Grouped Arts Evaluation: Canada Arts Presentation Fund, Canada Cultural Spaces Fund, and Canada Cultural Investment Fund 2013-14 to 2017-18

Grouped Arts Evaluation: Canada Arts Presentation Fund, Canada Cultural Spaces Fund, and Canada Cultural Investment Fund 2013-14 to 2017-18 [PDF version - 1.88 MB]

Evaluation Services Directorate
August 20 2019

Cette publication est aussi disponible en français.

List of tables

Table 1: CAPF program objective and expected results
Table 2: CAPF program resources
Table 3: CCSF program objective and expected results
Table 4: CCSF program resources
Table 5: CCIF program objective and expected results
Table 6: CCIF program resources
Table 7: CAPF applications and funding approved, 2013-14 to 2017-18
Table 8: CCSF applications and funding approved, 2013-14 to 2017-18
Table 9: CCIF Applications and funding approved, 2013-14 to 2017-18
Table 10: CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF Total O&M and G&C expenditures, 2013-14 to 2017-18

List of figures

Figure 1: importance of arts and culture events to quality of life for you/your family
Figure 2: community and economic benefits of arts and cultural activities to Canadians
Figure 3: CAPF percentage of professional arts presenters and presenter support organizations funded disaggregated by discipline, 2013-14 to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets
Figure 4: CAPF number of professional development activities provided by funded organizations, disaggregated by type, 2013-14 to 2016-17* – achievement of annual targets
Figure 5: CAPF percentage of presenter funding sources disaggregated by type, 2013-14 to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets
Figure 6: Grouped arts programs achievement of long-term results

List of acronyms and abbreviations

CAPF: Canada Arts Presentation Fund
CATF: Canada Arts Training Fund
CCIF: Canada Cultural Investment Fund
CCSF: Canada Cultural Spaces Fund
PCH: Department of Canadian Heritage
ESD: Evaluation Services Directorate
FCBT: Fathers of Confederation Buildings Trust
GBA+: Gender-Based Analysis Plus
G&C: Grants and Contributions
GCIMS: Grants and Contributions Information Management System
LGBTQ2: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (or Sometimes Questioning), Two-Spirited
N/A: Not available
NAC: National Arts Centre
OLMC: Official Language Minority Community
O&M: Operations and Maintenance
PIP: Performance Information Profile
PRG: Policy Research Group
PT: Provincial/Territorial
UNDRIP: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Executive summary

This report presents the findings from the evaluation of the Department of Canadian Heritage’s (PCH) Grouped Arts Evaluation including the Canada Arts Presentation Fund (CAPF), Canada Cultural Spaces Fund (CCSF), and Canada Cultural Investment Fund (CCIF).

Program descriptions

The CAPF, the CCSF, and the CCIF are delivered by the Arts Branch of PCH. The CAPF provides grants and contributions (G&C) funding to organizations that professionally present arts festivals or performing arts series, as well as their support organizations^{Footnote 1} in order to give Canadians access to a variety of professional artistic experiences in their communities through its Programming Support ($28 million G&C budget in 2017-18) and Development Support ($1 million G&C budget in 2017-18) components. The CAPF also administers the Fathers of Confederation Buildings Trust (FCBT) component ($3 million G&C budget in 2017-18), a single-recipient component that supports the operations of the Confederation Centre of the Arts (the Centre) in offering visual and performing arts and heritage programming that reflects Canada’s cultural, linguistic, and regional diversity.

The CCSF provides G&C funding to professional, not-for-profit arts and heritage organizations, as well as municipal, provincial/territorial (PT) governments and agencies with a mandate for arts and heritage, and equivalent Indigenous peoples’ organizations. The program aims to contribute to improved physical conditions for arts and heritage related creation, presentation, preservation, and exhibition, and increased and improved access for Canadians to performing arts, visual arts, media arts and to museum collections and heritage displays through the improvement, renovation, and creation of arts and heritage facilities, and to support the acquisition of specialized equipment and conducting feasibility studies for cultural projects. The CCSF G&C budget for 2017-18 was approximately $108 million ($25 million A-Base plus $83 million in additional funding from Budget 2016).

The CCIF provides G&C funding primarily through the following two components: Endowment Incentives ($18.9 million G&C budget in 2017-18), and Strategic Initiatives ($3.1 million G&C budget in 2017-18). The Endowment Incentives component provides grants to match private sector funds raised on behalf of professional not-for-profit arts organizations. As this is a formula-driven component, the proportion of matching funds (matching ratio) provided varies from year to year depending on the number of eligible applications and the overall eligible amount requested. The Strategic Initiatives component provides financial assistance for projects involving multiple partner organizations that will help arts and heritage organizations improve their business practices and diversify their revenues.

Evaluation approach

The evaluation covered the period of 2013-14 to 2017-18 and as required by the Financial Administration Act and the Treasury Board Policy on Results (2016), assessed the relevance, effectiveness (including government-wide policy considerations) and efficiency of the CAPF, the CCSF, and the CCIF.

Findings

Relevance

Over the evaluation period, there was a demonstrated need for each of the programs. Most Canadians strongly valued arts and culture experiences and there was increased demand for professional arts experiences that were cutting edge and reflected diverse perspectives. Significant investments were required to upgrade, renovate, and replace aging arts and heritage infrastructure, and feasibility studies were necessary to ensure good planning of projects. Specialized equipment was needed to keep pace with technological advancements. There was a need for funding to encourage private sector investment in arts organization endowment funds. This need was further augmented due to new and increased costs and demographic factors impacting charitable giving. Support was also needed to assist arts and heritage organizations improve their business practices, enhance their organizational capacity, and increase partnerships.

The programs were responsive to the needs of arts and heritage organizations. In particular, the CAPF increased access to innovative professional artistic experiences across Canada, the CCSF responded to the demand for modern arts and heritage spaces that reflected changing cultural, accessibility, and technical equipment needs, and the CCIF responded by encouraging private funding in arts organizations and helping arts and heritage organizations to improve their business practices, capacity, and partnerships.

Though programs worked to address these issues, the evaluation identified some unmet needs and barriers to funding faced by Indigenous, ethnocultural and racialized, and other underserved groups due to a lack awareness of funding opportunities, not meeting the definition of professional organization (incorporation) under program guidelines, and the capacity of some organizations to attract sufficient donations for matching funding. Larger arts organizations also faced challenges growing sufficient sized endowments that were financially sustainable.

The CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF aligned with PCH and federal government priorities and responsibilities. Specifically, the programs aligned with the PCH priorities of supporting access to Canadian arts and culture experiences, community investment, and advancing the use of digital technology. The programs also aligned with federal government priorities related to supporting cultural industries and infrastructure, celebrating heritage and diversity, and supporting Indigenous arts and heritage. The federal government has a responsibility to promote the arts and cultural heritage sectors and provide leadership in building a national cultural identity since these activities result in community and economic benefits. The programs complemented other sources of federal, PT, and municipal funding since the funding varied and focused on different objectives, and the program funding enhanced the credibility of projects. However, there may be opportunities to enhance collaboration between the Arts Branch programs and other funders.

Effectiveness

CAPF

Overall, the CAPF was successful in supporting arts presenter organizations in offering a variety of professional artistic experiences to Canadians by funding organizations that represented a variety of disciplines, featured over one third of out-of-province artists, on average, and conducted audience development and outreach activities. Most surveyed recipients (83%) reported that the CAPF helped them "to a great or moderate extent” to offer a variety of artistic experiences. The CAPF contributed to presenter support organizations in undertaking various professional development activities to strengthen the business practices of CAPF arts presenters and the presenting community.

The CAPF was particularly successful in contributing to Canadians in all regions of the country engaging and participating in a variety of professional artistic experiences by supporting professional arts presenters to reach rural and remote communities, and young and Official Language Minority Community (OLMC) audiences, and attract a high number of audience members and volunteers. It was somewhat less successful in helping professional arts presenters to reach Indigenous and ethnocultural and racialized audiences.

The FCBT component was also successful in offering a variety of programming activities, that featured Canadian artists from different provinces and territories in Canada, toured across the country, and included outreach activities resulting in a high level of audience attendance and volunteer engagement. However, evidence indicated that funding constraints limited the Centre’s ability to reflect Canada’s diversity in its programming.

CCSF

The CCSF was successful in funding a high number of construction/renovation projects, and specialized equipment purchases and helping organizations to secure over 70% in external funding for these projects primarily from PT, municipal, and private sources. A high percentage of projects maintained or enhanced infrastructure and spaces and most users were satisfied with these improvements.

Though the CCSF was successful in funding arts and heritage organizations featuring programming that included a variety of disciplines, programming for young audiences, and those located in rural and remote regions, the program fell somewhat short in meeting targets with respect to funding organizations with programming aimed at ethnocultural and racialized groups, Indigenous people, and OLMCs.

CCIF

The CCIF Strategic Initiatives component was successful in helping arts and heritage organizations to build new and strengthen existing partnerships and to undertake projects related to best practices, marketing, and technology. The component contributed to improved organizational, administrative, and financial health among arts and heritage organizations by helping projects reach a high number of organizations and develop various activities and tools.

The CCIF Endowment Incentives component was successful in enabling arts organizations to raise capital and create endowments. Endowment income disbursed by foundations to professional arts organizations was twice the program target and this helped arts organizations achieve financial stability as over three quarters of recipients’ funding sources was from non-government sources.

Long-term

The CAPF, CCSF, CCIF, and Canada Arts Training Fund (CATF), the fourth Arts Branch program which was evaluated separately, were successful in contributing to an increased percentage of Canadians that participated in artistic events, reported good or very good access to arts and heritage spaces, donated to arts or cultural organizations, and felt that arts and cultural events were important to their quality of life. Most surveyed CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF recipients (95%) perceived “to a great or moderate extent” that Canadians valued professional artistic experiences.

Government-wide policy considerations

The programs met official language requirements of section 41 of the Official Languages Act by funding organizations having OLMCs as part of their audience and enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities.

The programs applied Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) to identify issues and take steps to improve access to funding for underserved groups. Following the PCH departmental plan of 2016-17, the Arts Branch wrote a framework in early 2017 to guide this work. However, better measures are required to examine barriers to funding and uptake among underserved groups.

Efficiency

The programs were delivered efficiently. The relative administrative costs of the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF incurred during the evaluation period were consistent with past reported result. The programs met service standards for acknowledgement of receipt of applications, and improved timeliness of funding decisions. Service standards were met in 2016-17 and 2017-18 due to numerous improvements that reduced procedural steps and paper work, the use of multi-year funding agreements, and piloting of on-line project application and management tools.

However, some design and delivery challenges were identified:

Program Design Challenges

Barriers accessing program funding for all three programs among smalln ^{Footnote 2} and underserved organizations due to their limited awareness of the funding available and challenges applying to programs due to limited organizational capacity. Similar barriers were identified in the 2014 evaluation of the Grouped Arts programs and program management for the CAPF and the CCSF committed to examining these issues. Although the programs took action to address these, some unintended remain.
Uncertain or limited funding for the three programs constrained the sustainability of results. The CAPF faced challenges in responding to the funding needs of new and emerging organizations while continuing to support established recipients. The success of the CCIF Endowment Incentives component meant an increase in requests for funding in 2017-18, that translated into a lower match ratio for each recipient. The unknown matching ratio made it difficult for some recipients to attract additional donors and grow endowments to a self-sustaining level. In addition, the lack of guarantee for continued funding of larger scale multi-phased CCSF construction/renovation projects made planning difficult for some organizations.

Performance Management Challenges

Issues regarding processes for performance data collection, monitoring and reporting. In some instances, the definition and interpretation of indicators were not clear and subject to multiple interpretations. In other cases, though the meaning behind the indicator was clear, the method of tracking and reporting was based on estimated or extrapolated results as the final reports had not been received from all recipients. The programs indicated they were considering alternative measures and mechanisms to track and report on results.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1

The evaluation found a continued need for improved access and mitigation of barriers to program funding for small organizations and underserved groups.

The evaluation recommends that the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs develop steps to mitigate barriers to all programs for smaller organizations and underserved groups to improve their access to the programs with the ultimate objective of removing unintended barriers.

Recommendation 2

The evaluation identified issues regarding processes for performance data collection, monitoring, and reporting. The definitions and interpretation of indicators and outcomes as well as approaches to data collection were not always clear and could be subject to interpretation.

The evaluation recommends that the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs review and improve the current performance measurement indicators and data collection tools for the arts programs, including methodologies and systems, to ensure that data collected is meaningful, accurate, and useful.

1. Introduction

This report presents the findings from the Grouped Arts Evaluation including the Canada Arts Presentation Fund (CAPF), Canada Cultural Spaces Fund (CCSF), and Canada Cultural Investment Fund (CCIF) and covers the period from 2013-14 to 2017-18. The evaluation was conducted to examine the relevance, effectiveness (including government-wide policy considerations) and efficiency of these Arts Branch programs, as required by the Financial Administration Act and the Treasury Board Policy on Results (2016). This evaluation considers the combined results of the three programs and incorporates the results of the Canada Arts Training Fund (CATF) evaluation, where possible, because it is an Arts Branch program that was evaluated separately but covered a similar time period.

The report is divided into six sections, including the introduction. Section 2 provides profiles of the three programs. Section 3 describes the approach and methodology for the evaluation. Section 4 presents the evaluation findings. Section 5 summarizes the main conclusions. Section 6 lists the recommendations arising from the evaluation, the management response, and action plan.

2. Program profiles

Accountability for the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF lies with the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs sector. The programs are overseen by the Arts Branch at PCH Headquarters. The Arts Branch is responsible for policy development, overall program design, management and budget, and monitoring and reporting of program performance and results. It is also responsible for the development and distribution of learning/information/support materials, program guidelines, and application forms. It ensures coordination between PCH, its portfolio agencies, and other partners that support the arts and heritage sectors. While the CCIF is delivered by PCH Headquarters, the CCSF and CAPF are delivered by the PCH regional offices. PCH’s Grants and Contributions Centre of Expertise and the Financial Management Branch are also involved in the development and management of administrative procedures, due diligence, and data collection related to the delivery of grants and contributions.

The following program profiles of the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF provide details on their components, histories, objectives and expected results, target groups and stakeholders, and resources.

2.1. Canada Arts Presentation Fund

2.1.1. Overview

The objective of the CAPF is to give Canadians access to a variety of professional artistic experiences in their communities. The CAPF recognizes that arts presenters are key partners in achieving this objective by providing funding to organizations that professionally present arts festivals or performing arts series, as well as their support organizations.^{Footnote 3}

The CAPF has three components:

programming Support component (approximately 88% of grants and contributions (G&C)): for arts organizations that present art festivals and/or performing arts series. This component supports professional activities that connect artists with local residents primarily through performances, community engagement activities, and other audience development and outreach initiatives. It also provides funding to presenter support organizations and networks that provide services to strengthen arts presentation in Canada. The G&C budget for 2017-18 was $28 million.
development Support component (approximately 3% of G&C): for arts presenter organizations that encounter barriers serving client groups, locations, or disciplines deemed by the CAPF to be underserved. Arts festivals, performing arts series, and presenter support organizations and networks are all eligible for funding under this component. This component recognizes the challenges, and rate of development incumbent to specific underserved communities and artistic disciplines (e.g., Indigenous, ethnocultural and racialized, official language minority, youth, remote and rural communities, and contemporary artistic disciplines and genres). The G&C budget for 2017-18 was $1 million.
fathers of Confederation Buildings Trust (FCBT) component (approximately 9% of grants and contributions): a single-recipient component that supports the operations of the Confederation Centre for the Arts (the Centre), located in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, in offering visual and performing arts and heritage programming that reflects Canada’s cultural, linguistic, and regional diversity. The Centre is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the building, which houses theatre stages, an art gallery, a lecture hall, a memorial hall, a restaurant, and a gift shop, and serves as a national and regional cultural centre for performing arts. The Centre’s mandate is to “inspire Canadians, through heritage and the arts, to celebrate the origins and evolution of Canada as a nation.”^{Footnote 4} The G&C budget for 2017-18 was $3 million.

2.1.2. History

The CAPF was launched in 2001-02, as part of a significant federal arts investment. An evaluation of the CAPF in 2014 (covering 2007-08 to 2012-13) recommended that the program should look for opportunities to reallocate resources to optimize the impact of funding and ensure that new organizations as well as applicants in priority areas have fair access to program funding. Program management committed to examining the distribution of funding across different categories of recipients in consultation with Regional offices, and consider potential adjustments to program tools to address barriers to funding faced by small-sized or non-traditional organizations. The 2014 evaluation also recommended that the CAPF should ensure that the reporting requirements placed on organizations were proportionate to the amount of funding provided and level of risk, as well as make efforts to reduce the application processing time in order to meet established service standard timelines. In response, the CAPF increased the maximum grant amount from $50,000 to $100,000 and reduced the reporting requirements for grant recipients. Changes to the program’s service standards and the introduction of delegated authority from the Minister to the Director General/Regional Director General level for funding less than $75,000 also contributed to efficiency

The FCBT was previously administered as a standalone transfer payment program. An evaluation of the FCBT in 2014 (covering 2006-07 to 2010-11) recommended that the Arts Branch consider integrating the FCBT as a component in an existing program, to reduce planning, reporting, and management costs. In October 2014, the FCBT was integrated into the CAPF.

Additionally, as part of Canada’s Creative Export Strategy, CAPF was provided an additional $500,000 per year from 2017-2018 to 2022-2023 to support the promotion of Canadian artists to international markets through festivals and contact events, by supporting delegations of international presenters to participate at Canadian festivals, contact events or presenter conferences; as well as delegations of Canadian arts presenters to attend international arts events. This enhancement was not included within the scope of this evaluation.

2.1.3. Objective and expected results

The objective of the CAPF is described in the Engagement and Excellence in the Arts November 2017 Performance information Profile (PIP). Table 1 provides a summary of the objective of the CAPF and the associated expected short-term, medium-term, and long-term results.

Table 1: CAPF program objective and expected results
Objective	Short-term results	Medium-term results	Long-term results
To give Canadians access to a variety of professional artistic experiences in their communities.	Arts presenter organizations offer a variety of professional artistic experiences to Canadians. Presenter support organizations undertake professional development opportunities to strengthen the practices of CAPF arts presenters and the presenting community. The Confederation Centre of the Arts offers visual and performing arts and heritage programming that reflects Canada’s cultural, linguistic, and regional diversity (FCBT only).	Canadians in all regions of the country engage and participate in a variety of professional artistic experiences offered by arts presenters. Arts presenters undertake their activities within a healthy Canadian presenting environment. Canadians engage and participate in professional arts and heritage experiences through the Confederation Centre of the Arts programming (FCBT only).	Canadians value and engage with professional artistic experiences.

2.1.4. Target groups and stakeholders

The CAPF primarily targets arts presenters, whose work will result in the increase or diversification of the range of artistic experiences available to audiences where they live, as well as presenter support organizations that provide services to support the work of arts presenters. The Fathers of Confederation Buildings Trust, otherwise known as the Confederation Centre of the Arts (the Centre) is the sole recipient of FCBT component of the CAPF.

Key stakeholders include provincial arts councils; municipal, regional, and provincial/territorial (PT) governments; other sources of support for arts presenters, including funding sources such as foundations and corporate sponsors, and sources of in-kind support; the Confederation Centre of the Arts; the Canada Council for the Arts; and regional economic support programs

2.1.5. Resources

For the period covered by the evaluation, the CAPF had total expenditures of approximately $185.7 million including G&C and operations and maintenance (O&M) expenditures (Table 2). Annual funding levels remained fixed over the period of the evaluation.

Table 2: CAPF program resources
	2013-14	2014-15^{Footnote 5}	2015-16	2016-17	2017-18	Total
Budgeted	$28,972,742	$34,492,272	$38,883,517	$38,851,470	$38,736,833	$179,936,834
Actual	$34,224,972	$34,711,933	$39,092,423	$37,032,290	$40,667,025	$185,728,643

2.2. Canada Cultural Spaces Fund

2.2.1. Overview

The objective of the CCSF is to contribute to improved physical conditions for arts and heritage related creation, presentation, preservation and exhibition as well as increased and improved access for Canadians to performing arts, visual arts, media arts and to museum collections and heritage displays. This is achieved through the improvement, renovation, and creation of arts and heritage facilities, and through support for the acquisition of specialized equipment and conduct of feasibility studies for cultural projects. The CCSF provides financial assistance in the form of G&C to professional, not-for-profit arts and heritage organizations, as well as municipal, PT governments and agencies with a mandate for arts and heritage, and equivalent Indigenous peoples’ organizations.

The program funds three types of activities:

The construction and/or renovation of arts and/or heritage facilities;
The acquisition of specialized equipment; or
The development of feasibility studies for the construction or renovation of arts and/or heritage facilities.

The G&C budget for 2017-18 was approximately $108 million ($25 million A-Base plus $83 million in additional funding from Budget 2016).

2.2.2. History

The CCSF was launched in 2001-02. There have been significant recent enhancements to the CCSF budget, beyond the usual program spending. The CCSF received $168.2 million in additional funding announced in Budget 2016, which was allocated to expenditures in 2016-17 and 2017-18, and a further $300 million over 10 years announced in Budget 2017 with funding beginning in 2018-19. Both these enhancements fell outside of the scope of this evaluation.

An evaluation of the CCSF in 2014 (covering 2007-08 to 2012-13) recommended that the CCSF should ensure that the program requirements do not present unintended barriers to access for some organizations and that the CCSF should proactively review the criteria used to define “cultural space” and “professional arts and heritage organization” to reflect the evolving nature of the arts and heritage sector. The CCSF reviewed the criteria used to define "cultural spaces" and "professional arts and heritage organizations." The findings from the review of these definitions informed revisions to the program guidelines in 2015. The evaluation also recommended that the CCSF make efforts to reduce timelines inherent in the two-step assessment and recommendation process, particularly for lower-risk applications. In response to this recommendation, the CCSF increased its grants envelope from $3 million to $5 million and introduced the change that low-risk files with funding of less than $100,000 were no longer subject to a review by the Program’s National Review Committee.

2.2.3. Objective and expected results

The objective of the CCSF is described in the Engagement and Excellence in the Arts November 2017 PIP. Table 3 provides a summary of the objective of the CCSF and the associated expected short-term, medium-term, and long-term results.

Table 3: CCSF program objective and expected results
Objectives	Short-term results	Medium-term results	Long-term results
To contribute to improved physical conditions for arts and heritage related creation, presentation, preservation, and exhibition, and increased and improved access for Canadians to performing arts, visual arts, media arts and to museum collections and heritage displays through the improvement, renovation and creation of arts and heritage facilities. To support the acquisition of specialized equipment and conduct of feasibility studies for cultural projects.	Arts and heritage organizations have the resources to build or improve facilities and infrastructure.	A variety of arts and heritage experiences available in a wide range of communities. Arts and heritage organizations better create, present, preserve, or exhibit arts and heritage experiences.	Canadians value and access arts and heritage spaces.

2.2.4. Target groups and stakeholders

The CCSF primarily targets arts and heritage organizations (operating in a professional manner). Key stakeholders include organizations and institutions in the arts and heritage fields, PT and municipal government funding partners (including equivalent Indigenous institutions), and federal departments and regional development agencies that provide complementary funding to the same applicants.

2.2.5. Resources

For the period covered by the evaluation, the CCSF had total expenditures of approximately $304.0 million including G&C and operations and maintenance (O&M) expenditures (Table 4).

Table 4: CCSF program resources
	2013-14	2014-15	2015-16	2016-17	2017-18	Total
Budgeted	$27,358,613	$29,341,340	$30,124,646	$30,180,166	$113,377,079	$230,381,844
Actual	$28,619,448	$28,587,103	$27,784,127	$109,365,336	$109,625,609	$303,981,622

2.3. Canada Cultural Investment Fund

2.3.1. Overview

The objective of the CCIF is to encourage private sector investment, partnership and sound business practices to help arts and heritage organizations become better rooted and recognized in their communities. The CCIF provides funding to not-for-profit arts and heritage organizations or equivalent Indigenous peoples’ organizations, post-secondary education institutions, and heritage organizations governed by another level of government.

The CCIF has three components:

The Endowment Incentives component provides grants to match private sector funds raised on behalf of professional not-for-profit arts organizations. As this is a formula-driven component, the proportion of matching funds (matching ratio) provided varies from year to year depending on the number of eligible applications and the overall eligible amount requested. The G&C budget for 2017-18 was $18.9 million.
The Strategic Initiatives component launched in 2010-11 provides financial assistance for projects involving multiple partner organizations that will help arts and heritage organizations improve their business practices and diversify their revenues. The G&C budget for 2017-18 was $3.1 million.
The Limited Support to Endangered Arts Organizations is a rarely used component which allows the federal government to partner with other levels of government and the private sector to help an arts organization move from facing the prospect of closure to sustainability if they have an appropriate business strategy. There have been no applications since 2008.

2.3.2. History

The CCIF has been in operation since 2001-02. The budget for the CCIF Endowment Incentives component has increased incrementally over time from $3.1 million in its initial year to approximately $18.9 million annually from 2010-11 to 2017-18. In October 2018, the CCIF Endowment Incentives component lifetime maximum of $15 million per organization was eliminated.^{Footnote 6} However, to ensure small and medium-sized organizations continue to benefit from the program, the program maintained the cap of $1 million for organizations that have received $10 million in grants from the component.

An evaluation of the CCIF in 2014 (covering 2007-08 to 2012-13) recommended that the CCIF Strategic Initiatives component should make efforts to reduce the timelines inherent in the two-step application process and as a result, the first step, the Letter of Intent, was eliminated from the application process.

2.3.3. Objective and expected results

The objective of the CCIF is described in the Engagement and Excellence in the Arts November 2017 PIP. Table 5 provides a summary of the objective of the CCIF and the associated expected short-term, medium-term, and long-term results.

Table 5: CCIF program objective and expected results
Objective	Short-term results	Medium-term results	Long-term results
To help arts and heritage organizations build and diversify their revenue streams, encourage private sector investment, partnership, improve their business practices, and assist them in being better rooted and recognized in their communities.	Arts and heritage organizations engage partners to develop and share resources to improve business practices (Strategic Initiatives only). Private sector donations enabled arts organizations to raise capital and create endowments (Endowment Incentives only). Endangered art institutions being able to avoid closure following funding support (Limited Support to Endangered Arts Organizations only).	Arts and heritage organizations demonstrate sound organizational, administrative, and financial health.	Canadians value and invest in arts and heritage organizations.

2.3.4. Target groups and stakeholders

The CCIF Endowment Incentives component primarily targets publicly registered charitable foundations whose mandate is to accumulate, administer, and invest capital assets for the purpose of providing part or all of the annual income to the beneficiary not-for-profit professional arts organizations. The Strategic Initiatives component primarily targets not-for-profit organizations or equivalent Indigenous peoples’ institutions or organizations, with a mandate and activities related to the arts or heritage sector, post-secondary education institutions, and heritage organizations governed by a provincial, territorial, or municipal government with programming related to the arts or heritage sector. The Limited Support to Endangered Arts Organizations component primarily targets not-for-profit professional arts organizations whose mission is the creation, production, and/or presentation of artistic activities.

Key stakeholders include foundations and private sector donors; organizations and institutions in the arts and heritage fields; PT and municipal funding partners (including equivalent Indigenous institutions); federal departments and regional development agencies that provide complementary funding to the same applicants; and the Canada Council for the Arts.

2.3.5. Resources

For the period covered by the evaluation, the CCIF had total expenditures of approximately $115.1 million including G&C and operations and maintenance (O&M) expenditures (Table 6). Annual funding levels remained fixed over the period of the evaluation.

Table 6: CCIF program resources
	2013-14	2014-15	2015-16	2016-17	2017-18	Total
Budgeted	$21,972,205	$24,855,281	$23,830,227	$23,747,585	$25,271,766	$119,677,064
Actual	$23,690,576	$23,815,929	$20,506,902	$23,523,665	$23,597,851	$115,134,923

3. Approach and methodology

This section outlines the evaluation approach and methodology including scope, timelines, evaluation questions, data collection methods, limitations, and mitigation strategies. The Evaluation Services Directorate (ESD) of PCH led the evaluation of the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF. Components were completed by ESD, the Policy Research Group (PRG), and an external contractor.

3.1. Scope, timeline and quality control

The evaluation covered the period of 2013-14 to 2017-18. As required by the Financial Administration Act and the Treasury Board Policy on Results (2016), the evaluation assesses relevance, effectiveness (including government-wide policy considerations), and efficiency of the three programs, with a focus on the impact of the programs.

During the period under evaluation, the CCSF received additional funds under Budget 2016. This funding fell out of the scope of the evaluation. However, it was not possible to extract the impact of this funding from the program results. To mitigate this issue, the enhancements were acknowledged, where appropriate, to explain the results.

The evaluation was conducted between March 2018 and January 2019, with data collection occurring from March to September and triangulation and report writing from September to January. Most of the data-gathering was conducted jointly with the CATF evaluation.

The Evaluation Working Group, which included representatives of the three programs, met regularly to discuss evaluation issues and ensure the accuracy of the preliminary findings.

3.2. Evaluation issues

The following core issues were used to guide the evaluation, including the development of data collection instruments and the analyses:

Relevance

Ongoing need for the program
Harmonization with government priorities and PCH
Harmonization with government roles and responsibilities

Effectiveness

Achievement of expected results for the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF

Efficiency

Demonstration of efficiency

Other issues

Government-wide policy considerations (official language requirements and Gender-Based Analysis Plus)

More details related to evaluation questions, indicators, and data collecting methods can be found in the Evaluation Framework (Annex A).

3.3. Data collection methods

A mixed-method approach was utilized for this evaluation including a document review, a literature review, an administrative data review, interviews with stakeholders, a focus group, a survey of applicants, a case study, and expert panels. The following provides a description of each of the data collection methods.

3.3.1. Document review

Over 300 documents relevant to the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF programs were reviewed. These documents included, but were not limited to: federal government policies and guidelines, departmental and program policies, directives, guidelines, Terms and Conditions, integrated business plans, program audits, meeting minutes, partnering agreements, Memoranda of Understanding, and communications and outreach products. Government of Canada documents included: Speeches from the Throne, Federal Budgets, Reports on Plans and Priorities and Departmental Performance Reports, and Statistics Canada surveys and reports.

3.3.2. Literature review

The review included recently published literature, reports, websites, public opinion research and other sources at the national and international level. To identify and use high-quality research references, the PCH Knowledge Centre was engaged to obtain scientific articles and reports from respected journals through academic research databases.

3.3.3. Administrative data review

CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF program administrative data was reviewed for the evaluation. This included:

Data/statistics provided by the Program
Data entered into the PCH Grants and Contributions Information Management System (GCIMS)
Financial data provided by Finance
Service standard compliance data from Grants and Contributions Centre of Expertise reported on the PCH website

3.3.4. Interviews with stakeholders

Interviews were conducted with both internal and external stakeholders. A total of 13 interviews were conducted with internal stakeholders, including PCH program personnel, and 52 interviews were conducted with external stakeholders. Interviews were conducted between December 2017 and April 2018. Stakeholders represented regions across Canada and multiple disciplines and types of organizations. A description of the external stakeholders is provided below.

19 CAPF external stakeholder interviews were conducted (12 were CAPF recipients).
21 CCSF external stakeholder interviews were conducted (14 were CCSF recipients).
12 CCIF external stakeholder interviews were conducted (9 were CCIF Endowment Incentives recipients and 2 were CCIF Strategic Initiatives recipients).

Note that in reporting the results of the stakeholder interviews the following scale was used:

a few = 0-10%, some = 10-20%, several = 20-30%, many = 30-50%, most = >50%.

3.3.5. Focus group

A one-hour focus group was conducted with 11 representatives of Canada Council for the Arts including directors from various departments within the organization. The questions for the focus group were adapted from the interview guides and focused on overall relevance and efficiency as well as government-wide policy considerations.

3.3.6. Survey of applicants

Online surveys of funding recipients and unsuccessful applicants of the four Arts Branch programs (including CATF) were posted on-line from August 17 to August 31, 2018. A total of 1,098 recipient and non-recipient organizations were invited to participate in an online survey. Of these organizations, 434 completed or partially completed a survey, resulting in a 40% response rate. Some organizations were recipients from multiple programs and were counted under each of the relevant program(s) to which they responded. Responses were received for 333 CAPF recipients, 153 CCSF recipients, and 71 CCIF recipients.

3.3.7. Case study

A case study of the FCBT component of CAPF was conducted to gather detailed evidence to address evaluation questions. The case study included a document review, telephone interviews, and a detailed analysis of the information by evaluation question. A total of 11 interviews were conducted for the case study, including internal PCH program staff and external FCBT management and staff (10 of these interviews were in addition to the interviews indicated in Section 3.4.4). A variety of documents and files were reviewed such as applications, annual activity reports, financial statements, and other documents detailing outputs generated by the FCBT.

3.3.8. Expert panels

Two expert panels were staged in September 2018. Participants included experts and stakeholders with knowledge of the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF programs. In total, 12 representatives participated in the two expert panels, including 8 participants in the CAPF/CCSF expert panel and 4 participants in the CCIF expert panel. The purpose of the expert panels was to validate and strengthen the evaluation findings and allow for in-depth discussion on key issues. Each expert panel included a presentation of the preliminary findings, and a facilitated discussion. Some participants provided additional comments and supporting literature or documents following the expert panel discussions.

The participants were identified through referrals from PCH program and evaluation staff, stakeholders, and an online search. Selection criteria included that they were an expert or leader in a field related to the program, had some knowledge and familiarity with the programs, had not been interviewed previously as part of the evaluation, had not received funding from any of the programs, and represented a mix of regions and types of organizations.

3.4. Constraints, limitations, and mitigation strategies

The following outlines the key constrains and limits of the evaluation process as well as identifies the mitigation strategies utilized to minimize the impact of these limitations:

Not all of the performance data was available, reliable, or consistent. For example, the program reported on some results using extrapolated estimates as the final reports had not been received from all recipients. In order to ensure comparability between the targets and the results, these extrapolated estimates were used to assess effectiveness in this evaluation. For the performance data that was available, much of it was based on self-reports from funding recipients and were estimates rather than exact measures depending on how results were aggregated. There were consistency issues in that some data was stored in separate spreadsheets and databases and had been compiled by multiple PCH officers in the regions or at headquarters. This made it difficult to compile and compare results. Data limitations have been highlighted, where appropriate, in reviewing the strength of the results.
There were challenges in isolating incremental impacts attributable to the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF due to the fact that activities and projects were often supplemented by other funding sources (particularly in cases where there are matching requirements). This challenge was mitigated by examining the relevance and need for the funding, for example, by asking recipients if the project would have proceeded in the absence of program funding.
The majority of the external stakeholders were recipients (35/52). As a result, there is a possible positive response bias. To mitigate this issue, the evaluation utilized other lines of evidence (e.g. literature review, document review, and surveys, etc.) to support findings and themes from the external stakeholder interviews.
Initially, the evaluation planned to include results from a survey of unfunded applicants. However, there was a lack of representative survey data from this group, so this line of evidence was excluded from the evaluation.
The evaluation had also intended to assess whether the cap of $15 million of funding per non-profit professional arts organization-associated foundations over the life of the CCIF-Endowment was appropriate. However, during the conduct of the evaluation a ministerial decision was made to remove this cap. This element was therefore not incorporated into this evaluation.

4. Findings

4.1. Relevance

This section provides the evaluation findings regarding the relevance of the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF programs including the ongoing need for the programs, harmonization with government priorities and PCH core responsibilities, and harmonization with government roles and responsibilities. The key findings have been organized by evaluation question, with supporting themes and evidence provided below each table.

4.1.1. Relevance: ongoing need for the programs

Evaluation question: CAPF: to what extent is there a demonstrated need for continued investment to provide Canadians with access to a variety of professional artistic experiences in their communities?

Key finding: over the evaluation period, there was a demonstrated need for the CAPF. Canadians reported that they strongly valued arts and culture experiences. There was increased demand for professional arts experiences that were cutting edge and reflected diverse perspectives, and a need for presenters and Canadian cultural institutions to respond to these changes. The need for the program was further augmented due to the increased costs of presentation.

Canadians strongly valued arts and culture experiences

The 2017 Arts and Heritage Access and Availability Survey by Environics found that attendance and participation rates at arts and culture events were relatively high, and public opinion about the value of arts and culture and the need for government support was positive, and in some cases, even stronger than in 2012. For example, seven in ten (69%) Canadians considered arts and cultural events to be either very (27%) or moderately important (42%) to their own and their family’s quality of life (Figure 1).^{Footnote 7} In terms of demographic trends, the survey found that youth (16-24 years) were more likely to have been involved in an arts activity as artists and seen a performance involving an ethnocultural or racialized person. Compared to other Canadians, foreign-born Canadians placed greater value on the impact arts and heritage experiences have on their feelings of attachment to Canada and belonging to their community. Indigenous people were more likely to strongly agree that arts and culture is important to their quality of life and community’s economic well-being.

**Figure 1: importance of arts and culture events to quality of life for you/your family**

	2012	2017
Very important	26%	27%
Moderately important	40%	42%
Not very important	22%	20%
Not at all important	13%	10%

Demand for professional arts experiences that were cutting edge and reflected diverse perspectives

Most CAPF stakeholders agreed that continued financial support was needed to offer professional arts experiences that were affordable, relevant, and reflective of Canadian culture and of interest to audiences in the 21st century (i.e., cutting-edge, modern content). Expert panellists similarly emphasized that audiences have been increasingly interested in innovative programming featuring new content from diverse perspectives. Expert panellists emphasized that it is critical to ensure diverse groups have opportunities to present arts and cultural experiences that reflect their identities and experiences. The literature review identified that arts and cultural experiences provide opportunities for inclusion of marginalized people, dialogue, and community, particularly for Indigenous people and recent immigrants.^{Footnote 8}

Need for Canadian cultural institutions to adapt and evolve

The FCBT component of CAPF case study found that there was a need for Canadian cultural institutions to adapt and reflect the evolving Canadian cultural landscape. For example, presenting and developing Indigenous arts and culture is critical in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action (Calls to Action) and that this is particularly important for Canadian cultural institutions such as the Confederation Centre of the Arts, which is a memorial to Canadian Confederation. It was also identified that there was a need to develop programming and outreach that is tailored to diverse ethnocultural and racialized groups to promote social inclusion and shared understanding of cultural experiences. As an example, the Centre welcomed 55 refugees to view Anne of Green Gables the Musical and staff explained that the story was about a girl who came to the Island and looked and acted differently, but that the community learned that they are much richer for having that person among them. The Refugees could relate their own experience with these themes.

Increased costs of presentation

Many stakeholders indicated that the cost of presentation (e.g., equipment, salaries, transportation, etc.) had increased, while the funding had not increased to the same degree. These rising costs impacted access to professional arts experiences as organizations needed to charge higher ticket prices to recover the costs. To illustrate this trend, a 2006 study by the University of Waterloo, found that single ticket prices for the Canadian Opera Company increased by 675% and National Ballet increased by 709% from 1981-82 to 2006-07 while the CPI [Consumer Price Index] only increased by 134% and median household income only increased by 117% during this time period.^{Footnote 9}

Evaluation questions: CCSF: to what extent is there a need among not-for-profit arts and heritage organizations for the improvement, renovation and construction of arts and heritage facilities, for the acquisition of specialized equipment and for conducting feasibility studies for cultural infrastructure projects?

Key finding: there was a need for the CCSF due to significant and growing investments required to upgrade, renovate, and replace aging arts and heritage infrastructure and feasibility studies to ensure good planning of projects. Specialized equipment was needed to keep pace with technological advancements. Digitization costs further augmented spaces and infrastructure needs.

Need to upgrade, renovate, and replace aging infrastructure and ensure good planning

According to a 2016 study by the Canadian Arts Coalition, many Canadian arts facilities were built in the 1970s and needed renovation ranging from accessibility adaptations, to energy efficiency enhancements and specialized equipment upgrades to keep up with Canada’s innovative artists.^{Footnote 10} Large investments were required, and the need for renovation was expected increase over time as new spaces were built. To understand the scope of the needs, a 2016 study by ArtsBuild Ontario found that an inventory of 429 Ontario arts and heritage organizations had identified capital needs estimated at more than $300 million,^{Footnote 11} which was almost three times the entire annual G&C CCSF budget.

Several stakeholders and expert panellists stated that the funding need for spaces had increased due to the aging infrastructure, rising maintenance costs, and limited funding available to address these needs. Stakeholders identified the need to address environmental, safety, and accessibility spaces requirements, and conduct feasibility and market analysis studies to ensure good planning.

Specialized equipment needs replacing frequently due to technological advancements

Stakeholders noted that purchasing specialized equipment is very expensive and often needs replacing every five years due to technological advancements. Literature and expert panellists also suggested that specialized equipment upgrades were required to keep up with Canada’s innovative artists and attract leading international artists.^{Footnote 12}

New digitization costs

Stakeholders and expert panellists indicated that the emergence of digital technology had led to increased needs for new tools for engaging with audiences, fundraising, and organizational management.^{Footnote 13} This had brought about additional infrastructure and equipment costs. “There is a need to ensure that Canadian creators share in the financial rewards resulting from increased dissemination of cultural content via digital channels. Likewise, there is a need to foster increased reinvestments in order to promote the creation of Canadian digital cultural content. Doing so will help ensure the longer term financial viability of Canada’s cultural content creators who may otherwise have to seek out other career paths in order to support themselves.”^{Footnote 14}

Evaluation questions: CCIF: to what extent is there a need to help arts and heritage organizations: build and diversify their revenue streams; encourage private sector investment, partnership; improve their business practices; and be better rooted and recognized in their communities?

Key finding: there was a need for CCIF Endowment Incentives funding to encourage private sector investment in arts organization endowment funds. The need was further augmented due to demographic factors impacting charitable giving. Strategic Initiatives support was needed to assist arts and heritage organizations improve their business practices, enhance their organizational capacity, and increase partnerships.

Need for incentives for private sector donors

Most stakeholders emphasized that the CCIF Endowment Incentives component provided a significant incentive for private sector donors and an added sense of urgency to donate to arts organizations. Stakeholders also noted that these incentives encouraged and supported diversification of revenue streams, which is particularly important in covering operational costs.

Demographic factors further augmented the need for donor incentives

According to the 2018 study 30 Years of Giving by Imagine Canada, although Canadians gave $14.3 billion in donations to registered charities in 2014, each generation is giving less and less in terms of peak donation rates and average donations.^{Footnote 15} The study found that there was a high level of competition for donations due to an increased dependence on fewer, wealthier donors. In 1985, the top 1% of tax filers accounted for 16% of donations, while in 2014 they accounted for 31% of donations. Expert panellists argued that these conditions indicated a greater need to incentivize donors to give to arts organizations through the CCIF Endowment Incentives component. Other factors increased the need for organizations to diversify revenue streams since projected slow economic growth (e.g., 1.9% projected GDP growth in 2020)^{Footnote 16} was expected to further squeeze charitable giving and government revenues. Imagine Canada estimated in a 2016 study that there will be a growing disconnect between the needs Canadians expect charities to address and their ability to meet these needs amounting to a ‘social deficit’ of $25 billion by the year 2026.^{Footnote 17}

Need for arts and heritage organizations to enhance business practices

A few stakeholders noted that, other than the CCIF Strategic Initiatives component, there was no other program that targeted the improvement of business practices among arts and heritage organizations, specifically. Stakeholders indicated that there were major changes in the past 18 months to the Canada Council for the Arts and other funders such as the Ontario Council for the Arts and Ontario Trillium Foundation, which have made many arts and heritage organizations no longer eligible for funding. The reduced availability of funding increased the need for strategies to improve business practices, given the even leaner operating environment in which arts organization were required to operate.

Evaluation question: to what extent was each of the Arts programs responsive to the demonstrated needs of Canadians?

Key finding: the programs were responsive to the needs of Canadians. In particular, the CAPF increased access to innovative professional artistic experiences across Canada. The CCSF responded to the demand for modern arts and heritage spaces that reflected changing cultural, accessibility, and technical equipment needs. The CCIF responded to the needs by encouraging private funding in arts organizations and helping arts and heritage organizations to improve their business practices, capacity, and partnerships.

Though programs worked to address these issues, the evaluation identified some unmet needs and barriers to funding faced by Indigenous, ethnocultural and racialized, and other underserved groups due to a lack awareness of funding opportunities, not being considered professional under program guidelines, and a lack of capacity to attract sufficient donations to apply for matching funding. Larger arts organizations also faced challenges growing sufficient sized endowments that were financially sustainable without need for further government funding.

The CAPF increased access to innovative professional artistic experiences across Canada

The CAPF approved $146 million towards 3,221 projects from 2013-14 to 2017-18 (Table 7).^{Footnote 18} Most of the funding was approved for Programming Support. Approved applications represented 86% of the total applications submitted, indicating a high demand for CAPF funding. Many stakeholders indicated that the CAPF has allowed presenters to increase the variety of professional arts experiences accessible to Canadians and reduce the financial risk of organizations in presenting innovative productions.

Table 7: CAPF applications and funding approved, 2013-14 to 2017-18
Indicator	Programming Support component	Development Support component	Total
Total Applications (#)	3,546	208	3,754
Total Requested ($)	$434M	$10M	$444M
Total Applications Approved (#)	3,044	177	3,221
Total Applications Approved (%)	86%	85%	86%
Total Approved ($)	$141M	$5M	$146M

Source: PCH’s Grants and Contributions Information Management System (GCIMS). Note that multi-year funding agreements with yearly recurring events are counted as a separate project in each year the event is funded.

As a component of the CAPF, the FCBT responded to the needs by providing $15 million in funding to support the operations of the Confederation Centre of the Arts (the Centre), helping to inspire Canadians to reflect on the origins and evolution of Canada as a nation through arts and heritage programming. The FCBT case study found that the Centre featured a variety of Indigenous artists in its programming such as the Shame and Prejudice touring art installation by Kent Monkman, whose works examine dark chapters in Canadian history including residential schools, the sixties scoop, and colonialism.

The CCSF responded to demand for modern arts and heritage spaces that reflect changing cultural, accessibility, and technical equipment needs

The CCSF approved $335 million for 734 projects from 2013-14 to 2017-18 (Table 8). While most of the funding was approved for construction/renovation projects compared to specialized equipment/feasibility study projects, the categories were fairly evenly split in terms of the number of projects. Approved applications represented 75% of the total applications submitted, indicating a high demand for CCSF funding. Most stakeholders perceived that the CCSF has helped to respond to public demand for modern arts and heritage spaces, including providing funding for facilities that reflect changes in cultural needs, that are accessible, and that have the equipment and technology needed. Ninety-six percent (96%) of CCSF recipients surveyed stated that they would not have gone ahead with their project as planned without CCSF funding.

Table 8: CCSF applications and funding approved, 2013-14 to 2017-18
Indicator	Construction/ Renovation	Specialized Equipment/ Feasibility Study	Total
Total Applications (#)	537	436	973
Total Requested ($)	$623M	$66M	$689M
Total Applications Approved (#)	377	357	734
Total Applications Approved (%)	70%	82%	75%
Total Approved ($)	$294M	$41M	$335M

Source: PCH’s Grants and Contributions Information Management System (GCIMS).

The CCIF responded to the needs by encouraging private funding in arts organizations and helping arts and heritage organizations to improve their business practices, capacity, and partnerships

The CCIF approved $110.7 million in funding for 580 projects from 2013-14 to 2017-18 (Table 9). Most funding was approved for the Endowment Incentives component. Approved applications represented 87% of the total applications submitted, indicating a high demand for CCIF funding. The CCIF Strategic Initiatives component supported projects which allowed organizations to share expertise, best practices, focus on marketing, audience development and strategic use of technologies, all with the goal of strengthening business operations of arts and heritage organizations so that they may make stronger contributions to the Canadian society and economy. There was no need for the Limited Support to Endangered Arts Organizations component as there were no arts organizations in need during the period under evaluation.

Table 9: CCIF Applications and funding approved, 2013-14 to 2017-18
Indicator	Endowment Incentives	Strategic Initiatives	Total
Total Applications (#)	543	121	664
Total Requested ($)	$110M	$42.5M	$152.5M
Total Applications Approved (#)	525	55	580
Total Applications Approved (%)	97%	45%	87%
Total Approved ($)	$93.7M	$17.0M	$110.7M

Source: PCH’s Grants and Contributions Information Management System (GCIMS).

Several stakeholders and expert panellists noted that the CCIF Endowment Incentives component responded to the needs by encouraging private funding in arts organizations and helping them to start and grow endowments. A few stakeholders also noted that the CCIF Strategic Initiatives component helped organizations to improve their business practices, improve their internal capacity, and develop new and strengthen existing partnerships.

Unmet needs

Unmet needs and barriers to program funding faced by underserved groups

Across each of the PCH Arts Branch programs (CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF), stakeholders and expert panellists noted that some smaller^{Footnote 19} arts and heritage organizations, particularly ethnocultural and racialized, Indigenous, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ2 groups, tended to disproportionally face barriers to funding compared to larger, or more established organizations. The CAPF has been working to implement changes to eligibility criteria in order to increase access for these groups, such as eliminating the incorporation requirement for some of these organizations.

In 2017, changes were made to the CCIF Strategic Initiatives eligibility criteria to improve access to organizations that might otherwise have been excluded. Organizations having received funding from CAPF or CATF in the three years prior to application were made admissible. This prior condition had proven to limit joint initiatives where those previously excluded organizations were the best positioned to lead these projects, thus impacting smaller organizations in the process. A further change was made to remove the condition that applicant organizations have at least two full-time employees, this was seen as a way to increase eligibility of smaller organizations in Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island, for example, which were under-represented under this component of the program.

Though the programs worked to address these issues, the evaluation found that there was more work to be done. Smaller arts organizations tended to lack awareness of funding opportunities, not be considered professional under program guidelines, and lack capacity to attract sufficient donations to apply for matching funding. The literature and expert panellists suggested that this tended to privilege more traditional arts presenters when evaluating funding applications.^{Footnote 20} Expert panellists indicated that there is a need for additional professional development and tools/guidelines for arts and heritage organizations to learn to work with underserved groups.

Barriers faced by Indigenous groups

Relative to all three programs (CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF), Indigenous artists and related organizations faced barriers accessing funding due to a lack of capacity and connection to the professional arts presenter community. According to the literature, there was a lack of infrastructure for Indigenous arts and culture development and presentation in terms of training, service organizations, venues, and presenters.^{Footnote 21},^{Footnote 22} A 2016 study by the Alliance for Arts and Culture, Successful Practices in British Columbia’s Arts Community, found that there was a lack of experience among arts presenters in working with Indigenous artists. The CAPF has begun to engage with and address the needs of Indigenous groups. For example, in the Ontario region, the CAPF partnered with the Indigenous Performing Arts Alliance to undertake an Ontario-wide engagement process to determine next steps for a potential collaboration that will foster arts presentation capacity in Ontario Indigenous communities. This process resulted in six recommendations in support of developing and maintaining an Indigenous community presentation network in Ontario.

Barriers faced by ethnocultural and racialized groups

Regarding all three programs (CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF), expert panellists noted that ethnocultural and racialized organizations faced barriers accessing arts and cultural funding due to a lack of experience with the granting process, challenges securing corporate funding, and power imbalances when partnering with larger organizations. According to a 2014 study by Malton et. al., Figuring the Plural, ethnocultural and racialized groups faced barriers meeting financial needs, building organizational capacity, developing audiences, and meeting needs for space.^{Footnote 23}

Financial sustainability for larger arts organizations

With respect to CCIF- Endowment Initiative funding, expert panellists explained that a major unmet need for larger arts organizations was to build a sufficient sized endowment that were self-sustaining. According to a 2006 study by the University of Waterloo, sufficient endowments are typically five to seven times the operating budget and for some organizations this equates to a $150 million to $200 million endowment.^{Footnote 24} The evaluation did assess that the matching funds approached used under this component was straightforward and equitable in that it provided matching funding to many eligible organizations. Expert panellists also noted that the variable matching ratio of the CCIF Endowment Incentives component made it more challenging for organizations to attract private sector donors for endowments than would a fixed rate or bricks and mortar projects; however, a fixed matching rate was not feasible under the CCIF given that the funding levels were fixed and that the number funding requests and amounts eligible varied annually.

4.1.2. Relevance: harmonization with government priorities and PCH core responsibilities

Evaluation question: to what extent was each of the programs aligned with PCH priorities and federal government priorities?

Key finding: the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF aligned with several PCH and federal government priorities. Specifically, the programs aligned with the PCH priorities that support access to Canadian arts and culture experiences, community investment, and advancing the use of digital technology. The programs also aligned with federal government priorities related to supporting cultural industries and infrastructure, celebrating heritage and diversity, and supporting Indigenous arts and heritage.

The CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF aligned with PCH priorities that support access to Canadian arts and culture experiences, community investment, and advancing the use of digital technology

The CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF contributed to the PCH strategic outcome: “Canadian artistic expression and cultural content are created and accessible at home and abroad”^{Footnote 25} by funding projects which increased access for Canadians to a variety of professional artistic experiences in their communities (CAPF), contributed to increased and improved access for Canadians to performing arts, visual arts, media arts and to museum collections and heritage displays (CCSF), and assisted [arts and heritage organizations] in being better rooted and recognized in their communities (CCIF).

The programs also aligned with PCH organizational priorities during the evaluation period. For example, the programs contributed to the PCH organizational priority: “bringing Canadians together: investing in our communities.” The CAPF funded the 2015 Planet IndigenUS Arts Festival, an international, multidisciplinary arts festival organized by the Harbourfront Centre in Toronto, to coordinate outreach and audience development with Indigenous communities. The CCIF funded the Winnipeg Foundation to start and grow endowments on behalf of 12 local community arts organizations.^{Footnote 26} The programs also contributed to: “a prosperous cultural sector: advancing opportunities in a global and digital era.” The CCSF supported The Satellite Video Exchange Society’s VIVO project, which supported the creation of a centre for media arts production, presentation, and preservation in Vancouver. The CCIF supported ArtsBuild Ontario, in partnership with WorkInCulture and Fractured Atlas, to expand the SpaceFinder system, a creative space directory tool that helps artists connect to short and long-term rentals.^{Footnote 27} Furthermore, in 2017, a fourth key priority was added to the CCIF Strategic Initiatives component to increasingly focus on innovation, experimentation and development of new approaches. This aligned well with the department priorities in this area.

The programs also aligned with federal government priorities of supporting cultural industries and infrastructure, celebrating heritage and diversity, and supporting Indigenous arts and heritage

The programs aligned with federal government documents, which highlight the cultural sector as a key sector of the economy and the government’s commitment to investing in cultural infrastructure. ^{Footnote 28},^{Footnote 29},^{Footnote 30} For example, Budget 2016 stated that “investing in the Canadian cultural sector helps to create jobs, strengthens the economy and ensures that the unique Canadian perspective is shared with the world.” ^{Footnote 31} The 2015 Speech from the Throne similarly stated that the government planned to “invest in Canada’s cultural and creative industries.”^{Footnote 32}

More recent federal documents emphasized celebrating Canadian cultural heritage and diversity and supporting Indigenous arts and heritage (e.g., Budget 2018, Minister Mandate Letter 2018, and adoption of the Calls to Action and United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)).^{Footnote 33},^{Footnote 34} Budget 2018 proposed investments “that will ensure that Canada’s heritage can be celebrated and shared by more Canadians in more communities across the country.”^{Footnote 35} The 2018 Minister Mandate Letter similarly emphasized the “government’s plan to strengthen and promote our cultural and creative industries as well as celebrate Canada’s diversity and foster greater inclusion.”^{Footnote 36} The federal government adoption of both the Calls to Action and UNDRIP further indicated the government’s commitment to supporting Indigenous arts, heritage, and related organizations.

4.1.3. Relevance: harmonization with government roles and responsibilities

Evaluation questions:

CAPF: is ensuring that Canadians have continued access to professional arts experiences an appropriate responsibility for the federal government?
CCSF: is contributing to improving physical conditions for arts and heritage organizations related to creation, presentation, preservation and exhibition to provide improved access for Canadians to performing arts, visual arts, media arts and to museum collections and heritage displays, the acquisition of specialized equipment and conducting feasibility studies for cultural projects an appropriate responsibility of the federal government?
CCIF: is assisting arts and heritage organizations to build and diversify their revenue streams, improve their business practices, and be more rooted and recognized in their communities an appropriate responsibility for the federal government?

Key findings:

the programs aligned with the federal responsibility to promote the arts and cultural heritage sectors and in providing leadership in building a national cultural identity. Arts and heritage experiences and organizations result in various community and economic benefits to Canadians. The programs complemented other sources of federal, PT, and municipal funding since the funding varied and focused on different objectives, and the PCH Arts Branch program funding enhanced the credibility of projects. However, there may be opportunities to enhance collaboration between the Arts Branch programs and other federal, PT, and municipal funders.

Mandated responsibility to promote the arts and cultural heritage sectors

The Department’s mandate is set out in the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and centres on fostering and promoting “Canadian identity and values, cultural development, and heritage.”^{Footnote 37} The Act includes the specific responsibilities of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, which include the arts, cultural heritage, and related industries, including performing arts, visual, and audio-visual arts, and the conservation of cultural property.

Federal role in providing leadership in building national cultural identity

According to stakeholders, the federal government played an essential role through CAPF in providing national leadership in supporting culturally diverse, Indigenous, and minority community organizations to contribute to the evolving Canadian arts and culture landscape. The federal government had a responsibility to fund national cultural institutions such as the Confederation Centre of the Arts and federal leadership motivated these institutions to engage in nationally important dialogues such as the Calls to Action. The CCSF activities contributed to building Canada’s national identity and cohesion by ensuring Canadians had access to arts and cultural spaces and activities that were diverse, relevant, and cutting edge. New and relevant spaces attracted funders and artists of high calibre. The evaluation found that the investment matching funding through CCIF Endowment Incentives contributed to diversifying revenue streams and provided long-term stability to arts organizations.

Community and economic benefits to Canadians

According to the 2016-17 Arts and Heritage Access and Availability Survey by Environics, almost nine in ten Canadians stated that governments should place at least moderate importance on supporting the sector. Agreement is strongest that governments should help protect and preserve Canada’s heritage.^{Footnote 38} Most Canadians strongly agreed that arts and cultural activities in a community make it a better place to live (62% strongly agree; 33% somewhat agree), are a valuable way of bringing together people from different languages and cultural traditions (62% strongly agree; 32% somewhat agree), and are important to a community’s economic well-being (41% strongly agree; 47% somewhat agree) (Figure 2).^{Footnote 39}

**Figure 2: community and economic benefits of arts and cultural activities to Canadians**

	Strongly agree	Somewhat agree	Somewhat/ strongly disagree
Arts and cultural activities in a community make it a better place to live	62%	33%	6%
Arts experiences are a valuable way of bringing together people from different languages and cultural traditions	62%	32%	4%
Arts and cultural activities are important to a community’s economic well-being	41%	47%	10%

Other federal, PT, and municipal funding varied and focused on different objectives

The proportion and level of PT and municipal government support varied by region. For example, in 2016, provincial and municipal government grants represented 74% of public sector funding to performing arts companies in Alberta, but only 46% of such funding in Newfoundland and Labrador.^{Footnote 40}

Other federal programs had different areas of focus. According to stakeholders, while the CAPF funded arts presenters and supported a broader range of activities across multiple disciplines, other programs such as those offered through the Canada Council for the Arts supported artists directly. The CCSF complemented other sources of funding because there were few alternative sources of funding available. Parks Canada provided some funding, but only for national historic sites, and regional development agencies no longer funded arts and cultural spaces. Accessing Infrastructure Canada’s cultural infrastructure funding depended on whether PT governments identified cultural infrastructure as a priority.^{Footnote 41} The CCIF Endowment Incentives component was the only federal program that provided matching funding for arts investment.

Program funding enhanced the credibility of projects

Federal government support through the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF created incentives for other funders to support arts and heritage. Expert panellists identified that the federal role was particularly critical in connecting funders and partners within the arts and heritage ecosystem. For example, the CCSF provided credibility to other funders and made them more likely to contribute funding, the CCIF Endowment Incentives encouraged private sector donations, and the CCIF Strategic Initiatives facilitated partnerships that could create the core of a larger project.

There may be opportunities to enhance collaboration between the Arts Branch programs and other federal, PT, and municipal funders

A few key expert panellists identified ways in which the programs could improve their complementarity with other funders and programs. For example, PCH could collaborate more with other arts funders at the municipal and PT level to identify needs, trends, and potential new applicants for the programs.

4.2. Effectiveness: achievement of expected results

This section provides the evaluation findings regarding the effectiveness of the programs and specifically, the achievement of expected outcomes. Detailed data tables on targets and achievements are provided in Annex B.

4.2.1. Canada Arts Presentation Fund

Overall, the CAPF was successful in supporting arts presenter organizations in offering a variety of professional artistic experiences to Canadians and assisting presenter support organizations in undertaking professional development opportunities. The program also ensured that partnerships were established and strengthened between presenters. The CAPF was particularly successful in assisting professional arts presenters reach rural, young, and Official Language Minority Community (OLMC) audiences. It was somewhat less successful in helping them reach Indigenous and ethnocultural and racialized audiences. Canadians were strongly engaged as volunteers and attendees at professional arts experiences.

The FCBT component was also successful in supporting the Confederation Centre of the arts in offering a variety of programming activities, that featured Canadian artists from different provinces and territories in Canada, toured across the country, and included outreach activities resulting in a high level of audience attendance and volunteer engagement.

Evaluation question: did arts presenter organizations offer a variety of professional artistic experiences to Canadians?

Key finding: the evaluation found that the CAPF contributed to arts presenter organizations offering a variety of professional artistic experiences to Canadians by funding organizations that represented a variety of disciplines, featured over one third of out-of-province artists, on average, and conducted audience development and outreach activities. Most surveyed recipients (86%) reported that the CAPF helped them "to a great or moderate extent” to offer a variety of artistic experiences.

CAPF-funded presenters and presenter support organizations represented a variety of artistic disciplines

While presenters can operate in multiple disciplines, the most frequently funded disciplines included music (71% of organizations funded presented some form of music), theatre (45%), and dance (39%), followed by literature (11%), visual arts (10%), and media art (9%) (Figure 3). The distribution of funding was similar to the distribution of organizations funded by discipline. On average, the CAPF achieved its annual targets with respect to the percentage of organizations funded disaggregated by discipline for most disciplines, except for dance (39% of organizations funded versus the target of 41%) and visual arts (10% versus the target of 13).

**Figure 3: CAPF percentage of professional arts presenters and presenter support organizations funded disaggregated by discipline, 2013-14 to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets**

Discipline	Target/Baseline (Annual)	Achievement (Annual Average)
Music	71%	71%
Theatre	44%	45%
Dance	41%	39%
Literature	11%	11%
Visual Arts	13%	10%
Media Art	9%	9%

Most stakeholders agreed that the CAPF helped presenters to showcase diverse professional arts experiences by sharing the cost and financial risks of presenting diverse, challenging, and cutting-edge professional arts experiences and helping to strengthen their artistic vision.

Over one third of artists featured in performances originated in other parts of Canada or abroad

From 2013-14 to 2017-18,^{Footnote 42} an average of 38,210 performances were supported per year. Thirty-four percent (34%) of artists originated in other provinces or abroad (more than the target of 33%).

Audience development and outreach activities further enhanced access to and engagement with professional artistic experiences

An average of 27,144 audience development and outreach activities were offered by presenters per year, above the target of 26,000. Examples of outreach and development activities included pre- or post-show panel discussions, public lectures and workshops, residencies, demonstrations, public rehearsals, and other forms of community engagement activities. Stakeholders indicated that the improved access to diverse professional artistic experiences also supported the education of audiences who were becoming more open to diverse artistic experiences.

Most surveyed recipients reported that the CAPF helped them "to a great or moderate extent” to offer a variety of artistic experiences

Recipient survey findings indicated similar results with most (86%) stating that the CAPF helped them to offer a variety of artistic experiences to Canadians to a great or moderate extent. Somewhat fewer stated that the CAPF helped them bring in artists from outside their province (76%), increase outreach (72%), and put on a greater number of performances (68%).

Evaluation question: to what extent did the program strengthen CAPF arts presenters and the presenting community’s practice in undertaking professional development opportunities?

Key finding: the CAPF contributed to presenter support organizations undertaking various professional development activities to strengthen the business practices of CAPF arts presenters and the presenting community. Most surveyed recipients (83%) reported that the CAPF helped them “to a great or moderate extent” to offer activities which support presenters in offering a variety of programming.

Presenter support organizations undertook various professional development activities to strengthen the business practices of CAPF arts presenters and the presenting community

From 2013-14 to 2017-18, an average of 30 organizations per year were funded to provide services for arts presenters, including for professional development activities, greater than the target of 27. The most frequently provided professional development activities included networking (an average of 64 activities per year), contact event (54), workshop activities (48), and block-booking activities (48), followed by tool development (45), presenter conferences (41), and block marketing (26) (Figure 4).^{Footnote 43} Average annual targets were achieved for each activity type aside from workshops (achieved 48 activities per year versus the target of 65) and block marketing (26 versus 33). Most stakeholders similarly agreed that the CAPF helped presenters to strengthen their capacity and that presenters attended workshops and conferences to develop their skills and build their networks.

**Figure 4: CAPF number of professional development activities provided by funded organizations, disaggregated by type, 2013-14 to 2016-17* – achievement of annual targets**

Type	Target/Baseline (Annual)	Achievement (Annual Average)
Networking	42	64
Contact Event	41	54
Workshop	65	48
Block-Booking	37	48
Tool Development	40	45
Presenter Conference	38	41
Block-Marketing	33	26

Most surveyed presenter support organizations (83%) reported that the CAPF helped them “to a great or moderate extent” to increase the number of activities and services that allow arts presenters to provide a variety of programming.

Evaluation question: to what extent has the Confederation Centre of the Arts offered visual and performing arts and heritage programming that reflects Canada’s cultural, linguistic, and regional diversity? (FCBT only)

Key finding: the FCBT component was successful in offering a variety of programming activities at the Confederation Centre of the Arts, that featured Canadian artists from different provinces and territories in Canada, toured across the country, and included outreach activities resulting in a high level of audience attendance and volunteer engagement. There was some evidence that the available funding limited the Centre’s ability to reflect Canada’s diversity in its programming.

The Confederation Centre of the Arts offered a variety of arts programming activities which involved different disciplines

From 2014-15^{Footnote 44} to 2017-18, on average, 73 programming activities were offered by the Centre, greater than the target of 50. Programming activities included exhibitions at the Art Gallery and presentations and/or productions offered through the Centre’s regular programming. Stakeholders also indicated that the Centre offered a variety of arts experiences such as the Art Gallery, which has a large Canadian collection and hosts 15-20 exhibitions per year, the theatres with year-round programming, and the Symons Medal and Lecture, where a Canadian who has made a significant contribution to the country discusses the state of Confederation.

Featured diverse artists from different provinces and territories

The Centre achieved a greater level of diversity than targeted with respect to the percentage of artists presented, by province or territory of origin. Most artists were from Ontario (37%), Prince Edward Island (20%), and Nova Scotia (10%), with representation from all provinces and select territories during the evaluation period. Stakeholders indicated that the Centre’s Young Company casts performers were from each province and territory across Canada. On its two smaller stages, the Centre presented Canadian plays and musicals and tried to premiere a new show every season. The Live @ the Centre showcased Canadian performing artists such as the Mud Bay Jugglers. Stakeholders also noted that the Centre presented original and diverse Canadian art and theatre, such as French, Indigenous, ethnocultural and racialized, and Acadian focused productions (e.g., Evangeline).

Toured across Canada and conducted outreach with children, newcomers, and others

On average, the Centre met its targets relative to the number of programming activities that travelled across Canada (3 on average per year versus 3 targeted) and outreach activities (13 on average per year versus 8 targeted). Stakeholders indicated that the Centre conducted outreach activities such as school outreach to children in Grades 4 and 8, dance and art programs for children and adults, activities to engage newcomers, and volunteer opportunities through the Friends of Confederation.

Reflected Canada’s cultural, linguistic, and regional diversity in its programming

The evaluation found that funding limitations challenged the Centre’s ability to bring in diverse artists from across Canada. For example, the 2017 Young Company included representation from each province and territory because it had received additional Canada 150 funding. However, in 2018 the Young Company did not have representation from some provinces (e.g., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Northwest Territories, and New Brunswick), due to a lack of funding to bring in individuals in for auditions. The Centre struggled to conduct outreach with the local French community or develop French programming within their funding budget. The Centre was also not able to tour shows easily and the most recent tours were achieved due to special project funding allocations (e.g., Canada 150).

Evaluation question: to what extent were Canadians in all regions of the country engaged or participated in a variety of professional artistic experiences offered by arts presenters?

Key finding: the CAPF contributed to Canadians in all regions of the country engaging and participating in a variety of professional artistic experiences by supporting arts presenters to reach rural and remote communities, and young and OLMC audiences, and attract a high number of audience members and volunteers. The program was somewhat less successful in reaching Indigenous and ethnocultural and racialized audiences. Most surveyed Programming Support recipients stated that the CAPF helped them “to a great or moderate extent” to improve the diversity of their programming, while about half of Development Support recipients stated that the funding helped them to broaden their reach.

A high proportion of CAPF-funded projects took place in rural and remote communities

Projects most frequently took place in rural communities (39%) (higher than the target/baseline of 36%), while 28% of projects took place in remote communities and 32% took place in urban communities. Stakeholders agreed that the CAPF allowed presenter organizations to increase access to professional arts experiences across country (different regions and urban, rural, and remote regions) noting that the CAPF redistributed its funding to have a higher reach and impact.

Reached young and OLMC audiences, but somewhat less successful in reaching Indigenous and ethnocultural and racialized audiences

Presenters most frequently reached out to young audiences (54%) and OLMCs (28%). A somewhat lower proportion than the target reached out to Indigenous (14% versus 16% target) and ethnocultural and racialized (21% versus 27% target) communities. Similarly, some stakeholders and expert panellists noted that there is a need to further engage Canadians in some regions and support arts presenters in underserved communities to improve their capacity.

The number of audience members at performances and volunteers remained strong

From 2013-14 to 2017-18, the average number of attendees exceeded the target (22.4 million^{Footnote 45} versus 21.5 million target). The average number of volunteers engaged in funded activities similarly exceeded the target (79,679 versus 70,000 target). Stakeholders indicated that professional arts presenter organizations have employed innovative outreach approaches and continue to receive strong support from volunteers.

Most surveyed Programming Support recipients stated that the CAPF helped them “to a great or moderate extent” to improve the diversity of their programming, while about half of Development Support recipients stated that the funding helped them to broaden their reach

Most surveyed Programming Support recipients stated that the CAPF helped them to improve the diversity of their organization’s programming to a great or moderate extent (81%). About half of surveyed Development Support component recipients stated that the funding helped them provide services or development support to youth (50%) and OLMCs (43%) and broaden their reach to include arts presenters in rural or remote areas (43%).

Evaluation question: to what extent did the program help the arts presenters undertake their activities within a healthy Canadian presenting environment?

Key finding: the CAPF contributed to arts presenters undertaking their activities within a healthy Canadian presenting environment by assisting presenters to establish and strengthen partnerships, and increase their proportion of earned income.

Presenters established multiple partnerships, and most were with not-for-profit and community organizations

The average number of partnerships established between presenters per year exceeded the target (7,907 versus 5,606 target)^{Footnote 46} and most partnerships were with not-for-profit arts and community organizations. The number of organizations participating in professional development activities per year was higher than the targets (except for presenter conferences); organizations most frequently participated in block booking (an average of 4,065 participating organizations per year).^{Footnote 47} Most stakeholders agreed that the CAPF has increased partnership and collaboration among presenters.

Presenters earned a higher proportion of their income from earned sources

The CAPF met its target with respect to the percentage of presenter funding sources disaggregated by type with a higher reliance on earned income (43% versus 38% target) and lower reliance on private (29% versus 31% target) and public funding (28% versus 31% target) (Figure 5).

**Figure 5: CAPF percentage of presenter funding sources disaggregated by type, 2013-14 to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets**

Type	Target/Baseline (Annual)	Achievement (Annual Average)
Earned	38%	43%
Private	31%	29%
Public	31%	28%

Evaluation question: to what extent did the program help Canadians engage and participate in professional arts and heritage experiences through the Confederation Centre of the Arts programming? (FCBT only)

Key finding: the FCBT contributed to Canadians engaging and participating in arts and heritage experiences at the Confederation Centre of the Arts as evidenced by the high number of audience members and volunteers.

A high number of audience members attended Centre activities

From 2014-15^{Footnote 48} to 2017-18, on average, 157,872 individuals attended Centre programming, greater than the target of 125,000 attendees. Total attendance included programming activities, outreach activities, and travelling exhibitions/touring productions. A 2017 Economic and Social Impact study^{Footnote 49} found that the highest proportion of Centre visitors participated in free programs and services (66%) such as the Young Company performances, Confederation Centre Players program, Confederation Chamber, community events, and other amenities, followed by the Charlottetown Festival (21%), Art Gallery (11%), and educational programs (1%). The average age of visitors to the Centre was 56 years old, with 70% women and 29% men. Visitors from Acadian and Indigenous communities, and newcomers made up approximately 12% of PEI-based visitors and 21% of off-Island visitors.^{Footnote 50}

Several volunteers were engaged by the Centre

During the same time period, on average, 118 volunteers were engaged annually as part of Centre activities, greater than the target of 75 volunteers. Volunteers included Board members (including Friends of the Centre), Showcase volunteers, non-board volunteers, and community actors (unpaid) in the annual Christmas play. Stakeholders explained that the Centre engaged a large number of volunteers through the Friends of the Confederation Centre, who undertook fundraising, operated tours, and assisted with front of house and greeting activities. Typically, these volunteers were older or retired and it offered them an opportunity to stay engaged in the community. The Centre also engaged youth volunteers who assisted with summer dance classes and community volunteers who participated in the winter Showcase.

4.2.2. Canada Cultural Spaces Fund

The CCSF was successful in funding a high number of construction/renovation projects and specialized equipment purchases and helping organizations to secure external funding for these projects. A high percentage of projects maintained or enhanced infrastructure and spaces and most users were satisfied with these improvements. Though the CCSF was successful in funding arts and heritage organizations featuring programming that included a variety of disciplines, programming for young audiences, and those located in rural and remote regions, the program fell somewhat short in meeting targets with respect to funding organizations with programming aimed at ethnocultural and racialized groups, Indigenous people, and OLMCs.

Evaluation question: to what extent did arts and heritage organizations have the resources to build or improve facilities and infrastructure?

Key finding: the CCSF contributed to arts and heritage organizations having resources to build/improve facilities and infrastructure by funding a high number of construction/renovation projects and specialized equipment purchases, and in helping projects to secure over 70% in external funding primarily from PT, municipal, and private sources.

Funded a high number of construction/renovation projects and specialized equipment purchases

The CCSF supported a total of 375 facility constructions/renovations, 312 specialized equipment purchases, and 41 feasibility studies between 2013-14 and 2017-18. Due, in part, to enhancements from Budget 2016, the CCSF exceeded its annual targets with respect to number of facilities built/renovated (75 versus 40 target average per year) and specialized equipment purchases (62 versus 45 target).

Helped projects secure over 70% in external funding primarily from PT, municipal, and private sources

The CCSF exceeded its target of 70% of project funding that is non-CCSF (achieving 73%).^{Footnote 51} Other funding sources primarily included PT, municipal, and private sources. CCSF recipients surveyed most frequently stated that they also obtained funding from the municipal government (60% of respondents), PT government (52%), and private donors (42%). The results were similar by the CCSF project type, except for new constructions which were more likely to have obtained funding from foundations. Several stakeholders reported that most CCSF projects obtained funding from a variety of sources, with the CCSF being an essential component of the overall funding. Some PCH staff noted that distribution of the CCSF was dependent on the priorities of the PT governments and that the program’s ability to consider an increased percentage of funding above the normal 50% of eligible project costs, under exceptional circumstances, was crucial.

Evaluation question: to what extent are a variety of arts and heritage experiences available in a wide range of communities?

Key finding: the CCSF contributed to enhancing access to a variety of arts and heritage experiences in a wide range of communities by funding organizations featuring programming that included a variety of disciplines, programming for young audiences, and those located in rural and remote regions. However, the program fell somewhat short of targets in funding organizations with programming aimed at ethnocultural and racialized groups, Indigenous people, and OLMCs.

Funded organizations featuring programming that included a variety of disciplines, programming for young audiences, and those located in rural and remote regions

The CCSF exceeded its targets with respect to the diversity of disciplines supported, with the highest-funded disciplines including multiple disciplines (33% of CCSF funding spent, on average, from 2013-14 to 2017-18), theatre (31%), music (27%), and museums (24%). A high percentage of funding was allocated to organizations with programming aimed at young audiences (39% versus 32% targeted).

The CCSF was very successful in supporting a high proportion of arts and heritage organizations in rural (41% versus 34% target) and remote (25% versus 18% target) communities to build/improve facilities and infrastructure. Some examples include contributing $1.0 million for renovations to the Savoy Theatre, a 90-year-old theatre in Glace Bay on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia and contributing $1.0 million to expand the Guild Centre in Hinton, Alberta into a 19,000 square foot performing and visual arts centre. PCH stakeholders highlighted the Regional Investment Strategies as having helped to meet the program’s commitment to fund a wide range of projects, particularly projects from smaller, rural arts and heritage organizations.

Did not fund as many organizations with programming aimed at ethnocultural and racialized groups, OLMCs, and Indigenous people

The program fell somewhat short of the targets in terms of funding organizations with programming aimed at ethnocultural and racialized groups (5% versus 15% target), OLMCs (8% versus the 14% target), and Indigenous people (13% versus 14% target). The Budget 2016 infrastructure funding allocated to the program required approved projects to be in an advanced state of readiness, and this may have contributed to skewed results.

Evaluation question: to what extent did arts and heritage organizations better create, present, preserve or exhibit arts and heritage experiences?

Key finding: the CCSF contributed to arts and heritage organizations better creating, presenting, preserving, and exhibiting arts and heritage experiences since a high percentage of projects maintained or enhanced infrastructure and spaces and most users were satisfied with these improvements.

A high percentage of projects maintained or enhanced infrastructure and spaces

For the projects to which the indicator applies, 84%, on average, from 2013-14 to 2017-18 reported that they maintained or enhanced infrastructure and spaces (higher than the average of 80%). Many stakeholders noted that the CCSF allowed organizations to modernize their spaces and address needs (e.g., accessibility), produce and present higher quality work, facilitate the work of artists and cultural workers, and reach a wider audience.

Most users were satisfied with the improvements to spaces and equipment

For projects reporting user satisfaction, 91%, on average, indicated that users were satisfied with the working spaces and/or equipment.

4.2.3. Canada Cultural Investment Fund

Overall, the CCIF Strategic Initiatives component was successful in helping arts and heritage organizations to build new and strengthen existing partnerships and to undertake projects related to best practices, marketing, and technology. The component contributed to improved organizational, administrative, and financial health among arts and heritage organizations by helping projects reach a high number of organizations and develop various activities and tools.

The CCIF Endowment Incentives component was successful in enabling arts organizations to raise capital and create endowments. Endowment income disbursed by foundations to professional arts organizations was twice the program target and this helped arts organizations achieve financial stability as over three quarters of the recipients’ funding was from non-government sources.

Evaluation question: to what extent did arts and heritage organizations engage partners to develop and share resources to improve business practices? (Strategic Initiatives only)

Key finding: the CCIF contributed to arts and heritage organizations improving business practices by funding projects which built new and strengthened existing partnerships and which related to best practices, marketing, and technology.

Funded projects which built new and strengthened existing partnerships

The CCIF Strategic Initiatives component exceeded its target of 6 project partners per year by achieving an average of 9 new and 21 existing project partners per year. Most CCIF Strategic Initiatives component recipients surveyed similarly stated that the funding helped them to increase new partnerships with other organizations (100%), increase new initiatives in their organization (91%), and increase strategic use of technologies (83%) to a moderate or great extent. Several stakeholders noted that the CCIF was meeting its requirements to have multiple partners sponsor projects and that the program was funding both national projects and projects involving multiple provinces.

Supported projects related to best practices, marketing, and technology

The component achieved its targets of the percentage of projects by type (at least 25% of projects for each category, recognizing that projects may fall into more than one category). The most common category of projects included best practices (80% of projects), followed by marketing (69%), technology (67%), and innovation (33%).^{Footnote 52} Projects most frequently had a national (29%), provincial (29%), or municipal reach (18%), while 17% had a regional reach, and 7% had an inter-provincial reach.

Evaluation question: to what extent have private sector donations enabled arts organizations to raise capital and create endowments? (Endowment Incentives only)

Key finding: the CCIF Endowment Incentives component enabled arts organizations to raise capital and create endowments through private sector donations. Recipients exceeded the minimum requirement of private sector donations raised.

Enabled arts organizations to create endowments and raise capital through private sector donations

From 2013-14 to 2017-18, on average, the CCIF Endowment Incentives component achieved its target of 70% of recipients whose endowment were created since the component inception. The target was not met in 2014-15 and 2015-16; however, it was exceeded in 2013-14, 2016-17, and 2017-18.

Most CCIF Endowment Incentives recipients surveyed indicated that the funding helped to increase the endowment income of their organization (83%) and increased the amount of donations by individual Canadians to their endowment (67%) to a great or moderate extent. Larger organizations ($1 to 5 million in annual revenues) were more likely to state that the CCIF Endowment Incentives funding increased their endowment income, individual donations, and private-sector contributions than smaller organizations (<$1 million in annual revenues). Overall, most CCIF Endowment Incentives recipients surveyed (58%) indicated that the funding helped them to increase their endowment fund by as much as 25%.

Several stakeholders perceived that the CCIF Endowment Incentives component had a large impact on organizations being able to grow their endowment and that the matched funding was crucial in attracting funding from donors. Some also believe that the matching funds were the primary catalyst for raising private funding and that the endowment would not have been created without them.

Organizations exceeded the minimum requirement of private sector donations raised

A total of $111.4 million was raised through private-sector donations from 2013-14 to 2017-18. On average, the CCIF Endowment Incentives component achieved its annual target of the minimum amount raised through private-sector donations by arts organizations applying to and eligible for the Endowment Incentives component ($22.3 million achieved versus $20.0 million target). Donations were most frequently from individuals (49%), followed by non-government organizations (25%), other organizations (14%), and corporations (8%).

Evaluation question: to what extent did funded arts and heritage organizations demonstrate sound organizational, administrative and financial health?

Key finding: the CCIF contributed to arts and heritage organizations demonstrating sound organizational, administrative and financial health by helping Strategic Initiatives-funded projects reach a high number of organizations and develop various activities and tools. The Endowment Incentives-funded projects resulted in income disbursed by foundations to professional arts organizations at twice the program target and helping arts organization recipients achieve financial stability with a high percentage (78%) of funding sources that were non-government.

Reaching a high number of arts and heritage organizations and developing various activities and tools through Strategic Initiatives projects

From 2013-14 to 2017-18, an average of 2,317 organizations were reached annually through the CCIF Strategic Initiatives component, higher than the target of 1,000 organizations. In addition, a total of 1,202 activities and tools were developed across the 55 funded projects from 2013-14 to 2017-18, resulting in an annual average of 22 activities and tools per project,^{Footnote 53} which is higher than the target of 5 tools per project. For example, artsVest is a mentorship training program designed to build capacity in Canada’s cultural sector and which received funding under the CCIF Strategic Initiatives component. Close to 2,000 organizations across Canada have benefited from this training.^{Footnote 54}

Endowment Incentives-funded projects resulted in income disbursed by foundations to professional arts organizations doubling the target

An annual average of $22.5 million in endowment income was disbursed by foundations to arts organizations from income earned on endowments, which is greater than the $10 million annual target. Annual endowment income increased over time from $16.2 million in 2013-14 to $31.1 million in 2017-18.

High percentage among recipients (78%) of funding sources that are non-government

The CCIF Endowment Incentives component also met its target for the percentage of funding sources that were not public sector (i.e., non-government) (78%) with 56% of funding coming from earned revenues and 22% from private-sector sources. Many stakeholders perceived that the CCIF Endowment Incentives component helped improve organizational health and that the funding provided for better organizational stability, provided a buffer against threats such as low-ticket sales, and that the federal support was crucial for many organizations to be able to start an endowment.

4.2.4. Achievement of Common Long-term Results

Evaluation questions:

CAPF: to what extent did Canadians value and engage with professional artistic experiences?
CCSF: to what extent did Canadians value and access arts and heritage spaces?
CCIF: did Canadians value and invest in arts and heritage organizations?
CATF: to what extent did Canadians and the world benefit from high-quality artistic achievements by Canadian artists trained in Canada?

Key finding:

the CAPF, CCSF, CCIF, and Canada Arts Training Fund (CATF), the fourth Arts Branch program which was evaluated separately, were successful in contributing to an increased percentage of Canadians that participated in artistic events, reported good or very good access to arts and heritage spaces, donated to arts or cultural organizations, and felt that arts and cultural events were important to their quality of life. Most surveyed CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF recipients (95%) perceived “to a great or moderate extent” that Canadians valued professional artistic experiences. Similar long-term results were found in the 2019 CATF evaluation.

A higher percentage of Canadians valued and engaged in professional artistic experiences, had access to arts and heritage spaces, and invested in arts organizations in 2017 compared to 2012

According to the 2017 Arts and Heritage Access and Availability Survey by Environics, the CAPF exceeded its 2012 baseline of the percentage of Canadians that participated in artistic events (i.e., attended at least one arts performance in the last year) (87% achieved versus 83% baseline) (Figure 6).^{Footnote 55} The CCSF held steady with respect to the percentage of Canadians reporting good or very good access to the number of arts and culture spaces (44% achieved versus 43% baseline). The CCIF also exceeded its baseline for the percentage of Canadians that donated to arts or cultural organizations (i.e., made a donation of money, goods or services to an arts or cultural organization in the past year) (31% achieved versus 26% baseline). All four Arts Branch programs, including CATF, contributed to an increase in the percentage of Canadians that appreciated artistic experiences (i.e., feel that arts and cultural events were important in terms of the quality of life for them and their families) (69% achieved versus 66% baseline).

**Figure 6: Grouped arts programs achievement of long-term results**

	2012	2017
CAPF: percentage of Canadians that participated in artistic events (attended at least one arts performance in the last year)	83%	87%
CCSF: percentage of Canadians that reported very good access to arts/culture spaces (good or very good rating)	43%	44%
CCIF: percentage of Canadians that donated to arts or cultural organizations (made a donation of money, goods, or services to an arts or cultural organization in past year)	26%	31%
CAPF/CCSF/CCIF/CATF: percentage of Canadians that appreciated artistic experiences (felt that arts and cultural events were important in terms of the quality of life for them and their families)	66%	69%

Most program recipients and stakeholders surveyed perceived that Canadians value professional artistic experiences

Most surveyed CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF recipients (95%) perceived “to a great or moderate extent” that Canadians valued professional artistic experiences. Similarly, most stakeholders agreed that the programs had contributed to several long-term results such as improved access to a variety of professional artistic experiences, extended life of cultural spaces, improved financial stability, and a high level of appreciation by Canadians in arts and culture. It was also noted that Canadian audiences had become more educated and demanded richer, more complex, and relevant cultural experiences.

Similar long-term results were found in the 2019 CATF evaluation

The evaluation found that Canadians valued and appreciated the work of professional artists. In particular, Canadians reported that the arts contributed to vibrant and healthy communities as well as to a sense of identity and pride. Canadians attended performances, volunteered, and donated to the arts. Importantly, CATF supported the development of high-quality training institutions and successful professional artists so that Canadians could have access to high-quality artistic performances.

4.3. Government-wide policy considerations

This section provides findings regarding government-wide policy considerations including official language requirements and consideration of unintended barriers and issues related to Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+).

Evaluation question: were all official language requirements met?

Key finding: the programs met official language requirements of section 41 of the Official Languages Act by funding organizations having OLMCs as part of their audience and enhancing the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities.

Official Language Minority communities were part of audiences

The three programs were successful in funding organizations having OLMCs as part of their audience. On average, 35% of CAPF funding, 7% of CCSF funding, and 1% of CCIF Strategic Initiatives funding was approved for organizations having OLMCs as part of their audience from 2013-14 to 2017-18.^{Footnote 56} Information on CCIF Endowment Incentives funding support to OLMCs was not available at the time of the evaluation.

Included both official languages in programming, services, and communications

Many stakeholders agreed that the programs helped enhance the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities and foster their full recognition and use in Canadian society. Stakeholders noted that CAPF helped organizations to reflect upon the inclusion of both official languages in their programming. Other stakeholders stated that CCIF recipients met all the requirements with respect to communications and services in both official languages. Some stakeholders noted that CCSF invested in organizations that provided cultural experiences in both official languages.

Needed more guidance on how to meet official language requirements

Some stakeholders across all three programs (i.e., CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF) noted that there was a need for better guidance on how the official language requirements applied to non-verbal art forms, infrastructure projects and where OLMCs were fairly small. Stakeholders also indicated that some organizations faced financial barriers in meeting official language requirements due to the cost of translation, interpretation, outreach, and artistic exchanges.

Evaluation question: did the programs have unintended barriers and issues related to Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+)?

Key finding: the programs applied Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) to identify issues and take steps to improve access to funding for underserved groups. Following the PCH departmental plan of 2016-17, the Arts Branch wrote a framework in early 2017 to guide this work. However, better measures are required to examine barriers to funding and uptake among underserved groups.

Steps were taken to apply GBA+ and take steps to improve access to funding for underserved groups

Consideration of different groups is built into the design and delivery of the programs. For example, the CCSF and CAPF had targets for the extent that projects reached underserved communities, which included Indigenous, ethnocultural and racialized, youth, and OLM communities. Several stakeholders indicated that the programs helped to improve access to arts experiences reflective of GBA+ groups and reduced barriers that limited access to these groups, for example, the Confederation Centre of the Arts held auditions with Indigenous youth through a storytelling approach. The programs have taken steps to address needs of GBA+ groups. For example, funding was provided for interpretation services for hearing impaired individuals to participate in CCIF Strategic Initiatives-funded workshops and mentorship programming, and the CAPF Development Component will be expanding its eligibility criteria to include non-incorporated organizations and ad hoc community groups from Indigenous and ethno-cultural communities. Meeting the needs of Indigenous communities was a priority for the program and Indigenous groups were consulted when developing projects.

As a result of Government priorities and policies of the Treasury Board Secretariat, GBA+ considerations became an element built into the processes for departmental planning and new funding requests. Following the PCH departmental plan of 2016-17, the Arts Branch wrote a framework in early 2017 to guide this work.

Need for better measures to examine barriers and uptake among underserved groups

Some stakeholders noted that particular groups continued to face barriers accessing funding and participating in funded projects: women, persons with disabilities, ethnocultural and racialized groups, Indigenous groups, and rural and remote organizations. These barriers included a lack of awareness of the funding available, staff and operating capacity to apply, limited access to alternative sources of funding and donations to meet requirements for CCSF or access CCIF matching funding, and restrictive eligibility and application requirements. Stakeholders across all four Arts Branch programs indicated that there was a need to be more inclusive and consider incorporating Indigenous languages in projects and application processes. Stakeholders also emphasized that there was a need for better measures to assess and report on GBA+ considerations.

4.4. Efficiency: demonstration of efficiency

This section provides findings on the efficiency of the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF programs.

Evaluation question: were the resources dedicated to the program used efficiently to maximize the achievement of results?

Key finding: the programs were delivered efficiently. The relative administrative costs of the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF incurred during the evaluation period were consistent with past reported ratios. The programs met service standards for acknowledgement of receipt of applications, and improved timeliness of funding decisions. Service standards were met in 2016-17 and 2017-18 due to numerous improvements that reduced procedural steps and paper work, the use of multi-year funding agreements, and piloting of on-line project application and management tools. However, some program design challenges remained, such as barriers faced by smaller and underserved organizations in accessing program funding, and limited funding for the CCSF and the CCIF which constrained the sustainability of results, and program delivery issues with processes for performance data collection, monitoring, and reporting.

Relative administrative costs of the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF were consistent with past reported ratios

As indicated in Table 10, the administrative ratio, which represents the operating expenditures as a percentage of G&C expenditures was 17% for CAPF, 7% for CCSF, 7% for CCIF, for the evaluation period. These ratios were aligned with administrative efficiencies reported in previous evaluations. A lower ratio usually means a higher level of efficiency. However, the ratios are not comparable between programs due to the differences in the size of the grants and contributions and the complexity of the application review and project monitoring processes. The CCSF program efficiency was also impacted by the large G&C enhancements resulting from Budget 2016 with a proportionally smaller enhancement to the O&M budget. The program was nonetheless able to deliver within their establish service standards

Table 10: CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF Total O&M and G&C expenditures, 2013-14 to 2017-18
Resources	CAPF	CCSF	CCIF	Total
O&M expenditures (Total Vote 1)	$30,609,824	$20,914,181	$8,331,838	$59,855,843
G&C expenditures (Total Vote 5)	$155,118,819	$283,067,441	$106,803,084	$544,989,344
Total expenditures	$185,728,643	$303,981,623	$115,134,923	$604,845,189
Administrative ratio	17%	7%	7%	10%
Previous Evaluation 1^{Footnote 57}	11%	7%	9%	9%
Previous Evaluation 2^{Footnote 58}	23%	8%	16%	16%

Source: administrative data review and 2014 Grouped Arts Evaluation.

Met service standards for acknowledgement of receipt of applications and improved timeliness of funding decisions to meet standards in 2016-17 and 2017-18

Each of the three programs exceeded its service standards for acknowledging receipt of applications between 2013-14 to 2017-18. Though all programs struggled to meet service standards related to the timeliness of funding decisions in the initial years of the evaluation (2013-14 to 2014-15), all three improved their timeliness in the last two years (2016-17 and 2017-18). Some programs shortened their service standards related to funding decisions (e.g., CAPF Development and Programming Support, CCSF construction/renovation, and CCIF Strategic Initiatives projects), while the CCSF feasibility study and specialized equipment projects service standard for funding decisions was lengthened.

Programs improved the efficiency of their delivery in several ways:

Reduced procedural steps and paper work
- The introduction of delegated authority from the Minister to the Director General/Regional Director General level to make funding recommendations for up to $75,000 benefitted the CAPF. According to program documents, 87% of CAPF projects fell in this range. In 2014 there was also an increase in the maximum grant amount for CAPF from $50,000 to $100,000, which reduced the administrative burden on organizations receiving funding under $100,000.
- The CCSF increased its grants envelope from $3 million to $5 million, which reduced the number of low-risk clients subject to contribution-based funding. The CCSF further introduced the change that low-risk files with funding of less than $100,000 were no longer subject to a review by the Program’s National Review Committee. The CCSF also eliminated its practice of maintaining a headquarters reserve of funds, which allowed the regions to allocate resources earlier in the planning cycle. Further, the CCSF implemented a two-stage services standard process in 2015, where staff could “stop the clock” if a funding decision was delayed due a wait for decisions from other funders.
The CCIF Strategic Initiatives component also streamlined its application process by eliminating the first step, the Letter of Intent. This reduced the application process by approximately three to four months. In October 2018, additional changes were made to reduce the administrative burden of applicants for smaller funding amounts such as increasing the threshold requiring Audited Financial Statements to $250,000.^{Footnote 59}
Use of multi-year funding agreements
The multi-year funding agreements available under the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF Strategic Initiatives component were effective in achieving program efficiency and reducing the administrative burden on funding recipients. According to the document review, approximately 70% of CAPF recipients receive multi-year funding. The FCBT case study found that the multi-year funding improved the Centre’s ability to plan future programming.
On-line project application and management tool pilot
PCH piloted a simple on-line tool that made it easier for clients to apply for funding and manage their file, which sped up processing times. As of the writing of this report, the tool had not been rolled out across any of the three Arts Branch programs under review. It is anticipated that it will allow clients to receive timely status updates, including decisions, and will further reduce administrative burden.^{Footnote 60} Surveyed program recipients suggested that the programs continue to streamline reporting tools by making forms more user-friendly and minimizing redundancy.

Additional positive changes to the delivery of the CAPF were identified including the integration of the FCBT into CAPF, which streamlined the application and performance reporting processes. Survey respondents and key informants further noted that PCH program officers were helpful, responsive, and pleasant to work with.

Some challenges were identified related to program design and performance management:

Program Design Challenges

Barriers accessing program funding among smaller and underserved organizations
The evaluation found that, among small and underserved organizations, barriers to accessing program funding for all three programs existed due to their limited awareness of the funding available and challenges applying to programs due to their limited capacity. Similar barriers were identified in the 2014 evaluation of the Grouped Arts programs and program management for the CAPF and the CCSF committed to examining unintended barriers. Although the programs took action to address these issues, some barriers remain.
Funding constrained sustainability of results
Program results demonstrated that the programs (CAPF, CCSF, CCIF) were over-subscribed, having applications that exceeded the available funds. The CAPF faced challenges in responding to the funding needs of new and emerging organizations while continuing to support established. The success of the CCIF Endowment Incentives component meant an increase in requests for funding in 2017-18 resulted in a lower matching ratio for each recipient. The CCSF program put in place multi-year funding arrangements for projects, this served to decrease the risk to organizations and increase the stability of funding, reducing the need for organizations to reapply every year. However, the lack of funding guarantees for continued funding beyond two or three years and limited organisational capacity made it difficult for some organizations to plan larger scale construction/renovation projects that had multiple phases.

Performance Management Challenges

Issues regarding processes for performance data collection, monitoring, and reporting
The evaluation identified issues regarding performance outcomes and indicators, processes for data collection, monitoring and reporting. These could be addressed by revising how indicators are defined, how data is collected, and how results are measured. In some instances, the definition and interpretation of indicators were not clear and subject to multiple interpretations (e.g., “percentage increase in total amounts of endowment funds”). In other cases, there were issues with accuracy as tracking and reporting was based on estimated results due to delays in recipients having submitted their final reports, particularly in the case of multi-year funding arrangements. For example, under the CAPF, indicators such as the “number of outreach activities” were not precise as not all recipients had submitted final reports. Some targets were set based on 100% reporting estimates whereas actual results could only be attributed to the reports received which were less than 100%, thus making it difficult to assess a true measure. Similar findings were identified to some degree with all programs. The programs indicated they were considering alternative measures and mechanisms to track and report on results.

Evaluation question: are there more efficient alternatives to achieve the same results?

Key finding: stakeholders and expert panellists identified a variety of mechanisms and approaches to address what they viewed as program design and delivery challenges. However, further testing and analysis by the programs would be required to assess the applicability and possible benefits of these approaches:

Strengthened partnership and communication mechanisms to increase awareness of the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF funding among small and underserved groups
Funding for mentorship supports and skills and capacity development to address barriers faced by smaller and underserved organizations
Alternative funding delivery models to optimize the impact of available funding

Stakeholders and expert panellists identified a variety of mechanisms and approaches to what they perceived as design and delivery challenges. Further testing and analysis would be required to determine the applicability given program mandates and the potential benefits of these approaches to the programs in contributing to improved program results.

Strengthened partnership and communication mechanisms to increase awareness of the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF funding available among small and underserved groups

Expert panellists suggested that the CAPF, in addition to projects currently funded in this area under the Development Component, could undertake additional targeted communication of its programming to small organizations and underserved groups to increase uptake where applicable and further develop mechanisms for strengthening collaboration between PCH and federal, PT, and municipal government funders, who tend to be more connected to local networks of smaller organizations. This collaboration could facilitate regular sharing of information about programs with other funders and help program staff to learn about trends, lessons, and best practices. Web-based platforms could be used to facilitate these meetings. The federal government is well positioned to connect different levels of government and lead this process. This type of collaboration had occurred in some regions in the past, but it was intermittent, and it was felt that it could be more consistent or formalized.

Mentorship supports and skills and capacity funding to address barriers to funding faced by smaller and underserved organizations

Stakeholders noted that the CAPF could facilitate mentorship opportunities between experienced professional arts presenters and newer, smaller, or diverse organizations, which may require a change in mandate. A model that was put forward was the Toronto Arts Council Newcomer and Refugee Artist Mentorship program that provides funding for both a newcomer and a local professional artist to partner up to assist the new artist to build connections, and support integration and inclusion in the community.^{Footnote 61} The CCIF Strategic Initiatives component could be used to help arts organizations having reached sufficient maturity to develop their skills in creating and growing an endowment. An evaluation of the U.K. Endowment Grant Programme, a national program designed to encourage more private giving to culture and heritage, similarly recommended budgets for fundraising skills and training be accompanied with endowment funding.^{Footnote 62}

Alternative funding delivery models to optimize the impact of limited funding

Stakeholders indicated that the programs could further optimize the limited funding available using various approaches. Under the CCSF, subsequent phases of multi-phased capital projects could be prioritized to facilitate longer-term planning. Alternative funding models for CCIF Endowment Incentives were presented such as disseminating funding through a series of endowment campaigns or challenges that would allow larger organizations to have higher matching ratios and build sufficient endowments to be self-sustaining (i.e., which no longer require government support through the CCIF), and once reached no longer funded, thus liberating funds for other organizations. Alternatively, the CCIF could implement a floating challenge where select organizations based on factors selected by the program (size, discipline, etc.) are provided with a 2:1 match and when they reach their target the fund moves other organizations. Synergies with other federal social investment initiatives could also be assessed, such as the proposed “Social Finance Fund” being explored by Employment and Social Development Canada.^{Footnote 63}

5. Conclusions

This section outlines the key conclusions of the evaluation of the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF and is presented in compliance with the Policy on Results. It is meant to provide a link between the key findings and the recommendations.

5.1. Relevance

There is a need for investment to provide Canadians with access to a variety of professional artistic experiences; for the improvement, renovation, and construction of arts and heritage facilities, acquisition of specialized equipment, and feasibility studies for cultural infrastructure projects; and to help organizations build and diversify their revenue streams, encourage private sector investment and partnerships, improve their business practices, and be better rooted in their communities

Most Canadians strongly valued arts and culture experiences and there was increased demand for professional arts experiences that were cutting edge and reflected diverse perspectives. Significant investments were required to upgrade, renovate, and replace aging arts and heritage infrastructure and feasibility studies were necessary to ensure good planning of projects. Specialized equipment was needed to keep pace with technological advancements. There was a need for funding to encourage private sector investment in arts organization endowment funds. This was further augmented due to new and increased costs and demographic factors impacting charitable giving. Support was needed to assist arts and heritage organizations improve their business practices, enhance their organizational capacity, and increase partnerships.

The programs were responsive to the needs of arts and heritage organizations

In particular, the CAPF increased access to innovative professional artistic experiences across Canada and the FCBT component contributed to programming that inspired Canadians to reflect on the country’s origin and evolution. The CCSF responded to the demand for modern arts and heritage spaces that reflected changing cultural, accessibility, and technical equipment needs. The CCIF responded to the needs by encouraging private funding in arts organizations and helping arts and heritage organizations to improve their business practices, capacity, and partnerships.

There were some unmet needs and barriers to funding, particularly for smaller organizations and underserved groups, though programs worked to address these issues

The evaluation identified barriers to funding faced by Indigenous, ethnocultural and racialized, and other underserved groups due to a lack awareness of funding opportunities (CCSF, CCIF), not meeting the eligibility definition of professional organization (incorporation) under program guidelines, and the capacity of some organizations to attract donations for matching funding. Larger arts organizations also faced challenges growing sufficient sized endowments that were financially sustainable without the need for further government funding.

The CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF aligned with PCH and federal government priorities and responsibilities and complemented other sources of funding

Specifically, the programs were aligned with the PCH priorities of supporting access to Canadian arts and culture experiences, community investment, and advancing the use of digital technology. The programs were also aligned with federal government priorities related to supporting cultural industries and infrastructure, celebrating heritage and diversity, and supporting Indigenous arts and heritage. The federal government has a responsibility to promote the arts and cultural heritage sectors and provide leadership in building a national cultural identity since these activities result in community and economic benefits. The programs complemented other sources of federal, PT, and municipal funding as this funding varied and focused on different objectives. The PCH program funding also enhanced the credibility of projects. However, there may be opportunities to enhance collaboration between the Arts Branch programs and other funders.

5.2. Effectiveness

The CAPF was successful in increasing access to a variety of professional artistic experiences and strengthening presenter business practices, but somewhat less successful in helping presenters to reach Indigenous and ethnocultural or racialized audiences

The CAPF supported improved access to professional artistic experiences featuring various disciplines, out-of-province artists, and outreach and audience development, helping presenters to reach rural and remote communities, and young and OLMC audiences. Performances attracted a high number of audience members and volunteers. The CAPF contributed to presenter support organizations undertaking various professional development activities that strengthened the business practices of CAPF arts presenters and the presenting community. The CAPF was somewhat less successful in assisting presenters to reach Indigenous and ethnocultural and racialized audiences.

The FCBT component was also successful in offering a variety of programming activities; however, the available funding limited the Centre’s ability to reflect Canada’s diversity in its programming

Centre programming featured Canadian artists, from different provinces and territories that toured across the country, and included outreach activities that resulted in a high level of audience attendance and volunteer engagement. However, evidence indicated that funding constraints limited the Centre’s ability to reflect Canada’s diversity in its programming.

While the CCSF was successful in increasing access to resources to build or improve facilities and infrastructure and increasing access to a variety of arts and heritage spaces, the program fell somewhat short in supporting organizations with programming aimed at ethnocultural and racialized groups, Indigenous people, and OLMCs.

The CCSF funded a high number of construction/renovation projects, specialized equipment purchases and helped organizations to secure external funding for these projects. A high percentage of projects maintained or enhanced infrastructure and spaces and most users were satisfied with these improvements. Though the CCSF was successful in funding arts and heritage organizations featuring programming that included a variety of disciplines, programming for young audiences, and those located in rural and remote regions, the program fell somewhat short in meeting targets with respect to funding organizations with programming aimed at ethnocultural and racialized groups, Indigenous people, and OLMCs. The Budget 2016 infrastructure funding allocated to the program required approved projects to be in an advanced state of readiness, and this may have contributed to skewed results.

The CCIF Strategic Initiatives component was successful in helping arts and heritage organizations engage partners to develop and share resources to improve business practices and improve their organizational, administrative, and financial health

The Strategic Initiatives component helped arts and heritage organizations to build new and strengthen existing partnerships and to undertake projects related to best practices, marketing, and technology. The component also helped projects reach a high number of arts and heritage organizations and develop various activities and tools.

The CCIF Endowment Incentives component was successful in enabling arts organizations to raise capital, create endowments, and achieve greater financial stability

Endowment income disbursed by foundations to professional arts organizations was twice the program target and helped arts organizations achieve greater financial stability since over three quarters of recipients’ funding was from non-government sources.

The CAPF, CCSF, CCIF, and CATF, the fourth Arts Branch program which was evaluated separately, were successful in contributing to long-term results related to Canadians valuing arts and heritage experiences

An increased percentage of Canadians that participated in artistic events, reported good or very good access to arts and heritage spaces, donated to arts or cultural organizations, and felt that arts and cultural events were important to their quality of life. Most surveyed CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF recipients (95%) perceived “to a great or moderate extent” that Canadians valued professional artistic experiences.

5.3. Government-wide policy considerations

The programs met official language requirements.

The programs applied GBA+ to identify issues and took steps to improve access to funding for underserved groups. However, better measures are required to examine barriers to funding and uptake among underserved groups.

Following the PCH departmental plan of 2016-17, the Arts Branch wrote a framework in early 2017 to guide this work.

5.4. Efficiency

The programs were delivered efficiently and maintained similar administrative costs compared to previous years, improved the timeliness of funding decisions and other delivery processes, and piloted new on-line project application and management tools

The relative administrative costs of the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF incurred during the evaluation period were consistent with past reported ratios. The programs met service standards for acknowledging receipt of applications, and improved timeliness of funding decisions. Standards were met in 2016-17 and 2017-18 due to numerous improvements that reduced procedural steps and paper work, the use of multi-year funding agreements, and the piloting of on-line project applications and management tools.

Some program design challenges remained such as continued barriers accessing program funding among smaller and underserved organizations, uncertain and limited funding for the CCSF and the CCIF, as well as program delivery issues with processes for performance data collection, monitoring, and reporting

With respect to program design and delivery challenges, some smaller and underserved organizations faced barriers accessing program funding for all three programs due to their limited awareness of the funding available and challenges applying to programs due to their limited organizational capacity. Similar barriers were identified in the 2014 evaluation of the Grouped Arts programs and program management for the CAPF and the CCSF committed to examining these issues. Although the programs took action to address these, some barriers remain.

Another challenge identified was that uncertain or fixed funding for the three programs constrained the sustainability of results. The CAPF faced challenges in responding to the funding needs of new and emerging organizations while continuing to support established recipients. The success of the CCIF Endowment Incentives component meant an increase in requests for funding in 2017-18 that translated into a lower matching ratio for each recipient. The unknown matching ratio made it difficult for some recipients to attract additional donors and grow endowments to a self-sustaining level. In addition, the lack of guarantee for continued funding of larger scale multi-phased CCSF construction/renovation projects made planning difficult for some organizations.

A further challenge identified included issues related to processes for performance data collection, monitoring, and reporting. In some instances, the definition and interpretation of outcome statements and indicators was not clear and subject to multiple interpretations. In other cases, the method of tracking and reporting was based on estimated or extrapolated results as the final reports had not been received from all recipients. The programs indicated they were considering alternative measures and mechanisms to track and report on results.

Alternative approaches or innovations to achieve program outcomes were identified throughout the evaluation; however, further testing and analysis are required to assess the applicability and possible benefits of these alternatives

The key approaches identified included:

Improving awareness of the CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF funding available by clearly communicating the priorities and types of activities funded, and further strengthening collaboration with other federal, PT, and municipal government funders to raise awareness through their local networks.
Addressing capacity barriers faced by smaller and underserved organizations through CAPF by facilitating mentorship opportunities between experienced professional arts presenters and newer, smaller, and diverse organizations.
Optimizing the impact of limited funding for CCSF by prioritizing subsequent phases of multi-phased capital projects and exploring alternatives for CCIF such as rotating endowment campaigns and synergies with other federal social investment initiatives.

6. Recommendations, management response and action plan

Recommendation 1 – Effectiveness

The evaluation found a continued need for improved access and mitigation of barriers to program funding for small organizations and underserved groups.

Management response

The Arts Branch accepts this recommendation. In the context of fixed budget resources, the Arts Programs acknowledge the need to continue its efforts in improving the support and access for small organizations and underserved communities, in particular, those from Indigenous, racialized and ethno-cultural communities.

Recommendation 1—action plan
Measure	Deliverables	Timeline	Responsible
Complete experimentation initiatives under the Canada Arts Presentation Fund related to improved access for small organizations and underserved communities.	Summary report of outreach activities conducted by the regional offices	March 2021	Director General, Arts Branch (In collaboration with Regional Offices, as appropriate)
Complete experimentation initiatives under the Canada Arts Presentation Fund related to improved access for small organizations and underserved communities.	Interim assessment report of initiatives	July 2020	Director General, Arts Branch (In collaboration with Regional Offices, as appropriate)
Complete experimentation initiatives under the Canada Arts Presentation Fund related to improved access for small organizations and underserved communities.	Assessment report with lessons learned and options for implementation or expansion	March 2021	Director General, Arts Branch (In collaboration with Regional Offices, as appropriate)
The Arts Branch will undertake an environmental scan in close collaboration with the PCH regional offices to better understand and validate the barriers to program funding for small organizations and underserved groups in particular, those from Indigenous, racialized and ethno-cultural communities.	Internal report (endorsed at DG level)	March 31st, 2021	Director General, Arts Branch
The Arts Branch will undertake the analysis of the findings of the study and develop option(s) and feasibility for CAPF, CCSF and CCIF.	Presentation to ADM	March 31st, 2022	Director General, Arts Branch
The Arts Branch will develop an Action Plan and an Implementation Plan for the option(s).	ADM -approved action and Implementation plan	March 31st, 2023	Director General, Arts Branch
Full implementation date: April 1, 2023

Recommendation 2 – Efficiency

Management response

The Arts Branch accepts this recommendation. The Arts Branch will work on its internal tools and practices to ensure integrity of data and consistency of methodologies. Changes to results and/or indicators will align with the Treasury Board Policy on Results.

Recommendation 2—action plan
Measure	Deliverables	Timeline	Responsible
Review and analyze arts programs Performance Information Profile (PIP) and streamline results, indicators, methodologies and targets.	Performance Information Profile (PIP) - 2020-21	November 2019	Director General, Arts Branch
Review and analyze arts programs Performance Information Profile (PIP) and streamline results, indicators, methodologies and targets.	Performance Information Profile (PIP) - 2021-22	November 2020	Director General, Arts Branch
Upgrade the Arts Branch database as per requirements identified in project charter 2018-IBP-071	Arts Branch sign off on the release of the upgraded database	March 2020*	Director General, Arts Branch
Develop data collection and validation protocols and tools to support consistency and integrity in data manipulation	Data collection and validation protocols for CCIF, CCSF, CAPF approved and implemented (management level)	March 2020	Director General, Arts Branch
Full implementation date: November 2020 * Delivery of the upgraded database is contingent on the capacity and availability of the Chief Information Officer Branch to complete the work.

Annex A: evaluation framework

Relevance - issue #1: continued need for program (all programs)
Questions	Indicators	Methods of data collection
1.1. CAPF: to what extent is there a demonstrated need for continued investment to provide Canadians with access to a variety of professional artistic experiences in their communities?	Evidence and views of stakeholders on the extent to which the different components of the four programs addressed the demonstrated needs of Canadians. Current state of the needs that gave rise to the programs New conditions that augment or diminish need for the programs Needs of Indigenous and ethnocultural and racialized clients	Literature review Document review Administrative data review Key informant interviews Case study Survey of recipients Expert panel Focus group
1.1. CCSF: to what extent is there a need among not-for-profit arts and heritage organizations for the improvement, renovation and construction of arts and heritage facilities, for the acquisition of specialized equipment and for conducting feasibility studies for cultural infrastructure projects?	Evidence and views of stakeholders on the extent to which the different components of the four programs addressed the demonstrated needs of Canadians. Current state of the needs that gave rise to the programs New conditions that augment or diminish need for the programs Needs of Indigenous and ethnocultural and racialized clients	Literature review Document review Administrative data review Key informant interviews Survey of recipients Expert panel Focus group
1.1. CCIF: to what extent is there a need to help arts and heritage organizations: build and diversify their revenue streams; encourage private sector investment, partnership; improve their business practices; and be better rooted and recognized in their communities?	Evidence and views of stakeholders on the extent to which the different components of the four programs addressed the demonstrated needs of Canadians. Current state of the needs that gave rise to the programs New conditions that augment or diminish need for the programs Needs of Indigenous and ethnocultural and racialized clients	Literature review Document review Administrative data review Key informant interviews Survey of recipients Expert panel Focus group
1.2. CAPF: to what extent was each of the Arts programs responsive to the demonstrated needs of Canadians?	Evidence and views of funded and unfunded applicants on the extent to which CAPF was responsive to the demonstrated needs Number of applications received and total amount of funds requested, by component Number of applications funded and total amount of funds awarded, by component Number, total amount and % of funds awarded to new organizations Number and percentage of professional arts presenters that reached out to underserved communities	Literature review Document review Key informant interviews Case study Administrative data review Survey of recipients Expert panel Focus group
1.2. CCSF: to what extent was each of the Arts programs responsive to the demonstrated needs of Canadians?	Evidence and views of stakeholders on the extent to which CCSF was responsive to the demonstrated needs Number of applications received and total amount of funds requested Total approved by project type (construction, renovation, specialized equipment, feasibility studies)	Literature review Document review Key informant interviews Administrative data review Survey of recipients Expert panel Focus group
1.2. CCIF: to what extent was each of the Arts programs responsive to the demonstrated needs of Canadians?	Evidence and views of stakeholders on the extent to which CCIF was responsive to the demonstrated needs Number of applications received and total amount of funds requested, by component Number of applications funded and total amount of funds awarded, by component	Literature review Document review Key informant interviews Administrative data review Survey of recipients Expert panel Focus group

Relevance - issue #2: alignment with government priorities (all programs)
Questions	Indicators	Methods of data collection
1.3. CAPF, CCSF, CCIF: to what extent was each of the four programs aligned with PCH priorities and federal government priorities?	Extent to which each program assisted the Department to reach its priorities Extent to which each program was aligned with federal government priorities	Document review Key informant interviews

Relevance – issue #3: alignment with federal roles and responsibilities (all programs)
Questions	Indicators	Methods of data collection
1.4. CAPF: is ensuring that Canadians have continued access to professional arts experiences an appropriate responsibility for the federal government?	Demonstrated benefits (to Canadians and to arts & heritage organizations) of the federal government’s roles in this field Degree of complementarity between the federal government’s role and the roles played by other stakeholders in the cultural sector, among them the restructured Canada Council for the Arts.	Document review Administrative data review Literature review Key informant interviews Case study Expert panel Focus group
1.4. CCSF: is contributing to improving physical conditions for arts and heritage organizations related to creation, presentation, preservation and exhibition to provide improved access for Canadians to performing arts, visual arts, media arts and to museum collections and heritage displays, the acquisition of specialized equipment and conducting feasibility studies for cultural projects an appropriate responsibility of the federal government?	Demonstrated benefits (to Canadians and to arts & heritage organizations) of the federal government’s roles in this field Degree of complementarity between the federal government’s role and the roles played by other stakeholders in the cultural sector, among them the restructured Canada Council for the Arts.	Document review Administrative data review Literature review Key informant interviews Expert panel Focus group
1.4. CCIF: is assisting arts and heritage organizations to build and diversify their revenue streams, improve their business practices, and be more rooted and recognized in their communities an appropriate responsibility for the federal government?	Demonstrated benefits (to Canadians and to arts & heritage organizations) of the federal government’s roles in this field Degree of complementarity between the federal government’s role and the roles played by other stakeholders in the cultural sector, among them the restructured Canada Council for the Arts.	Document review Administrative data review Literature review Key informant interviews Expert panel Focus group

Canada Arts Presentation Fund

Performance – issue #4: achievement of expected results – short-term results
Questions	Indicators	Methods of data collection
2.1. CAPF: did arts presenter organizations offer a variety of professional artistic experiences to Canadians?	Number and percentage of professional arts presenters and presenter support organizations funded by discipline Total number of performances by year Number and percentage of own-province and out-of-province artists presented Number of development and outreach activities Trends over the past 10 years Degree of achievement of programming goals related to CAPF objectives Views of stakeholders on the degree to which the program supported arts presenter organizations in offering a variety of professional artistic experiences to Canadians	Document review Key informant interviews Survey of recipients Administrative data review Expert panel
2.2. CAPF: to what extent did the program strengthen CAPF arts presenters and the presenting community’s practice in undertaking professional development opportunities?	Number of organizations funded for professional development activities Number and type of professional development activities provided by funded organizations Trends over the past 10 years Degree of achievement of the recipients’ efforts to: reinforce Canadian presenting circuits diversify and improve quality of programming presenters can offer to their audiences Views of stakeholders on the degree to which the program supported presenter support organizations in undertaking professional development opportunities	Document review Key informant interviews Survey of recipients Administrative data review Expert panel
2.3. CAPF: to what extent has the Confederation Centre of the Arts offered visual and performing arts and heritage programming that reflects Canada’s cultural, linguistic and regional diversity? (FCBT only)	Number of programming activities offered Number and percentage of Canadian artists presented, by province of origin Number of programming activities that travel across Canada Number of outreach activities Views of stakeholders on the degree to which the Confederation Centre of the Arts offered visual and performing arts and heritage programming that reflects Canada’s cultural, linguistic and regional diversity	Case study

Performance – issue #4: achievement of expected results – medium term results
Questions	Indicators	Methods of data collection
2.4. CAPF: to what extent were Canadians in all regions of the country engaged or participated in a variety of professional artistic experiences offered by arts presenters?	Number of communities reached, by type (urban, rural, remote) Number and percentage of underserved communities (including official language minority communities) served by CAPF through its components Number of volunteers engaged in funded activities Number of attendees at funded activities (paid and free admission) Trends over the past 10 years Number of attendees at audience development or outreach	Document review Key informant interviews Survey of recipients Administrative data review Expert panel
2.5. CAPF: to what extent did the program help the arts presenters undertake their activities within a healthy Canadian presenting environment?	Number and type of partnerships established between presenters Number of organizations participating, by type of professional development activity Amount and percentage of funding source, by type (earned, public, private) Trends over the past 10 years Number of volunteers	Document review Key informant interviews Survey of recipients Administrative data review Expert panel
2.6. CAPF: to what extent did the program help Canadians engage and participate in professional arts and heritage experiences through the Confederation Centre of the Arts programming? (FCBT only)	Number of volunteers Total attendance at Centre programming	Case study

Performance – issue #4: achievement of expected results – long-term results
Questions	Indicators	Methods of data collection
2.7. CAPF: to what extent did Canadians value and engage with professional artistic experiences?	Level of participation of Canadians Level of appreciation of Canadians	Arts and Heritage Access and Availability Survey Key informant interviews Survey of recipients Expert panel
2.8 CAPF: have there been any unintended impacts?	Identified unintended impacts (positive or negative)	Key informant interviews Expert panel

Canada Cultural Spaces Fund

Performance – issue #4: achievement of expected results – short-term results
Questions	Indicators	Methods of data collection
3.1. CCSF: to what extent did arts and heritage organizations have the resources to build or improve facilities and infrastructure?	Number of facilities built and/or renovated Number of specialized equipment purchases Number of feasibility studies Amount and percentage of project funding sources by type (earned, public, private) Views of stakeholders on the degree to which the program supported arts and heritage organizations to build or improve facilities and infrastructure	Document review Key informant interviews Survey of recipients Administrative data review Expert panel

Performance – issue #4: achievement of expected results – medium term results
Questions	Indicators	Methods of data collection
3.2. CCSF: to what extent are a variety of arts and heritage experiences available in a wide range of communities?	Diversity of supported projects (artistic disciplines, heritage functions, underserved communities) Number of communities reached, by type (urban, rural, remote) Number of projects and distributed funds amounts by region and province Views of stakeholders on the degree to which the program contributed to making available a variety of arts and heritage experiences in a wide range of communities	Document review Key informant interviews Survey of recipients Administrative data review Expert panel
3.3. CCSF: to what extent did arts and heritage organizations better create, present, preserve or exhibit arts and heritage experiences?	Number and nature of activities maintained and/or enhanced (number, quality, variety; self-reported) Users’ (artists, employees, etc.) satisfaction with working spaces and/or equipment Views of stakeholders on the degree to which the program supported arts and heritage organizations to better create, present, preserve or exhibit arts and heritage experiences	Document review Key informant interviews Survey of recipients Administrative data review Expert panel

Performance – issue #4: achievement of expected results – long-term results
Questions	Indicators	Methods of data collection
3.4. CCSF: to what extent did Canadians value and access arts and heritage spaces?	Level of access for Canadians to arts and heritage spaces Level of appreciation of Canadians	Arts and Heritage Access and Availability Survey Key informant interviews Survey of recipients Expert panel
3.5 CCSF: have there been any unintended impacts?	Identified unintended impacts (positive or negative)	Key informant interviews Expert panel

Canada Cultural Investment Fund

Performance – issue #4: achievement of expected results – short-term results
Questions	Indicators	Methods of data collection
4.1. CCIF: to what extent did arts and heritage organizations engage partners to develop and share resources to improve business practices? (Strategic Initiatives only)	Number of project partners (new and existing partners) Number of projects by type Projects’ reach (regional, municipal, provincial, national) Trends since the program’s inception in 2010 Views of stakeholders on the degree to which the program supported arts and heritage organizations to partner to develop and share resources to improve business practices	Document and data review Key informant interviews Survey of recipients Data administrative review Expert panel
4.2. CCIF: to what extent have private sector donations enabled arts organizations to raise capital and create endowments? (Endowment Incentives only)	Percentage increase in total amounts of endowment funds Number of endowments created since component inception Minimum dollar amount, in millions, raised through private-sector donations by arts organizations applying to and eligible for Endowment Incentives component Trends in the last 10 years Views of stakeholders on the degree to which the program supported private sector donations enabling arts organizations to raise capital and create endowments	Document and data review Key informant interviews Survey of recipients Expert panel
4.3. CCIF: have endangered art institutions been able to avoid closure following funding support? (Limited Support to Endangered Arts Organizations only)	Percentage of supported organizations in operation five years after receiving funding	Document review Administrative data review

Performance – issue #4: achievement of expected results – medium term results
Questions	Indicators	Methods of data collection
4.4. CCIF: to what extent did funded arts and heritage organizations demonstrate sound organizational, administrative and financial health?	Number of organizations reached (SI) Number of tools developed to strengthen the business practices of arts and heritage organizations (SI) Trends since the program’s inception in 2010 (SI) Income disbursed by foundations to arts organizations from income earned on endowments (EI) Amount and percentage of funding sources by type (earned, public, private) (EI) Views of stakeholders on the degree to which the program supports arts and heritage organizations to demonstrate sound organizational, administrative and financial health	Document review Administrative data review Key informant interviews Survey of recipients Expert panel

Performance – issue #4: achievement of expected results – long-term results
Questions	Indicators	Methods of data collection
4.5. CCIF: did Canadians value and invest in arts and heritage organizations?	Level of support demonstrated by Canadians Level of appreciation of Canadians	Arts and Heritage Access and Availability Survey Key informant interviews Survey of recipients Expert panel
4.6 CCIF: have there been any unintended impacts?	Identified unintended impacts (positive or negative)	Key informant interviews Expert panel

Performance – issue #5: efficiency and economy (all programs)
Questions	Indicators	Methods of data collection
7.1. CAPF, CCSF, CCIF: were the resources dedicated to the program used efficiently to maximize the achievement of results?	Year to year comparison of O&M/salaries as a percentage of G&Cs budget Programs’ operational costs in relation to overall budget Planned vs utilized (actual) financial and human resources Trends in each program’s administrative costs Each program’s annual adherence to service standards published on the PCH site Tangible results of action undertaken to improve the efficiency of program delivery, including efficiency obtained through PCH Grants and Contribution Modernization Initiative and implementation	Administrative data review Document review Key informant interviews
7.2. CAPF, CCSF, CCIF: are there more efficient alternatives to achieve the same results?	Evidence and views of stakeholders on more efficient alternative approaches or innovations (including program design and delivery) to achieve programs results	Literature review Key informant interviews Survey of recipients Case study

Government-wide policy considerations (all programs)
Questions	Indicators	Methods of data collection
6.1. CAPF, CCSF, CCIF: were all official language requirements met?	Extent to which each program supported official languages and met the requirements of section 41 of the Official Languages Act Distribution of funding to official language minority communities (OLMCs) Perspectives of recipients in OLMCs	Document review Administrative data review Key informant interviews Survey of recipients Case study
6.2. CAPF, CCSF, CCIF: did the programs have unintended barriers and issues related to Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+)?	Extent to which GBA+ was taken into account by the programs, specifically, considerations of how the program may impact differently certain segments of the population (such as women-men, ethnocultural and racialized communities, Indigenous communities, official language minorities, persons with disabilities, people living in remote areas, youth, etc.)	Document review Administrative data review Literature review Key informant interviews Survey of recipients Case study

Annex B: detailed tables

The following section provides detailed tables to support the findings presented in the evaluation report. The tables are organized by section for ease of reference.

4.1. Relevance

4.1.1. Relevance: ongoing need for the programs

CAPF applications and funding approved, 2013-14 to 2017-18
Indicator	Programming Support component	Development Support component	Total
Total Applications (#)	3,546	208	3,754
Total Requested ($)	$433.64M	$10.37M	$444.01M
Total Applications Approved (#)	3,044	177	3,221
Total Applications Approved (%)	86%	85%	86%
Total Approved ($)	$140.67M	$5.22M	$145.89M

Sources: administrative data review. Note that multi-year funding agreements with yearly recurring events are counted as a separate project in each year the event is funded.

FCBT applications and funding approved, 2013-14 to 2017-18
Indicator	FCBT Component
Total Applications (#)	5
Total Requested ($)	$23.50M
Total Applications Approved (#)	5
Total Applications Approved (%)	100%
Total Approved ($)	$15.00M

Sources: administrative data review, FCBT Case Study.

CAPF input 1: allocation of G&C to approved recipients, 2013-14 to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets
Indicator	Component	Target/ Baseline (Annual)	Achievement (Average Annual)	Achievement Status
Applications (#)	Development	30	42	Achieved
Applications (#)	Programming	665	709	Achieved
Requested ($)	Development	$2M	$2.07M	Achieved
Requested ($)	Programming	$44M	$86.73M	Achieved
Applications Approved (#)	Development	25	35	Achieved
Applications Approved (#)	Programming	575	609	Achieved
Approved ($)	Development	$750K	$1.18M	Achieved
Approved ($)	Programming	$27.75M	$41.82M	Achieved

Sources: Performance Information Profile (2017), Administrative Data Review.

CAPF input 1: allocation of G&C to approved recipients, 2013-14 to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets: FCBT Only
Indicator	Component	Target/ Baseline (Annual)	Achievement (Average Annual)	Achievement Status
Applications (#)	FCBT	1	1	Achieved
Requested ($)	FCBT	$3M	$4.70M	Achieved
Applications Approved (#)	FCBT	1	1	Achieved
Approved ($)	FCBT	$3M	$3.00M	Achieved

Sources: Performance Information Profile (2017), Administrative Data Review, FCBT Case Study.

CCSF applications and funding approved, 2013-14 to 2017-18
Indicator	Construction/ Renovation	Specialized Equipment/ Feasibility Study	Total
Total Applications (#)	537	436	973
Total Requested ($)	$623M	$66M	$689M
Total Applications Approved (#)	377	357	734
Total Applications Approved (%)	70%	82%	75%
Total Approved ($)	$294M	$41M	$335M

Source: administrative data review.

CCSF input 1: allocation of funds to arts and heritage organizations, 2013-14 to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets
Indicator	Component	Target/ Baseline (Annual)	Achievement (Average Annual)	Achievement Status
Applications (#)	-	>110	195	Achieved
Requested ($)	-	>$25M	$138M	Achieved
Applications Approved (#)	-	80	147	Achieved
Approved ($)	Construction/Renovation	$19M	$59M	Achieved
Approved ($)	Specialized Equipment	$5.5M	$8M (SE and FS)	Achieved
Approved ($)	Feasibility Study	$50,000	$8M (SE and FS)	Achieved

Sources: Performance Information Profile (2017), Administrative Data Review.

CCIF Applications and Funding Approved, 2013-14 to 2017-18
Indicator	Endowment Incentives	Strategic Initiatives	Total
Total Applications (#)	543	121	664
Total Requested ($)	$110M	$42.5M	$152.5M
Total Applications Approved (#)	525	55	580
Total Applications Approved (%)	97%	45%	87%
Total Approved ($)	$93.7M	$17.0M	$110.7M

Source: administrative data review.

CCIF input 1: allocation of grants and contributions to eligible recipients, 2013-14 to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets
Indicator	Component	Target/ Baseline (Annual)	Achievement (Average Annual)	Achievement Status
Applications (#)	SI	30	24	Partially
Applications (#)	EI	100	109	Achieved
Applications (#)	LSEAO	N/A	N/A	N/A
Requested ($)	SI	$5M	$8.5M	Achieved
Requested ($)	EI	$20M	$22M	Achieved
Requested ($)	LSEAO	N/A	N/A	N/A
Applications Approved (#)	SI	10	11	Achieved
Applications Approved (#)	EI	95	105	Achieved
Applications Approved (#)	LSEAO	N/A	N/A	N/A
Approved ($)	SI	$3M	$3.4M	Achieved
Approved ($)	EI	$19M	$18.7M	Achieved
Approved ($)	LSEAO	N/A	N/A	N/A

Sources: Performance Information Profile (2017), Administrative Data Review; SI: Strategic Initiatives component

EI: Endowment Incentives component; LSEAO: Limited Support to Endangered Arts Organizations component

4.2. Effectiveness achievement of expected results

4.2.1. Canada Arts Presentation Fund

CAPF short-term result 1: arts presenter organizations offer a variety of professional artistic experiences to Canadians, 2013-14 to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets
Indicator	Discipline	Target/ Baseline (Annual)	Achievement (Average Annual)	Achievement Status
Percentage of professional arts presenters and presenter support organizations funded disaggregated by discipline	Dance	41%	39%	Partially
Percentage of professional arts presenters and presenter support organizations funded disaggregated by discipline	Music	71%	71%	Achieved
Percentage of professional arts presenters and presenter support organizations funded disaggregated by discipline	Theatre	44%	45%	Achieved
Percentage of professional arts presenters and presenter support organizations funded disaggregated by discipline	Media Art	9%	9%	Achieved
Percentage of professional arts presenters and presenter support organizations funded disaggregated by discipline	Literature	11%	11%	Achieved
Percentage of professional arts presenters and presenter support organizations funded disaggregated by discipline	Visual Arts	13%	10%	Partially
Percentage of out-of-province artists presented	-	33%	34% out-of-province Canadian artists	Achieved
Number of outreach activities	-	26,000	27,144*	Achieved

Sources: Performance Information Profile (2017), Administrative Data Review;

*Based on extrapolated estimates since some final reports had not yet been received.

CAPF short-term result 2: presenter support organizations undertake professional development opportunities to strengthen the practices of CAPF arts presenters and the presenting community, 2013-14 to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets
Indicator	Type	Target/ Baseline (Annual)	Achievement (Average Annual)	Achievement Status
Number of organizations funded for professional development activities	-	27	30 (150 organizations total)	Achieved
Number of professional development activities provided by funded organizations, disaggregated by type	Contact Event	41	54*	Achieved
Number of professional development activities provided by funded organizations, disaggregated by type	Tool Development	40	45*	Achieved
Number of professional development activities provided by funded organizations, disaggregated by type	Presenter Conference	38	41*	Achieved
Number of professional development activities provided by funded organizations, disaggregated by type	Workshop	65	48*	Partially
Number of professional development activities provided by funded organizations, disaggregated by type	Block-Booking	37	48*	Achieved
Number of professional development activities provided by funded organizations, disaggregated by type	Block-Marketing	33	26*	Partially
Number of professional development activities provided by funded organizations, disaggregated by type	Networking	42	64*	Achieved
Number of professional development activities provided by funded organizations, disaggregated by type	Other/Not Specified	58	80*	Achieved

Sources: Performance Information Profile (2017), Administrative Data Review;

*excludes 2017-18 due to incomplete data.

CAPF short-term result 3: the Confederation Centre of the Arts offers visual and performing arts and heritage programming that reflects Canada’s cultural, linguistic and regional diversity, 2014-15* to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets
Indicator	Type	Target/ Baseline (Annual)	Achievement (Average Annual)	Achievement Status
Number of programming activities offered at the Confederation Centre of the Arts	-	50	73	Achieved
Percentage of Canadian artists presented, by province/territory of origin, at the Confederation Centre of the Arts	AB	3%	4% (higher)	Achieved (greater level of diversity than target)
Percentage of Canadian artists presented, by province/territory of origin, at the Confederation Centre of the Arts	BC	2%	7% (higher)	Achieved (greater level of diversity than target)
Percentage of Canadian artists presented, by province/territory of origin, at the Confederation Centre of the Arts	MB	2%	3% (higher)	Achieved (greater level of diversity than target)
Percentage of Canadian artists presented, by province/territory of origin, at the Confederation Centre of the Arts	NB	3%	6% (higher)	Achieved (greater level of diversity than target)
Percentage of Canadian artists presented, by province/territory of origin, at the Confederation Centre of the Arts	NL	2%	2% (same)	Achieved (greater level of diversity than target)
Percentage of Canadian artists presented, by province/territory of origin, at the Confederation Centre of the Arts	NS	8%	10% (higher)	Achieved (greater level of diversity than target)
Percentage of Canadian artists presented, by province/territory of origin, at the Confederation Centre of the Arts	ON	60%	37% (lower)	Achieved (greater level of diversity than target)
Percentage of Canadian artists presented, by province/territory of origin, at the Confederation Centre of the Arts	PEI	12%	20% (higher)	Achieved (greater level of diversity than target)
Percentage of Canadian artists presented, by province/territory of origin, at the Confederation Centre of the Arts	QC	5%	8% (higher)	Achieved (greater level of diversity than target)
Percentage of Canadian artists presented, by province/territory of origin, at the Confederation Centre of the Arts	SK	2%	2% (same)	Achieved (greater level of diversity than target)
Percentage of Canadian artists presented, by province/territory of origin, at the Confederation Centre of the Arts	Territories	1%	3% (higher)	Achieved (greater level of diversity than target)
Number of programming activities that travel across Canada offered by the Confederation Centre of the Arts	-	3	3	Achieved
Number of outreach activities offered by the Confederation Centre of the Arts	-	8	13	Achieved

Sources: Performance Information Profile (2017), Case Study;

*performance indicators changed in 2014-15 when FCBT was integrated within CAPF as a component.

CAPF medium-term result 1: Canadians in all regions of the country engage and participate in a variety of professional artistic experiences offered by arts presenters, 2013-14 to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets
Indicator	Category	Target/ Baseline (Annual)	Achievement (Average Annual)	Achievement Status
Percentage of communities reached disaggregated by type	Urban	35%	32%	Partially
Percentage of communities reached disaggregated by type	Rural	36%	39%	Achieved
Percentage of communities reached disaggregated by type	Remote	29%	28%	Partially
Percentage of professional arts presenters that reach out to underserved communities disaggregated by type	Indigenous	16%	14%	Partially
Percentage of professional arts presenters that reach out to underserved communities disaggregated by type	Young Audiences	52%	54%	Achieved
Percentage of professional arts presenters that reach out to underserved communities disaggregated by type	Ethnocultural/ Cultural Diversity	27%	21%	Partially
Percentage of professional arts presenters that reach out to underserved communities disaggregated by type	OLM	26%	28%	Achieved
Number of volunteers engaged in funded activities	-	70,000	79,679	Achieved
Number of attendees at funded activities	-	21.5M	22.4M*	Achieved

Sources: Performance Information Profile (2017), Administrative Data Review;

*based on extrapolated estimates since some final reports had not yet been received.

CAPF medium-term result 2: arts presenters undertake their activities within a healthy Canadian presenting environment, 2013-14 to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets
Indicator	Category	Target/ Baseline (Annual)	Achievement (Average Annual)	Achievement Status
Number of partnerships established between presenters	-	5,606	7,907* (39,535 total)	Achieved
Number of organizations participating disaggregated by type of professional development activity	Contact Event	3,019	3,482*	Achieved
Number of organizations participating disaggregated by type of professional development activity	Tool Development	902	1,410*	Achieved
Number of organizations participating disaggregated by type of professional development activity	Presenter Conference	2,261	1,817*	Partially
Number of organizations participating disaggregated by type of professional development activity	Workshop	1,882	4,024*	Achieved
Number of organizations participating disaggregated by type of professional development activity	Block-Booking	2,491	4,065*	Achieved
Number of organizations participating disaggregated by type of professional development activity	Block-Marketing	573	2,038*	Achieved
Number of organizations participating disaggregated by type of professional development activity	Networking	1,998	3,414*	Achieved
Number of organizations participating disaggregated by type of professional development activity	Other/Not Specified	1,941	2,639*	Achieved
Percentage of funding sources disaggregated by type	Earned	37.8%	42.5%	Achieved
Percentage of funding sources disaggregated by type	Private	31%	29.1%	Achieved
Percentage of funding sources disaggregated by type	Public	31.3%	28.4%	Achieved

Sources: Performance Information Profile (2017), Administrative Data Review;

*based on extrapolated estimates since some final reports had not yet been received.

CAPF medium-term result 3: Canadians engage and participate in professional arts and heritage experiences through the Confederation Centre of the Arts programming, 2014-15* to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets
Indicator	Target/Baseline (Annual)	Achievement (Average Annual)	Achievement Status
Number of volunteers at the Confederation Centre of the Arts	75	118	Achieved
Total attendance to programming at the Confederation Centre of the Arts	125,000	157,872	Achieved

Sources: Performance Information Profile (2017), Case Study;

*performance indicators changed in 2014-15 when FCBT was integrated within CAPF as a component.

4.2.2. Canada Cultural Spaces Fund

CCSF short-term result 1: arts and heritage organizations have resources to build/improve facilities and infrastructure, 2013-14 to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets
Indicator	Target/Baseline (Annual)	Achievement (Average Annual)	Achievement Status
Number of facilities built and/or renovated	40	75	Achieved
Number of specialized equipment purchases	45	62	Achieved
Percentage of project funding that is non-CCSF	70%	73%*	Achieved

Sources: Performance Information Profile (2017), Administrative Data Review.

Note: achievements may be higher than expected due to enhancements to the program budget in 2016 (e.g., the G&C budget for 2017-2018 was $108,158,613 ($ 25,358,613 A-Base plus $82,800,000 in new funding from Budget 2016))

*excludes 2017-18 due to incomplete data.

CCSF medium-term result 1: a variety of arts and heritage experiences are available in a wide range of communities, 2013-14 to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets
Indicator	Category	Target/Baseline (Annual)	Achievement (Average Annual)	Achievement Status
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Music	4%	27%	Achieved
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Dance	5%	16%	Achieved
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Theatre	18%	31%	Achieved
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Visual Arts	3%	16%	Achieved
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Media Arts	4%	5%	Achieved
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Circus	1%	2%	Achieved
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Multi	39%	33%	Partially
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Museum	22%	24%	Achieved
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Archives/Library	1%	6%	Achieved
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Heritage centre/Site	5%	10%	Achieved
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Library	-	2%	N/A
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Art Gallery	-	10%	N/A
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Humour	-	6%	N/A
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Cinema	-	4%	N/A
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Performance Art	-	1%	N/A
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Science/Technology	-	<1%	N/A
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Biodome, Insectarium	-	<1%	N/A
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Indigenous	14%	13%	Partially
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Cultural Diversity	15%	5%	Partially
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Official Language Minority	14%	8%	Partially
Diversity of supported projects (less than or equal to 25% of CCSF funding (Multi & Museum excluded) spent on any single discipline +/- 15% of baselines)*	Young Audiences	32%	39%	Achieved
Percentage of communities reached disaggregated by type (> or = to 50% of communities reached are rural or remote)	Urban	48%	34%	Achieved
Percentage of communities reached disaggregated by type (> or = to 50% of communities reached are rural or remote)	Rural	34%	41%	Achieved
Percentage of communities reached disaggregated by type (> or = to 50% of communities reached are rural or remote)	Remote	18%	25%	Achieved

Sources: Performance Information Profile (2017), Administrative Data Review;

Note: organizations can represent multiple disciplines and communities, so numbers do not indicate unique organizations or projects.

CCSF medium-term result 2: arts and heritage organizations can better create / present / preserve / exhibit arts and heritage experiences, 2013-14 to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets
Indicator	Target/Baseline (Annual)	Achievement (Average Annual)	Achievement Status
Percentage of activities maintained and/or enhanced	80%	84%*	Achieved
Percentage of users’ reporting satisfaction with working spaces and/or equipment	80%	91%*	Achieved

Sources: Performance Information Profile (2017), Administrative Data Review;

*Note: not all projects report on these indicators since not all projects have these as goals (e.g., feasibility study does not report on maintaining/enhancing or user satisfaction).

4.2.3. Canada Cultural Investment Fund

CCIF short-term result 1: arts and heritage organizations partner to develop and share resources to improve business practices (SI), 2013-14 to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets

Indicator	Category	Target/Baseline (Annual)	Achievement (Average Annual)	Achievement Status
Number of project partners (partners per project)	-	6	9 new partners 21 existing partners	Achieved
Number of projects disaggregated by type*	Marketing	>/=25%	69%	Achieved
Number of projects disaggregated by type	Best Practices	>/=25%	80%	Achieved
Number of projects disaggregated by type	Technology	>/=25%	67%	Achieved
Number of projects disaggregated by type	Innovation	>/=25%	33%**	Achieved

Sources: Performance Information Profile (2017), Administrative Data Review.

CCIF short-term result 2: private sector donations enable arts organizations to raise capital and create endowments (EI), 2013-14 to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets
Indicator	Target/Baseline (Annual)	Achievement (Average Annual)	Achievement Status
Percentage increase in total amounts of endowment funds	> -5%	N/A Indicator to be Revised	N/A Indicator to be Revised
Percentage of recipients whose endowment was created since component inception	70%	74%	Achieved
Minimum amount raised through private-sector donations by arts organizations applying to and eligible for EI	$20M	$22.3M	Achieved

Sources: Performance Information Profile (2017), Administrative Data Review.

CCIF medium-term result 1: arts and heritage organizations demonstrate sound organizational, administrative and financial health, 2013-14 to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets
Indicator	Target/Baseline (Annual)	Achievement (Average Annual)	Achievement Status
Number of organizations reached (SI)	>1,000	2,317 (11,587 organizations total)	Achieved
Number of tools developed to strengthen the business practices of arts and heritage organizations (SI)	>/=5	22*	Achieved
Income disbursed by foundations to arts organizations from interest earned on endowments (EI)	$10M	$22.5M	Achieved
Percentage of funding sources by type (earned, public, private) (EI)	>/=70% are non-public	78%	Achieved

Sources: Performance Information Profile (2017), Administrative Data Review.

4.2.4. Achievement of Common Long-term Results

Grouped Arts programs achievement of long-term results, 2013-14 to 2017-18 – achievement of annual targets
Program Result	Indicator		Target/Baseline (2012)	Achievement (2017)	Achievement Status
Long-Term Result 1: Canadians value and engage with professional artistic experiences (CAPF)	Percentage of Canadians that participate in artistic events (attended at least one arts performance in the last year)	-	83%	87%	Achieved
Long-Term Result 1: Canadians value and access arts and heritage spaces (CCSF)	Percentage of Canadians reporting very good access to arts and heritage spaces (good or very good rating)	# of arts/culture facilities	43%	44%	Achieved
Long-Term Result 1: Canadians value and access arts and heritage spaces (CCSF)	Percentage of Canadians reporting very good access to arts and heritage spaces (good or very good rating)	Quality of arts/culture facilities	53%	54%	Achieved
Long-Term Result 1: Canadians value and access arts and heritage spaces (CCSF)	Percentage of Canadians reporting very good access to arts and heritage spaces (good or very good rating)	# of museums/ heritage spaces	44%	43%	Achieved*
Long-Term Result 1: Canadians value and access arts and heritage spaces (CCSF)	Percentage of Canadians reporting very good access to arts and heritage spaces (good or very good rating)	Quality of museums/ heritage spaces	54%	55%	Achieved
Long-Term Result 1: Canadians value and invest in arts and heritage organizations (CCIF)	Percentage of Canadians that donate to arts or cultural organizations (made a donation of money, goods, or services to an arts or cultural organization in past year)	-	26%	31%	Achieved
Long-Term Result 1: all three programs (CAPF, CCSF, CCIF)	Percentage of Canadians that appreciate artistic experiences (feel that arts and cultural events are important in terms of the quality of life for them and their families)	-	66%	69%	Achieved

Sources: Performance Information Profile (2017), Arts and Heritage Access and Availability Survey 2012 and 2017;

*Considered achieved since within 1% of target.

4.3. Efficiency: demonstration of efficiency

CAPF O&M and G&C expenditures, 2013-14 to 2017-18
Resources	2013-14	2014-15	2015-16	2016-17	2017-18	Total
O&M expenditures (Total Vote 1)	$5,481,284	$6,302,718	$6,202,887	$6,090,712	$6,532,223	$30,609,824
G&C expenditures (Total Vote 5)	$28,743,688	$28,409,215	$32,889,536	$30,941,578	$34,134,802	$155,118,819
Total expenditures	$34,224,972	$34,711,933	$39,092,423	$37,032,290	$40,667,025	$185,728,643
Administrative ratio	16.0%	18.2%	15.9%	16.4%	16.1%	16.5%

Source: administrative data review; excludes FCBT.

CCSF O&M and G&C expenditures, 2013-14 to 2017-18
Resources	2013-14	2014-15	2015-16	2016-17	2017-18	Total
O&M expenditures (Total Vote 1)	$3,540,044	$3,668,636	$3,598,779	$4,559,137	$5,547,585	$20,914,181
G&C expenditures (Total Vote 5)	$25,079,403	$24,918,467	$24,185,348	$104,806,199	$104,078,024	$283,067,441
Total expenditures	$28,619,448	$28,587,103	$27,784,127	$109,365,336	$109,625,609	$303,981,623
Administrative ratio	12.4%	12.8%	13.0%	4.2%*	5.1%	6.9%

Source: administrative data review;

*decrease in administrative ratio in 2016-17 and 2017-18 is due to significant G&C budget enhancements from Budget 2016.

CCIF O&M and G&C expenditures, 2013-14 to 2017-18
Resources	2013-14	2014-15	2015-16	2016-17	2017-18	Total
O&M expenditures (Total Vote 1)	$1,723,142	$1,846,519	$1,581,772	$1,552,260	$1,628,145	$8,331,838
G&C expenditures (Total Vote 5)	$21,967,434	$21,969,410	$18,925,130	$21,971,405	$21,969,705	$106,803,084
Total expenditures	$23,690,576	$23,815,929	$20,506,902	$23,523,665	$23,597,851	$115,134,923
Administrative ratio	7.3%	7.8%	7.7%	6.6%	6.9%	7.2%

Source: Administrative Data Review; excludes FCBT.

Annex C: bibliography

Footnotes

Footnote 1

Presenter support organizations provide arts presenters with access to a variety of artistic choices, provide artists with access to arts presenters (specialized and multidisciplinary), reinforce the Canadian arts presentation circuits, and further practical arts presentation knowledge.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

The definition for a “small organization” can vary depending on program eligibility guidelines and several factors such as the number of staff and volunteers, the size of the operating budget, and the number of years the organization has been in operation relative to sector averages.

Return to footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

Confederation Centre of the Arts Website: About Us.

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5

Resources for 2013-14 and 2014-15 do not include FCBT which was only incorporated under CAPF in 2015-16 fiscal year.

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6

Government of Canada. Summary of key changes made to the Endowment Incentives Component of the Canada Cultural Investment Fund (CCIF) (2018-10-25).

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Footnote 7

Environics Research Group. 2017. Arts and Heritage Access and Availability Survey 2016-17 (PDF version, 1.2 MB)

Return to footnote 7 referrer

Footnote 8

House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. 2018. Moving Forward – Towards a Stronger Canadian Museum Sector (PDF version, 3.7 MB).

Return to footnote 8 referrer

Footnote 9

University of Waterloo Centre for Cultural Management and Genovese, Vanderhoof & Associates. 2006. The Affordability of the Performing Arts: An analysis of the cost of opera and ballet in Toronto and Houston between 1981 and 2006.

Return to footnote 9 referrer

Footnote 10

Canadian Arts Coalition. 2016. The Pillar of Culture INFRAconsults (PDF version, 582 KB)

Return to footnote 10 referrer

Footnote 11

ArtsBuild Ontario. 2016. Submission to Infrastructure Canada re: #infraconsults, Phase 2 consultations. (PDF version, 563 KB)

Return to footnote 11 referrer

Footnote 12

Canadian Arts Coalition. 2016. The Pillar of Culture INFRAconsults (PDF version, 582 KB)

Return to footnote 12 referrer

Footnote 13

CAPACOA. 2017. Petri, Inga and Frédéric Julien. “Digitizing the Performing Arts: An Assessment of Opportunities, Issues and Challenges.” (PDF version, 1.88 MB)

Return to footnote 13 referrer

Footnote 14

Canadian Heritage. 2017. Canadian Content in a Digital World.

Return to footnote 14 referrer

Footnote 15

Imagine Canada. 2018. 30 Years of Giving in Canada – The Giving Behaviour of Canadians: Who gives, how, and why?

Return to footnote 15 referrer

Footnote 16

Bank of Canada. 2018. Monetary Policy Report – July 2018.

Return to footnote 16 referrer

Footnote 17

Emmett, Brian (Imagine Canada). 2016. Charities, Sustainable Funding and Smart Growth.

Return to footnote 17 referrer

Footnote 18

Annex C provides detailed tables of applications, funding approved, and other program inputs and outcomes for each of the three programs. Note that multi-year funding agreements with yearly recurring events are counted as separate projects in each year the event is funded.

Return to footnote 18 referrer

Footnote 19

Return to footnote 19 referrer

Footnote 20

Mina Para Matlon, Ingrid Van Haastrecht and Kaitlyn Wittig Mengüç. 2014. Figuring the Plural (PDF version, 6.73 MB)

Return to footnote 20 referrer

Footnote 21

Canada Council for the Arts. France Trépanier and Chris Creighton-Kelly. 2012. Understanding Aboriginal Arts in Canada Today: A Knowledge and Literature Review.

Return to footnote 21 referrer

Footnote 22

House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. 2018. Moving Forward – Towards a Stronger Canadian Museum Sector- (PDF version, 3.7 MB).

Return to footnote 22 referrer

Footnote 23

Mina Para Matlon, Ingrid Van Haastrecht and Kaitlyn Wittig Mengüç. 2014. Figuring the Plural (PDF version, 6.73 MB)

Return to footnote 23 referrer

Footnote 24

Return to footnote 24 referrer

Footnote 25

Department of Canadian Heritage. 2017-18 Departmental Plan.

Return to footnote 25 referrer

Footnote 26

Department of Canadian Heritage. 2015-16. Departmental Performance Report.

Return to footnote 26 referrer

Footnote 27

Department of Canadian Heritage. 2015-16. Departmental Performance Report.

Return to footnote 27 referrer

Footnote 28

Government of Canada. Budget 2016.

Return to footnote 28 referrer

Footnote 29

Government of Canada. 2015. Minister of Canadian Heritage Mandate Letter.

Return to footnote 29 referrer

Footnote 30

Government of Canada. 2015. Speech from the Throne to Open the First Session of the Forty-second Parliament of Canada.

Return to footnote 30 referrer

Footnote 31

Government of Canada. Budget 2016.

Return to footnote 31 referrer

Footnote 32

Government of Canada. 2015. Speech from the Throne to Open the First Session of the Forty-second Parliament of Canada.

Return to footnote 32 referrer

Footnote 33

Government of Canada. Budget 2018.

Return to footnote 33 referrer

Footnote 34

Government of Canada. 2018. Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism Mandate Letter.

Return to footnote 34 referrer

Footnote 35

Government of Canada. Budget 2018.

Return to footnote 35 referrer

Footnote 36

Government of Canada. 2018. Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism Mandate Letter.

Return to footnote 36 referrer

Footnote 37

Government of Canada. Department of Canadian Heritage Act.

Return to footnote 37 referrer

Footnote 38

Environics Research Group. 2017. Arts and Heritage Access and Availability Survey 2016-17. (PDF version, 1.27 MB)

Return to footnote 38 referrer

Footnote 39

Environics Research Group. 2017. Arts and Heritage Access and Availability Survey 2016-17. (PDF version, 1.27 MB)

Return to footnote 39 referrer

Footnote 40

Statistics Canada: Table 21-10-0189-01 Performing arts, sources of public sector grants, not-for-profit.

Return to footnote 40 referrer

Footnote 41

Infrastructure Canada. Investing in Canada plan programs delivered through Infrastructure Canada.

Return to footnote 41 referrer

Footnote 42

Based on extrapolated estimates since not all projects had submitted final reports.

Return to footnote 42 referrer

Footnote 43

Block-booking/marketing refers to booking and marketing touring artists in partnership with other presenters; and contact event refers to events which bring together performing arts presenters and in-demand, tour-ready arts performers to showcase their programming.

Return to footnote 43 referrer

Footnote 44

Performance indicators changed in 2014-15 when FCBT was integrated within CAPF as a component.

Return to footnote 44 referrer

Footnote 45

Based on extrapolated estimates since some final reports had not yet been received.

Return to footnote 45 referrer

Footnote 46

Ibid.

Return to footnote 46 referrer

Footnote 47

Ibid.

Return to footnote 47 referrer

Footnote 48

Performance indicators changed in 2014-15 when FCBT was integrated within CAPF as a component.

Return to footnote 48 referrer

Footnote 49

Nordicity. 2017. Economic and Social Impact of the Confederation Centre of the Arts Final Report.

Return to footnote 49 referrer

Footnote 50

Nordicity. 2017. Economic and Social Impact of the Confederation Centre of the Arts Final Report.

Return to footnote 50 referrer

Footnote 51

Excludes 2017-18 due to incomplete data.

Return to footnote 51 referrer

Footnote 52

Since a project can include multiple target areas, totals will not add-up to 100%.

Return to footnote 52 referrer

Footnote 53

Program indicated that the definition of “Tools” was never clearly defined for the recipients which may have resulted in inconsistent categorization of Activities & Tools and their fluctuations.

Return to footnote 53 referrer

Footnote 54

Artsvest website.

Return to footnote 54 referrer

Footnote 55

Environics Research Group. 2017. Arts and Heritage Access and Availability Survey 2016-17. (PDF version, 1.27 MB)

Return to footnote 55 referrer

Footnote 56

The CCSF average only includes 2015-16 to 2017-18.

Return to footnote 56 referrer

Footnote 57

Previous Evaluation 1 for CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF includes 2007-08 to 2012-13.

Return to footnote 57 referrer

Footnote 58

Previous Evaluation 2 for CAPF includes 2001-02 to 2006-07, and CCSF and CCIF includes 2001-02 to 2007-08.

Return to footnote 58 referrer

Footnote 59

Government of Canada. Summary of key changes made to the Endowment Incentives Component of the Canada Cultural Investment Fund (CCIF) (2018-10-25)

Return to footnote 59 referrer

Footnote 60

Department of Canadian Heritage. 2016-17. Departmental Plan.

Return to footnote 60 referrer

Footnote 61

Toronto Arts Council. Newcomer and Refugee Artist Mentorship.

Return to footnote 61 referrer

Footnote 62

Centre for Philanthropy: University of Kent. 2017. Evaluation of the Catalyst: Endowment Grant Programme.

Return to footnote 62 referrer

Footnote 63

Canada’s National Advisory Board to the Social Impact Investment Taskforce. 2014. Mobilizing Private Capital for Public Good: Priorities for Canada (PDF version, 374 KB).; and Employment and Social Development Canada. 2018. Inclusive Innovation: New Ideas and New Partnerships for Stronger Communities - Recommendations of the Social Innovation and Social Finance Strategy Co-Creation Steering Group.

Return to footnote 63 referrer

Page details

Date modified:: 2019-12-24

Grouped Arts Evaluation: Canada Arts Presentation Fund, Canada Cultural Spaces Fund, and Canada Cultural Investment Fund 2013-14 to 2017-18

On this page

List of tables

List of figures

List of acronyms and abbreviations

Executive summary

Program descriptions

Evaluation approach

Findings

Relevance

Effectiveness

CAPF

CCSF

CCIF

Long-term

Government-wide policy considerations

Efficiency

Program Design Challenges

Performance Management Challenges

Recommendations

Recommendation 1

Recommendation 2

1. Introduction

2. Program profiles

2.1. Canada Arts Presentation Fund

2.1.1. Overview

2.1.2. History

2.1.3. Objective and expected results

2.1.4. Target groups and stakeholders

2.1.5. Resources

2.2. Canada Cultural Spaces Fund

2.2.1. Overview

2.2.2. History

2.2.3. Objective and expected results

2.2.4. Target groups and stakeholders

2.2.5. Resources

2.3. Canada Cultural Investment Fund

2.3.1. Overview

2.3.2. History

2.3.3. Objective and expected results

2.3.4. Target groups and stakeholders

2.3.5. Resources

3. Approach and methodology

3.1. Scope, timeline and quality control

3.2. Evaluation issues

3.3. Data collection methods

3.3.1. Document review

3.3.2. Literature review

3.3.3. Administrative data review

3.3.4. Interviews with stakeholders

3.3.5. Focus group

3.3.6. Survey of applicants

3.3.7. Case study

3.3.8. Expert panels

3.4. Constraints, limitations, and mitigation strategies

4. Findings

4.1. Relevance

4.1.1. Relevance: ongoing need for the programs

Canadians strongly valued arts and culture experiences

Demand for professional arts experiences that were cutting edge and reflected diverse perspectives

Need for Canadian cultural institutions to adapt and evolve

Increased costs of presentation

Need to upgrade, renovate, and replace aging infrastructure and ensure good planning

Specialized equipment needs replacing frequently due to technological advancements

New digitization costs

Need for incentives for private sector donors

Demographic factors further augmented the need for donor incentives

Need for arts and heritage organizations to enhance business practices

The CAPF increased access to innovative professional artistic experiences across Canada

The CCSF responded to demand for modern arts and heritage spaces that reflect changing cultural, accessibility, and technical equipment needs

The CCIF responded to the needs by encouraging private funding in arts organizations and helping arts and heritage organizations to improve their business practices, capacity, and partnerships

Unmet needs

Unmet needs and barriers to program funding faced by underserved groups

Barriers faced by Indigenous groups

Barriers faced by ethnocultural and racialized groups

Financial sustainability for larger arts organizations

4.1.2. Relevance: harmonization with government priorities and PCH core responsibilities

The CAPF, CCSF, and CCIF aligned with PCH priorities that support access to Canadian arts and culture experiences, community investment, and advancing the use of digital technology

The programs also aligned with federal government priorities of supporting cultural industries and infrastructure, celebrating heritage and diversity, and supporting Indigenous arts and heritage

4.1.3. Relevance: harmonization with government roles and responsibilities