Summary: Evaluation of the Impact Assessment Grants and Contributions Program

March 2025

© 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: En106-283/2025-1E-PDF

ISBN 978-0-660-75562-5

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

About the Evaluation

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC), contracted Goss Gilroy Inc. to conduct an independent evaluation of the Impact Assessment (IA) Grants and Contributions (G&C) Program, under the oversight of an evaluation advisory committee. Completed in 2024-25, the objective of the evaluation was 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 scope of the evaluation included the Program’s four components: Participant Funding Program (PFP), Indigenous Capacity Support Program (ICSP), Policy Dialogue Program (PDP), and Research Program (RP). The evaluation assessed the issues of relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency.

Key limitations to the evaluation included: an overall small number of Indigenous organizations and communities participating in interviews and the online survey; reduced number of case studies being completed because not all funding recipients were able to participate; and missing or inconsistent financial information related to individual components. To ensure limitations associated with any one method would be mitigated, the evaluation was designed to use multiple and mixed methods with conclusions and recommendations being informed by all methods.

Relevance

The evaluation confirmed an ongoing need for all components of the Program. That is, the Program is meeting the needs of funding recipients to build their capacity to empower community members to participate in current and future Indigenous consultations and public engagement on projects. However, some gaps remain, including sufficiency of funding generally and to build capacity, and flexibility to use funds on other priorities. From a diversity perspective, the extent to which the needs of diverse populations are considered by the Program differs across the four program components, with the ICSP and RP considering diversity in priorities and funding decisions, and it not being included in the guidelines for the PFP and PDP. The evaluation also confirmed that the Program enables IAAC to deliver its mandate and meet the legal obligation for the Government of Canada to ensure the participation and engagement of Indigenous Peoples and stakeholders in assessment processes.

Effectiveness

There has been a good progress towards achieving the immediate and most intermediate outcomes across all Program components; however, the evaluation could not clearly confirm whether the Program components were contributing to the ultimate outcomes. In particular, the evaluation could not determine whether the funding provided through the different components has led to meaningful participation, more effective assessments, and high-quality assessments.

Factors that were seen to facilitate the achievement of outcomes focused on the high-quality of IAAC staff and effective delivery processes. Hindering factors focused on funding (i.e., amounts, limitations on how the funding can be spent, delays receiving funding approval), lack of awareness of the Program, lack of stability of the Program (i.e., five year renewal requirement), and lack of engagement with external partners and working level teams within IAAC.

Efficiency

The Program’s design was determined to be an appropriate and efficient way to achieve the intended outcomes and broader objectives of IAAC. It is also consistent with best practices. Similarly, Program delivery was found to be largely integrated, and Program components to be complementary. The exception relates to the delivery of the RP, which is managed under a separate organizational unit and has unique mechanisms in place to identify and formulate funding initiatives.

Although the administration of the Program was confirmed to be highly efficient with clear, easy, and efficient application processes, some areas for improvement were identified. These include, streamlining the application process, using a standard application template, creating a simplified application form for the public, timelier signing of agreements, better internal communication related to funding initiatives, and providing feedback to unsuccessful applicants about why their application was unsuccessful.

In addition, the evaluation identified that although performance measurement is in its early stages, it could benefit from streamlining to facilitate monitoring and reporting.

Recommendations, management response and action plans

The evaluation makes five 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.
2. Increase public (i.e., non-Indigenous) participation in funding programs.
3. Provide more detailed feedback to unsuccessful applicants.
4. Broaden dissemination of research products.
5. Streamline performance measurement.

The Management Response and Action Plan (MRAP) for the five recommendations is available here https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment-agency/corporate/transparency/accountability-performance-financial-reporting/evaluation-grants-contributions-program-report.html