and Public Safety and highlight their contribution under Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy.	2.6.1 Manage MOUs.	March 2024	Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy in consultation with MARB Directorates
	2.6.2 Seek opportunities to promote and publish funded research products (Externally and internally).	March 2024	Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy in partnership with the PCH Research Group

Full Implementation Date: December 2024

Recommendation 3

The evaluation recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting Hate, in collaboration with the ADM, Official Languages, Heritage and Regions improve access and results for equity groups by identifying and mitigating barriers, including but not limited to enhancing program capacity to engage and support more directly with communities, project applicants and recipients.

Management Response

The Assistant Deputy Minister Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting Hate agrees with this recommendation and will work in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Heritage, and Regions to improve access and results for equity groups. A number of activities already underway will contribute to this exercise:

The Federal Budget 2023 provides $25.4 million over five years, starting in 2023-24, and $0.6 million ongoing, to the Department of Canadian Heritage to continue to support Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy (CARS) and fight all forms of racism, including but not limited to anti-Indigenous racism, anti-Black racism, anti-Asian racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia. Of this amount, $9.97M is allocated to support operations and to maintain current FTE internal capacity for the Multiculturalism and Anti-racism Branch’s ongoing work.

The renewed CARS will continue to leverage and expand its relations with populations with lived experience of racism across the country to ensure a steady flow of policy recommendations and understanding of the issues as they are being experienced on the ground.

Action Plan Item	Deliverable(s)	Implementation Date	Program Official Responsible
3.1 Conduct a review to identify gaps/barriers to access.	3.1.1 Gap assessment and recommendations document for approval by senior management.	March 2024	Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy in collaboration with Strategic Policy, Multi Regions and NHQ
	3.1.2 Comprehensive corpus of factsheets and background documents for approval by senior management, to inform policy and program development.	March 2024	Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy in collaboration with Strategic Policy, Multi Regions and NHQ
3.2 Develop new tools and guides to support applicants and recipients.	3.2.1 Documents supporting the holding of information sessions for new applicants, approved by DG.	March 2024	Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy in collaboration with Strategic Policy, Multi Regions and NHQ
3.3 Develop an engagement/outreach plan to support regional offices in their work to improve support to communities, project applicants and recipients (CSMARI and ARAP).	3.3.1 Engagement/Outreach Plan, approved by DG.	March 2024	NHQ Multiculturalism Programs Director and regions in consultations with the Planning, Results and Operational Policy Directorate

Full Implementation Date: March 2024

Recommendation 4

The evaluation recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting Hate, work with internal partners to strengthen performance measurement for stronger program management and reporting on results by:

• updating the logic model and Performance Information Profile (PIP) to reflect current activities and expected outcomes; and
• improve the availability of reliable and disaggregated data.

Management Response

The Assistant Deputy Minister Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting Hate agrees with this recommendation. The delivery of the activities under the Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Branch will involve all Directorates to ensure the policy, the implementation, the delivery of funding as well as the planning, monitoring, and reporting aspects are properly addressed.

The program’s transfer from CIC/IRCC to Canadian Heritage in 2015; the establishment of ARSEC at Canadian Heritage in 2019 and its transfer to ESDC in 2023; the ongoing and growing demand for funding support; and the broad scope and complexity of issues related to multiculturalism and anti-racism; have led to challenges in communication, coordination and governance in the delivery of the Program that are translated in insufficient performance data.

To address this the Multiculturalism Program’s Performance Measurement Strategy and Logic Model will be reviewed to include all activities under MARB. A revised Performance Information Profile (PIP) will be submitted to better align with the ambitions of the CARS outward strategy. The new performance measurement approach will help monitor and report on results achieved by transfer payment programs overall and specific activities led by the Branch and under CARS. This will ensure the mandate of the Anti-Racism Strategy and related results are fully captured for monitoring, reporting, and evaluation.

Action Plan Item	Deliverable(s)	Implementation Date	Program Official Responsible
4.1 Consult other branches and departments on similar initiatives programs that have recently developed a whole of government performance measurement strategy.	4.1.1 Analysis of gap assessment of data collected by MARB, approved by DG.	January 2024	The Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy Directorate
	4.1.2 Inventory of best practices, approved by DG.	January 2024	The Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy Directorate
4.2 Increase the capacity to develop performance measurement instruments to better report on the impact of MARB activities.	4.2.1 New performance or evaluation analysts.	January 2024	The Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy Directorate Multi NHQ and Regions in collaboration with the COE and PRG.
	4.2.2 Updates to the MIMS database, approved by DG.	September 2024	The Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy Directorate Multi NHQ and Regions in collaboration with the COE and PRG.
	4.2.3 Reviewed and updated MARB’S Performance Measurement Strategy, Logic Model and PIP reflecting all of MARB’s activities and expected outcomes, approved by DG.	December 2024	The Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy Directorate Multi NHQ and Regions in collaboration with the COE and PERB
4.3 Develop a new MARB logic model and a revised set of indicators that aligns with the new performance framework and reflect all activities and expected outcomes.	4.3.1 New logic model, approved by DG.	March 2024	The Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy Directorate in consultation with Multi Regions and NHQ, Strategic Planning Directorate and Evaluation Services
4.4 Update the Performance Information Profile (PIP) expected outcomes and include reliable and disaggregated data.	4.4.1 Updated Performance Information Profile (PIP), approved by DG.	March 2024	The Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy Directorate in consultation with Multi Regions and NHQ, Strategic Planning Directorate and Evaluation ServicesFootnote 31
4.5 Increase the capacity to identify and analyze new trends in research, statistical data, to be responsive to pressing issues and needs, and to experiment on best approaches to performance measurement.	4.5.1 Document identifying Research on innovative and promising approaches to performance measurement to feed into concrete program practices approved by the DG.	March 2024	The Director of Planning, Results and Operational Policy Directorate in consultation with MARB

Full Implementation Date: December 2024

Annex A: Evaluation Matrix

Annex B: MARP objectives and expected outcomes

Objectives	Support communities in confronting racism and discrimination, promoting intercultural and interfaith understanding and fostering equitable opportunities to participate fully in Canadian society	Promote and engage in discussions on multiculturalism, diversity, racism and religious discrimination at the domestic and international levels	Strengthen research and evidence to build understanding of the disparities and challenges faced by racialized and religious minority communities	Reinforce cooperation among federal institutions to identify and address systemic barriers that result from racism and religious discrimination
Activities	Multiculturalism Gs&Cs programming (CSMARI and ARAP)	Public Education & Awareness, e.g., Heritage Months Engagement with civil society, provinces/territories, etc. International advocacy for the values of inclusion & diversity as well as combating racism.	Research	Federal interdepartmental engagement and coordination
Outputs	Grants and contributions	Townhalls and roundtables with civil society Anti-Racism Secretariat (ARSEC) communication products Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy (CARS) public awareness campaign Tools for both Black History Month (BHM) and Asian History Month (AHM), and exhibits for BHM Support to international organizations (e.g., input, advice, tools, conferences etc. prepared as part of international engagement)	Research products	Meetings and joint initiatives with federal organizations to discuss systemic barriers. Annual report on the Multi Act
Immediate outcomes	Program participants have increased awareness of and appreciation for a multicultural society that values diverse cultures, ethnicities, and faiths. Program participants have increased awareness of systemic racism faced by equity-deserving populations. Program participants have increased capacity to address systemic racism.	Canadians are aware of the systemic racism faced by equity-deserving populations. Canadians are aware of a multicultural society that values diverse cultures, ethnicities, and faiths.	-	-
	Program participants belonging to equity-deserving groups have increased capacity to overcome systemic racism.	Increased capacity among federal and non-federal organizations to address systemic barriers faced by equity-deserving populations.	Increased capacity among federal and non-federal organizations to address systemic barriers faced by equity-deserving populations.	Increased capacity among federal and non-federal organizations to address systemic barriers faced by equity-deserving populations.
Intermediate outcomes	Program participants have improved their practices when dealing with people of diverse cultures, ethnicities, and faiths.	Improved organizational practices by federal and non-federal organizations to address systemic barriers faced by equity-deserving populations.	Improved organizational practices by federal and non-federal organizations to address systemic barriers faced by equity-deserving populations.	Improved organizational practices by federal and non-federal organizations to address systemic barriers faced by equity-deserving populations.
	Program participants belonging to equity-deserving groups apply their knowledge and skills to respond to systemic racism.	-	-	-
Ultimate outcomes	Canadians appreciate the value of a multicultural society.	Canadians appreciate the value of a multicultural society.	Canadians appreciate the value of a multicultural society.	Canadians appreciate the value of a multicultural society.
	Canadians can equitably participate in Canadian society.	Canadians appreciate the value of a multicultural society.	Canadians appreciate the value of a multicultural society.	Canadians appreciate the value of a multicultural society.

Source: Multiculturalism Performance Information Profile, Department of Canadian Heritage, February 2021

Annex C: CARS Principles, Objectives and Expected Outcomes

Principles and Objectives	Demonstrating Federal Leadership Equip federal institutions to better address racism and discrimination in Canada, and to identify and develop further areas for federal action. Empowering Communities Enable non-federal government organizations to support the access and participation of racialized communities, religious minority communities and Indigenous peoples in the employment, justice and social spheres. Building Awareness and Changing Attitudes Increase the availability of data on disparities and evidence of what works to address disparities, and to address the harmful ways in which racism and discrimination is communicated in Canada.
Immediate outcomes	Increased capacity among non-federal organizations to address barriers Increased provision of resources, programs, campaigns and services by non-federal organizations that address barriers Increased access by racialized communities, religious minority communities and Indigenous peoples to projects that address barriers Increased access to data, evidence and community insights regarding disparities experienced by Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, and religious minority communities.
Intermediate outcome	Improved organizational practices (initiatives, policies, programs, and services) by federal and non-federal organizations reduce barriers
Ultimate outcomes	Improved employment, justice, and social outcomes for Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, and religious minority communities. Canadians feel that ethnic and cultural diversity is a shared value

Source: Introducing a New Anti-Racism Strategy

Annex D: Adherence to Service Standards, 2017-18 to 2020-21

Annex E: Other tables

Fiscal year	Vote 1 Salary and EBP	Vote 1 O&M	Vote 5 Grants	Vote 5 Contributions	Total
2017-18 Permanent	6.18	1.21	3.00	5.56	16.0
2017-18 Temporary	-	-	-	-	-
2017-18 Total	6.18	1.21	3.00	5.56	15.9
2018-19 Permanent	3.44	0.64	4.50	4.06	12.6
2018-19 Temporary	-	-	-	-	-
2018-19 Total	3.44	0.64	4.50	4.06	12.6
2019-20 Permanent	3.77	0.73	4.50	4.06	13.0
2019-20 Temporary	1.68	0.26	5.20	4.00	11.1
2019-20 Total	5.45	0.99	9.70	8.06	24.2
2020-21 Permanent	4.16	1.02	4.50	4.06	13.7
2020-21 Temporary	1.72	2.72	4.39	8.27	17.1
2020-21 Total	5.88	3.74	8.89	12.3	30.8
2021-22 Permanent	6.09	0.67	4.50	4.06	15.3
2021-22 Temporary	1.12	2.07	2.50	10.0	15.7
2021-22 Total	7.21	2.74	7.0	14.1	31.1

Source: Financial Planning and Resource Management, Chief Financial Officer Branch

	Employee status	ARSEC	DGO	Multiculturalism programs (NHQ and Regions)	Multiculturalism policy	Total	%
2019	Determinate employees	-	2	3	1	6	14.29
	Indeterminate employees	-	3	13	17	33	78.57
	Student (Co-op and FSEWP)	-		1	2	3	7.14
	Total	-	5	17	20	42	100.00
2020	Determinate employees	2	3	9	4	18	32.73
	Indeterminate employees	4	4	14	12	34	61.82
	Student (Co-op and FSEWP)	-	-	1	2	3	5.45
	Total	6	7	24	18	55	100.00
2021	Determinate employees	10	1	7	4	22	36.07
	Indeterminate employees	10	2	16	10	38	62.30
	Student (Co-op and FSEWP)	-	-	1	-	1	1.64
	Total	20	3	24	14	61	100.00
2022	Determinate employees	15	-	6	3	24	36.92
	Indeterminate employees	7	6	12	13	38	58.46
	Student (Co-op and FSEWP)	2	-	-	1	3	4.61
	Total	24	6	18	17	65	100.00

Source: Resource Management Directorate.

Table E-2 notes

Table E-2 note *

The data are taken from the organizational charts of MARB’s directorates. The Multiculturalism Program column includes employees from HQ and Regions since the CSMARI and ARAP are regionally delivered. However, the number does not consider that the regional employees do not necessarily work full-time on these programs.

Return to table E-2 note * referrer

Annex F: Actual Operational costs by directorates

Fiscal year	Salary and EBP	O&M
2018-19	0.36	0.03
2019-20	0.37	0.07
2020-21	0.30	0.01
2021-22	0.34	0.007

Source: Resource Management Directorate and Financial Planning and Resource Management, Chief Financial Officer Branch

Fiscal year	Salary and EBP	O&M
2017-18	0.67	0.02
2018-19	1.00	0.08
2019-20	1.34	0.14
2020-21	1.43	0.006
2021-22	1.37	0.004

Source: Resource Management Directorate and Financial Planning and Resource Management, Chief Financial Officer Branch

Fiscal year	Salary and EBP	O&M
2018-19	1.36	0.26
2019-20	1.06	0.35
2020-21	1.05	0.17
2021-22	1.29	0.21

Source: Resource Management Directorate and Financial Planning and Resource Management, Chief Financial Officer Branch

Fiscal year	Salary and EBP	O&M
2018-19	0.42	0.87

Source: Resource Management Directorate and Financial Planning and Resource Management, Chief Financial Officer Branch

Fiscal year	Salary and EBP	O&M
2019-20	0.20	0.06
2020-21	1.05	0.24
2021-22	1.88	1.16

Source: Resource Management Directorate and Financial Planning and Resource Management, Chief Financial Officer Branch

Fiscal year	Salary and EBP	O&M
2017-18	1.90	0.10
2018-19	2.40	0.11
2019-20	3.63	0.16
2020-21	4.45	0.04
2021-22	5.02	0.83

Source: Resource Management Directorate and Financial Planning and Resource Management, Chief Financial Officer Branch

Fiscal year	Salary and EBP	O&M
2017-18	4.58	0.72
2018-19	0.53	0.15
2019-20	0.73	0.11
2020-21	0.96	0.04
2021-22	0.93	0.07

Source: Resource Management Directorate and Financial Planning and Resource Management, Chief Financial Officer Branch

Annex G: Glossary of definitions

Anti-Asian Racism

In Canada, anti-Asian racism refers to historical and ongoing discrimination, negative stereotyping, and injustice experienced by peoples of Asian descent, based on others’ assumptions about their ethnicity and nationality. Peoples of Asian descent are subjected to specific overt and subtle racist tropes and stereotypes at individual and systemic levels, which lead to their ongoing social, economic, political and cultural marginalization, disadvantage and unequal treatment. This includes perceptions of being a “Yellow Peril,” a “Perpetual Foreigner,” a “Model Minority,” “exotic,” or “mystic.” These stereotypes are rooted in Canada’s long history of racist and exclusionary laws, and often mask racism faced by peoples of Asian descent, while erasing their historical contributions to building Canada.

The term Asian encompasses a wide range of identities that the very term Asian can obscure. While all may experience being “otherized,” specific experiences of anti-Asian racism vary. Some are constantly being perceived to be a threat, some face gendered exotification and violence, some are more likely to be subjected to online hate and racist portrayals in the media, while others face Islamophobia and other forms of religious-based discrimination.

Anti-Black Racism

Prejudice, attitudes, beliefs, stereotyping and discrimination that is directed at people of African descent and is rooted in their unique history and experience of enslavement. Anti-Black racism is deeply entrenched in Canadian institutions, policies and practices, such that anti-Black racism is either functionally normalized or rendered invisible to the larger white society. Anti-Black racism is manifested in the legacy of the current social, economic, and political marginalization of African Canadians in society such as the lack of opportunities, lower socio-economic status, higher unemployment, significant poverty rates and over-representation in the criminal justice system.

Anti-Racism

An active and consistent process of change to eliminate individual, institutional, and systemic racism. The conscious opposition to racist theories, attitudes, and actions.

Antisemitism

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred or blame. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

Band

A community of status Indians recognized by the federal government under the Indian Act. There are over 600 recognized Indian bands in Canada. Bands often have land set apart for their collective use (see “Reserve”). Each band has its own governing council, usually consisting of a chief and several councilors. The members of a band share common values, traditions, and practices rooted in their ancestral heritage. Today, many Indian bands prefer to use the word “First Nation” to describe their communities.

Barrier

An overt or covert obstacle which must be overcome for equality and progress to be possible.

Disaggregated data

In the context of race-based data, this means breaking down composite ("aggregate") categories such as "visible minority" into component parts, such as Black, Chinese, Arab etc.

Diversity

A term used to encompass the acceptance and respect of various dimensions including race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, socio-economic status, religious beliefs, age, physical abilities, political beliefs, or other ideologies. The variety of identities found within an organization, group, or society.

Equity

Fairness, impartiality, even-handedness. A distinct process of recognizing differences within groups of individuals and using this understanding to achieve substantive equality in all aspects of a person's life.

Ethnicity

The multiplicity of beliefs, behaviors and traditions held in common by a group of people bound by particular linguistic, historical, geographical, religious and/or racial homogeneity. Ethnic diversity is the variation of such groups and the presence of a number of ethnic groups within one society or nation.

First Nations

A term that came into common usage in the 1980’s, to replace the term “Indian,” which some people find offensive – it has no legal definition. “First Nation peoples” or “First Nations” refers to the Indian peoples of Canada, both status and non-status, who are descendants of the original inhabitants of Canada who lived here for millennia before explorers arrived from Europe and can also refer to a community of people as a replacement term for “band” (see “Band”). First Nation peoples are one of the distinct cultural groups of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. There are 52 First Nations cultures in Canada, and more than 50 languages. The term “First Nation” is not interchangeable with “Aboriginal,” because it does not include Métis or Inuit.

Indigenous

First used in the 1970’s, when Aboriginal peoples worldwide were fighting for representation at the U.N., this term is now frequently used by academics and in international contexts (e.g., the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples). Indigenous is understood to mean the communities, peoples, and nations that have a historical continuity with pre-invasion, pre-settler, or pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, as distinct from the other societies now prevailing on those territories (or parts of them). Can be used more or less interchangeably with “Aboriginal,” except when referring specifically to a Canadian legal context, in which case “Aboriginal” is preferred, as it is the term used in the Constitution.

Inuit

A circumpolar people who live primarily in four regions of Canada: the Nunavut Territory, Nunavik (northern Quebec), Nunatsiavut (Newfoundland and Labrador), and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (western Arctic). “Inuit” means “people” in the Inuit language of Inuktitut; when referring to one person use the word “Inuk,” which means “person.” Inuit are one of the ethno-cultural groups comprising the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. The Inuit are not to be confused with the Innu, who are a First Nations group living in southeastern Quebec and southern Labrador.

Inclusion

The extent to which diverse members of a group (society/organization) feel valued and respected.

Islamophobia

Includes racism, stereotypes, prejudice, fear or acts of hostility directed towards individual Muslims or followers of Islam in general. In addition to individual acts of intolerance and racial profiling, Islamophobia can lead to viewing and treating Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic and societal level.

Métis

The Métis people originated in the 1700’s when French and Scottish fur traders married Aboriginal women, such as the Cree, and Anishinabe (Ojibway). Their descendants formed a distinct culture, collective consciousness and nationhood in the Northwest. Distinct Métis communities developed along the fur trade routes. Today, it is sometimes used as a generic term to describe people of mixed European and Aboriginal ancestry, but in a legal context, it only refers to descendants of specific historic communities (e.g., the inhabitants of the Red River Colony in today’s Manitoba) or specific groups (e.g., the Paddle Prairie Métis Settlement, a contemporary community in today’s Alberta) or the people who received land grants or scrip from Canadian government.

The term is sometimes contentious, as each Métis organization defines membership using different terms. Canada has the only constitution in the world that recognizes a mixed-race culture, the Métis as a rights-bearing Aboriginal people.

Multiculturalism

Federal policy announced in 1971 and enshrined in law in the Multiculturalism Act of 1988. It promotes the acknowledgment and respect of diverse ethnicities, cultures, races, religious, and supports the freedom of these groups to preserve their heritage “while working to achieve the equality of all Canadians.”

Race

Race is a "social construct." This means that society forms ideas of race based on geographic, historical, political, economic, social and cultural factors, as well as physical traits, even though none of these can legitimately be used to classify groups of people.

Racism

Racism is any individual action, or institutional practice which treats people differently because of their color or ethnicity. This distinction is often used to justify discrimination.

Racialization

The process through which groups come to be socially constructed as races, based on characteristics such as ethnicity, language, economics, religion, culture, politics, etc. That is, treated outside the norm and receiving unequal treatment based upon phenotypical features."

Systemic / Systematic / Institutional Racism

Systemic racism consists of organizational culture, policies, directives, practices or procedures that exclude, displace or marginalize some racialized groups or create unfair barriers for them to access valuable benefits and opportunities. This is often the result of institutional biases in organizational culture, policies, directives, practices, and procedures that may appear neutral but have the effect of privileging some groups and disadvantaging others.

Sources: Building a Foundation for Change: Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy 2019–2022 (Terminology); Canadian Race Relations Foundation Glossary of Terms; Canada

Annex H: Bibliography

• Banting, K., & Thompson, D. (2021). The Puzzling Persistence of Racial Inequality in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, 54(4), 870–891.
• Branch, L. S. (2023, June 20). Consolidated federal laws of Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage Act.
• Government of Canada, S. C. (2022, February 9). Census Profile, 2021 Census of Population.
• Government of Canada, P. S. and P. C. (2002, July 1). Taking action against systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia / Hedy Fry, Chair.: XC61-1/1-421-10E-PDF - Government of Canada Publications - Canada.ca.
• Government of Canada (2017, October 23). Canadian Heritage Program funding decision standards [Grants and funding opportunities; service description].
• Government of Canada (2018, July 20). Evaluation of the Multiculturalism Program.
• Government of Canada (2019, June 27). What we heard—Informing Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy.
• Government of Canada (2020, March 6). Annual Report on the Operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act 2018-19.
• Government of Canada (2022, March 3). Departmental Plan 2022-23—Canadian Heritage.
• Kymlicka, W. (2021). Fifty Years of Multiculturalism: Promoting Progressive Change, Legitimizing Injustice, or Both? Canadian Diversity 18/1 (Introduction to special issue on Multiculturalism @50: Promoting Inclusion and Eliminating Racism (PDF format), 3–5.
• Reitz, J. (2021). Multiculturalism as Social Capital: Trends and Prospects. Canadian Issues / Thèmes Canadiens, Special Issue entitled “Multiculturalism @50 and the Promise of a Just Society,” Fall/Winter, 39–44 (PDF format).

© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, 2023
Catalogue No.: CH7-72/1-2024E-PDF
ISBN: 978-0-660-69790-1