Evaluation of the Women’s Program

Executive Summary

This evaluation assesses the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of the Women’s Program delivered by Women and Gender Equality Canada (WAGE) for the period from 2016–17 to 2021–22.

The evaluation draws on multiple lines of evidence, including document and data reviews, surveys, interviews, and focus groups, to provide a comprehensive overview of the Program’s achievements.

The Women’s Program funded 533 projects through calls for proposals (CFPs) and an additional 60 through continuous intake (CI). Program resources reached over 1.1 million people directly, supported by more than 1,800 tools distributed via social media and awareness campaigns.

Relevance: Through the provision of both project and capacity-building funds to women’s organizations at the local, regional, provincial/territorial and national level, the Women’s Program plays an essential and ongoing role in advancing gender equality in Canada. Its objectives and approach remain closely aligned with federal priorities, government policy frameworks, and the diverse, intersectional needs of women and gender-diverse individuals across the country.

The Women’s Program has demonstrated responsiveness through its focus on capacity-building and sustainability, despite some confusion among stakeholders about the distinct roles of different gender-based violence initiatives at Women and Gender Equality Canada.

Coherence: The Women’s Program has made strides in fostering coherence through partnerships and engagement efforts. The Program has contributed to advancing women’s leadership and equality across Canada through actions such as joint funding agreements with provinces and territories, highlighting its efforts to provide aligned support. It has also leveraged the Forum of Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women to foster collaboration. Jurisdictional scans and partnerships with organizations have further supported the understanding of needs and helped enhance the Program’s reach. Despite these efforts, engagement with other federal departments remained limited, indicating a need for strengthened collaboration to prevent duplication and improve the overall impact.

Effectiveness: The Women’s Program has made progress toward its short-, medium- and long-term outcomes and contributed to systemic change, mainly in policies and practices. Funded projects have built and strengthened networks, led to increased knowledge-sharing, and provided targeted supports and resources for diverse communities. Organizations report notable growth in their capacity to address gender equality, and evidence shows advancements in the adoption of more inclusive policies and practices.

Unintended positive outcomes reported by funding recipients, such as expanded reach, heightened organizational visibility, and new partnerships, further highlight the Program’s impact. However, the measurement of long-term systemic change remains a challenge, and performance data gaps limit deeper analysis.

Efficiency: The Program has offered appreciated flexibility and support, enabling organizations to adapt to evolving needs and contexts. Overall, funding recipients surveyed reported being very satisfied with the Program application. This level of satisfaction has remained consistent over time, aligning with findings from the 2016 survey.

Sustainability: Sustained progress is evident through continued resource dissemination, ongoing partnerships, and strengthened organizational capacity. Nevertheless, a number of women’s organizations, particularly smaller ones, have raised concerns that challenges such as job precarity, limited long-term funding, and difficulties in securing new financial resources may threaten the durability of results.

Conclusion: Overall, the Women’s Program is seen as a critical driver of gender equality in Canada. While it has achieved meaningful progress and is valued by stakeholders, continued focus is needed on improving clarity about the distinct roles of the Program, enhancing data collection, and securing sustained funding to address systemic barriers.

Recommendations

Based on the program’s context^{Footnote 1} , the Women’s Program should continue to adapt its approach to ensure alignment with emerging priorities.

1. Support initiatives that will strengthen and enhance the long-term stability of the women’s sector to address persistent barriers that impede women’s economic security and leadership opportunities.
2. Clarify and streamline the various gender-based violence initiatives where appropriate to enhance stakeholders’ understanding and maximize internal and external efficiencies.
3. Implement improved data collection and analysis strategies to better measure the impact of the Women’s Program’s initiatives.

1.Introduction

This document presents the findings and recommendations from the evaluation of Women and Gender Equality Canada’s Women’s Program. As required under the Treasury Board Secretariat’s 2016 Policy on Results, the evaluation aims to provide comprehensive and reliable evidence to support decision-making.

1.1 Program Profile

The Women’s Program, established in 1973 in response to a recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada, has evolved to become a key driver of gender equality in Canada. Initially providing funding and technical support to women’s organizations, it was integrated into Status of Women Canada (SWC) in 1995, later becoming the Department for Women and Gender Equality in 2018.

The purpose of the Program is to advance equality for women in Canada by working to address or remove systemic barriers to their progress and advancement. The ultimate outcome of the Women’s Program is the full participation of women in the economic, social, and democratic life of Canada.

The Program has an annual grants and contributions funding base of approximately $19 million (ongoing).^{Footnote 2}  However, its funding has grown significantly over the evaluation period. In Budget 2018, $100 million was invested over five years to support the sustainability of women’s organizations, followed by Budget 2019’s $160 million^{Footnote 3}  over five years for tackling systemic barriers to women’s equality. More recently, Budget 2023 allocated $160 million over three years to support women-serving organizations, though funding will return to $19 million annually in April 2027.^{Footnote 4}

Focused on economic security and prosperity, leadership and decision-making roles, and ending gender-based violence^{Footnote 5} ,  the Program funds local, regional, and national initiatives through grants and contributions. Funding applications were accepted through open or invitational calls for proposals and via continuous intake.

The Women’s Program 2021–2023 logic model^{Footnote 6} (Appendix 1) underscores activities such as stakeholder capacity-building, networking, advocacy, community engagement, and knowledge mobilization, with outcomes centered on establishing networks, applying knowledge, improving gender norms, and achieving women’s full participation in various aspects of life.

1.2 Evaluation Approach

The evaluation focuses on the period from 2016–17 to 2021–22 and includes projects from various calls for proposals dating back to 2013, which closed during the evaluation period. Data collection took place from August 2023 to March 2024. Detailed information on each line of evidence can be found in Appendix 3 .

Five core issues have been identified: relevance, coherence, effectiveness/performance, efficiency, and sustainability. These five areas correspond to evaluation criteria and were assessed through nine evaluation questions.

The evaluation’s key questions, sub-questions, indicators, and data sources are summarized in the evaluation matrix in Appendix 2.

The evaluation used multiple lines of evidence:

• Document and data review of over 450 files, including administrative data.
• Survey of funded organizations covering 514 funding recipients (sample) with a 53.7% response rate, i.e., 276 respondents.^{Footnote 7} 
• Census population data to provide broader demographic insights.
• Focus groups, including eight discussions with 23 representatives from funded organizations.
• Key informant interviews (42 interviews with 49 participants) with representatives from the Women’s Program, provincial and territorial governments, other federal departments, funded organizations, and experts.

Thematic analysis does not assign numeric or proportional values to the qualitative research findings (collected through interviews and focus groups). Instead, it uses the following qualifiers in summarizing the findings to represent the strength or frequency of the responses:

Limitations and mitigation

• Retention policies prevented access to ineligible/unfunded applicant data, limiting analysis of outcomes without program funding.
• To address low focus group participation, the project criteria were broadened beyond “closed” projects—acknowledging that some participants might not be able to speak to outcomes—and key informant interviews were offered as an alternative.
• The report acknowledges incomplete administrative data resulting from varying reporting templates and provides guidance for careful interpretation. 

2. Findings

Distribution of funding in support of Program objectives and prioritized population reach

The Women’s Program has funded a total of 533 projects through calls for proposal, with at least 60 additional projects supported through continuous intake. The following trends were noted among the funded projects:

• Ending violence was the most frequently funded priority (69%)
• Capacity-building followed at 38%
• Economic security projects accounted for 17%
• Leadership initiatives received 13% of the funding

Overall, 1,874 applications were received and 533 were approved, for an overall approval rate of 28%. Application approval rates varied across funding priorities, ranging from 14% to 50% and reflecting differences in demand and funding availability.

• Total applications received: 1,874
• Total applications approved: 533
• Overall approval rate: 28%

Financial analysis shows a substantial increase in the Women’s Program’s grants and contributions budget (B-Base versus A-Base funding) from 2019–20 to 2021–22 (see Graph 1). Spending patterns varied over the years: in some instances, planned spending exceeded actual expenditures, while in others, actual spending surpassed planned amounts.^{Footnote 8}  Qualitative data suggests that Women and Gender Equality Canada and the Women’s Program managed funding appropriately; however, no formal risk management documents were provided.

Graph 1: Planned and Actual Women’s Program Spending^{Footnote 9}

Despite these investments, insufficient performance data is available to determine the number of beneficiaries served by funded projects. However, administrative data provides insight into how resources were distributed across prioritized groups and demonstrates that the Women’s Program has successfully supported organizations addressing diverse gender equality objectives.

During the period under study, the Program activities reached a broad audience. A total of 3,418 resources were developed, engaging over 1.1 million people directly. Social media and awareness campaigns further extended this reach, distributing more than 1,800 communication tools. The intended audiences were diverse, including women, community members, employers/business owners, legislators, and media representatives.

While these figures reflect the Program’s broad outreach, demographic data on beneficiaries—particularly by identity factor—is not systematically tracked at the individual level. This limitation restricts the ability to conduct detailed analysis on the demographic distribution of those engaged.

Among projects that identified a specific priority group beyond women in general,^{Footnote 10}  Indigenous women and women in northern, remote, or rural areas were most frequently prioritized and received the highest proportion of funding. Other commonly prioritized groups included non-status, refugee, and immigrant women, racialized women, and youth, often in the context of gender-based violence initiatives. Some projects targeted multiple groups, so totals may overlap. The table below summarizes the five population groups most commonly prioritized across funded projects:

2.1 Relevance

Is the Women’s Program aligned with federal policies and priorities?

The need for the Women’s Program is evident in the persistence of systemic barriers that limit women’s full participation in Canadian society. Despite progress in recent decades, major gaps and systemic barriers persist for women, girls, and 2SLGBTQI+ people. These gaps and barriers are found in areas such as the impacts of poverty, inequalities in economic participation and leadership, the unequal burden of care, and pay inequity.^{Footnote 11}

Evidence from program documentation and interviews confirms that the Women’s Program aligns with federal policies and priorities, particularly on gender equality. The review highlights Women and Gender Equality Canada’s evolving role, from policy coordination to leading gender equality efforts across the federal government. In 2019, the Federal Gender Results Framework (GRF)^{Footnote 12} ,^{Footnote 13}  identified six key areas for advancing gender equality. The Women’s Program directly aligns with three of them: economic participation and prosperity, leadership and democratic participation, and gender-based violence.

During the evaluation period, other key federal priorities included advancing intersectionality through Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus), the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action, the Privy Council Office’s Call to Action on Anti-racism, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion and the Government of Canada’s commitment to accessibility and the rights of persons with disabilities.^{Footnote 14}  These priorities promote a more inclusive lens and, to varying degrees, align well with key elements of the Women’s Program and the specific focuses of its calls for proposals.

In December 2018, new legislation transformed the agency name from Status of Women Canada to Women and Gender Equality Canada, Canada’s first stand-alone federal department dedicated to advancing gender equality. This transition came with a broadened mandate and new programming, as well as new, time-limited funding under the Equality for Sex, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression Program (2019), and time-limited and ongoing funding under the Gender-based Violence Program (2017).

The launch of various gender-based violence initiatives—such as the Federal Strategy to Prevent and End Gender-based Violence, the National Action Plan to End Gender-based Violence, the Gender-based Violence Program,^{Footnote 15}  and new funding streams under both the Gender-based Violence Program and Women’s Program—created confusion for organization representatives and experts. There is a lack of clarity regarding the specific roles of different gender-based violence-related initiatives within Women and Gender Equality Canada. In particular, the distinction between the Women’s Program’s gender-based violence priority area and the department’s Gender-based Violence Program is not always well understood. Participants from most key informant groups indicated that they were unable to easily distinguish whether their funding originated from Women and Gender Equality Canada’s gender-based violence initiative. Representatives from Women and Gender Equality Canada also noted multiple instances of uncertainty regarding where to direct potential applicants for gender-based violence initiatives, given the number of programs offered by Women and Gender Equality.

The review of program documentation (2013–2019) also underscores a shift in the Women’s Program toward building organizational capacity and ensuring the sustainability of outcomes. The 2019–2021 program logic model introduced the Capacity-building Fund, as well as outreach, and recipient support, with a focus on expanding access to resources, knowledge, and partnerships to drive systemic change for women’s equality. As most of the capacity-building projects—originally funded from 2019–20 to 2022–23—were extended into 2023–24, specific results are not yet available. Early outcomes from these projects are explored in later sections.

Is the Women’s Program responsive to the needs of its stakeholders?

Findings from all lines of evidence confirm that the Women’s Program’s priorities—gender-based violence, economic security and prosperity, as well as leadership and decision-making—are well aligned with stakeholders’ needs. The program’s flexible and intersectional approach allows it to respond to the diverse challenges faced by different communities, ensuring its continued relevance in advancing gender equality.

Overall, results indicate a generally positive perception of the Program’s responsiveness among the external stakeholders consulted, with appreciation for its flexibility and ongoing support. At the same time, they emphasized the need for sustained support and strategic alignment to advance gender equality objectives across communities and sectors.

The introduction of capacity-building funding was viewed as a very positive step. Stakeholders in focus groups (out of 23) highlighted the Capacity-building Fund for effectively aligning with their strategic organizational needs. This funding was credited with providing crucial resources that enabled organizations to engage more strategically and address capacity and labour shortages, thereby enhancing project sustainability. Despite these positive aspects, concerns were raised about the duration of funding periods. Stakeholders advocated for longer funding periods to better support project implementation, community engagement, and relationship building.

Mechanisms for assessing and responding to stakeholder needs: The continuous refinement of the Women’s Program’s priorities through needs assessments and consultations has helped maintain alignment with emerging issues. To support this process, the Program used both formal and informal mechanisms, including jurisdictional environmental scans, to assess and respond to stakeholders’ needs effectively.

• The 2021–22 regional environmental scans identified gaps, highlighting the need for more flexible funding, enhanced childcare and housing support, and a streamlined application process.
• These analyses also underscored the unique challenges faced by Indigenous and trans communities, emphasizing the importance of tailored support and resources.

Evidence demonstrates that the Women’s Program was highly responsive to stakeholders’ needs, adjusting its funding mechanisms, criteria, and delivery models accordingly. This includes offering invitational calls for proposals with themes tailored to specific groups, along with flexible terms and conditions. This approach ensured the Program’s responsiveness and effectiveness in advancing gender equality across Canada.

• A key example of program adaptation is the reintroduction of funding eligibility for advocacy activities in 2016, following its removal in 2007. This shift reflects the Government of Canada’s renewed commitment to partnering with civil society by acknowledging advocacy’s vital role in shaping policy and driving reform in a democratic society. Alongside this change, consultations and amendments made to foundational documents in 2017 removed restrictions on organizational activities, increased funding limits, and strengthened support for the long-term sustainability of gender equality initiatives.
• The 2018 Capacity-building Fund’s call for proposals marked a shift toward more adaptable/responsive funding approaches. Grounded in the needs of equality-seeking organizations, the fund aimed to increase capacity, support long-term sustainability, and promote strategic planning for systemic change.
• Additional amendments in 2020 demonstrated the Program’s adaptability, particularly in response to COVID-19.

Regional environmental scans provided a broad understanding of community needs but did not systematically quantify them by beneficiary groups. However, they consistently highlighted service gaps for Indigenous women and those living in rural and remote areas.

To address these gaps, several calls for proposals specifically prioritized Indigenous women during the study period, including Empowering Indigenous Women for Stronger Communities (2016–17), Addressing the Economic Security and Prosperity of Indigenous Women (2017–18), and the Community Capacity-Building Fund for Indigenous Organizations (2018).

The Program has demonstrated responsiveness to the needs of underrepresented groups by tailoring its calls for proposals to address the specific challenges faced by target populations, using themes such as:

• increasing economic options for women; and
• enhancing economic prosperity for immigrant women.

As noted earlier, 28% of program funding was allocated to projects identifying Indigenous women as beneficiaries, while 12% supported women in northern, rural, and remote areas (including overlap between the two groups). The Women’s Program has also demonstrated responsiveness to stakeholders’ needs by adapting its eligibility criteria over time. Following consultations in 2017, significant changes were made, expanding applicant eligibility to include unions and educational institutions. Survey results show that the Program funds a diverse range of recipients, including:

• local-based organizations;
• provinces and/or territories ; and
• national organizations

Departmental representatives highlighted ongoing efforts to improve accessibility, particularly for women with disabilities, racialized communities, and Indigenous Peoples. The active engagement of program officers along with the introduction of capacity-building funds has been critical in ensuring the program remains responsive to diverse needs.

•    Most of the 21 funded organization representatives interviewed found the Women’s Program’s priorities relevant and interconnected, particularly in addressing violence against women and girls. The Program’s flexibility allowed them to tailor projects to their needs, focusing on support for women from 2SLGBTQI+ communities, economic empowerment for marginalized women, and women in leadership roles. The Program’s intersectional and trauma-informed approaches enabled organizations to address complex, multi-faceted issues.
•    Provincial and territorial officials interviewed (4) aligned the program’s priorities with their mandates, particularly in the areas of gender-based violence and leadership. They highlighted the importance of program funding in supporting leadership and capacity-building initiatives, especially in northern and remote regions. Collaboration with the Women’s Program was perceived as impactful, illustrated by projects such as Promoting Women in Leadership, which advanced women’s leadership and addressed gender parity. Some officials also highlighted alignment with additional priorities, such as engaging men and boys in violence prevention and addressing 2SLGBTQI+ issues, showing the Women’s Program’s alignment with broader governmental goals.
•  The need for prioritized supports for rural, Indigenous, and northern communities, where high costs and limited capacity pose significant barriers, was emphasized by provincial and territorial officials.
•    Expert interviewees (5), while recognizing the broad relevance of the Women’s Program’s priority areas, suggested expanding to better reflect the needs of equity-deserving groups. They emphasized the importance of addressing systemic barriers, social determinants of health and mental health, and all forms of discrimination, including notably, racism, homophobia and transphobia. They called for stronger collaboration between organizations and improved measurement of these barriers, including through Gender-based Analysis Plus and disaggregated data. They also stressed the importance of a robust gender-based violence monitoring system and criticized the complexity of funding processes, advocating instead for streamlined support for advocacy organizations.
•    Focus group participants praised the Women’s Program’s emphasis on systemic change and flexible funding. Many of the 23 representatives from funded organizations expressed the need for longer-term funding to achieve lasting systemic impact. While definitions of systemic change varied among stakeholders, capacity-building efforts were perceived positively. The discussions underscored the importance of maintaining flexible funding strategies to address gender equality challenges across all levels.
•    Interviews with Women’s Program officials (17) and provincial/territorial representatives (4) highlighted the Program’s strong commitment to stakeholder engagement and adaptability. Officials emphasized ongoing communication, consultations, and program flexibility in responding to emerging needs. They also noted alignment with broader government strategies, such as Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy and the Federal government’s Women’s Entrepreneurship Strategy.

2.2 Coherence

To what extent does the Women’s Program complement, coordinate, and/or avoid duplication?

Women and Gender Equality Canada serves as a central coordinating body for gender equality, fulfilling the three key roles of convenor, knowledge broker, and capacity builder.

Recognizing the importance of collaboration, Women and Gender Equality Canada launched efforts under Budget 2019 to develop the Partnerships and Strategic Investment Strategy, aimed at enhancing partnerships within three sectors: federal, provincial and territorial, philanthropic, and private. Partnerships with federal partners focused on “improved coordination and impact of federal actions to advance gender equality,” while collaboration with provincial and territorial partners sought to “facilitate funding access and maximize community impact by coordinating complementary activities.”^{Footnote 15}

Some partnership opportunities identified were directly linked to the Women’s Program. For instance, plans were made to develop processes for engaging other government departments in the Women’s Program’s calls for proposals, followed by their involvement in the assessment process. Although these initiatives did not unfold as planned, Program documents demonstrate that, between 2018 and 2020, the department engaged in key partnerships with the three sectors, marking an important step toward “building a more sustainable and higher impact approach.”^{Footnote 16}

In fact, driven by the desire for a coordinated policy approach and a recognition that achieving gender equality is a shared responsibility, Women and Gender Equality Canada increased its strategic engagement efforts. This included strengthening relationships and launching targeted partnership initiatives with other federal departments and provincial and territorial jurisdictions.^{Footnote 17}

Engagement with provincial and territorial partners: Women and Gender Equality Canada maintains ongoing collaboration with provincial and territorial partners through the Forum of Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women, an intergovernmental body established in 1982 to share knowledge, foster collaboration, and advance gender equality.

The Forum provides federal, provincial, and territorial ministers with a collective and unique opportunity to lead and influence change on current and emerging issues related to women’s equality and the status of women in Canada.

Evidence found in Program documentation highlighted the fact that some provincial and territorial senior officials were engaged in the parameters of the Women’s Program’s 2018 Capacity-building Fund prior to its launch, providing^{Footnote 18}  feedback on the calls for proposals as part of the consultation process.^{Footnote 19}

Partnerships between the Women’s Program and the provinces and territories were also illustrated through joint funding agreements to promote women in leadership through promotional campaigns and workshops, and to support women to be financially secure, free from violence, and fully able to participate in the economy and society, as follows:

• Women and Gender Equality Canada contributed $3.5 million through agreements with Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut, resulting in a total investment of $6 million across five projects.^{Footnote 20}

An example demonstrating the Women’s Program’s engagement of provinces and territories for the Capacity-building Fund is outlined below:

• In collaboration with the Government of Yukon, Women and Gender Equality Canada provided $878,500 over three years to three Indigenous women’s organizations to support capacity-building-related activities, for a combined investment of $1.6 million under the Capacity-building Fund.^{Note de bas de page 21} 

 Similar joint funding agreements were implemented with the governments of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut in 2019 for the empowerment of women and girls in the North:

• Under these agreements, Women and Gender Equality Canada contributed $525,000 to the Northwest Territories and $600,000 to Nunavut to support public campaigns, new school curricula, and leadership skill-building initiatives.^{Footnote 22}

Women and Gender Equality Canada jurisdictional e-scans provided robust evidence of coordinated efforts and initiatives between Women’s Program-funded organizations and other sector actors. The e-scans were designed to achieve the following objectives:

• Identify unfunded organizations within Women and Gender Equality Canada’s mandate to enable proactive outreach and engagement.
• Map the distribution of organizations working to advance Women and Gender Equality Canada’s mandate to support stakeholder engagement, funding and research activities.
• Determine priority issues to inform strategic funding decisions that maximize community impact and advance gender equality at all levels.

The value of the jurisdictional e-scans was echoed by a number (17) of the Women and Gender Equality Canada key informants interviewed.

Engagement with Indigenous organizations: Program documentation also showed that the Indigenous Women’s Circle was engaged in shaping the parameters of the 2018 Capacity-building Fund’s call for proposals.^{Footnote 23} As part of this consultation process, Status of Women Canada provided a response to the feedback and questions posed by Indigenous Women’s Circle members.^{Footnote 24}

Engagement with the private sector: In 2019, Women and Gender Equality Canada partnered with the Bank of Montreal to support organizations funded under the Women’s Program Capacity-building Fund. Through this partnership, funding recipients were offered free webinars developed by subject matter experts in three key areas identified from the calls for proposals’ applications: partnership development, strategic planning and financial health.^{Footnote 25}  According to program documentation, this partnership was established in alignment with the Bank of Montreal’s underlying work strategy focusing on women’s economic empowerment, promoting itself as a “leader in the field of support and advocacy for women business owners.”^{Footnote 18}  These sessions aimed not only to “provide additional capacity-building opportunities to women’s organizations” but also to “give organizations the opportunity to network and connect with other organizations.”^{Footnote 26 Footnote}

Partnership development with federal departments: While the program documentation mentions some coordination with federal departments and agencies, it provides limited supporting evidence. However, some examples of coordination include partnering with Employment and Social Development Canada to fund projects advancing gender equality and collaborating with Global Affairs Canada to establish the Equality Fund for women’s organizations in developing countries.

Despite these successes, among the (17) Women and Gender Equality Canada key informants interviewed, limited capacity to engage with other federal departments was reported. They suggested that more frequent collaboration with other federal funding sources would help prevent project duplication and maximize the overall impact.

2.3 Effectiveness

To what extent has the Women’s Program achieved or is likely to achieve its intended results?

Short-term outcomes: The Program has made strong progress in achieving its short-term outcomes by fostering collaboration and expanding access to programs, resources, and support to address barriers to women’s equality. These findings are based on program performance measurement data, including survey responses from funding recipients and program reports.

Collaboration and networks: Program-funded projects have successfully established partnerships and collaborations, strengthening networks that enhance the reach, impact, and sustainability of efforts to advance women’s equality.

According to the survey data, a large majority of the funding recipients surveyed (250) reported working with other stakeholders, with 73% indicating a high degree of coordination with other stakeholders through networks and partnerships and 16% reported some degree of coordination. Only a small fraction (4%) reported minimal coordination. Even capacity-building projects, which tend to be more internally focused, demonstrated collaboration, with 61% engaging with external partners.

Systemic change projects, focusing on leadership, economic security and prosperity, and gender-based violence reported particularly high levels of coordination, with 90% or more of the funding recipients surveyed indicating significant engagement with stakeholders. Collaboration was particularly prominent in projects with a broader scope or scale, such as national initiatives (96%), which inherently require coordination across multiple stakeholders.

Higher levels of collaboration were also observed in:

• larger projects with funding exceeding $450,000 (85%);
• systemic change projects funded through open calls for proposals (88%); and
• projects funded through continuous intake (93%).

The most common forms of coordination indicated by funding recipients surveyed (251) included joint implementation of activities (65%), knowledge sharing (55%), and joint advocacy efforts (46%). Many recipients also described involving partners in advisory roles, expert consultations, committee participation, and shared learning opportunities.

The benefits of these partnerships were substantial. Nearly all of the funding recipients surveyed (250) identified advantages, with the most frequently cited being:

• improved knowledge sharing (85%);
• increased project awareness (72%); and
• enhanced project credibility (63%).

More than two-thirds of funding recipients surveyed reported that stakeholder collaboration enabled them to achieve results that would not have been possible on their own. Coordination also led to stronger advocacy strategies, greater project reach to new populations, and reduced duplication. It also facilitated the sharing of resources, access to additional financial and in-kind contributions, and enhanced long-term sustainability through shared commitments to address gender-related barriers.

Resources, supports, and outreach: Beyond strengthening networks, program-funded projects also played a role in developing and disseminating resources and support mechanisms. Among the funding recipients surveyed (276), 75% reported that their projects focused on creating materials to build organizational capacity. This is followed by awareness and outreach activities (e.g., engagement of women, communities, stakeholders in needs assessment) reported by 67% of organizations. Additionally, 63% developed resources,^{Footnote 27}  and 57% provided supports.^{Footnote 28} 

According to the funding recipients surveyed, project resources and supports encompassed a wide range of products, including training modules, workshops, and reports (e.g., new data, needs or gap assessment, and culturally appropriate information). Other examples include podcasts, webinars, presentations, toolkits, campaigns, and policy and evaluation frameworks. These outputs were disseminated through various channels to reach diverse target audiences.

Program performance data indicate a high degree of reach of resources and supports, both through direct engagement and/or social media or awareness campaigns. During the period under study, 3,418 resources were developed and over 1.1 million people were reached through direct engagement. Consistent with survey responses, intended audiences were reported to be varied, including diverse women, community members, employers/business owners, legislators, and media. Reach through social media and/or awareness campaigns was even broader, with over 1,800 communication tools distributed to diverse audiences.

Capacity-building: For these projects, the impact extended beyond immediate resource development. Among organizations that received funding through the Capacity-building Fund, 72% reported that their projects significantly improved their ability to address gender equality issues in a sustainable way. Many described how the Program contributed to strengthening decision-making, increasing credibility, and even helping some organizations navigate existential challenges.

The outcomes included the development of internal policies, strategic planning documents, feminist management training, rebranding efforts, and research initiatives to better understand client needs. Some organizations have also improved their financial sustainability by enhancing donor platforms and hiring specialized staff, such as fund development or human resources professionals.

Through strategic collaboration, resource development, and capacity-building, the Program has laid the groundwork for sustained progress in advancing women’s equality. The evidence, as captured in performance measurement data, indicates that the Program is not only achieving its intended short-term outcomes but also positioning organizations for long-term impact.

Open-ended survey responses further indicate that funding recipients report significant progress in making their policies and practices more inclusive. Examples include incorporating client voices into program design, reframing work within the context of reconciliation, adopting more inclusive board and staff recruitment policies, rebranding organizations to reflect broader experiences, and diversifying resources and supports to ensure inclusive access (e.g., multilingual and trauma-informed resources).

Unintended outcomes: Six in ten (165) of the 276 funding recipients surveyed reported experiencing unintended outcomes from their projects, with nearly all being positive.

Positive unintended outcomes identified include:

• Greater project reach (33%): Some organizations surpassed their initial targets, engaging more participants or expanding to new communities beyond what was originally planned.
• Increased organizational visibility (30%): Media attention, networking opportunities, and heightened stakeholder interest in the project have enhanced the organization’s reputation and public profile.
• Lasting networks and partnerships (29%): Relationships formed during the project continued beyond its formal end, fostering ongoing collaboration and knowledge-sharing.

For Capacity-building Fund projects, respondents highlighted the unexpectedly strong impact of internal capacity-building on their organization’s overall effectiveness. Strengthened infrastructure and operational improvements allowed leadership to focus more strategically on achieving their mission.

These unintended outcomes demonstrate the broader and lasting impacts of funded projects, particularly in strengthening organizations, expanding outreach, and fostering long-term collaborations.

However, while the survey of funding recipients offered the best opportunity to examine differential impacts among beneficiary groups, no statistically significant differences were detected for key outcome indicators. More than four in ten projects had no specific target group other than women in general, and the numbers of projects targeting some groups (e.g., women with disabilities, 2SLGBTQI+) were too small for meaningful analysis. The Program has also faced challenges in collecting disaggregated performance data to examine this question further.

To what extent is the Women’s Program contributing to the removal of barriers to systemic change?

Measuring the Program’s impact and its contribution to removing systemic barriers remains difficult, underscoring the need for improved data collection and clearer long-term objectives. While there are frequent calls for stronger strategic orientations and better data (e.g., Gender-based Analysis Plus analysis and disaggregated information), it is important to recognize that assessing impact is inherently complex.

Part of the way forward lies in building on the Program’s early successes in capacity-building, which stakeholders have widely valued, while maintaining its focus on driving systemic change.

Administrative data highlighted that funded projects across all provinces and territories have contributed to achieving systemic change to varying degrees, primarily through the development of resources.^{Footnote 30}  However, the findings reveal regional disparities. Projects reported the highest rates of systemic change in New Brunswick (39%), Nova Scotia (33%), Nunavut (29%), Alberta (26%), Ontario (25%), and Prince Edward Island (25%). Conversely, the lowest rates were observed in Quebec (8%), Yukon (9%), and the Northwest Territories (9%).

Among projects that achieved systemic change, the most targeted areas were policies and practices (54%), followed by networks and collaborations (21%), resource flows (11%), norms and attitudes (8%), power dynamics (3%), and norms and narratives (3%).

•   All lines of evidence emphasized the Program’s critical contribution to the women’s movement in Canada. It remains one of the few consistent sources of funding for women’s organizations, particularly those with limited access to alternative support. At the same time, stakeholders emphasized the need for a more clearly articulated vision and a comprehensive, long-term strategy to tackle systemic challenges within the movement. While the Program provides essential support, it cannot achieve systemic transformation on its own. Broader, coordinated strategies, paired with sustained funding, are required to ensure organizational stability, strengthen effectiveness, and secure lasting progress toward gender equality.
•   Focus group participants (23) emphasized the Capacity-building Fund’s role in strengthening organizational stability beyond project funding. Documentation confirms the Fund’s objective of equipping organizations to advance gender equality effectively. Its contributions have been particularly notable in the area of gender-based violence, where advocacy efforts and strategic partnerships have been instrumental.
•   Experts consulted (5) stressed the Program’s importance in advancing gender equality and expressed concerns about the sustainability of women’s organizations without continued support. Funding has enabled organizations to secure additional resources and develop new initiatives. However, systemic barriers persist, and experts emphasized the need for a long-term strategy and multi-level collaboration to address gender equality issues in a comprehensive and sustainable way.

2.4 Efficiency

Has the Women’s Program been managed and delivered efficiently?

Overall, 74%^{Footnote 31}  of funding recipients surveyed reported being very satisfied with the application process under the Program. This level of satisfaction remains consistent over time, aligning with the 2016 survey results, in which 70% of respondents indicated satisfaction with the application process.

Most survey respondents (81%) reported being very satisfied with the level of funding received, and more than two-thirds expressed strong satisfaction with the clarity of the application and program requirements as well as the guidance provided by program staff. Similarly, focus group participants from the Capacity-building Fund and continuous intake projects highlighted high levels of satisfaction with both the application process and staff support.

Despite positive perceptions of the Program, the assessment of its efficiency, particularly in management and delivery, reveals areas for improvement. While stakeholders generally viewed the Program as responsive to community needs, several challenges were consistently identified across all lines of evidence. These included:

• complexity of the application process
• delays in funding decisions
• burdensome financial reporting requirements
• high turnover among program officers, affecting continuity and the level of support provided
• increased competition for limited funding

These delivery-related concerns were echoed in the survey results. Notably, one in four respondents suggested that the application process be streamlined and simplified, particularly to better support small organizations. Among the 276 survey respondents, 38% identified financial reporting as a challenge, and several noted that staff turnover had negatively impacted the support they received. In addition, concerns were raised about the rigidity of project timelines.

Delivery timeliness and project timeframes^{Footnote 32} : While the Program has made efforts to improve the efficiency of funding distribution, timeliness remains a persistent challenge. Although anticipated timelines were included in all calls for proposals, no official service standards were in place for the scope of this evaluation.

Survey findings offer a mixed picture:

• 57% of survey respondents were satisfied with the amount of time available and the level of effort required to prepare a proposal.
• Sixty-one percent expressed satisfaction with the timeliness of funding decisions.
• However, 18% indicated a need for faster funding decisions and 16% called for extended project timeframes and greater consultation in setting priorities regarding calls for proposals.

These findings suggest that while many recipients are satisfied, important timing and scope-related constraints remain, particularly for national and higher-value projects, and for organizations with limited capacity.

Findings from the survey, interviews, and focus groups revealed mixed opinions on the adequacy of project timeframes. Overall, 72% of survey respondents felt that their project duration was sufficient to achieve the agreed-upon outcomes. However, this perception was less positive among larger projects, particularly those over $450,000, with only 64% rating the timeframe as appropriate. National-level projects were also more likely to report that the available funding was insufficient in relation to the scope of their activities.

•   Provincial and territorial officials interviewed (4) provided insights into the regional impact of funding timeframes. Some viewed the Women’s Program’s current funding periods as appropriate, citing the stability brought by recently introduced four-year funding agreements. However, delays in funding disbursement hindered timely project implementation, especially for smaller organizations. These delays also contributed to staff shortages, which were identified as a critical challenge.

Key challenges were identified through focus groups with 23 funded organization representatives:

• Reporting requirements and strict deadlines, particularly for smaller organizations: While the Program offered flexibility through extensions, concerns were raised about underfunding and the added burden of frequent reporting.
• Systemic change vs. project duration: Although longer-term funding (three to five years) was appreciated, stakeholders emphasized the need for even more extended commitments to support sustainable systemic change.
• Rising costs: Significant increases in costs since initial funding allocations made it more challenging to achieve project objectives, adding financial strain.

Opportunities for improvement were noted: Participants highlighted areas for enhancement, including:

• simplifying the applications
• accelerating funding decisions
• extending project timelines
• enhancing consultations to better refine priorities

2.5 Sustainability

To what extent will the impacts of the Women’s Program be, or are likely to be, sustained?

Completed project funding recipients were surveyed about the ongoing sustainability of their projects’ activities and impacts. Most reported that their project achieved certain dimensions of sustainability to some extent (see Graph 2). The most common way sustainability was maintained was through ongoing dissemination or access to knowledge and resources created by the projects, cited as occurring at least somewhat for over 90% of completed projects (Graph 2).

However, this form of sustainability was largely passive, often limited to posting or sharing materials upon request. Interview feedback highlighted that these materials can quickly become outdated or underutilized without active management and promotion.

Other significant sustainability factors included the continued impact of skill development, application of new knowledge, and partnerships established or strengthened during the project. These collaborations were identified as essential for enhancing outcomes and sustaining impact. However, engagement with participants through direct project activities was more likely to end after project completion.

Graph 2: Dimensions of Sustainability and Extent as Reported by Survey Respondents

Funding and financial sustainability: Following project completion, 57% of funding recipients surveyed did not secure additional funding. Another 15% relied solely on existing internal resources and one in three organizations (31%) received funding from an external source to continue their project. Among those who secured external funding, the most common sources were:

• federal government funding, including from Women and Gender Equality Canada itself (52%)
• non-profit organizations such as United Way, foundations, and community groups (40%)
• provincial and territorial funding (29%)

Projects that successfully obtained further funding were more likely to have:

• leveraged funding during their initial project
• had a higher overall project value
• been led by Indigenous organizations

According to survey respondents, organizations with strong pre-existing capacities, such as staff expertise and networks, or those that built capacities through their projects (e.g., hiring new staff), had better chances of continuing their work. Smaller organizations with limited revenue-generating potential or a narrower audience faced greater difficulties in securing ongoing funding.

These challenges persist despite respondents acknowledging that funding from the Women’s Program is highly flexible, supports organizational capacity-building, and is relatively rare in offering longer-term funding agreements, more than 70% of which span three years or longer. 

Challenges and opportunities: Several of the 32 key informants noted that funding from the Women’s Program has made notable contributions to advancing gender equality in Canada, including policy advancements in childcare, gender-based violence, pay equity, and board diversity.

Despite these achievements, and as mentioned previously, stakeholders emphasized that long-term change requires sustainable, longer-term funding. While the Program has taken steps to improve funding responsiveness, many stakeholders, including experts and funded organizations, recommended exploring longer-term funding models. Program representatives acknowledged this need but pointed to structural barriers that limit the ability to provide such funding.

Among the 49 respondents, including Women and Gender Equality Canada and Women’s Program representatives, some identified opportunities to support sustainability and address systemic impact in the long run by building networks and fostering collaboration among funded organizations and addressing knowledge gaps across jurisdictions and sectors.

3. Conclusion

The evaluation concludes that the Women’s Program remains highly relevant, responding effectively to persistent and emerging needs in advancing gender equality in Canada. The Program closely aligns with federal priorities and key policy frameworks. While some stakeholders expressed confusion about the distinct roles of various gender-based violence-related initiatives within Women and Gender Equality Canada, the Women’s Program has demonstrated responsiveness through its focus on capacity-building and sustainability.

The Program has demonstrated coherence through strategic partnerships and collaboration, notably with provinces and territories, and through engagement with both sector actors and Indigenous organizations.

In terms of effectiveness, the Program has made substantial progress toward short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes by fostering strong networks, supporting resource development, and enhancing organizational capacity. Evidence suggests that the Program is contributing to more inclusive policies and practices and, to some extent, to systemic change, particularly through its focus on collaboration, knowledge-sharing, and advocacy. However, measuring long-term systemic impacts and collecting disaggregated performance data remain challenging.

The Program demonstrates efficiency and adaptability, with stakeholders reporting satisfaction with program flexibility and its funding processes and supports. However, administrative complexity, reporting burdens, and constraints linked to funding cycles continue to pose barriers, especially for smaller organizations.

Sustainability of the results is most evident through the ongoing use of developed resources, strengthened partnerships, and improved organizational capacity. Yet, job precarity, high staff turnover, and challenges in securing post-project funding threaten long-term impact, particularly for smaller organizations.

Overall, the Women’s Program is seen as a critical driver of gender equality in Canada. While it has achieved meaningful progress and is valued by stakeholders, continued focus is needed on clarifying the distinct roles of the Program enhancing data collection, and securing sustained funding to address systemic barriers.

Recommendations

Based on the Program’s context,^{Footnote 1}  the Women’s Program should continue to adapt its approach to ensure alignment with emerging priorities.

1. Support initiatives that will strengthen and enhance the long-term stability of the women’s sector to address persistent barriers that impede women’s economic security and leadership opportunities.
2. Clarify and streamline the various gender-based violence initiatives where appropriate to enhance stakeholders’ understanding and maximize internal and external efficiencies.
3. Implement improved data collection and analysis strategies to better measure the impact of the Women’s Program’s initiatives.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Women’s Program Logic Model

Appendix 2: Evaluation Matrix

Appendix 3: Methodology Notes

The methodology details the qualitative and quantitative lines of evidence used to support the Women’s Program Evaluation, which included:

• a review of program documentation and administrative data;
• key informant interviews;
• focus group discussions;
• A survey of funded organizations; and
• Census data.

Review of program documentation and administrative data: Over 450 Women’s Program resources were analyzed and divided into 14 categories, such as policy, operations, funding, budgets, financial information, capacity-building, terms and conditions, performance measurement, evaluation, and regional/provincial-territorial data. Resources included documents, Excel files, and websites, with additional materials provided to support analysis and reporting.

Key informant interviews: The evaluation planned 35–50 interviews across five stakeholder groups: Women’s Program representatives, funded projects, provincial and territorial representatives, other government departments, and experts. In total, 49 stakeholders were interviewed in fall 2023 and early winter 2024.

Focus group discussions: Focus groups targeted three areas: capacity-building, Women’s Program priorities (leadership and decision-making, capacity-building, economic security and prosperity), and Indigenous/Three-Sisters. Thirteen groups of 6–8 individuals were planned, and eight groups were conducted in September 2023, with 1–7 participants each, for a total of 23 participants. Groups were drawn from completed projects and expanded to include active projects. Participation was first come, first enrolled. Some organizations could not attend due to a concurrent Francophone conference and were offered participate via alternative methods, such as surveys or interviews; three converted to key informants.

Survey of funded organizations: Of 531 funding recipients, valid contact information was available for 514. The survey ran from October to November 2023, with 275 respondents, yielding a 53.7% response rate and a margin of error of ±4.1%.

Incomplete or missing administrative data: An Excel file for outcome and indicator analysis contained multiple empty cells. Initial estimates suggested 20–25% of projects were missing key metrics, later adjusted to 10–15% when considering only closed projects. To address this, public reporting sources (e.g., Departmental Results Report, Departmental Plans) were consulted, though some metrics were inconsistent or non-replicable. Differences may be due to updated reporting templates and timing of project closure versus report submission, as validated with the department’s Impact unit.

Representativeness: Survey data were generally representative across multiple variables, with no significant differences across identity elements, though small sample sizes warrant caution. Focus groups were not intended to be representative, and all funded organizations had an equitable chance of participation, including other lines of evidence.