Evaluation of the Impact Assessment Grants and Contributions Program: Final Report

© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, 2025.

This publication may be reproduced for personal or internal use without permission, provided the source is fully acknowledged. However, multiple copy reproduction of this publication in whole or in part for purposes of redistribution requires the prior written permission from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3, or information@iaac-aeic.gc.ca.

Catalogue Number: En106-283/2025E-PDF

ISBN 978-0-660-75561-8

This document has been issued in French under the title: Évaluation du programme de subventions et contributions pour l’évaluation d’impact.

• Acronyms
• Executive Summary
• Management Response and Action Plan
• 1.0 Introduction
  • 1.1 Background and Program Description
  • 1.2 Evaluation Objectives and Scope
  • 1.3 Evaluation Methodology and Limitations
• 2.0 Findings
  • 2.1 Relevance
  • 2.2 Effectiveness
  • 2.3 Efficiency
• 3.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
  • 3.1 Conclusions
  • 3.2 Recommendations
• Appendix A: Logic Models for Program Components
• Appendix B: Evaluation Matrix

Acronyms

FRC

Funding Review Committees

G&C

Grants and Contributions

GBA

Gender-based analysis

GCOC

Grants and Contributions Oversight Committee

GGI

Goss Gilroy Inc.

IA

Impact Assessment

IAA

Impact Assessment Act

IAAC

Impact Assessment Agency of Canada

IAC

Indigenous Advisory Committee

PDP

Policy Dialogue Program

PFP

Participant Funding Program

PIP

Performance Information Profiles

PM

Performance Measurement

RA

Regional Assessment

RP

Research Program

TAC

Technical Advisory Committee

Executive Summary

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) conducted an evaluation of the Impact Assessment (IA) Grants and Contributions (G&C) Program. The evaluation was completed in 2024-25. The objective of the evaluation is to assess the relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency of the IA G&C Program from 2019-20 to 2022-23, as well as interactions/relationships between the four individual components.

The evaluation used six data collection methods, including: document, administrative data and file review; key informant interviews with three stakeholder types: internal stakeholders, external stakeholders, and funding recipients from all program components; an online survey of funding recipients; project case studies; a comparative review examining similar funding and research programs delivered by other federal organizations; and application of a Knowledge Uptake and Use Tool (KUUT) focusing on five research products.

The IA G&C Program

IAAC engages with public and Indigenous communities and organizations to fulfill statutory requirements, carry out the Crown’s legal duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples, advance reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, and promote strong policy development and good governance.

The objective of the IA G&C Program is to reduce financial barriers for people across Canada to participate meaningfully in project and regional assessments and policy development, to build capacity for Indigenous communities and organizations to participate in current and future assessments, and support research related to impact assessment. The four components that comprise the Program are:

• Participant Funding Program (PFP);
• Indigenous Capacity Support Program (ICSP);
• Policy Dialogue Program (PDP); and
• Research Program (RP).

Conclusions

Relevance

There is an ongoing need for the Program. It is meeting the need of IAAC to deliver on its mandate and the legal obligation for the Government of Canada to ensure the participation and engagement of Indigenous Peoples and stakeholders. It is also meeting the needs of funding recipients to build their capacity to empower community members to participate in current and future project Indigenous consultations and public engagement. The Program addresses this need by providing funding that: 1) increases capacity around IA; 2) increases understanding of IA and IA-related processes and activities; and 3) enables participation in the IA process.

Remaining gaps in addressing the needs of Program recipients include areas pertaining to funding amounts, sufficiency to build capacity and flexibility to use funds on other priorities.

The extent to which the needs of diverse populations are considered by the Program differs across the four program components. Specifically, the PFP and PDP program guidelines do not mention diversity as a criterion or consideration for funding, whereas the ICSP and RP have considered diversity in determining funding amounts and priorities. The Program’s design and implementation considers the needs of diverse populations via the inclusion of Gender-based Analysis (GBA) Plus in funding calls and assessment criteria, simplified processes to encourage applications from lower-capacity communities, attempts to achieve a balance of genders on committees, and available funding for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous applicants. In turn, gaps are reflected by a lack of targeted outreach strategies directed at affected populations, limited diversity among funding recipients, and a lack of support for low-capacity communities.

The Program is clearly aligned with federal government and IAAC priorities. Notably, IAAC has a statutory requirement to carry-out the Crown’s legal duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples, and the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) articulates that a participant funding program must be established. The IAA further discusses the importance of public participation in the impact assessment process, the government’s commitment to ensuring the rights of the Indigenous Peoples of Canada and to fostering reconciliation and working in partnership with them, and the government’s commitment to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Effectiveness

The evaluation found that PFP, ICSP and RP have built capacity in terms of increased knowledge, understanding, skills and/or information. However, the lack of capacity continues to be commonly mentioned as an opportunity for improvement and as a barrier for the achievement of outcomes. For the PDP, it is not clear whether capacity has been built (i.e., whether there is improved assessment knowledge and information, whether they are more able to provide advice and feedback), although a few PDP funding recipients said that it had.

In terms of improved relationships with Indigenous communities and organizations, the evaluation was not able to directly determine progress. Through the use of proxy indicators, it appears that relationships with Indigenous communities and organizations have improved. The PDP has an outcome that includes relationships with the public, but the evidence is less positive, with a lower percentage of repeat recipients who are stakeholders. However, IAAC did attend a large number of meetings with stakeholders. For its part, the RP has increased the diversity of researchers as well as the breadth of the research community, although to a lesser extent.

The evaluation found that the Program has increased participation and/or engagement in assessment-related activities, including providing feedback on assessment-related policies, guidelines, tools, and practices. The extent to which participation is meaningful is less apparent.

IA practitioners have better access to information from Indigenous communities and organizations and the public. This is occurring through activities funded through the PFP and PDP. The RP has also generated a great deal of information that has been shared, both internally and externally. However, the evaluation found that more should be done to increase the dissemination of research products, particularly to those outside of IAAC.

Thus, while there has been good progress towards the achievement of the immediate and most intermediate outcomes across all program components, the achievement of longer-term outcomes is less clear. In particular, more work is required to ensure that funding leads to meaningful participation, more effective assessments, and high-quality assessments.

Facilitating factors for the achievement of outcomes largely focused on high quality staff and good delivery processes. Hindering factors focus on funding amounts and restrictions, awareness of the program among some potential applicants, delays in funding decisions, and the lack of engagement with external partners and working level teams within IAAC to identify research priorities and communicate research products.

Efficiency

The Program’s overall design is appropriate and efficient. The different program components address various aspects related to participation in impact assessments and knowledge generation. Moreover, the design is integrated for the most part. Several measures have been taken to improve the efficiency of the Program, with recommendations presented to Grants and Contributions Oversight Committee in spring of 2021 and subsequently implemented. The Program also undertook two reviews to ensure the design and delivery is efficient and effective, which resulted in a series of recommendations being adopted by IAAC with the changes becoming the current features of the Program’s design and delivery approach. Several positive features of the design were highlighted by those consulted for the evaluation. The one commonly mentioned design improvement was the need for more funding, particularly long-term funding. More flexibility in what is funded and/or how funding can be used was also mentioned by funding recipients.

All design elements (i.e., scope, target audience, and eligibility criteria) for the PFP, ICSP and RP are consistent with comparable funding programs from other federal organizations and considered best practices. (PDP was not included in the comparative review due to the lack of comparable programs.)

The evaluation found that the delivery approaches for the program components are complementary and coordinated. Program administration, governance, decision-making and delivery is integrated for three program components (PFP, ICSP and PDP). The RP is managed under a separate organizational unit and appears to have unique mechanisms to identify and formulate funding initiatives. All program components contribute to the broader objectives of IAAC. An examination of the different logic models for each of the program components reveals a moderate degree of overlap between the outcomes of the PFP, ICSP and PDP.

The administration of the program is highly efficient. The application process for the IAAC program components was generally perceived by funding recipients as being clear, easy and efficient, with timely support provided by IAAC staff when requested. Having said that, several suggestions were made to improve outreach pertaining to funding opportunities and streamlining the application process. Many of those consulted for the evaluation noted recent improvements in the funding allocation processes. Improvement to the timeliness of decision-making in particular, is reflected in service standards. However, there is more work to be done to improve the timeliness of signing agreements, internal communications regarding available funding initiatives and streamline approvals particularly for repeat recipients. Governance and payment processes appear to be functioning well.

Performance measurement (PM) is in its early stages, with a PM Strategy introduced in 2023. While performance data is held by the Funding Program’s team in the Indigenous Partnerships Division, a review of the indicators and measurement approaches reveals that many indicators have multiple data owners. Best practice in performance measurement practices notes that accountability for collecting the indicator (or the data used to respond to the indicator) should rest with one position. Moreover, a review of the logic models for the program components also reveals a moderate degree of overlap between the outcomes of the PFP, ICSP and PDP (and minor overlap with RP outcomes). The presence of multiple data owners and overlap between outcomes (and indicators) could lead to decreased efficiencies and inconsistent reporting across program components. Monitoring approaches are generally consistent with practices in other departments, although a few funding recipients noted a few opportunities for improvement.

Recommendations

1. Increase consideration for the needs of diverse populations. Implement standardized procedures to ensure consistency in efforts to achieve greater diversity of participants across all funding components.
   • Consider embedding additional Equity, Diversity and Inclusion considerations and criteria in funding availability procedures to ensure a wide variety of organizations and communities (including low-capacity communities) have access to funding.
2. Increase public (i.e., non-Indigenous) participation in funding programs. Tailor outreach strategies and application procedures to encourage and facilitate access to funding (and subsequent participation in assessments) among members of the public (i.e., non-Indigenous individuals).
   • Ensure IAAC staff has the necessary information regarding available funding opportunities and target audiences.
   • Consider identifying community networks/forums to promote funding opportunities.
   • Consider creating a simplified application form that is tailored to members of the public.
3. Provide more detailed feedback to unsuccessful applicants.
   • For the ICSP in particular, improve the feedback mechanism for communicating funding decisions with applicants, including unsuccessful applicants, to promote transparency.
   • Consider sharing specific reasons for why the application was unsuccessful via a letter or by sharing the scoring grid with unsuccessful applicants.
4. Broaden dissemination of research products. Increase awareness and accessibility of the research products to broader audiences.
   • Consider identifying and implementing additional targeted dissemination strategies to improve the uptake of research findings both internally and externally.
5. Streamline performance measurement. Based on the experience from the first year of implementing the PM Strategy, consider developing and implementing a centralized G&C information management system that will:
   • To the extent possible assign accountability for the data associated with each indicator to a single position.
   • Integrate the collection of the same/similar data (for similar outcomes) among the program components to increase efficiency.
   • Streamline reporting to decision-makers, rather than providing separate but similar information by program component.

Management Response and Action Plan

Recommendation 1:

Increase consideration for the needs of diverse populations. Implement standardized procedures to ensure consistency in efforts to achieve greater diversity of participants across all funding components.

• Consider embedding additional Equity, Diversity and Inclusion considerations and criteria in funding availability procedures to ensure a wide variety of organizations and communities (including low-capacity communities) have access to funding.

Statement of agreement or disagreement

Program Management partially agrees with this recommendation.

Management Response

Funding program believes that this recommendation is not required for Indigenous funding under the Participant, Indigenous Capacity and Policy Dialogue Funding Programs. IAAC also has clear and documented processes to ensure they are reaching diverse groups of Indigenous Peoples, organizations, and members of the public.

Participant Funding Program

The Participant Funding Program (PFP) is already quite diverse and offers funding to all Indigenous groups identified for consultation, regardless of capacity, to support Indigenous participation in impact and regional assessments.

Under this program, funding is proactively made available to Indigenous groups based on the Preliminary Breadth and Depth of Consultation Assessment (PBDOCA) to help Indigenous groups effectively and efficiently participate in the assessment and consultation. The Agency tailors its consultation activities based on each project’s potential impact on Indigenous communities and their rights. IAAC, as the federal lead for Crown-Indigenous consultations during an assessment process, identifies Indigenous groups and jurisdictions potentially affected by a proposed project. IAAC also provides information and offers to consult and coordinate with these groups, encourages ongoing participation and collaboration, considers and responds to feedback from Indigenous groups before making decisions and identifies necessary mitigation and accommodation measures.

IAAC also recognizes that public participation is an essential part of an open, informed, and meaningful assessment process. One of its guiding principles for inclusive and equitable engagement is to identify and address barriers that can prevent the full and equal participation of members of the public in engagement activities and to tailor the engagement approach to the participants’ needs. IAAC has many documents and training to address common barriers to public participation and best practices to reduce or eliminate these barriers. IAAC has stakeholder identification checklists to assist project teams in identifying potential stakeholders that may be impacted by or interested in a specific project assessment. This compiled list includes diverse communities of individuals and/or organizations used during the pre-planning phase and throughout an assessment process.

For additional Equity, Diversity and Inclusion considerations and criteria in funding availability procedures for the public, IAAC works with other teams to look at broader inclusive communication strategies to ensure that communication materials are accessible and resonate with diverse audiences. It also works with these teams to implement feedback mechanisms, such as administering surveys, and receive comments from diverse populations to continuously improve services and address any concerns/barriers.

Policy Dialogue Program

For the Policy Dialogue Program (PDP), engaging with public sector, non-profit organizations and Indigenous groups on policy and regulatory initiatives is an essential part of achieving open, informed and meaningful impact assessment and regional and strategic assessment processes. Strong Indigenous and public participation provides IAAC with an opportunity to share information and received feedback with respect to the policy and regulatory initiatives. Similarly to the PFP, PDP has documented approaches to including Equity, Diversity and Inclusion groups, as well as GBA Plus considerations in targeting diverse participants.

Considerations include, inclusive criteria and eligible applicants, broad and inclusive communication strategies to ensure that communication materials are accessible and resonate with diverse audiences. The IAAC has also implemented feedback mechanisms, such as administering surveys, and receives comments from diverse populations to continuously improve services and address any concerns/barriers.

Note that IAAC leverages guidance and tools from teams in the Indigenous Relations Sector to ensure that all Indigenous groups are identified; this ensures appropriate email distributions across Indigenous communities (First Nations, Inuit, and Métis).

Indigenous Capacity Support Program

The Indigenous Capacity Support Program (ICSP) is offered solely to Indigenous recipients. The goal of this program is to help improve the capacity of Indigenous groups to participate in EA/IA/RA processes.

Stream 1 funding is provided to a wide variety of program partners and ensure recipients are regional and distinction based, and funding decisions are informed by GBA Plus considerations. The goal of Stream 1 is for larger, higher capacity organizations to support its members in ensuring they have the tools in place to participate in Environmental Assessments/Impact Assessments/Regional Assessments.

Stream 3 funding provides funding to communities with capacity constraints. The team works with regional offices and the Consultation Operations Division to ensure that applicants receiving funds are those that have demonstrated an urgent capacity need. The program does not only evaluate a recipient based on the quality of proposal but also on whether the activities align with the objective of the program. The application process has been streamlined to meet the Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada requirements.

Research Program

The Research Program (RP) acknowledges the need to increase the consideration for the needs of diverse populations during the application and funding review processes. The RP offers funding to a wide array of recipients, including Indigenous groups and organizations, academic researchers, not-for-profits, and individuals. In a recent open call for research applicants, the RP developed a plain language application form for applicants and advertised the callout using multiple platforms to ensure the funding opportunity was widely viewed. Within the application form, a section required applicants to provide information on how equity, diversion, and inclusion (EDI) criteria were considered in the project design. The RP is currently working on a standardized application form that includes EDI criterion and will work with the other funding teams at IAAC to develop a process for adequately assessing a project’s EDI considerations during funding application reviews.

The RP will continue to work to ensure that the needs of diverse populations are captured through the research topics funded and research design. To date, the RP has funded several projects focused on EDI, as well as on the experiences of diverse populations participating in impact assessment.

Management Action Plan

Management Action Plan (Recommendation 1)

Action or Deliverable	Expected Completion Date	Accountability
PFP and PDP: meet with other IAAC teams to look at broader inclusive communication strategies for the public.	October 31, 2025	Vice-President, Indigenous Relations Sector; and Vice-President, Operations Sector
PFP and PDP: collaborate with the Planning, Reporting and Evaluation Division to put in place feedback mechanisms, such as funding recipient surveys.	April 30, 2025	Vice-President, Indigenous Relations Sector
RP: will meet with other IAAC teams and external research programs, as relevant, to discuss strategies for a more inclusive application and evaluation process.	February 1, 2026	Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Programs
RP: will include EDI considerations in the development of its standard application form	February 1, 2026	Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Programs

Recommendation 2:

Increase public (i.e., non-Indigenous) participation in funding programs. Tailor outreach strategies and application procedures to encourage and facilitate access to funding (and subsequent participation in assessments) among members of the public (i.e., non-Indigenous individuals).

• Ensure IAAC staff has the necessary information regarding available funding opportunities and target audiences.
• Consider identifying community networks/forums to promote funding opportunities.
• Consider creating a simplified application form that is tailored to members of the public.

Statement of agreement or disagreement

Program Management agrees with this recommendation.

Management Response

IAAC is committed to ensuring that the public has access to funding information and to encourage access to funding to as many eligible applicants as possible. IAAC supports finding new and creative ways to encourage public participation and outreach methods that are tailored to the unique needs of a project assessment and other funding initiatives.

To enhance the application process, IAAC is currently implementing a Grants and Contributions (Gs&Cs) Information Management System, which will enable documents (such as funding applications) to be received through an external user interface. These automated forms will be simplified and tailored to the type of applicant.

PFP and PDP

Public participation through the PFP is essential to conducting robust assessments to understand the issues surrounding a project and its impacts on people and their environment. To notify the public that participant funding is available:

• IAAC places public notices in local media and distributes a news release to provincial media outlets. These include: a brief description of the proposed project; the purpose of the participant funding; the phase or phases of the assessment for which funding is available; the deadline to submit applications; and the process to obtain application forms. The news release and public notice are also made available on the Canadian Impact Assessment Registry website for the length of the current participation opportunity. These are available to Environmental Non-government Organizations (ENGOs), community associations, and individuals, who are active in the IA realm to participate. News releases are also provided to media in regions relevant to proposed designated projects.
• Regional offices will hold in-person or virtual information sessions, open houses, and/or meetings in the region where the project assessment is taken place and disseminates funding available information to the public who may not be used to participating in Assessment processes.

For some initiatives under the PDP, stakeholders are identified based on their expertise and the policy issues at hand. Using targeted means, IAAC contacts stakeholders to inform them about funding opportunities. For other initiatives, IAAC advertises funding availability and application forms are available to eligible applicants on IAAC’s website.

Ensuring that IAAC staff are well-informed about available PDP funding opportunities is important for the success of the program. IAAC sends out internal newsletters highlighting key PDP funding opportunities and insights about targeted audiences. Another strategy that can help further achieve this includes having the Funding Programs staff communicate new PDP funding opportunities during their monthly meetings with Regional Offices so that other IAAC teams aware and can further convey these opportunities during engagement meetings.

IAAC is committed to ensuring that the public has access to funding information and to encouraging access to funding to as many eligible applicants as possible. Some potential PFP and PDP applicants have indicated the need for more funding information that is disseminated to members of the public. Conversations with other IAAC teams (such as the Communications and Engagement teams) is a key next step to coordinate efforts and come up with an action plan to ensure that the public has the necessary information regarding available funding opportunities, and to expand IAAC’s outreach strategies.

Further to ensuring that funding opportunities are advertised on various media platforms, IAAC will work with the Communications and Engagement teams to identify other relevant networks, such as non-governmental organizations (environmental, health, tourism), to reach different audiences and try to understand what works in the local context.

At this juncture, IAAC will not be considering the development of a simplified application form tailored to members of the public for PFP and PDP. The level of effort required is considerable, and we do not deem it a prudent allocation of time and resources. Of note, as per the Funding Programs terms and conditions, application forms must contain a minimum amount of information to meet Treasury Board requirements, which these forms do. The forms already focus on key information required, are clear, accessible, and inclusive. Amending these forms at this time will not impact the effectiveness of IAAC’s Funding Programs.

RP

In the case of the RP, funding has primarily been provided to academics and non-profits; however, Indigenous groups and members of the public are eligible for funding, as is clearly outlined on the RP external website and funding webpage. Given this, the RP will revisit its application form to standardize it for use by all applicants. To facilitate applications, the RP will make this form available in both a fillable PDF and MS Word formats and will ensure it is written in plain language. In addition, all social media posts related to the RP will be written in plain language and will be distributed using multiple platforms to achieve a wider outreach for the program.

ICSP

ICSP is offered solely to Indigenous recipients and does not fit within this recommendation to increase public (i.e., non-Indigenous) participation in funding programs.

Management Action Plan

Management Action Plan (Recommendation 2)

Action or Deliverable	Expected Completion Date	Accountability
PFP and PDP: meet with other IAAC teams to look at strengthening its outreach strategies for public participation.	October 31, 2025	Vice-President, Indigenous Relations Sector; and Vice-President, Operations Sector
PFP and PDP: meet with other IAAC teams to identify other relevant networks/fora to advertise funding opportunities.	October 31, 2025	Vice-President, Indigenous Relations Sector; and Vice-President, Operations Sector
PDP: Funding Programs staff to start communicating new PDP funding opportunities during monthly meetings with Regional Offices.	April 30, 2025	Vice-President, Indigenous Relations Sector
All programs: develop a Gs&Cs Information Management System, including an external user interface for automated forms to be submitted from clients.	March 31, 2026 (ongoing)	Vice-President, Indigenous Relations Sector; and Vice-President, Corporate Services
RP: Develop a standardized, plain language application form for all applicants to use, including making it available in PDF and MS Word.	February 1, 2026	Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Programs

Recommendation 3:

Provide more detailed feedback to unsuccessful applicants.

• For the ICSP in particular, improve the feedback mechanism for communicating funding decisions with applicants, including unsuccessful applicants, to promote transparency.
• Consider sharing specific reasons for why the application was unsuccessful via a letter or by sharing the scoring grid with unsuccessful applicants.

Statement of agreement or disagreement

Program Management agrees with this recommendation.

Management Response

For all funding programs, when an application is approved or denied, applicants are informed of the funding decision via email. IAAC believes that providing detailed feedback to unsuccessful applicants is a valuable way to help them improve their future funding applications.

PFP and PDP

For each funding initiative, public funding applications are reviewed by a dedicated funding review committee, which then makes a recommendation on successful and unsuccessful applicants. IAAC staff responds to each applicant within the established service standard of 45 working days. If the applicant is unsuccessful, this written communication includes a comprehensive explanation of the reasons for denial and offers applicants the opportunity to engage with Funding Programs staff to gain insights into their application’s shortcomings and guidance for future success.

ICSP

An evaluation criteria scoring system for ICSP Stream 3 applications was implemented in 2024-25 and will enable IAAC to provide more detailed explanations in the instances where an applicant was unsuccessful. IAAC will continue implementing and identifying potential improvements to this scoring system.

RP

For unsuccessful applicants who submit unsolicited proposals or who respond to an open call, a high-level rationale is normally provided, noting the program’s limited budget and the focus on funding those proposals most aligned with IAAC priorities. Going forward, the RP commits to collaborating with the other funding programs on a standardized letter to unsuccessful applicants, which would provide more specificity on why the proposal was not accepted.

Of note, some projects funded by the RP are sourced directly by the RP and thus, the recommendation to provide detailed feedback to unsuccessful applicants does not apply.

Management Action Plan

Management Action Plan (Recommendation 3)

Action or Deliverable	Expected Completion Date	Accountability
RP: Draft a standard letter template for unsuccessful applicants that includes a section with reasons the application was unsuccessful.	February 1, 2026	Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Programs
RP: Consult across funding programs to ensure consistency on the draft letter. The RP will include the letter as a standard practice to inform unsuccessful applicants as to why they were unsuccessful.	March 1, 2026	Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Programs
ICSP: will continue implementing and identifying potential improvements to the scoring system for its call out to inform unsuccessful candidates of why they were unsuccessful.	March 31, 2026	Vice-President, Indigenous Relations Sector

Recommendation 4:

Broaden dissemination of research products. Increase awareness and accessibility of the research products to broader audiences.

• Consider identifying and implementing additional targeted dissemination strategies to improve the uptake of research findings both internally and externally.

Statement of agreement or disagreement

Program Management agrees with this recommendation.

Management Response

RP

The RP currently undertakes several measures to disseminate its research products to internal and external audiences, including posting research products on the RP website in both official languages, highlighting recent research to IAAC’s advisory committees, promoting research on social media, contributing to Our Impact external newsletter, distributing internal newsletters and updates on RP products, and hosting researchers for presentations and workshops with IAAC staff. To date, the RP has not developed a process by which targeted end users are identified for each research product at the onset of the research process. Dissemination strategies have been focused on circulating research results broadly to a wide range of potential end users. As a result, research products are not always reaching those who could benefit from them the most.

IAAC acknowledges the need to enhance the broader dissemination of its products to both internal and external audience to ensure that its products are reaching, and being used by, their likely target audiences. The RP will commit to maximizing the success of its existing dissemination strategies by identifying target end users to the extent possible for all research products. With target users identified before the research is finalized, a dissemination plan can be developed that ensures the most appropriate dissemination strategies are being implemented to reach the likely target users.

Management Action Plan

Management Action Plan (Recommendation 4)

Action or Deliverable	Expected Completion Date	Accountability
RP: Develop and implement strategies to enhance the dissemination of research externally in collaboration with the Communications Directorate.	February 1, 2026	Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Programs
RP: Develop and implement a template that identifies likely research end users for all research projects which includes specific dissemination strategies to reach each audience.	February 1, 2026	Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Programs
RP: Meet with representatives from relevant research programs to discuss strategies for successfully disseminating research findings.	February 1, 2026	Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Programs
RP: Develop and implement a 2025-26 communications plan that includes multiple strategies for internal and external dissemination.	June 30, 2025	Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Programs

Recommendation 5:

Streamline performance measurement. Based on the experience from the first year of implementing the Performance Measurement Strategy, consider developing and implementing a centralized G&C information management system that will:

• To the extent possible assign accountability for the data associated with each indicator to a single position.
• Integrate the collection of the same/similar data (for similar outcomes) among the program components to increase efficiency.
• Streamline reporting to decision-makers, rather than providing separate but similar information by program component.

Statement of agreement or disagreement

Program Management agrees with this recommendation.

Management Response

Although IAAC does not currently have a centralized method of storing its Gs&Cs information and creating reports from this information, an automated system (under Power Apps) is currently being developed to collect, monitor, assess and report client data for all of IAAC’s Gs&Cs Funding Programs. As noted under Recommendation 2 above, this system is currently being developed and is expected to be in place by 2027. IAAC has been leveraging the extensive work of other government departments who already have these automated systems in place and are using lessons shared through various interdepartmental Gs&Cs digital implementation working group meetings.

Once this new system is in place, IAAC will then develop an external user interface/portal where funding clients can have a user profile wherein, they can submit automated forms (ex: funding application forms, signed contribution agreements, and detailed financial reports). This will enhance the user experience (by enabling clients to manage their profiles, track their submissions, and receive updates); streamline the application submission process (by reducing the time and effort required from clients); and lead to faster processing times and fewer errors.

Once implemented, the system will be able to consolidate data from various sources into a single repository, reducing data silos and ensuring that decision-makers have access to a unified source. Moreover, the systems will provide real-time reporting and ad hoc analysis on live transactions, which will enable quick access based on the most current funding data.

In addition, the new information management system could also be used for performance monitoring purposes, such as those in the PM Strategy. The Funding Programs team will collaborate with the Planning, Reporting and Evaluation Division to streamline accountability and responsibility for monitoring and reporting on the performance indicators included in the Performance Measurement Strategy.

Management Action Plan

Management Action Plan (Recommendation 5)

Action or Deliverable	Expected Completion Date	Accountability
All programs: Develop a Gs&Cs Information Management System, including an external user interface for automated forms to be submitted from clients.	March 31, 2026 (ongoing)	Vice-President, Indigenous Relations Sector; and Vice-President, Corporate Services
All programs: Consult with subject matter experts on privacy, security, financial, and other matters and implement solutions as necessary for the G&C Information Management System	March 31, 2026	Vice-President, Indigenous Relations Sector; and Vice-President, Corporate Services
All programs: Update funding programs’ Performance Measurement Strategies to ensure clear assignment of accountability, update indicators, targets, data sources, and methodologies, in collaboration with Operations and Corporate Services Sectors	January 31, 2026	Vice-President, Indigenous Relations; and Vice-President, Strategic Policy and Programs

1.0 Introduction

Goss Gilroy Inc. (GGI) is pleased to submit this draft final report for the evaluation of the Impact Assessment (IA) Grants and Contributions (G&C) Program to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC).

1.1 Background and Program Description

IAAC engages with public and Indigenous communities and organizations to fulfill statutory requirements, carry out the Crown’s legal duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples, advance reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, and promote strong policy development and good governance.

The objective of the IA G&C Program is to reduce financial barriers for people across Canada to participate meaningfully in project and regional assessments and policy development, to build capacity for Indigenous communities and organizations to participate in current and future assessments, and support research related to impact assessment. The four components that comprise the Program are:

1. Participant Funding Program (PFP): aims to support public engagement and Indigenous consultations during an assessment, including project assessments led by IAAC or review panel, as well as regional or strategic assessments. Grant or contribution funding is provided to individuals, not-for-profit organizations, Indigenous not-for-profit organizations, and Indigenous communities and organizations, to help them prepare for, and participate in, key phases of an assessment process, including the implementation of follow-up programs.
2. Indigenous Capacity Support Program (ICSP): provides contributions to Indigenous communities and organizations to support the development of local and regional Indigenous Knowledge and capacity to effectively participate in, or undertake impact assessments, regional assessments, policy engagement, assessment monitoring and follow-up activities, and other activities related to the Impact Assessment Act (IAA).
3. Policy Dialogue Program (PDP): provides contributions and grants to individuals, not-for-profit organizations, and Indigenous organizations communities to support the provision of external advice and participation in the development of policies, methodologies, tools, and practices related to impact assessment, regional assessments, and strategic assessments.
4. Research Program (RP): provides funding (via grants and contracts) to individuals, not-for-profit organizations, Indigenous organizations and communities, and research and academic institutions, to promote and disseminate new and innovative research that furthers the practice of federal impact assessment, including regional and strategic assessments.

A logic model has been developed for each Program component, presented in Appendix A.

1.2 Evaluation Objectives and Scope

The evaluation of the IA G&C Program at IAAC is being conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Policy on Results, and section 42.1 of the Financial Administration Act.

The objective of the evaluation is to assess the relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency of the IA G&C Program from 2019-20 to 2022-23, as well as interactions/relationships between the four individual components.

The evaluation’s scope includes all four components of IAAC IA G&C Program, described above. The evaluation questions assessed in the evaluation include:

Relevance

1. To what extent is there an ongoing need for the federal government to provide the funding programs?

Effectiveness

2. To what extent are the intended outcomes of each component being achieved?

3. To what extent are the components working in a complementary manner to contribute to broader objectives and intended outcomes of IAAC?

4. Have there been any unintended (positive or negative) outcomes?

5. What are the internal and external factors impacting (positively or negatively) the achievement of the outcomes?

Efficiency

6. To what extent is IAAC efficient at delivering the intended outputs of the individual components of the Program?

7. Is the design and delivery approach of the overall Program the most appropriate and efficient way to achieve the intended outcomes of the programs, and of the broader objectives and intended outcomes of IAAC?

1.3 Evaluation Methodology and Limitations

The evaluation used six data collection methods. These methods include:

• Document, administrative data and file review;
• Key informant interviews with three stakeholder types: internal stakeholders, external stakeholders, and funding recipients from all program components.
• An online survey of funding recipients from the PFP, ICSP and PDP;
• Project case studies (PFP and ICSP);
• A comparative review examining similar funding and research programs delivered by other federal organizations; and
• Knowledge Uptake and Use Tool (KUUT) focusing on five RP research products.

Multiple methods were administered with recipients to maximize the input from Indigenous communities and organizations. However, with a view to minimizing burden on Indigenous organizations and communities, no organization or individual was asked to participate in more than one method.

Each of the methods used in the evaluation is described below. Appendix B presents the evaluation matrix, which provides a crosswalk between the evaluation questions and the methods.

1.3.1 Document, Administrative Data and File Review

Document Review

Many documents of different types were reviewed. Evidence was captured in a document review template. Examples of documents that were covered in the review included: relevant legislation, regulations, and guidelines; Program Terms and Conditions; planning documents; Minister’s mandate letters; memoranda and briefing notes to senior decision-makers; process maps and other process-related documents; performance reports and data; financial information; and other relevant internal and publicly available documents and data.

Data Review

A G&C Program database was available for review containing information for initiatives funded through each of the four components. A number of steps were followed to clean and prepare the data, such as removing duplicate records and those outside the timeframe of the evaluation, using consistent conventions (e.g., dates), among others. Financial data was also reviewed for this method.

Limitations

An important limitation was encountered when calculating the administrative ratios for the Program. First, the administrative ratios could not be determined by program component because component-specific financial information was not available consistently across years and/or program component. Also, because a large proportion of the PFP funded initiatives lacked information in the database about the funding amount, the total value of funded initiatives for the components and total funding used in the calculation is much lower than the actual funding issued. The result is that the ratio (percent of the value of G&C allocated to administration) is likely much lower since the denominator is artificially low.

1.3.2 Key Informant Interviews

A total of 37 interviews were conducted with three stakeholder types:

• IAAC stakeholders (e.g., IAAC senior management and employees involved in either the administration or delivery of the Program; n=17);
• External stakeholders (n=7); and
• Funding recipients from all program components (n=13, of which 7 were Indigenous).

Purposive sampling was used to identify appropriate individuals based on a list of potential key informants provided by the Program.

Interviews were mostly conducted in one-on-one discussions, although if an interviewee wished to invite a colleague, a group interview was conducted. All interviews were conducted using online meeting software (MS Teams).

Funding recipient interviewees were offered $75 compensation to thank and encourage their participation.

Limitations

An important limitation is the overall small number of Indigenous organizations and communities that participated in an interview. The sample was structured so that Indigenous organizations and communities would be consulted as funding recipients. The sample received from the program included 35 valid contacts, of which 22 were Indigenous and/or representatives of Indigenous organizations and communities. Of those, seven agreed to an interview and the balance either declined to participate (e.g., too busy), did not respond after three contact attempts, or provided an alternate who either declined or did not respond. Conducting interviews in the summer months may have impacted participants’ availability.

Gaps in evidence resulting from the small number of Indigenous organizations and communities interviewed as part of the evaluation are addressed by other lines of evidence, including through interviews conducted with Indigenous organizations and communities consulted as part of the case studies, and through the online survey.

1.3.3 Online Survey of Funding Recipients

An online survey was administered to applicants for the PFP, PDP, and the ICSP components.^Footnote 1 The program was asked to provide the sample of applicants to the programs since 2018-19 to be contacted for the survey. A total of 28 contacts were provided that did not overlap with other lines of evidence (i.e., key informant interviews and case studies), of which 26 were valid.^Footnote 2 A total of eight funding recipients responded to the survey (PFP: n=4; ICSP: n=2; PDP: n=2), for a response rate of 30.8%.

Survey questions were predominantly closed-ended. The questionnaire was pretested internally and closely monitored after launching with the sample of recipients. The survey was launched on June 6, 2024 and closed on July 12, 2024. Three reminders were issued via email and two rounds of telephone reminders were carried-out (for the 14 contacts where a phone number was provided). To thank and encourage respondents, invited funding applicants were offered $20 compensation to complete the survey.

In addition to the survey, funding recipients were invited to participate in the evaluation via interviews and case studies. Every attempt was made to minimize response burden on Indigenous organizations and communities, and therefore no organization or individual was asked to participate in more than one method. To maximize the availability of quantitative data for analysis, the interview and case study instruments included the outcome-related questions from the survey questionnaire. In all, 14 interview and case study respondents were asked the survey questions (all funding recipient interviewees for interviews and case studies were offered $75 to thank them for their participation). The responses to these quantitative questions were analyzed with the survey results.

Limitations

While the survey response rate is modest at just over 30%, the total number of responses is low (8 for non-outcome-related questions; 22 for outcome-related questions). Further, when results are broken down by funding component, the number of responses is low (in some cases, only one person provided evidence). Thus, the findings are not generalizable to the population of funding applicants over the last six years. Reasons for the low number of responses can, in part, attributed to the survey being administered over the summer when many Band offices have reduced hours and vacations are common. As well, some organizations do not have the capacity to complete online questionnaires.

1.3.4 Project Case Studies

GGI conducted a total of six project case studies to highlight specific examples of how the PFP and ICSP funding opportunities are contributing to, or expected to contribute to, intended outcomes. Selection criteria for the case studies included:

• Completed funding initiatives only;
• Mix of regions and mix of type of recipients (whether individuals; Indigenous communities; Indigenous organizations (not-for-profit); and Not-for-profit organizations (e.g. environmental groups); and
• For PFP, a mix of funding years and for ICSP, earlier funding years to allow sufficient time to have elapsed.

The case studies were based on file information, documentation and key informant interviews with funding recipients. Data collection was carried out between June 17 and July 31, 2024. Funding recipient interviewees were offered $75 compensation to thank and encourage their participation.

Three case studies were conducted to highlight outcomes of projects with the following PFP recipients: Kwilmu’kw Maw-klusuaqn Negotiation Office, Eau Secours, and Fondation Rivières. Three project case studies were also conducted with the following ICSP recipients: l’Institut de développement durable des Premières Nations du Québec et du Labrador, Tseycum First Nation, and NunatuKavut Community Council.^Footnote 3

Limitations

Not all funding recipients for selected project case studies were able to participate in a key informant interview as part of the evaluation. As a result, six project case studies (instead of 10) were conducted.

Also, the findings presented for all six case studies are limited to the perspectives of the interviewee as well as the availability of program documents provided by Program staff.

1.3.5 Comparative Review

A comparative review was conducted to provide IAAC with benchmarking information for three of the components of its G&C Program: the PFP, ICSP and RP.^Footnote 4 It is also intended to identify best practices and lessons learned from comparable federal funding programs. The comparative study was designed with two lenses:

1. Programs comparable to the PFP and ICSP that provide funding to Indigenous communities and organizations or members of the public to increase capacity and/or facilitate participation in federal consultation activities; and
2. Programs comparable to the RP that fund research undertaken by outside parties to inform research questions posed by the federal organization.

Comparable federal programs were selected based on the extent to which their processes were aligned with IAAC’s funding programs (i.e., PFP and ICSP) and RP.

The funding programs selected for comparison include:

• Canada Energy Regulator Participant Funding Program;
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Participant Funding Program;
• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Indigenous and Stakeholder Capacity Fund;
• Natural Resources Canada Indigenous Natural Resource Partnerships; and
• Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada Northern Participant Funding Program.

Research funding programs selected for comparison include:

• Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Research and Support Program; and
• Fisheries and Ocean Canada Ecosystems and Oceans Science Contribution Framework.

Evidence for the comparative review was obtained through a review of available documents (accessed online and from program staff, where applicable) and key informant interviews with program staff. One interview was conducted for each comparison program.

Limitations

The main limitation of the comparative review relates to the total number of comparison programs, limited to five for funding programs and two for research programs. These numbers were limited largely due to available resources.

1.3.6 Knowledge Uptake and Use Tool (KUUT)

The KUUT was used as a data collection tool in this evaluation to help IAAC develop a better understanding of how the research products produced and shared by IAAC are used by target audiences/recipients, stakeholders, or partners (i.e., what do they do with it). This is a critical measure for assessing and understanding if IAAC’s RP is achieving its desired impacts by producing and sharing these products.

As part of the evaluation, the tool was used to assess the effectiveness of the RP component of the IA G&C program, particularly related to the impact of its research products. By targeting a sample of the intended users/audiences of the research produced by this component, this tool was intended to provide information on the uptake and use of this research.

In collaboration with the RP, the Planning, Reporting and Evaluation Division identified five research products that have been completed and disseminated between 2019-20 and 2022-23 for which it could be helpful to understand their uptake and use:

1. Beyond participation and distribution: advancing a comprehensive justice framework for impact assessment;
2. Follow-up and monitoring in impact assessment: Synthesis of knowledge and practice;
3. Indigenous Mental Wellness and Major Project Development: Guidance for Impact Assessment Professionals and Indigenous Communities;
4. Mitigation and Enhancement Measures for Health, Social and Economic Effects; and
5. Public Interest Determinations in Impact Assessment: A Multiple Account Evaluation Framework.

For each research product, six to seven members of the target audience were identified, including stakeholders and partners by whom use of the research product could be expected. In total 34 individuals were invited to complete the surveys. Two could not be reached and of the remaining 32, 13 individuals responded, for an overall response rate of 41%.

Limitations

Response rates for the individual research products ranged from a high of 50% (three responses out of six possible respondents) to a low of 29% (two responses out of seven possible respondents), which was too low to support individual analysis. The low response rates are attributed to challenges with recruitment and limited awareness among respondents, as the RP does not systematically identify target audiences for the various research products, but rather makes research products publicly available for anyone to access. As a result, it is possible that some information about the knowledge use and uptake of research products may have been missed from these stakeholders. The level of familiarity with the research product varied by respondent, with some being familiar with the individual research products and some reporting having never heard of it. Therefore, not all respondents could answer all survey questions.

2.0 Findings

2.1 Relevance

2.1.1 Ongoing Need

Alignment with Needs

The objective of the Program is to enable stakeholders and Indigenous communities and organizations to participate in assessments and policy development through capacity building and reducing financial barriers to participation. Assessments themselves are also supported with research. Evidence confirms that the Program is designed to meet the needs of stakeholders and Indigenous communities and organizations, as it funds a wide range of eligible recipients and activities.

The Program’s four components respond to a wide range of needs of funding recipients by funding a variety of eligible activities. Two of the four program components, the ISCP and PDP, have separate streams, each designed to address different needs and funding decision criteria, which are also aligned with the needs that each program component aims to address. The PFP decision criteria consider potential impacts of the project on Indigenous rights or Peoples as well as the complexity of the required activities for participation. The RP uses the decision criteria to ensure alignment with research priorities, needs and interests of IA practitioners and Indigenous Peoples.

The Program has also used certain streams to address emerging needs of IAAC or potential recipients. For example, in an ICSP Call Out Strategy for January 2023, Stream 3 of the ISCP (Strategic Opportunities) was described as providing “additional resources to targeted, short-term needs that supports the ability of IAAC to advance projects where lack of existing capacity has been identified as a challenge.”

Other ways that the Program meets the needs of recipients is through the use of grants (rather than contributions) where materiality and risk are low. Grants make payments simpler by requiring a signed letter confirming participation in the proposed activities. Recipient will provide a final performance report for grants of higher materiality and risk. Contributions, on the other hand, require recipients to provide a claim for reimbursement, a final accounting of eligible costs and a final performance report. Grants issued under PFP and PDP can also enable immediate access to funding.

Finally, to ensure alignment of the program component activities with the needs and priorities of IAAC, the RP engages with many staff within IAAC, through various mechanisms (e.g., employee survey, workshops, meetings) and consults various governance bodies to identify research priorities.

Ongoing Need

Almost all of those consulted for the evaluation (i.e., IAAC and external stakeholders, and funding recipients, including Indigenous communities and organizations) agreed that the IA G&C Program and its individual components address the ongoing needs of targeted beneficiaries. As well, the IA G&C Program provides funding opportunities that are unique and do not duplicate or overlap with other available funding programs.

Many Indigenous communities have experienced an increased need for greater internal capacity to empower community members to participate in current and future project consultations. An ongoing need for funding from the Program was demonstrated by recipients’ accounts of how the funding was used to achieve a number of their goals and priorities.

IAAC and external stakeholder interviewees (i.e., non-Indigenous partners) also agreed that there is an ongoing need for the Program particularly in relation to the notion that IAAC needs participation, views, people at the table to deliver on its mandate and the legal obligation for the Government of Canada to ensure the participation and engagement of Indigenous Peoples and stakeholders. In addition to fulfilling its mandate and legal duty to consult, IAAC needs the Program to be able to do effective and efficient IAs, which ensure that major projects requiring IAs are undertaken in way that is inclusive of impacted communities. Without Program funding, beneficiaries would not be able to be involved in the IA process and without their involvement, it would not be possible to achieve the objectives of IAAC’s mandate. The ICSP specifically is considered a small but essential step towards reconciliation that enables Indigenous communities to address their priorities and work on them autonomously.

While accounts of an ongoing need for the Program were mostly associated with the PFP and ICSP, and to some extent the PDP, there was also evidence that the RP addresses an important research gap at IAAC and enables the identification of best practices and lessons learned to support an ongoing need for improved understanding of IAs and related processes.

Alignment Between Design, Need and Expected Outcomes

The Program design, including funded activities, are strongly linked with expected Program outcomes. These are described below.

Increasing capacity around IA. The most common ongoing need identified by funding recipients of the PFP, ICSP and PDP and others consulted for the evaluation related to internal capacity building around the IA process. Funding from the program components addresses this need by enabling:

• The development and acquisition of necessary tools and resources including training materials to provide training on specific IA processes, hiring personnel with specific expertise, purchasing equipment and vehicles to facilitate participation of community members, attend environmental conferences, and undertake studies that enable communities to meaningfully respond to a growing number of environmental projects that directly impact them.
• Access to external resources that provide technical, environmental, and legal expertise to support communities better participate in various IA processes and project-specific phases, write proposals and participate and influence the IAAC responses to industry needs.
• The undertaking of tailored initiatives and activities designed to meet the specific needs of Indigenous communities via the increased ability to collect necessary information and establish Indigenous knowledge systems that are important to include in the IA process.

“There is an ongoing need to address the growing number of processes and knowledge requirements when it comes to responding to the number of environmental projects.” – PDP funding recipient

Increasing understanding of IA and IA-related processes and activities. Funding from program components enable program beneficiaries to address the ongoing need of being able to better identify and capitalize on opportunities to create a greater understanding of IA, including the work undertaken by IAAC, across all members of the community. Funding from the program components addresses this need by enabling:

• The review and provision of comments on documents and attendance at meetings with members of the community or IAAC, which increases awareness of IA-related processes and activities including the new requirements of the IAA.
• The development and/or attendance at training sessions, workshops, and knowledge exchange opportunities.
• Opportunities to gather relevant data and information to identify established models or frameworks that could be employed and/or to develop new frameworks (e.g., integrated IA framework).

“Without funding, we cannot do our work to defend the rights of community members. If we had no financial support, we would not be able to invest as much time or resources into investigating the effects of the mining industry [on environmental and human rights].” – PFP funding recipient

Enabling participation in the IA process. Funding recipients and others consulted for the evaluation identified an ongoing need to enhance Indigenous communities and organizations’ and stakeholders’ ability to actively and appropriately participate in IAs. Funding from the program components addresses this need by enabling:

• The necessary resources to attend meetings and provide comments.
• The provision of feedback on the IAA and IAAC’s approach to its implementation (including attending meetings and/or providing written submissions).
• The ability to plan ahead, effectively manage available resources, undertake necessary outreach, and be better prepared to meaningfully participate in the IA process.

“If we had not received the funding, we would not have been able to document our positions properly. For the questions we were asked, we didn’t have the answers: we knew how to find them, but we didn’t have a forum to do so [before the funding].” – PFP funding recipient

“The proponents have environment committees and different networks and processes, and without the funds we would not have been able to learn, participate and engage in these processes and develop the capacity we have now.” – ICSP funding recipient

Funding recipients and others consulted for the evaluation familiar with the RP also identified a number of ongoing needs that the Program’s design specifically addresses. The most important needs that were identified related to enabling a greater ability to:

• Develop and conduct policy relevant research;
• Support high quality personnel (e.g., graduate students);
• Undertake knowledge mobilization activities (e.g., presentations, creation of websites etc.);
• Provide IAAC with methodological and research insights around the IAA; and
• Promote a better understanding of what needs to be considered when examining the impact of projects on Indigenous Peoples.

Unmet Needs

There were several areas where some funding recipients said their needs were not addressed, including areas pertaining to funding amounts, sufficiency to build capacity and flexibility to use funds on other priorities. These are described below.

• Funding amounts are insufficient to enable:
  • Support for the capacity needed to meaningfully participate in IAs/support the true cost of participation (related to the PFP).
  • Ongoing support that extends beyond the timeframe of the original agreement (related to the ICSP).
• Funding and time are not enough to increase internal capacity to ensure that the work can be conducted independently as much as possible without the need to hire external consultants (related to both PFP and ICSP).
• Increased capacity needed in specific knowledge areas (e.g., how the IAA applies to the constitutional rights of Indigenous Peoples; how to process information provided by proponents) (related to the PFP and ICSP).
• A need for increased flexibility in the use of funds, including more freedom to allocate funds according to recipient’s own priorities (related to the PDP).

Extent to Which Needs of Diverse Populations are Considered

The extent to which the needs of diverse populations are considered by the Program differs across the four program components. Specifically, the PFP and PDP program guidelines do not mention diversity as a criterion or consideration for funding, whereas the ICSP and RP have considered diversity in determining funding amounts and priorities. Details for all four program components are provided below.

• The PFP supports organizations, groups and communities who are likely to participate in the consultation process for a project undergoing IA. Diversity is not a criterion to identify these organizations, groups and communities, due to the intention to include all parties who wish to participate in the consultation and engagement process. Funding is available for any group (and any designation) that is participating in an assessment, resulting in a wide breadth of types of organizations, locations of communities, and other characteristics who could receive PFP support.
• The ICSP guidelines mention diversity of applicants and national coverage of funding as factors that are considered when determining the amount of funding to be provided.
  • Stream 1 (Program Partners) focuses on Indigenous organizations or communities where project is anticipated and/or taking place.
  • Stream 2 (Community of Practice Events) does not mention any diversity factors considered during the assessment of proposals.
  • Stream 3 (Strategic Opportunities) does not mention diversity in its assessment criteria, although specific calls can have targeted criteria not outlined in the program guidelines.
• The PDP guidelines do not state that diversity is a consideration for funding or funding amounts, although it is included in the Terms and Conditions.
• The RP funded research related to diverse populations, including Gender-based Analysis (GBA) Plus (2019-20), and impacts on underrepresented populations (2022-23). In 2022-23 priority, four papers were funded on related topics including on: intersectional GBA; diversity, equity and inclusion best practices; impacts of major projects on 2SLGBTQQIA+ and other marginalized communities; IA and missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls Calls for Justice.

While there is evidence among partners and stakeholders that some efforts have been made to consider the needs of diverse populations in program design and implementation, it appears that more should be done.

Notably, partners and stakeholders who feel that diversity is a consideration in the Program’s design and implementation identified the following aspects as those that reflected this consideration:

• The inclusion of considerations around equity, diversity and inclusion/GBA Plus in the funding calls, application and allocation process, Program design and proposals;
• Simplified processes that facilitate applications from lower capacity communities;
• Attempts to achieve a balance of genders on funding review committees; and
• Funding is available for Indigenous and non-Indigenous applicants.

In turn, those partners and stakeholders who indicated that more should be done with respect to diversity identified inconsistent efforts to achieve greater diversity both across and within all four program components reflected by:

• A lack of targeted outreach strategies directed at affected populations including, for example, off-reserve populations;
• Limited diversity among PFP and PDP funding recipients reflected by a low representation of non-Indigenous populations (i.e., members of the public), and limited inclusion of RP recipients in Quebec;
• A lack of support for low-capacity communities, including the availability of comprehensive services to encourage more diverse perspectives.

Importantly, some stakeholders indicated there is limited of knowledge regarding how best to include GBA Plus considerations into both the IA process and the procurement process.

2.1.2 Alignment with Federal and IAAC Priorities

The Program’s design clearly aligns with and helps advance federal government and IAAC priorities related to the conduct of IAs and reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples.

In particular, IAAC has a statutory requirement to carry-out the Crown’s legal duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples, based on judicial interpretation of the obligations of the Crown in relation section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and stems from the Honour of the Crown and the unique relationship between the Crown and Indigenous Peoples. The IAA discusses the importance of public participation in the IA process, the government’s commitment to ensuring the rights of the Indigenous Peoples of Canada and to fostering reconciliation and working in partnership with them, and the government’s commitment to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The PFP and ICSP, which enable public and Indigenous participation in the assessment process, are connected with IAAC and government priorities. Specifically, there is alignment with IAAC priorities via the statutory requirement to consult with Indigenous Peoples, and the role of public and Indigenous participation and advice as an element of robust IAs. There is also alignment with government priorities as outlined in the IAA itself, including the importance of IAs, as well as regional assessments, that integrate Indigenous Knowledge into decision-making processes, the importance of public participation in the IA process, the government’s commitment to ensuring the rights of the Indigenous Peoples of Canada and to fostering reconciliation and working in partnership with them, and the government’s commitment to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The PDP and RP are associated with the IA process itself, both of which inform assessment tools, methodologies, policies and systems in support of high-quality assessments. The Program’s Performance Measurement (PM) Strategy notes that some research may take years to materialize (due to needing to find an appropriate partner and/or sufficient funding). The PM Strategy also includes four logic models, one for each program component, of which outcomes are linked with many of those in the Performance Information Profiles (PIPs) for Assessment Administration, Conduct and Monitoring Program and the Indigenous Relations and Engagement Program.

Finally, the PIPs demonstrate alignment between the Program and IAAC’s core responsibility and three of four departmental results, articulated in the most recent Departmental Results Report (2022-23) and Departmental Plan (2024-25):

• Departmental Result 1: Designated projects that proceed foster sustainability
• Departmental Result 2: Stakeholders and Indigenous groups meaningfully participate in the assessment process
• Departmental Result 4: Impact assessment processes respect the rights and culture of Indigenous Peoples, and Canada’s commitment to partner with them

2.2 Effectiveness

2.2.1 Achievement of Intended Outcomes

The outcomes for each program component are identified in the logic models, in Appendix A. Outcome achievement was measured according to outcomes and indicators articulated in the Program’s PM Strategy, developed in 2023. It is important to note that data collection for program monitoring had not yet started at the time of the evaluation. Therefore, only outcomes for which there was available evidence (via methods implemented for the evaluation) are reported.

Overview

Over 3,000 funding recipients were supported across program components from 2019-20 to 2022-23, with the most funded through PFP (2,487), followed by PDP (458), ICSP (135), and RP (34). Most funding recipients are Indigenous organizations (100% for ICSP, 66.1% for PFP, and 62.0% for PDP).^Footnote 5

Most program components have an outcome related to building capacity within Indigenous communities and organizations (and the public in the case of PFP). The evidence suggests that capacity has been built in terms of increased knowledge, understanding, skills and/or information. However, the lack of capacity continues to be commonly mentioned as an opportunity for improvement. For PDP, it is not clear whether capacity has been built (i.e., whether there is improved assessment knowledge and information, whether they are more able to provide advice and feedback), although a few PDP funding recipients said that it had.

Similarly, most program components aim to develop and improve relationships with Indigenous communities and organizations. However, the evidence from the evaluation does not respond to this outcome directly. Proxy indicators, such as whether the funding is tailored to needs, satisfaction with administrative processes, the average number of years repeat ICSP Program Partner funding recipients receive funding, the percentage of repeat PDP recipients who are Indigenous, the number of policy topics addressed by advisory committees, attendance of IAAC at meetings with Indigenous communities and organizations, opinions regarding whether Indigenous communities and organizations have sufficient and stable funding to achieve their long-term objectives, all suggest relationships with Indigenous communities and organizations have improved. PDP funds public recipients, but the evidence is less positive, with a lower percentage of repeat recipients who are stakeholders. However, IAAC did attend a large number of meetings with stakeholders.

For the RP, the outcome is around diversity of researchers and breadth of the research community. The evidence indicates that this is occurring, although more could be done to increase the breadth of the community that conducted IA-related research.

In terms of outcomes related to increased participation and/or engagement, all PFP survey respondents said the funding has enabled their participation in an assessment, although about half said they have actively participated in consultations related to an assessment. Additionally, 80% of ICSP recipients are also PFP recipients, suggesting they have participated in an assessment. The extent to which participation in assessments is meaningful is less apparent with both positive and negative feedback from PFP survey respondents. PDP also aims to increase participation in the development of assessment-related policies, guidelines, tools and practices, and the evidence shows that the program component funds a wide range of groups. However, again, the extent to which this participation is meaningful for the participants is not clear.

In terms of whether IA practitioners have better access to information from Indigenous communities and organizations and the public (whether through PFP or PDP), the evidence suggests this is occurring. In particular, most IAAC interviewees said that practitioners have information from Indigenous communities and organizations and the public and reflect this information in assessments and all IAAC interviewees said that policies, guidelines, tools and practice reflect the input provided by the various groups that had been engaged. As well, both the TAC and the Indigenous Advisory Committee (IAC) responded to many of the President’s priorities between 2020-21 and 2022-23.

In terms of whether there is more information available from research conducted, there is no doubt that new information has been generated and shared, both internally and externally. However, among those consulted for the evaluation, many felt that more should be done to increase the dissemination of research products, particularly to those outside of IAAC.

However, it is not clear whether assessments are more effective (or whether assessment policies, guidelines, tools, and practices are more effective) because of the Program.

The evidence broken out by each program component is presented below.

PFP

There is strong evidence that all three PFP immediate outcomes have been achieved.

In terms of better access to information from Indigenous communities and organizations and the public, 2,487 funding recipients were supported that all aimed to facilitate participation of the public and Indigenous communities and organizations in the assessment process. Of those, two thirds (1,644, or 66.1%) were Indigenous recipients. Participation in assessments is facilitated by the PFP through the funding of many eligible activities (such as attending meetings, reviewing documents, developing documents/plans/reports). These eligible activities were demonstrated through the document and file reviews and mentioned by funding recipients who were consulted through interviews and case studies.

Almost all PFP survey respondents agreed that the PFP funding enabled participation in the assessment process. Having said that, only five Indigenous survey respondents agreed with the statement: “I actively participated in consultations as part of my involvement in the assessment process” (of the remaining five Indigenous respondents, three disagreed and two did not know/said not applicable).

For the immediate outcome of increased capacity of Indigenous communities and organizations and the public to participate in assessments, most PFP survey respondents said the funding increased their capacity in terms of knowledge, time and/or resources (e.g., engagement with community members, direct connections with proponents). A few funding recipient interviewees also noted that the funding has helped to improve their capacity.

There was limited evidence to speak to the outcome related to improved relationships with Indigenous communities and organizations and the public, due to way the indicators were defined in the PM Strategy (i.e., they were limited to measuring satisfaction with administrative processes and measuring the extent to which the program met recipients’ needs, which was addressed in this report under the section on relevance). When survey respondents were asked whether the funding is tailored to their needs and whether they were satisfied with the administrative processes and requirements, all PFP survey respondents said the funding was tailored and that they were satisfied. Having said that, when asked about other outcomes of the Program during interviews, a few IAAC internal interviewees stated that IAAC’s relationship with Indigenous communities has been improved through the Program. One of these interviewees specifically mentioned that the relationship between IA consultation practitioners and communities has improved because of the Program.

In terms of achievement of the intermediate outcome for PFP, increased meaningful participation in assessments by Indigenous communities and organizations and the public, success is more modest. When PFP funding recipients were asked whether they agreed with the statement “My participation in the assessment process was meaningful,” three agreed, four disagreed, and three did not know or said not applicable. Specific reasons provided by those who did not agree included: lack of funding to complete the process they started; lack of capacity; being over-consulted; and uncertainty about what meaningful participation means.

For their part, among the few external interviewees who could comment, all indicated the funding has been critical to the meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples and the public in assessment processes, but that the funding is not sufficient (including funding available in other Canadian jurisdictions).

PFP’s ultimate outcome, better information available for assessments, appears to be achieved according to IAAC personnel where most IAAC interviewees said that practitioners have information from Indigenous communities and organizations and the public and reflect this information in assessments. This sentiment was shared by some external interviewees as well. Areas for further improvement identified by interviewees include: need to continue to build capacity; need better input from the public; and limited impact due to time constraints and funding limits.

ICSP

One of ICSP’s immediate outcomes is long-term partnerships with Indigenous communities and organizations. This outcome was measured in part by the opinion of interviewees about whether Indigenous communities and organizations have sufficient and stable funding to achieve their long-term objectives. Only a few IAAC interviewees could comment, but they all said that having multi-year funding contributes to sustainability and achieving long-term objectives. Another way the evaluation assessed progress towards this outcome was by looking at the average number of years Indigenous communities and organizations have received ICSP Stream 1 (Program Partners) funding. The data review found the average length of involvement of the repeat recipients between 2019-20 and 2022-23 under Stream 1 was 2.66 years (there were 49 funded initiatives in Stream 1 and 15 recipients under the Stream received funding more than once).

The other immediate outcome explored during the evaluation was improved assessment knowledge and information among Indigenous communities and organizations. In this case, the evidence provides a more straightforward determination that this outcome has been achieved, to a good extent. In particular, all ICSP files reviewed confirmed funding was aimed at improving Indigenous recipients’ assessment knowledge and information by funding them to develop tools/guidance, deliver training/workshops, undertake studies, etc. As well, among the respondents to the survey questions, most agreed that the ICSP funding improved their understanding of the assessment processes and implications. Most ICSP survey respondents also agreed that the ICSP funding enabled them to develop sufficient knowledge and skills to participate in an eventual assessment process. Moreover, some ICSP funding recipient interviewees provided concrete examples of how their knowledge has increased (e.g., through hiring staff with knowledge, receiving tools from IAAC, access to experts).

The intermediate outcome of increased assessment capacity among Indigenous communities and organizations flows from the immediate outcome immediately above and appears to be achieved, at least to some extent. All internal IAAC interviewees who commented said that capacity is being built in Indigenous communities, as evidenced by increased quality of responses, increased responsiveness, and materials being developed by Indigenous communities and organizations. Two funding recipient interviewees provided concrete examples of how capacity has been built in their community (hiring staff to become trained, travel and salaries to do assessment-related work, building relationships with government actors).

The ICSP ultimate outcome is essentially the same as the PFP intermediate outcome: meaningful participation in assessments. One way to determine whether this is happening is to look at the number of ICSP recipients who are also PFP recipients (and are therefore receiving support to facilitate their participation in an assessment). The data show that, of the 94 unique ICSP recipients, 76 are also PFP recipients (80.0%), which means that they are being supported to participate in the assessment process. However, this does not speak to how meaningful that participation is.

PDP

The evaluation explored the three immediate outcomes for PDP. Two of these outcomes pertain to the number and nature of engagement of funding recipients and one pertaining to developing improved knowledge.

For the outcome, increased engagement in the development of assessment-related policies, guidelines, tools and practices, there was moderate success. Of the 458 funding recipients supported by PDP, there were 402 recipients. Of those, 301 or 74.9% were unique (i.e., new), suggesting that that there is a wide range of groups engaging in assessment policy-related feedback exercises. The file review confirmed most PDP funded initiatives aimed to provide support to Indigenous communities to provide feedback on the IAA and IAAC’s implementation approach.

The immediate outcome of reciprocal relationships advanced is measured by looking at the percentage of repeat groups receiving funding, both Indigenous and stakeholders. The data review revealed that of the 402 recipients of PDP funding, 101 were repeat recipients (25.1%). Out of the 101 repeat recipients, 63, or 62.4%, were repeat Indigenous recipients and 38, or 37.6%, were non-Indigenous stakeholders. The target for both measures in the PM Strategy is 50%, suggesting more should be done to increase the proportion of non-Indigenous stakeholders receiving funding more than once. Another way that advancing reciprocal relationships is measured is the number of policy topics addressed by advisory committee meetings, including the TAC and the IAC. The document review found that these two committees met several times a year and provided advice and input on various policy topics. Finally, advancing relationships can also be accomplished through attendance and engagement at non-project related meetings. In 2022-23 alone, IAAC attended 36 meetings with Indigenous partners (not including the IAC) and with stakeholders of various types 145 times (not including the TAC).

The final immediate PDP outcome is improved assessment knowledge and information among Indigenous communities and organizations. It is not clear whether this outcome has been achieved since most PDP survey respondents could not comment on this question. A few PDP funding recipient interviewees indicated they have increased knowledge, with one saying the funding has allowed them to gain sufficient knowledge that they are less dependent on external experts and another saying they have streamlined processes and developed understanding.

Intermediate outcomes range from increased capacity to meaningful participation in policy development. Similar to the immediate outcome pertaining to improved knowledge, it is not clear whether the first outcome, increased capacity to provide advice and feedback on Assessment-related policies, guidelines, tools and practices, has been achieved since most PDP survey respondents could not comment. However, the three PDP funding recipient interviewees who could comment noted that capacity has been increased (e.g., policy development, engagements at other tables, increased awareness of projects and impacts being discussed, harmonization of the organization’s position, understanding of the assessment process, what should be considered when talking to proponents, the various organization involved in the assessment process).

The next intermediate outcome, policies, guidelines, tools and practices are reflective of Indigenous communities and organizations and stakeholder perspectives, as appropriate, was achieved to at least some extent. According to the IAAC website and program documentation, the TAC addressed all 12 of the priorities identified by the President between 2020-21 and 2022-23, and the IAC addressed all of the President’s 10 priorities over the same timeframe. Additionally, all IAAC interviewees who could comment said that policies, guidelines, tools and practice reflect the input provided by the various groups that had been engaged.

In terms of meaningful participation in policy development, the indicators for this intermediate outcome focus on whether What We Heard/feedback/analysis reports reference Indigenous or stakeholder groups’ feedback. The evaluation was only able to review one What We Heard report,^Footnote 6 which clearly outlines the Indigenous feedback received and how it was considered. In this particular instance, a review of the draft Indigenous Knowledge Policy Framework for Project Reviews and Regulatory Decisions, funding was made available in May 2021 to support Indigenous communities and organizations review of the draft Framework. Feedback was provided on many areas of the Framework, including: general updates and clarification; United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; collaborative decision-making; Canada’s colonial legacy; respect for Indigenous and Treaty rights; consideration of Indigenous Knowledge; capacity building related to Indigenous Knowledge; training for federal officials; management and protection of Indigenous Knowledge; applicability of the Framework; implementation of the Framework; and engagement process on the Framework. The Annex to the What We Heard Report includes a summary of the PDP submissions (with 79 Indigenous communities and organizations providing input). A total of 29 existing resources about Indigenous Knowledge were also provided by those providing input and are listed in an Annex.

The PDP ultimate outcome is assessment policies, guidelines, tools and practices, as well as assessments themselves are more effective. It is not clear whether this outcome was achieved since half of IAAC interviewees that could comment said this outcome has been achieved, while the other half said it is not being achieved (that the IAAC needs to do a better job linking advice to undertaking assessments).

RP

The evidence suggests that the RP is achieving the immediate outcome of increased partnerships with diverse researchers. The vast majority (93.3%) of RP funding recipients are new, confirming the diversity of researchers it funds. Formal partnerships have also been established with the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Network for Expertise and Dialogue for Impact Assessment, further broadening partnerships with researchers.

It is less clear whether the immediate outcome, body of research is accessible to internal and external stakeholders, is being achieved to its fullest extent. Between 2019-20 and 2022-23, the RP has supported the development of 39 research products (including those conducted through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council). Examples of products (from the file review) include: final report/peer-review publications, tools (database, assessment tool), workshops, presentations/conference presentations, and training materials. The RP disseminates research products internally (via presentations, workshops, newsletters, posts on Atrium and elsewhere) and externally (via its website and social media, as well as through the researchers it supports via publications and conference presentations). The file review confirmed external dissemination for four of ten files, including final reports, conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications and the creation of a virtual network, interdepartmental workshops, and webinars, workshops and a dedicated website. As well, the website has been seeing increased traffic over time since its creation is 2020-21. Of the research products supported by the RP, 12 have been cited by other academics (including one that was cited 15 times).

However, the evidence from interviewees and KUUT respondents was mixed insofar as some felt dissemination was appropriate and some disagreed. Those disagreeing suggested having an accessible library where products are available. Given the existence of the RP website for several years, this suggests that existing dissemination approaches have been insufficient to raise awareness. Additionally, the feedback from interviewees and KUUT respondents indicates that while information is shared efficiently with some groups, other groups are not aware of research products. This was confirmed through the administration of the KUUT when many of those invited to share their views on research products indicated there were unaware of the product in question, but this may have also been because the research was not sufficiently related to their specific field of research.

Most RP funding recipient interviewees said their networks have expanded due to the RP funding and some noted that graduate students became more engaged in IA topics, due to the funding, suggesting some degree of success in achieving the intermediate outcome of expanded community of research and researchers. However, KUUT respondents were more divided in their feedback, indicating that while the program does create opportunities for research that may be relevant for high-quality assessments, the research that has been conducted to date is generally inadequate to significantly expand the research community focused on IAs.

It is also not clear whether the intermediate outcome, increased knowledge base related to assessments, has been achieved. On the positive side, some IAAC interviewees noted good internal dissemination of research products. As well, some external and RP funding recipient interviewees provided examples of how the knowledge base has been increased, through publications, dissemination to the public, presentations to academic audiences, and referencing by people around the world. However, more exposure of the products to the public was suggested by a few IAAC and external interviewees. Some IAAC interviewees also said that they were not aware of any research products being used or expanding the knowledge base, and that the language in research products is too academic. KUUT respondents indicated that while the RP disseminates information efficiently, it currently appears limited in its capacity to affect the uptake of assessment practices.

Due to lack of clarity around the achievement of intermediate outcomes, it follows then the extent to which the ultimate outcome, research supports high-quality assessments, has been achieved is also not clear. There was inconsistent evidence from IAAC interviewees with three seeing good alignment between research products and usefulness for assessments, two with mixed views and one saying there is poor alignment. Those commenting on the good alignment noted that assessments have been supported via dissemination to staff, good dialogue with IAAC regarding needs leading to use, and supporting the needs of committees. Those who saw opportunities for improvements regarding supporting assessments said that research products are not sufficiently practical to be useful, and they are not available in a timely way.

2.2.2 Factors Facilitating or Hindering Achievement of Outcomes

A number of factors were identified that facilitated and hindered the achievement of outcomes for all funding programs.

Facilitating factors were primarily focused on internal delivery features as well as outreach. The internal factor most commonly reported as facilitating the achievement of outcomes was the high-quality of IAAC staff. No facilitating external factors were identified.

Hindering factors included internal factors (such as limitations on how the funding can be used, awareness and delays) and external factors (such as capacity of applicants, and the unpredictability of projects).

Facilitating Internal Factors

• High quality staff that are knowledgeable and flexible in their approach to funding allocation
• Good processes including:
  • The application process.
  • The funding approval process.
  • Coordinated engagement processes to minimize consultation fatigue.
  • Processes for communicating consolidated research findings (e.g., infographics).
  • Reporting processes that minimize burden on Indigenous communities.

Hindering Internal Factors

• Issues around funding and how the funding can be spent, including:
  • Insufficient funding amounts and annual limits on funding.
  • Restrictions and inflexibility in budgets.
  • Applicants having their application for funding denied.
  • Funding amounts needing to be reduced due to high demand for the program.
  • Ineligible expenditures.
• Lack of awareness among some target communities/organizations that the Program exists.
• Lack of stability and longevity of the programs (i.e., 5-year cycle doesn’t create a lot of stability).
• Delays in funding (due to lengthy application process, slow decision-making) that can disrupt planned activities.
• Lack of engagement with external partners and working level teams within IAAC to identify priorities and communicate research products.

Hindering External Factors

• Funding applicants’ limited capacity to apply for funding and associated reliance on consultants, which further limits their ability to build internal capacity.
• Unpredictability of the projects, including:
  • Shift in scope or timelines.
  • Proponent delays.
• Delays resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Supreme Court of Canada decision and its impact on the relationship with Indigenous communities.
• Uncertainty of funding availability (e.g., delays impacted by Federal elections).

2.2.3 Unintended Outcomes

Evidence from the interviews with IAAC internal stakeholders and external stakeholders identified several unintended outcomes of the Program.

Internal stakeholder accounts of unintended outcomes include:

• Negative perceptions associated with participating in provincial/territorial assessments that may not offer funding to participants. Interviewees suggested there might be increased pressure on provinces/territories to offer funding, or increased demand for the federal government to get involved in a provincial/territorial assessment.
• Heightened expectations that other federal organizations will offer funding when engaging Indigenous communities, similar to IAAC.
• Application/consultation fatigue among funding recipients.

External stakeholder accounts of unintended outcomes include:

• The creation of a “cottage industry” with the same organizations applying multiple times. This is attributed to a gap in outreach and awareness among eligible communities and expanding beyond the regular actors.
• Funding benefitting consultants and/or lawyers more than the communities due to a lack baseline capacity that requires these communities to hire external consultants to help with proposals. This reflects the need for more funding support for the development of the baseline capacity of communities, rather than reliance on external consultants and experts.
• A bigger focus on individual projects than on improving the overall process due to the way the funding is allocated across the different program components. Specifically, while PFP is meant to improve the process, its focus on individual projects rather than the broader context of renewed treaties or fulsome land use planning limits its impact. There is a need for more long-term funding.

2.3 Efficiency

2.3.1 Program Design

The Program’s design features four integrated program components. The different program components address various aspects related to participation in impact assessments and knowledge generation. The PFP provides direct funding for participation, ICSP builds long-term capacity, PDP ensures stakeholder engagement in policy development, and RP fills knowledge gaps through targeted research. Design is integrated insofar as there exists a single set of Terms and Conditions for all four program components (where each component is described separately and has a separate Annex with eligible recipients, eligible activities and initiatives, funding decision criteria, funding application, and maximum amounts payable), a single PM Strategy. Each program component has a separate logic model and performance measurement strategy matrix, and a single Risk Management Framework for all four program components.

Several measures have been taken to improve the efficiency of the Program, with recommendations presented to the Grants and Contributions Oversight Committee (GCOC) in spring of 2021 and subsequently implemented. One set of recommendations included organizational and accountability restructuring, changes to delegations of authority, introducing the Centre of Excellence, establishing an integrated management framework, including risk management. Another set of recommendations included changes to the use of grants, timing and phasing of funding availability, and new funding levels.

The Program also undertook two reviews to ensure the design and delivery is efficient and effective. Those reviews resulted in a series of recommendations that were adopted by IAAC and whose changes are current features of the Program’s design and delivery approach. Several of these changes were identified as increasing the efficiency and appropriateness of the Program’s design and delivery such as, for example, the re-organization of all programs (except RP) under one roof, delegations of authority, and streamlining approvals.

Positive features of the Program’s overall design identified by partners and stakeholders interviewed for the evaluation include: each program serves a purpose towards undertaking impact assessment; flexibility and good working relationship between the Program staff and funding recipients (e.g., pivot when unexpected events happened, long-term relationships etc.); clear eligibility and selection criteria; good management of program components (all under “one roof”); trying to avoid lapsing (e.g., by allowing money to be moved from one Program component to the other and taking a risk-based approach); good outreach and education; and striving for continuous improvements to the Program.

The one commonly recommended design improvement was the need for more funding, particularly long-term funding. More flexibility in what is funded and/or how funding can be used was also mentioned by funding recipients.

Design Elements of the PFP and ICSP

All design elements (i.e., scope, target audience, and eligibility criteria) for the PFP and ICSP are consistent with comparable funding programs from other federal organizations and considered best practices. These are described below.

Scope

In terms of scope, the Program’s four components, and streams within those components, enable funding to be allocated for specific needs, including: participating in an IA project, general capacity building, informing policy and generating relevant research evidence.

Similar to IAAC’s PFP and ICSP, other federal organizations offer funding that is project-specific or for general capacity-building purposes; however, funding initiatives that are project-specific are more common. The importance of Indigenous communities being able to access general capacity-building funding was emphasized by comparable program representatives. Thus, IAAC’s approach of having two separate funding programs (i.e., PFP and ICSP) that meet both project-specific and general capacity-building needs is consistent with practices at other federal organizations for increasing capacity and facilitating participation in federal consultation activities.

Target Audience

The Program’s components target non-Indigenous members of the public and Indigenous Peoples. Initiatives that target exclusively Indigenous and Peoples ensures funding is dedicated to supporting their specific needs.

Similar to IAAC’s PFP and ICSP, comparable federal funding programs are designed to target members of the public (including individuals, not-for-profit organizations) and Indigenous communities or organizations expected to be engaged in the program’s eligible activities. Thus, IAAC’s approach to designing funding initiatives that target both members of the public as well as Indigenous communities, including a program that targets Indigenous communities exclusively, is consistent with practices at other federal organizations.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility criteria of the Program components are considered to be good, easy to achieve and inclusive. The Program’s broad eligibility criteria promote accessibility and provide the ability to rationalize approvals for funding based on internal decisions on where the funds are best spent.

The broad scope of eligible applicants across comparable funding programs emphasizes the accessible nature of funding initiatives, which is made available to interested individuals or groups including members of the public and Indigenous communities that could benefit from the funding. Thus, IAAC’s approach to maintaining broad eligibility criteria is consistent with other federal organizations.

Design Elements of the RP

All design elements (i.e., scope, target audience, and eligibility criteria) for the RP are consistent with comparable funding programs from other federal organizations. These are described below.

Scope

Comparable federal research programs offer funding that addresses research goals/interests/ areas that are pre-determined or mandated by the organization. IAAC’s approach to funding research projects that address the organization’s priority research concerns is consistent with these other comparable research programs.

Target Audience

Comparable federal research programs are designed to target individuals and groups with expertise in the areas of research of interest to the organization, including academics and other non-governmental organizations. IAAC’s approach is consistent with other federal organizations.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligible recipients of comparable federal research programs encompass a wide range of the most credible sources of scientific research and related activities that demonstrate expertise in the identified research areas/goals, including those identified in the programs’ target audiences. Still, funding across all research programs appears to be utilized primarily by researchers and academics at Canadian universities. This is consistent with the RP at IAAC.

2.3.2 Program Delivery

Structure

As part of exploring the delivery of the Program, the overall structure of the Program including integration of the four program components, as well as efficiency were considered.

The evidence suggests that the delivery approaches for the program components are complementary and coordinated. Program administration, governance, decision-making and delivery is integrated for three program components (PFP, ICSP and PDP). Detailed eligibility and funding decision criteria, as well as structured review processes, help avoid duplication between program components.

Financial management practices, including clear delineation of funding scopes and use of stacking limits, ensure efficient use of funds and reduce the risk of overlap. Finally, there is a centralized approach to managing program component budgets, although budgets are all presented separately.

The RP is managed under a separate organizational unit and appears to have unique mechanisms to identify and formulate funding initiatives. Most IAAC interviewees see program delivery as coordinated and complementary. A few IAAC interviewees mentioned the lack of coordination with RP and that there is some confusion among those outside the Program about how the program components intersect.

It was noted by IAAC interviewees that there is more clarity around risk management thresholds and tolerances since the introduction of the Risk Management Framework, which has resulted in a better ability for the Program to be more decisive, assess risk, and allow subject matter experts to do their jobs. It also encourages increased collaboration between the Program and Finance teams, in particular through the creation of the Centre of Expertise in the Finance and Planning Directorate. This has fostered standardization of processes across program components through shared financial oversight.

All program components contribute to the broader objectives of IAAC. An examination of the different logic models for each of the program components reveals a moderate degree of overlap between the outcomes of the PFP, ICSP and PDP. Specifically, they have outcomes related to increased capacity, meaningful participation, increased knowledge/access to information, and the concept of increased/improved partnerships or relationships. The RP outcomes also include one related to increased research partnerships, and increased knowledge base.

Administrative Efficiency

The average cost to deliver a funding initiative was $1,169 and the administrative ratio (i.e., the percent of the value of G&C allocated to administration) was 3.1%. This is a low number compared to most federal G&C programs, which tend to run between 5% and 15%.

A review of available documents shows a good degree of transparency regarding the application process, assessment criteria and maximum funding levels, which are all available online.

The efficiency of IAAC Program staff was highlighted by IAAC and external stakeholder interviewees alike.

Engagement of Potential Applicants and the Application Process

The application process for the IAAC program components was generally perceived by funding recipients as being clear, easy and efficient, with timely support provided by IAAC staff when requested. It was indicated by IAAC interviewees that the application process is more streamlined than it had been previously but can be challenging for communities who may be under third-party management.

IAAC interviewees expressed appreciation for consultations with regional staff being conducted to identify potential funding recipients, as well as the use of multi-year agreements. The document review and interview evidence reveal that there are many outreach and communications efforts made, including targeted outreach to Indigenous communities, newsletters sent to multiple stakeholders, the use of social media, and dedicated communications. The comparative study confirmed that these outreach approaches are consistent with best practices.

There is a mix of adherence to service standards by program component. In particular, ICSP has met its service standard to respond to proposals within 45 working days in all years from 2020-21 to 2022-23. PDP only met the same service standard in 2021-22 (it did not meet the standard in 2020-21 and is not applicable in 2022-23).

Some suggestions were made for improvements, including: providing feedback to unsuccessful applicants about why their application was unsuccessful; the use of standard templates for PDP communications about potential funding opportunities (as opposed to crafting emails); simplified application process (making forms more accessible, simpler and available online); streamlining application processes for repeat funding recipients; improving the engagement of the public in PFP funding opportunities through the creation of a simplified application form; and increasing opportunities to simultaneously engage with non-Indigenous stakeholders and Indigenous community members and avoid duplication of efforts when engaging both groups separately. One of the challenges with the process experienced by applicants is that the timing and deadlines may not align with their availability and needs, hindering them from submitting applications.

The comparative study identified a few opportunities to leverage other best practices for consideration by all programs, particularly for open calls for proposals, including having earlier calls for proposals to ensure that recipients have enough time to build capacity/prepare for the application, as well as the use of strategic marketing and engagement strategies such as email blasts, social media ads, radio ads, information sessions, brochures and pamphlets, use of Indigenous languages, and promoting review board workshops, engagement sessions, industry conferences.

Some feedback was also gathered from KUUT respondents about the outreach to potential researchers. In particular, it was suggested approaches to effectively target key audiences and identify research areas that could benefit from Program funding should be improved. An example was provided whereby a systematic approach to identify target audiences who might be more likely than others to benefit from using the research products could be implemented.

Funding Allocation

The surveyed successful and unsuccessful applicants had differing views on the timeliness of funding decisions, with some perceiving it as timely and others not.

IAAC internal stakeholders indicated that there have been recent improvements that have increased the efficiency of the funding initiative approval process. This includes having a revised delegation of signing authority, with greater authority at the Program Director level. A look at the service standards related to timely decisions (i.e., decision on proposal within 45 working days) shows that the ICSP and PDP have only met this timeline in 2022-23. PFP has met this timeline in all fiscal years since 2020-21.

There are still opportunities to improve the efficiency of the Program through more planning of funding allocations (this was mentioned for RP specifically), improved communication to other staff within IAAC regarding available funding initiatives, and work to continue to streamline the approvals process, especially for repeat recipients. Suggestions were made to benefit organizations with recurring funding needs by improving the funding allocation processes for multi-year funding and/or providing bridge funding between fiscal years.

The service standard data reinforces that further improvements are needed, particularly related to the timely signing of agreements (within five working days), which has consistently not been met for ICSP, PDP or PFP. It should be noted that the processing of grants for PFP (within five working days) and the signing of agreements for RP (within five working days) have been met.

Governance

All program components go to the GCOC for discussion and funding initiative approval for recommendation. The GCOC is the primary committee that is leveraged for Program management. The GCOC is a Director/Manager-level venue that is open to anyone with responsibility or interest in G&C programs. It shares best practices, advice, input and recommendations on the overall administration of those programs. “The GCOC ensures horizontal leadership, consistency and accountability in its areas of interest.”^Footnote 7 It also looks at a broad range of topics that vary from meeting to meeting.

Moreover, Section 32 and 34 approvals are consolidated for all four program components. The IAAC finance team serves as a financial management advisor for G&Cs, providing regular financial updates to the Programs and Vice-President, as well as presentations at the GCOC. Financial information pertaining to the Program is also regularly reported to Corporate Services Committee.

According to those consulted for the evaluation, the Program’s governance is well structured and a commonly cited feature is the lowered-level signing authority for increased efficiency of funding approvals. Program governance is consistent with practices of comparable federal funding programs, which are administered by small teams of two or three staff members responsible for overseeing the delivery of the program and have delegated signing authority at the Director level.

All program components other than RP have Funding Review Committees (FRCs) to review submissions and prepare recommendations for senior management approval. RP has a documented process to gather input and approval at various committees prior to a recommendation that is prepared for senior management sign-off. Again, these approaches are consistent with practices at comparable federal programs. Other research programs, for example, have a senior staff member (Officer or Manager) that oversees the program, as well as a governing body (Advisory Committee or Management Table) that make recommendations for funding approval.

Since September 2023, the Program has applied IAAC’s Risk Management Framework for Grants and Contributions to determine risk levels at the initiative level (i.e., at the level of funds being provided or committed to specific individuals or organizations). It determines “the requirements to be included in the funding agreement and when determining the level of involvement and oversight required by Program staff.”^Footnote 8

Payment Processes

The funding initiative payment processes have consistently met or exceeded the Program’s timeline service target of 95%. In the 2020-21 fiscal year, ICSCP and PDP met the program target at 95% while PFP exceeded the program target at 99%. Likewise, in the 2021-22 and 2022-23 fiscal years, the ISCP, PDP and PFP each exceeded the program target to achieve a 100% service standard.

The timeliness of payment processes was also noted by internal interviewees, funding recipient interviewees and PFP survey respondents who expressed satisfaction with the Program’s payment processes. The RP funding recipients highlighted that the transfer of money was not only “seamless,” but also “relatively quick” compared to other funding sources.

Qualitative evidence was obtained from a few funding recipients who shared that the Program’s processes are misaligned with their own internal operations. While these insights are not directed at IAAC’s operations, they may allow the Program to gain a better understanding of how funding recipients engage with or encounter barriers when attempting to engage with the Program. One interviewee shared that their internal finance departments often encounter difficulties identifying the funding source. To mitigate this issue, this interviewee noted that IAAC funding deposits should be well-tagged. Further, another interviewee shared that their internal systems have led to stalled processing times that impact their ability to access IAAC funding in a timely manner. Finally, one interviewee expressed concerns that the IAAC funding schedule is misaligned with the First Nation’s fiscal schedule, creating challenges for delegating funds and reporting on funding activities.

Performance Measurement and Monitoring

It should be noted that feedback on performance measurement and monitoring was not directly sought from those consulted for the evaluation. Therefore, evidence presented below was shared when asked to comment on the Program processes more generally. Having said that, the indicators for the document review did explore the extent of overlap of outcomes between the various program components.

Performance Measurement

IAAC has recently developed a PM Strategy for the IA G&C Program (2023), which includes separate logic models, indicators and performance measurement strategy tables for each program component. In terms of accountability for performance measurement, performance data is held by the Program team in the Indigenous Partnerships Division. However, the PM Strategy includes many indicators in the performance measurement tables have multiple data owners (up to four in some cases), which dilutes the accountability to collect and report on indicators. This is particularly the case for the PFP, but the ICSP and PDP also have indicators with multiple data owners. RP data owners are more limited and focused. It should be acknowledged that some indicators are more complex than others and therefore rely on data coming from multiple groups within IAAC. However, best practice in performance measurement practices notes that accountability for collecting the indicator (or the data used to respond to the indicator) should rest with one position.

A review of the logic models for the program components also reveals a moderate degree of overlap between the outcomes of the PFP, ICSP and PDP. There is also some overlap with RP outcomes in the PM Strategy. While this suggests a high degree of complementarity (discussed above under Program design), it also suggests that there is an opportunity for increased integration of performance measurement among the program components. While data would continue to be captured by component, greater integration could streamline reporting for the Program, rather than providing disjointed but similar information for decision-makers.

There is no mention in the PM Strategy of the overlap or potential for overlap in monitoring and reporting between the program components and between the various data owners. This type of overlap could lead to decreased efficiencies and inconsistent reporting across program components, but this was not discussed in any of the evidence collected for the evaluation (including through feedback from internal IAAC interviewees).

A review of several IAAC Departmental Results Reports found that the data reported are largely focused on output indicators, such as the number of funding agreements signed under each of the Program’s components, as well as partnerships developed, etc. The 2021-22 Departmental Results Report mentioned examples of meaningful engagement, but these instances were not linked with funding provided through the Program.

Monitoring

Submissions to IAAC by funding recipients vary based on whether they received a grant or a contribution. Reporting requirements for grant recipients are less onerous and focus on the submission of an expense claim. Contribution recipients are expected to submit financial reports, activity reports, a final report.

When people external to IAAC were asked to share opportunities for improvement to Program implementation, only three provided suggestions for improvement to the reporting requirements. One external interviewee said that the Program should offer more guidance for financial reporting (while also noting that staff are responsive to questions). One survey respondent suggested there should be an improved process to upload financial reports and disbursement requests that includes a confirmation of receipt by IAAC. One ICSP funding recipient interviewee requested clearer reporting guidelines to minimize confusion and ensure recipients understand the information they will need to provide.

Based on interviews with other government departments operating similar programs, monitoring and reporting is consistent with other programs. One successful practice noted in other departments was to conduct informal monitoring via touch-base calls and on-site monitoring for more high-risk projects.

3.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

3.1 Conclusions

Relevance

There is an ongoing need for the Program. It is meeting the need of IAAC to deliver on its mandate and the legal obligation for the Government of Canada to ensure the participation and engagement of Indigenous Peoples and stakeholders. It is also meeting the needs of funding recipients to build their capacity to empower community members to participate in current and future project Indigenous consultations and public engagement. The Program addresses this need by providing funding that: 1) increases capacity around IA; 2) increases understanding of IA and IA-related processes and activities; and 3) enables participation in the IA process.

Remaining gaps in addressing the needs of Program recipients include areas pertaining to funding amounts, sufficiency to build capacity and flexibility to use funds on other priorities.

The extent to which the needs of diverse populations are considered by the Program differs across the four program components. Specifically, the PFP and PDP program guidelines do not mention diversity as a criterion or consideration for funding, whereas the ICSP and RP have considered diversity in determining funding amounts and priorities. The Program’s design and implementation considers the needs of diverse populations via the inclusion of GBA Plus in funding calls and assessment criteria, simplified processes to encourage applications from lower-capacity communities, attempts to achieve a balance of genders on committees, and available funding for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous applicants. In turn, gaps are reflected by a lack of targeted outreach strategies directed at affected populations, limited diversity among funding recipients, and a lack of support for low-capacity communities.

The Program is clearly aligned with federal government and IAAC priorities. Notably, IAAC has a statutory requirement to carry-out the Crown’s legal duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples, and the IAA articulates that a participant funding program must be established. The IAA further discusses the importance of public participation in the impact assessment process, the government’s commitment to ensuring the rights of the Indigenous Peoples of Canada and to fostering reconciliation and working in partnership with them, and the government’s commitment to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Effectiveness

The evaluation found that PFP, ICSP and RP have built capacity in terms of increased knowledge, understanding, skills and/or information. However, the lack of capacity continues to be commonly mentioned as an opportunity for improvement and as a barrier for the achievement of outcomes. For the PDP, it is not clear whether capacity has been built (i.e., whether there is improved assessment knowledge and information, whether they are more able to provide advice and feedback), although a few PDP funding recipients said that it had.

In terms of improved relationships with Indigenous communities and organizations, the evaluation was not able to directly determine progress. Through the use of proxy indicators, it appears that relationships with Indigenous communities and organizations have improved. The PDP has an outcome that includes relationships with the public, but the evidence is less positive, with a lower percentage of repeat recipients who are stakeholders. However, IAAC did attend a large number of meetings with stakeholders. For its part, the RP has increased the diversity of researchers as well as the breadth of the research community, although to a lesser extent.

The evaluation found that the Program has increased participation and/or engagement in assessment-related activities, including providing feedback on assessment-related policies, guidelines, tools, and practices. The extent to which participation is meaningful is less apparent.

IA practitioners have better access to information from Indigenous communities and organizations and the public. This is occurring through activities funded through the PFP and PDP. The RP has also generated a great deal of information that has been shared, both internally and externally. However, the evaluation found that more should be done to increase the dissemination of research products, particularly to those outside of IAAC.

Thus, while there has been good progress towards the achievement of the immediate and most intermediate outcomes across all program components, the achievement of longer-term outcomes is less clear. In particular, more work is required to ensure that funding leads to meaningful participation, more effective assessments, and high-quality assessments.

Facilitating factors for the achievement of outcomes largely focused on high quality staff and good delivery processes. Hindering factors focus on funding amounts and restrictions, awareness of the program among some potential applicants, delays in funding decisions, and the lack of engagement with external partners and working level teams within IAAC to identify research priorities and communicate research products.

Efficiency

The Program’s overall design is appropriate and efficient. The different program components address various aspects related to participation in impact assessments and knowledge generation. Moreover, the design is integrated for the most part. Several measures have been taken to improve the efficiency of the Program, with recommendations presented to GCOC in spring of 2021 and subsequently implemented. The Program also undertook two reviews to ensure the design and delivery is efficient and effective, which resulted in a series of recommendations being adopted by IAAC with the changes becoming the current features of the Program’s design and delivery approach. Several positive features of the design were highlighted by those consulted for the evaluation. The one commonly mentioned design improvement was the need for more funding, particularly long-term funding. More flexibility in what is funded and/or how funding can be used was also mentioned by funding recipients.

All design elements (i.e., scope, target audience, and eligibility criteria) for the PFP, ICSP and RP are consistent with comparable funding programs from other federal organizations and considered best practices. (PDP was not included in the comparative review due to the lack of comparable programs.)

The evaluation found that the delivery approaches for the program components are complementary and coordinated. Program administration, governance, decision-making and delivery is integrated for three program components (PFP, ICSP and PDP). The RP is managed under a separate organizational unit and appears to have unique mechanisms to identify and formulate funding initiatives. All program components contribute to the broader objectives of IAAC. An examination of the different logic models for each of the program components reveals a moderate degree of overlap between the outcomes of the PFP, ICSP and PDP.

The administration of the program is highly efficient. The application process for the IAAC program components was generally perceived by funding recipients as being clear, easy and efficient, with timely support provided by IAAC staff when requested. Having said that, several suggestions were made to improve outreach pertaining to funding opportunities and streamlining the application process. Many of those consulted for the evaluation noted recent improvements in the funding allocation processes. Improvement to the timeliness of decision-making in particular, is reflected in service standards. However, there is more work to be done to improve the timeliness of signing agreements, internal communications regarding available funding initiatives and streamline approvals particularly for repeat recipients. Governance and payment processes appear to be functioning well.

Performance measurement is in its early stages, with a PM Strategy introduced in 2023. While performance data is held by the Funding Program’s team in the Indigenous Partnerships Division, a review of the indicators and measurement approaches reveals that many indicators have multiple data owners. Best practice in performance measurement practices notes that accountability for collecting the indicator (or the data used to respond to the indicator) should rest with one position. Moreover, a review of the logic models for the program components also reveals a moderate degree of overlap between the outcomes of the PFP, ICSP and PDP (and minor overlap with RP outcomes). The presence of multiple data owners and overlap between outcomes (and indicators) could lead to decreased efficiencies and inconsistent reporting across program components. Monitoring approaches are generally consistent with practices in other departments, although a few funding recipients noted a few opportunities for improvement.

3.2 Recommendations

GGI makes the following recommendations to the IA G&C Program:

1. Increase consideration for the needs of diverse populations. Implement standardized procedures to ensure consistency in efforts to achieve greater diversity of participants across all funding components.
   • Consider embedding additional Equity, Diversity and Inclusion considerations and criteria in funding availability procedures to ensure a wide variety of organizations and communities (including low-capacity communities) have access to funding.
2. Increase public (i.e., non-Indigenous) participation in funding programs. Tailor outreach strategies and application procedures to encourage and facilitate access to funding (and subsequent participation in assessments) among members of the public (i.e., non-Indigenous individuals).
   • Ensure IAAC staff has the necessary information regarding available funding opportunities and target audiences.
   • Consider identifying community networks/forums to promote funding opportunities.
   • Consider creating a simplified application form that is tailored to members of the public.
3. Provide more detailed feedback to unsuccessful applicants.
   • For the ICSP in particular, improve the feedback mechanism for communicating funding decisions with applicants, including unsuccessful applicants, to promote transparency.
   • Consider sharing specific reasons for why the application was unsuccessful via a letter or by sharing the scoring grid with unsuccessful applicants.
4. Broaden dissemination of research products. Increase awareness and accessibility of the research products to broader audiences.
   • Consider identifying and implementing additional targeted dissemination strategies to improve the uptake of research findings both internally and externally.
5. Streamline performance measurement. Based on the experience from the first year of implementing the PM Strategy, consider developing and implementing a centralized G&C information management system that will:
   • To the extent possible assign accountability for the data associated with each indicator to a single position.
   • Integrate the collection of the same/similar data (for similar outcomes) among the program components to increase efficiency.
   • Streamline reporting to decision-makers, rather than providing separate but similar information by program component.

Appendix A: Logic Models for Program Components

Text version

For the Participant Funding Program, this graphic depicts the relationship between activities (provide funding to enable Indigenous participation in the Assessment process, and provide funding to support public engagement in the Assessment process) lead to three outputs (consultation with Indigenous groups, funding agreements, and engagement with the public). The graphic then shows how the outputs lead to a series of three levels of outcomes, including three immediate outcomes (improved relationships with Indigenous groups and the public, better access to information from Indigenous groups and the public, and increased capacity of Indigenous groups and the public to participate in Assessments), which lead to a single intermediate outcome (increased meaningful participation in Assessments by Indigenous groups and the public), which leads to a single ultimate outcome (better information available for Assessments).

Text version

For the Indigenous Capacity Support Program, this graphic the depicts the relationship between activities (triage and select expressions of interest and funding proposals for all ICSP Funding Streams, negotiate proposals and identify needs, and conduct outreach with Program Partners) lead to four outputs (funding agreements, strategic capacity support activities, community of practice events, and partnerships and networks). The graphic then shows how the outputs lead to a series of three levels of outcomes, including two immediate outcomes (improved Assessment knowledge and information sharing among Indigenous groups, and long-term partnerships with Indigenous groups), which lead to a single intermediate outcome (increased Assessment capacity among Indigenous groups), which leads to a single ultimate outcome (meaningful participation in Assessments).

Text version

For the Policy Dialogue Program, this graphic depicts the relationship between activities (collaborate with regional and national organizations, utilize Advisory Committees to advance policy dialogue, lead technical and regional workshops with Indigenous rights holders and organizations, and engagement with stakeholders, Indigenous rights holders and organizations) lead to two outputs (documented internal and external advice and feedback on Assessment-related policy products and guidance, and funding agreements). The graphic then shows how the outputs lead to a series of three levels of outcomes, including three immediate outcomes (improved Assessment knowledge and information among Indigenous groups and stakeholders, increased engagement in the development of Assessment-related policies, guidelines, tools and practices, and reciprocal relationships advanced), which lead to a three intermediate outcomes (increased capacity to provide advice and feedback on Assessment-related policies, guidelines, tools and practices, policies, guidelines, tools and practices are reflective of Indigenous groups and stakeholder perspectives, as appropriate, and meaningful participation in policy development), which lead to a single ultimate outcome (Assessment policies, guidelines, tools and practices, as well as Assessments themselves are more effective).

Text version

For the Research Program, this graphic depicts the relationship between activities (forge partnerships with researchers, identify research priorities, and collaborate within Agency and other partners to deliver and disseminate research) and how they lead to four outputs (established Research Networks and other partnership, research Grant Agreements, research products and events related to research priorities, and research is shared with internal and external stakeholders). The graphic then shows how the outputs lead to a series of three levels of outcomes, including three immediate outcomes (increased partnerships with diverse researchers, research priorities are addressed by research products, and body of research is accessible to internal and external stakeholders), which lead to two intermediate outcomes (increased knowledge base related to Assessments, and expanded Community of Research and Researchers), which lead to a single ultimate outcome (research supports high-quality Assessments).

Appendix B: Evaluation Matrix