COVID-19 Emergency Support Fund – Deck Phase 1 Survey

On this page

Context

COVID-19 economic impact on the Arts, Entertainment and Recreation sector

In March 2020, COVID-19 hit the culture, heritage and sport sectors hard and its impacts are still ongoing. The Arts, Entertainment and Recreation sector, experienced a 58.2% drop in GDP and 48.9% drop in employment from February 2020 to April 2020.

Figure 1. GPD and Employment Growth by Sector (February 2020 to April 2020)

Source: Statistics Canada: Survey of Employment Payroll and Hours (accessed 22/10/2020) & Gross Domestic Product by Industry - National (Monthly)

Figure 1. GPD and Employment Growth by Sector (February 2020 to April 2020) – text version
Sector GDP Employment
All industries -18.1% -16.2%
Arts, entertainment and recreation -58.2% -48.9%

While some sectors started to recover over the summer, in the Arts, Entertainment and Recreation sector GDP and employment were down 52.1% and 38.3%, respectively, between July 2019 to July 2020.

Figure 2. GPD and Employment Growth by Sector (July 2019 to July 2020)

Source: Statistics Canada: Survey of Employment Payroll and Hours (accessed 22/10/2020) & Gross Domestic Product by Industry - National (Monthly)

Figure 2. GPD and Employment Growth by Sector (July 2019 to July 2020) – text version
Sector GDP Employment
All industries -5% -11%
Arts, entertainment and recreation -52.1% -38.3%

COVID-19 Emergency Support Fund for Cultural, Heritage and Sport Organizations.

On April 17, 2020, the Prime Minister announced funding of $500 million to establish a new COVID-19 Emergency Support Fund (ESF) for Cultural, Heritage and Sport Organizations.

Implemented in two phases, the Emergency Support Fund was an additional temporary measure created to provide financial support to organizations in these sectors.

Results and Monitoring Framework and Survey

In June 2020, the Department of Canadian Heritage developed a COVID-19 Results and Monitoring Framework and survey to report on the expected results of the Emergency Support Fund:

Phase 1 - $291.3 million (actuals as of September 30, 2020):

Phase 2 - $190.3 million (actuals as of September 30, 2020):

Phase 1 Survey recipients

The survey was distributed to Phase 1 recipients in September and October 2020.

The key findings presented next reflect the views of Phase 1 Emergency Support Fund respondents and not the culture, heritage and sport sectors overall.

Scope of these key findings represents 56% of Phase 1 Emergency Support Fund recipients.

Figure 3. The survey was distributed to Phase 1 Recipients in September/October 2020
Figure 3. The survey was distributed to Phase 1 Recipients in September/October 2020 – Text version
  • Total organizations reached 4,361
  • Total responses 2,461
  • Total response rate 56%
  • Total feedback 714 pages
  • Total key partners 40

Phase 1 high level findings

Impact of the pandemic on respondent organizations.

A large majority of respondents reported that prior to receiving the Emergency Support Fund funding, the COVID-19 crisis affected their organization financially.

Figure 4. Extent of financial impact of COVID-19 on respondent organizations prior to receiving Emergency Support Fund funding
Figure 4. Extent of financial impact of COVID-19 on respondent organizations prior to receiving Emergency Support Fund funding – Text version

Extent of financial impact of COVID-19 on respondent organizations prior to receiving Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding:

  • 68% of respondents reported that prior to receiving the ESF funding, the COVID-19 crisis affected their organization financially to a large extent.
  • 28% of respondents reported that prior to receiving the ESF funding, the COVID-19 crisis affected their organization financially to a moderate extent.
  • 4% of respondents reported that prior to receiving the ESF funding, the COVID-19 crisis affected their organization financially to a small extent.
  • 0.4% of respondents reported that prior to receiving the ESF funding, the COVID-19 crisis did not at all affect their organization financially.

Impact of the Emergency Support Fund on the sector

Purpose and helpfulness of the Emergency Support Fund.

Responses indicate that the Fund met its intended objectives of supporting business continuity and maintaining jobs.

Figure 5. Purpose for seeking Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding and helpfulness
Figure 5. Purpose for seeking Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding and helpfulness – Text version

Purpose for seeking Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding and helpfulness:

  • Section in green represents supporting business continuity purposes:
    • 63% to pay for operating costs other than labour costs (e.g. rent, utilities, insurance, property taxes, etc.), of which 78% of respondents reported that the ESF funding was helpful to a large or moderate extent.
  • Section in orange represents supporting maintaining jobs:
    • 50% to pay self-employed workers and freelancers, of which 83% of respondents reported that the ESF funding was helpful to a large or moderate extent.
    • 43% to pay wages of employees in the organization, of which 76% of respondents reported that the ESF funding was helpful to a large or moderate extent.
  • Section in blue represents adapting business model, implementing new required public health measures, honouring existing contracts:
    • 46% to adapt business model (e.g. adoption of innovation solutions and tools, digital transformation), of which 76% of respondents reported that the ESF was helpful to a large or moderate extent.
    • 40% to honour existing contracts for cancelled, postponed or modified projects (e.g. technical teams, artists fess, stage, security, facility rental), of which 79% of respondents reported that the ESF funding was helpful to a large or moderate extent.
    • 30% to implement new required public safety measures, of which 68% of respondents reported that the ESF funding was helpful to a large or moderate extent.
  • Section in grey represents other purposes:
    • 10% for others reasons, of which 78% of respondents reported that the ESF funding was helpful to a large or moderate extent.

Complementary support measures.

The Emergency Support Fund is one among many mechanisms of support used by respondents to weather the effects of the pandemic.

Figure 6. Complementary support measures received by respondents
Figure 6. Complementary support measures received by respondents – Text version

42% of respondents received emergency support from the federal government.

Many organizations received additional support from other federal government emergency measures, as follows:

  • 30% of respondents received federal government funding through the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy;
  • 16% of respondents received federal government funding through the Canada Emergency Business Account;
  • 13% of respondents received federal government funding through the Temporary Wage Subsidy for Employees;
  • 5% of respondents received federal government funding through Other Federal Programs;
  • 2% of respondents received federal government funding through the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance for Small Business;
  • 1% of respondents received federal government funding through the Business Credit Availability Program.

27% of respondents received funding support from provincial and territorial government.

10% of respondents received funding support from municipal government.

4% of respondents received funding support from business.

1% of respondents received funding support from Not-for-Profit organizations.

0.3% of respondents received funding support from an Indigenous government, body or organization.

Respondent Satisfaction

Respondents were satisfied with each step of the Emergency Support Fund delivery process.

Figure 7. Respondents satisfaction with the delivery process of the Emergency Support Fund
Figure 7. Respondents satisfaction with the delivery process of the Emergency Support Fund – Text version
  • 98% of respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with the timeliness at which funds were received following the submission of the attestation and application.
  • 94% of respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with the attestation and application submission process.
  • 91% of respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with the portal used to submit applications. This question was not applicable to all recipients.
  • 87% of respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with the interaction with program officers assigned to the organizations.
  • 86 % of respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with the information received throughout the process.
  • 81% of respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with the amount the organization received.

Extent the Emergency Support Fund helped stabilize the overall sector

Respondents perceived that the Emergency Support Fund helped stabilize their sector.

Figure 8. The extent to which respondents think the Emergency Support Fund (ESF) helped stabilize their sector overall
Figure 8. The extent to which respondents think the Emergency Support Fund (ESF) helped stabilize their sector overall – Text version

The extent to which respondents think the Emergency Support Fund (ESF) helped stabilize their sector overall:

  • 44% of respondents reported that the ESF funding helped stabilize their sector overall to a large extent.
  • 37% of respondents reported that the ESF funding helped stabilize their sector overall to a moderate extent.
  • 17% of respondents reported that the ESF funding helped stabilize their sector overall to a small extent.
  • 2% of respondents reported that the ESF funding did not at all help stabilize their sector overall.

Culture Value Chain

The Emergency Support Fund supported every part of the culture value chain.

Respondents, excluding respondents from the Sport Support Program, were asked: With which part(s) of the cultural value chain does their organization’s activities align?

Diversity and inclusion

47% of respondents indicated the Fund benefitted at least one diverse community, group or people.

80% of respondents reported that their organization undertakes strategies to support diversity and inclusion.

Nearly half of all respondents indicated that they undertake strategies to support Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples.

Figure 9. Percentage of organizations indicating that the funding benefitted at least one diverse community, group or people
Figure 9. Percentage of organizations indicating that the Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding benefitted at least one diverse community, group, or people – Text version
Communities, Groups, People Percentage of organizations indicating that the ESF benefitted the following:
Racialized communities 22%
Official Languages minority communities 8%
Religious minorities 2%
Remote and Northern communities 4%
Rural communities 8%
Seniors 9%
Those with low income 15%
Women 25%
Youth 15%
Deaf communities 3%
Ethno-cultural communities 9%
Gender diverse communities 12%
Immigrant and refugees 9%
Indigenous Peoples 17%
LGBTQ2 communities 17%
Persons with disabilities 8%

Preliminary qualitative results

Qualitative analysis is currently under way. Preliminary findings include:

Conclusion and next steps

The 56% response rate and the quality of the 714 pages of feedback received through the open ended questions shows that ESF recipients were very interested in sharing their experiences with us.

Results show that the Emergency Support Fund, along with other measures, helped existing client organizations maintain jobs and support business continuity.

For respondents who said the Fund did not help them stay in operation, the most cited reason was insufficient funding.

Phase 2 survey to be administered in mid-November.

Dashboard – all phase 1 survey questions

Part 1: Information About the Organization’s Application to the Emergency Support Fund (ESF)

Figure 10. Survey question 2 - Amount of Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding received
Figure 10. Survey question 2 - Amount of Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding received – Text version

Amount of Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding received:

Survey question 2: How much Emergency Support Fund funding did your organizations receive?

  • 36% of respondents received $9,999 and below.
  • 27% of respondents received between $10,000 and $24,999.
  • 17% of respondents received between $25,000 and $49,999.
  • 9% of respondents received between $50,000 and $99,999.
  • 11% of respondents received $100,000 and over.
Figure 11. Survey question 3 - Other source of funding received
Figure 11. Survey question 3 - Other source of funding received – Text version

Other source of funding received:

Survey question 3: Has your organization received any other funding from any of the following?

  • 42% of respondents received emergency support from the federal government.
  • 27% of respondents received funding support from provincial and territorial government.
  • 10% of respondents received funding support from municipal government.
  • 0.3% of respondents received funding support from an Indigenous government, body or organization.
  • 4% of respondents received funding support from business.
  • 1% of respondents received funding support from Not-for-Profit organizations.
  • 10% of respondents received funding support from other sources.
Figure 12. Survey question 3 – Organizations that received federal funding
Figure 12. Survey question 3 – Organizations that received federal funding – Text version

Organizations that received Federal funding:

Survey question 3: From which of the following federal emergency measures did your organization receive funding?

  • 30% of respondents received federal government funding through the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy.
  • 16% of respondents received federal government funding through the Canada Emergency Business Account.
  • 13% of respondents received federal government funding through the Temporary Wage Subsidy for Employees.
  • 5% of respondents received federal government funding through Other Federal Programs.
  • 2% of respondents received federal government funding through the Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance for Small Business.
  • 1% of respondents received federal government funding through the Business Credit Availability Program.

Part 2: Impact of the Pandemic on Your Organization

Figure 13. Survey question 4 - Impact of Covid-19 prior to receiving Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding
Figure 13. Survey question 4 - Impact of Covid-19 prior to receiving Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding – Text version

Impact of COVID-19:

Survey question 4: Prior to receiving Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding, to what extent did the COVID-19 crisis affect your organization financially (e.g. increased expenses/reduced revenues)?

  • 68% of respondents reported that prior to receiving the ESF funding, the COVID-19 crisis affected their organization financially to a large extent.
  • 28% of respondents reported that prior to receiving the ESF funding, the COVID-19 crisis affected their organization financially to a moderate extent.
  • 4% of respondents reported that prior to receiving the ESF funding, the COVID-19 crisis affected their organization financially to a small extent.
  • 0.4% of respondents reported that prior to receiving the ESF funding, the COVID-19 crisis did not at all affect their organization financially.

Part 3: Impact of the Emergency Support Fund (ESF) on Your Organization

Figure 14. Survey question 6 - Funding purpose
Figure 14. Survey question 6 - Funding purpose – Text version

Funding purpose:

Survey question 6: For what purpose(s) did your organization seek Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding?

  • 63% to pay for operating costs other than labour costs (e.g. rent, utilities, insurance, property taxes, etc.), of which 78% of respondents reported that the ESF funding was helpful to a large or moderate extent.
  • 50% to pay self-employed workers and freelancers, of which 83% of respondents reported that the ESF funding was helpful to a large or moderate extent.
  • 43% to pay wages of employees in the organization, of which 76% of respondents reported that the ESF funding was helpful to a large or moderate extent.
  • 46% to adapt business model (e.g. adoption of innovation solutions and tools, digital transformation), of which 76% of respondents reported that the ESF was helpful to a large or moderate extent.
  • 40% to honour existing contracts for cancelled, postponed or modified projects (e.g. technical teams, artists fess, stage, security, facility rental), of which 79% of respondents reported that the ESF funding was helpful to a large or moderate extent.
  • 30% to implement new required public safety measures, of which 68% of respondents reported that the ESF funding was helpful to a large or moderate extent.
  • 10% for other reasons, of which 78% of respondents reported that the ESF funding was helpful to a large or moderate extent.
Figure 15. Survey question 7 - Impact on Business continuity
Figure 15. Survey question 7 - Impact on Business continuity – Text version

Impact on Business Continuity:

Survey question 7: To what extend did the Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding help your organization stay in operations?

  • 41% of respondents reported the ESF funding helped their organization stay in operation to a large extent.
  • 36% of respondents reported the ESF funding helped their organization stay in operation to a moderate extent.
  • 20% of respondents reported the ESF funding helped their organization stay in operation to a small extent.
  • 3% of respondents reported the ESF funding did not at all help their organization stay in operation.

Follow up to survey question 7: Why did the ESF not help your organization stay in operation?

  • 52% indicated that the amount received was insufficient.
  • 25% indicated that the organization did not need ESF funding to stay in operations.
  • 23% indicated other reasons.
  • 17% indicated that the most important issues could not be addressed through funding.
  • 4% indicated that the amount received came too late.
Figure 16. Survey question 8 - Operations
Figure 16. Survey question 8 - Operations – Text version

Operations:

Survey question 8: Please indicate your plans to continue operations:

  • 91% of respondents reported that they are operating and plan to continue operations.
  • 8% of respondents reported temporary closure and plan to resume within six months.
  • 1% of respondents reported to likely to permanently cease operations within the next six months
  • 0% of respondents reported permanently ceased operations.

Part 4: Impact of the Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding on the sector

Figure 17. Survey question 10 - Overall impact of the Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding on the sector
Figure 17. Survey question 10 - Overall impact of the Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding on the sector – Text version

Overall impact of the Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding on the sector:

Survey question number 10: To what extent do you think the Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding helped stabilize your sector overall?

  • 44% of respondents reported the ESF funding helped stabilize their sector overall to a large extent.
  • 37% of respondents reported the ESF funding helped stabilize their sector overall to a moderate extent.
  • 17% of respondents reported the ESF funding helped stabilize their sector overall to a small extent.
  • 2% of respondents reported the ESF funding did not at all help stabilize their sector overall.
Figure 18. Survey question 11 - Diversity and inclusion
Figure 18. Survey question 11 - Diversity and inclusion – Text version

Diversity and inclusion:

Survey question 11: Did any Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding received by your organization benefit diverse communities, groups or people (e.g. gender diverse communities, persons with disabilities, ethno-cultural communities, youth)?

  • 47% of respondents reported the ESF funding benefitted at least one diverse community, group or people.
  • 36% of respondents reported the ESF did not benefit at least one diverse community, group or people due to no notable characteristics.
  • 17% of respondents reported the ESF did not benefit at least one diverse community, group or people due to insufficient information.

Follow up to survey question 11: Which of the following communities, groups or people benefitted? (select all that apply)?

Communities, Groups, People Which of the following communities, groups or people benefitted? (select all that apply)
Ethno-cultural communities 9%
Gender diverse communities 12%
Immigrant and refugees 9%
Rural communities 8%
LGBTQ2 communities 17%
Official Languages minority communities 8%
Persons with disabilities 8%
Radicalized communities 22%
Religious minorities 2%
Remote and Northern communities 4%
Deaf communities 3%
Youth 15%
Women 25%
Those with low income 15%
Seniors 9%
Indigenous Peoples 17%

Part 5: Process of Receiving the Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding.

Figure 19. Survey question 13 - Satisfaction with process of receiving Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding
Figure 19. Survey question 13 - Satisfaction with process of receiving Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding – Text version

Process of receiving funds:

Survey question 13: Thinking of the process of receiving Emergency Support Fund (ESF) funding, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the following:

  • The attestation and application submission process:
    • 81% of respondents reported that they were very satisfied;
    • 13% of respondents reported that they were somewhat satisfied;
    • 4% of respondents reported that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied;
    • 1% of respondents reported that they were somewhat dissatisfied;
    • 1% of respondents reported that they were very dissatisfied.
  • The timeliness at which funds were received following the submission of the attestation/application:
    • 88% of respondents that reported they were very satisfied;
    • 10% of respondents reported that they were somewhat satisfied;
    • 1% of respondents reported that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied;
    • 1% of respondents reported that they were somewhat dissatisfied;
    • 1% of respondents reported that they were very dissatisfied.
  • The amount your organization received:
    • 48% of respondents reported that they were very satisfied;
    • 32% of respondents reported that they were somewhat satisfied;
    • 9% of respondents reported that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied;
    • 7% of respondents reported that they were somewhat dissatisfied;
    • 4% of respondents reported that they were very dissatisfied.
  • The information received throughout the process:
    • 58% of respondents reported that they were very satisfied;
    • 28% of respondents reported that they were somewhat satisfied;
    • 10% of respondents reported that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied;
    • 3% of respondents reported that they were somewhat dissatisfied;
    • 1% of respondents reported that they were very dissatisfied.
  • The interaction with the program officer assigned to your organization:
    • 70% of respondents reported that they were very satisfied;
    • 17% of respondents reported that they were somewhat satisfied;
    • 10% of respondents reported that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied;
    • 1% of respondents reported that they were somewhat dissatisfied;
    • 1% of respondents reported that they were very dissatisfied.
  • The portal used to submit the applications:
    • 72% of respondents reported that they were very satisfied;
    • 19% of respondents reported that they were somewhat satisfied;
    • 7% of respondents reported that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied;
    • 1% of respondents reported that they were somewhat dissatisfied;
    • 1% of respondents reported that they were very dissatisfied.

Part 6: Information About Your Organization

Figure 20. Survey question 15 – Value Chain
Figure 20. Survey question 15 – Value Chain – Text version

Value Chain:

Survey question 15: With which part(s) of the cultural value chain does your organization’s activities align? (select all that apply)

  • 60% of respondents reported that their organization’s activities align with creation.
  • 51% of respondents reported that their organization’s activities align with production.
  • 44% of respondents reported that their organization’s activities align with dissemination.
  • 44% of respondents reported that their organization’s activities align with exhibition.
  • 38% of respondents reported that their organization’s activities align with consumption.
Figure 21. Survey question 16 – Type of organization
Figure 21. Survey question 16 – Type of organization – Text version

Type of organization:

Survey question 16: Choose the categories that best fit your organization. (select all that apply):

  • 36% of respondents selected business.
  • 56% of respondents selected Not-for-Profit.
  • 2% of respondents selected cooperative.
  • 3% of respondents selected group/collective.
  • 21% of respondents selected charity.
  • 1% of respondents selected public/government.
  • 2% of respondents selected Indigenous organization of which:
    • 69% are First Nations;
    • 22% are Métis;
    • 9% are Inuit.
  • 3% of respondents selected other.
Figure 22. Survey question 17 – Operating budget
Figure 22. Survey question 17 – Operating budget – Text version

Operating budget:

Survey question 17: What was your organization’s operating budget in 2019 (or the last completed fiscal year)?

  • 20% of respondents reported an operating budget of $99,999 and under.
  • 22% of respondents reported an operating budget between $100,000 and $249,999.
  • 18% of respondents reported an operating budget between $250,000 and $499,999.
  • 15% of respondents reported an operating budget between $500,000 and $999,999.
  • 24% of reported an operating budget of $1,000,000 and above.
Figure 23. Survey question 18 – Number of employees
Figure 23. Survey question 18 – Number of employees – Text version

Number of employees:

Survey question 18: How many _____ did your organization have in its peak between April 2019 and March 2020?

Full-time employees:

  • 22% of respondents reported having no full-time employees.
  • 61% of respondents reported having one to nine full-time employees.
  • 17% of respondents reported having ten or more full-time employees.

Part-time employees:

  • 31% of respondents reported having no part-time employees.
  • 56% of respondents reported having one to nine part-time employees.
  • 13% of respondents reported having ten or more part-time employees.

Volunteers:

  • 33% of respondents reported having no volunteers.
  • 21% of respondents reported having one to nine volunteers.
  • 46% of respondents reported having ten or more volunteers.

Self-employed workers/freelancers:

  • 10% of respondents reported having no self-employed workers/freelancers.
  • 46% of respondents reported having one to nine self-employed workers/freelancers.
  • 44% of respondents reported having ten or more self-employed workers/freelancers.
Figure 24. Survey question 19 – Location of headquarters
Figure 24. Survey question 19 – Location of headquarters – Text version

HQ location:

Survey question 19: In which province/territory is your organization’s headquarters?

  • West (Alberta and British Columbia): 20%
  • Prairies (Manitoba and Saskatchewan): 6%
  • Atlantic (New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island): 9%
  • Ontario: 31%
  • Quebec: 33%
  • Territories (Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon): 0.8%
Figure 25. Survey question 20 – Geographic reach
Figure 25. Survey question 20 – Geographic reach– Text version

Geographic reach:

Survey question 20: What is the geographic reach of your organization’s activities within Canada?

  • National (Canada-wide): 47%
  • Within the West (Alberta and British Columbia): 13%
  • Within the Prairies (Manitoba and Saskatchewan): 5%
  • Within the Atlantic (New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island): 8%
  • Within Ontario: 18%
  • Within Quebec: 20%
  • Within the Territories (Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon): 0.3%
Figure 26. Survey question 21- International reach
Figure 26. Survey question 21- International reach – Text version

International reach:

Survey question 21: Does your organization have an international reach?

  • Yes: 67%
  • No: 33%
Figure 27. Survey question 22 – Diversity & inclusion
Figure 27. Survey question 22 – Diversity & inclusion – Text version

Diversity & inclusion:

Survey question 22: Does your organization undertake strategies to support diversity and inclusion?

  • Yes: 80%
  • No: 20%

Follow-up to survey question 22: What strategies does your organization undertake to support diversity and inclusion? (select all that apply)

  • Collect and monitor internal employment diversity data: 26%
  • Collect and monitor demographics of volunteers: 14%
  • Collect and monitor demographics of beneficiaries of the organization: 17%
  • Track and evaluate diversity and inclusion objectives for the organization: 39%
  • Advocate for the needs of one or more diversity groups as a central purpose of the organization: 26%
  • Administer specialized programing (initiative, funding, etc.) for diversity groups: 23%
  • Administer diversity and inclusion-related training to staff and/or volunteers (i.e. anti-racism training, accessibility training, anti-oppression training etc.): 24%

Follow-up to survey question 22: For which diversity group(s) did your organization advocate / administer specialized programming:

Diversity group Advocates Administers programming
Ethno-cultural communities 10% 6%
Gender diverse communities 10% 6%
Immigrants and refugees 10% 7%
Rural communities 6% 5%
LGBTQ2 communities 15% 10%
Official language minorities 7% 6%
Persons with disabilities 7% 6%
Racialized communities 15% 12%
Religious minorities 2% 1%
Remote and Northern communities 4% 3%
Seniors 7% 8%
Those with low income 9% 8%
Women 16% 10%
Youth 12% 12%
Indigenous Peoples 16% 15%
Deaf communities 3% 4%
Figure 28. Survey question 23 – Reconciliation strategies
Figure 28. Survey question 23 – Reconciliation strategies – Text version

Reconciliation strategies:

Survey question 23: Does your organization undertake strategies to support Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples?

  • Yes: 49%
  • No: 51%

Follow-up to survey question 23: What strategies does your organization undertake to support Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples? (select all that apply)

  • Administer specialized programming: 16%
  • Advocate for needs of Indigenous Peoples as a central purpose of the organization: 7%
  • Develop cultural competencies within the organization: 18%
  • Communicates an organizational reconciliation statement: 12%
  • Track and evaluate Reconciliation-related objectives for the organization: 9%
  • Other: 11%
Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: