May 2019 marked the
launch of the Sport for Social Development in Indigenous Communities (SSDIC)
component of the Sport Support Program (SSP), delivered by Sport Canada. The
objective of SSDIC is to close gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
communities in terms of social development indicators in the areas of health,
education, employability, and the reduction of at-risk behaviours. The program
is currently delivered in three funding streams:
·
Stream One: Available to the 13 Indigenous
Provincial/Territorial Aboriginal Sport Bodies (PTASBs) and the Aboriginal
Sport Circle (ASC).
·
Stream Two: Available to Indigenous governments, communities,
and organizations as well as other delivery organizations submitting proposals
in collaboration with Indigenous communities whose programs serve Indigenous
participants.
·
Stream Three: Available to Indigenous governments,
communities, and organizations, as well as other organizations submitting
proposals in collaboration with Indigenous groups whose programs serve Indigenous
women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ participants.
Sport Canada wanted to
hear directly from diverse Indigenous stakeholders, including Indigenous women,
girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ representative organizations, on how to improve the
design and delivery of the three funding streams, to ensure SSDIC serves their
self-identified social development goals. Overall objectives were to:
·
Determine levels of
awareness of and familiarity with the SSDIC program, along with general views
on the SSDIC program;
·
Measure levels of
satisfaction with the application and reporting processes;
·
Gather feedback on
current applicant eligibility criteria
·
Perceptions of current
funding distribution model; and
·
Help inform the design
and delivery of the newly established Reconciliation and Strength of
Indigenous Women and Girls through Sport for Social Development (Stream
Three) initiative, which aims to ensure that Indigenous women, girls, and
2SLGBTQQIA+ peoples have access to meaningful sports activities that support
the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG) Calls for Justice.
Sport Canada’s ultimate
objective was to ensure that all voices and diverse perspectives were heard and
reflected in the results of the program review, to ensure that all three
streams meet the needs and expectations of program recipients.
From the outset, as
part of their commitment to the principles of Reconciliation and to
Indigenizing the design and delivery of the SSDIC program, Sport Canada was
committed to hiring an Indigenous research firm to guide the design and
implementation of this consultation. Environics Research and Sisco &
Associates Consulting Services (SISCO), an Indigenous consulting firm
specializing in research with and for Indigenous organizations and communities,
partnered on this research. The research was conducted by both parties in two
phases and reporting was done collaboratively to ensure the diversity of
Indigenous voices was accurately captured.
SISCO routinely uses
collaborative, community-based partnership research (CBPR) and participatory
approaches together with Indigenous methodologies in our work to foreground the
voices of Indigenous partners and participants. Consistent with community-based
partnership research (CBPR), the SISCO team, which included two Indigenous
researchers, was engaged as full partners throughout the process at critical junctures to ensure
input into the project work plan (design), knowledge gathering (data collection
and analysis), and knowledge sharing (validation session, reporting, and
presentations).
SISCO is committed to
employing protocols based on Indigenous data sovereignty, including OCAP®
(Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession), USAI (Utility, Self-Voicing,
Access, Inter-Relationality), Principles of Ethical Métis Research, Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ), and First Nation community-level protocols. This
project did not engage specific First Nations, Métis, or Inuit communities, and
therefore there is not one or several targeted communities to which the data
belongs and could be transferred back to in raw form. Rather, Indigenous
organizations involving and serving Indigenous communities and peoples, the
five Rs of CBPR and the USAI principles would be most appropriate to guide the
work. The table below demonstrates how each set of principles were upheld.
|
Five
Rs of CBPR
|
USAI
Principles
|
|
1.
Respect
for Indigenous knowledges, ways of knowing and doing (including in
research and engagement), and multiple perspectives.
2.
Relevance
of research to the cultures and communities engaged, including
Indigenous organizations and the communities they serve.
3.
Reciprocity
in knowledge exchange through the sharing back of information gathered
from Indigenous partners in accessible ways (member checking of interview
notes and validation session), and of benefits like the programming changes.
4.
Responsibility
of researchers to empower community research partners (in this case
Indigenous organizations and the SISCO research team) through engaging them
throughout the process, and disseminating research outcomes that are
accessible and respectful for audiences.
5.
Relationships
as the foundation to the work, as demonstrated through the approach
(Kirkness & Barnhardt, 1999).
|
· Utility, like relevance,
reflects a need for relevant vision and reflection on useful action. This
project is applied and action oriented, impacted the SSDIC programming that
is relevant to Indigenous organizations and the communities they serve.
· Self-voicing is
demonstrated through the foregrounding of Indigenous organization participant
voices throughout the report, based on both research conversations and survey
data, that was validated through member checking and a validation session
with participants.
· Access acknowledges that
all life manifestations (all of creation) is relevant in research and ensures
that findings can be understood all. This is the purpose of the validation
session.
· Inter-Relationality is
demonstrated through the foregrounding of relations as context to all
findings and the overarching approach (OFIFC, 2016).
|
Qualitative: Qualitative in-depth interviews (IDIs) were led by SISCO. The
research team reached out to 39 Indigenous organizations for interviews,
including to an initial list provided by Sport Canada of 28 organizations previously involved in SSDIC in some capacity,
plus an additional 11 organizations referred by interview participants.
Between December 2022 and
March 2023, a total of 22 individual interviews were conducted as follows:
·
12 interviews with PTASBs
and the ASC that are eligible for funding through Stream One.
·
10 interviews with
National Indigenous Organizations, National Indigenous Women’s Organizations,
and 2SLGBTQQIA+ organizations, to help inform the design and delivery of Stream
Three.
Interviews were conducted
as participant-led research
conversations with Indigenous partners drawing on the principles of sharing circles
and a focus on honouring participants’ stories of lived experiences. Sharing
circles are comparable to focus groups in that they involve group discussion,
but distinct in that they are a healing method in which all participants
(including the facilitator) are equals engaged in sharing and learning together
in a wholistic way that involves the heart (emotional), mind (intellectual),
body (physical), and spirit (spirit of everyone present, their ancestors and
the Creator) (Lavallee, 2009). Circles create non-judgmental, safe spaces for
important conversations (Lavallee, 2009).
Consistent with
community-based partnerships research (CBPR), which is the gold standard of
working with and for Indigenous communities, organizations, and people, the
qualitative phase included several components meant to include participants as
partners in the research process
and share information back to
demonstrate respect, ensure relevance, in the spirit of reciprocity, and as a
part of the team’s responsibility as researchers to taking a
relationships-based approach. These components included: member checking
interview notes, and engaging participants in a validation session for input
into and reaction to the preliminary findings and recommendations.
Quantitative: An online survey was conducted with Indigenous and non-Indigenous organizations
potentially eligible for funding through Streams Two and Three. A survey
methodology was selected to collect feedback from a broader group of
organizations than the IDIs, ensuring that those who wished to provide input
had the opportunity.
Sport Canada initially
provided Environics/Sisco with a list including email addresses and/or phone
numbers of 336 organizations who were previous applicants and/or recipients of
SSDIC funding. Environics emailed invitations to potential research participants
and followed up numerous times, including phoning non-respondents. To increase
accessibility, alternative methods of survey completion were offered. Due to an
initial low survey response rate, it was agreed to have Sport Canada
subsequently share by email an open survey link with a broader audience of
2,147 organizations, including those that had applied to the most recent
2023-2024 program intake and those identified as potential future applicants. A total of 121 organizations completed the survey between
January 3 and March 10, 2023.
Further discussion of
methodology can be found in Appendix B.
The discussion guide and
questionnaire can be found in Appendices C and D.
Statement of
limitations. Qualitative
research provides insight into the range of opinions held within a population,
rather than the weights of the opinions held, as would be measured in a
quantitative study. The results of this type of research should be viewed as
indicative rather than projectable to the population.
The online survey was an attempted
census of Indigenous organizations engaged to some extent with the Indigenous
Sport Unit of Sport Canada. There is no margin of sampling error since no
sample was drawn. However, due to the potential for non-response bias (i.e., a potential
difference in views between organizations that responded to the survey and
those that did not), the results should be interpreted with caution.
This section of the
executive summary is subdivided into three parts: the context in which the
study recommendations are ultimately situated, and the study limitations, for
readers to be aware of; research findings organized by the key questions and
research intentions originally provided by the SSDIC program; and, the recommendations
stemming from the research findings, organized into short-term, medium-term,
and long-term implementation, which captures participant input as well as
practical considerations for government implementation.
Study Context and
Limitations
Like many federal
government programs, SSDIC funding flows from the federal government to
organizations that in turn provide services to Indigenous Communities. While it
is and has been the practice of the SSDIC program to fund Indigenous
communities directly or ensure they are supportive of the programming to be
delivered in their community, strictly speaking the latter approach can
undermine Indigenous sovereignty by conflating Indigenous organizations
(typically those that are Indigenous-owned or -operated) with Indigenous
Nations and Communities, who should have a right to jurisdiction over programs
affecting them. This happens because Indigenous Communities are often
mistakenly regarded as subsidiary groups within Canada, which erases their
Nationhood and self-determination.
The Indigenous
Communities in greatest need of SSDIC funding are not necessarily the ones with
Indigenous service providers in proximity or, put another way, access to
organizations that can provide appropriate services can be limited. This is
especially true for rural and remote Communities. It must also be acknowledged
that external organizations are often not as adept at providing for the unique
needs of each individual community, considering the incredible diversity of
Indigenous Nations and Communities. As such, it is key for government funding
programs to consider prioritizing Indigenous communities themselves. This
approach will respect Indigenous sovereignty by investing dollars into the
hands of Communities themselves who are then empowered to make their own
decisions for how services will be developed. Doing so will also support
grass-roots capacity and allow communities to delegate funds to outside
organizations should they choose to do so.
Honouring Indigenous
sovereignty over sports programs would involve transferring funding directly to
Indigenous Nations or Communities and supporting their jurisdiction to allocate
funding. Indeed, as a consulting firm that has extensive experience and
expertise in engaging Indigenous Communities, SISCO has found that Indigenous
Communities are increasingly advocating for control over programs designed to
serve them. Indigenous Nations and Communities are best positioned to
understand their needs, not service providers nor the federal government. Critically,
it is incumbent upon governments to recognize and support Indigenous
sovereignty, including the right to “maintain, control, protect and
develop…sports and traditional games” as stated in Article 31 (1) of the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples (UNDRIP, 2007, p. 22).
If the federal
government is committed to implementing UNDRIP and therefore contributing to
current reconciliation and decolonization efforts, then a more thorough
consideration of how to support Indigenous sovereignty must be at the heart of
the design and delivery of all its funding programs. This study was initiated
partly in response to requests from ongoing recipients of SSDIC funding (the
ASC and PTASBs) to more fully integrate their diverse perspectives into the
design and delivery of the SSDIC program. At the same time, the intention of
this research has been to hear from as many other diverse Indigenous voices and
potential program stakeholders as possible, specifically all NIOs, NIWOs and
2SLGBTQI+ organizations as well as hundreds of Indigenous communities across
all jurisdictions. While this broad reach is commendable and has been partially
achieved, there remain limitations to research projects that arise out of
western or non-Indigenous methodologies.
Recommendations set
forth below will evolve the SSDIC program to be even more aligned with the
diverse perspectives of the Indigenous communities it seeks to serve, and yet,
there is still a long way to go to decolonize the way these types of funding
programs are conceived of and delivered.
Findings by Project
Aspect:
|
Project
Aspect & Question
|
Corresponding
Findings
|
|
1. Review
the Stream One ‘regional distribution’ formula: How should this funding
formula for the PTASBs be calculated?
|
|
•
For example, how should the formula account for remoteness
of Indigenous populations (vs. rural and urban)?
|
•
Participants identified community needs, remoteness,
population, and data accuracy as the most important eligibility criteria for
consideration. Participants shared that eligibility should:
o Be
based on outcomes and community impact (e.g., overall satisfaction with
program, improved participant wellness, sense of hope and belonging, etc.,),
as opposed to reach;
o Consider
individual community context, needs, and capacity (e.g., remoteness of
location and associated costs and logistical challenges, available resources,
accessibility barriers, etc.,); and
o Take
a distinctions-based approach, which should have P/TASBs encouraged to
demonstrate equitable funding distribution among First Nations, Métis, and
Inuit through developing separate funding pots and considering data on needs.
•
Interview participants said that funding distribution
should consider population, geography, and community needs together as the
most important factors to reflect the specific needs and costs of communities
in rural and urban settings.
o Factors
that may reflect community need include existing access (or lack thereof) to
sport programs and other related resources (e.g., other health or mental
health programs), as well as remoteness of location as well as associated
costs and logistical challenges (e.g., fly-in communities).
|
|
•
Should the calculation be based on relative population
sizes or are there other needs-based formulas that are potentially more
appropriate?
|
•
Both survey and interview findings suggest that Indigenous
organizations believe a funding formula based on per capita alone is
inadequate. Other important considerations are:
o the
higher costs of programming for smaller and under resourced regions, especially
those with many fly-in communities (which is included in the current funding
formula); and
o the
significant impacts smaller regions have on those they service, who tend to
be in greater need of programming.
|
|
•
What are the different viewpoints of our stakeholders and
how can we reach a sustainable solution?
|
•
Participants generally agreed that the formula should not
be strictly based on per capita but should be both needs- and
distinctions-based.
•
There was no consensus among participants in terms of how
the SSDIC program could be structured to meet the needs of each Indigenous
distinctions-based group (First Nation, Métis, and Inuit), as this might
require technical expertise in formula funding modelling.
•
However, participants suggested considering new distinct
funding pots within Stream One for each group (i.e., for First Nation, Métis,
and Inuit) (which, we note, is consistent with views about how Streams Two
and Three should be structured).
|
|
•
How are complex issues to do with distinctions-based
identity groups and/or regional considerations taken into consideration?
|
•
Interview participants were clear in wanting funding
decisions to take a distinctions-based approach and consider community needs,
so that First Nation, Métis, and Inuit groups as well as specific
communities’ individual expenses and access to resources are taken into
consideration.
•
They did not feel the current process is distinctions- or
needs-based.
|
|
•
What data-sets should be considered in calculating the
formula?
|
•
The current data on Indigenous Community needs is
unreliable and there are widespread gaps.
o This
is because of incompletely enumerated Indigenous communities, low
participation (due to a trust deficit because of a long history of research
practices that have harmed Indigenous communities), and cultural differences
in how research is conducted (including the way in which questions are
framed, indicators that reflect community needs and interests, data collection
methods, reporting, etc.).
•
For these reasons, participants would prefer data to be
Indigenous-sourced. However, a comprehensive Indigenous-sourced data set does
not currently exist. Investment in developing primary data is needed.
•
The gold standard for Indigenous data collection is to
conduct research in partnership with the Indigenous Communities who have an
interest (in this case, who have a need or stated interest in enhancing
sports programming). Conducting research through the government or other
external organizations is generally ineffective.
•
The specific data-sets of interest should be determined by
the Indigenous Communities who opt to participate because of a need or
interest in sports programming. However, based on the findings of this project,
we expect that indicators would relate with a combination of population,
geography, and community needs.
|
|
2. Review
eligibility for Stream Two and Three: What is the best approach for
determining the distribution of these funds?
|
|
•
How will ‘Indigenous organizations’ be defined in the
context of SSDIC eligibility (e.g., Friendship Centers or other organizations
in urban settings)?
|
•
Survey participants widely agreed that Indigenous
organizations are majority Indigenous-owned/operated (86%) or operate
Indigenous programs (programs serving Indigenous people) (82%). Participants
were less likely to define an Indigenous organization as one founded by an
Indigenous person (or people) (72%) or controlled by a majority Indigenous
Board of Directors (69%). This indicates the latter two criteria are not
considered sufficient on their own without also being Indigenous-owned
or -operated or serving Indigenous populations.
•
The qualitative data further shows that interview
participants think Indigenous organizations should be defined as
Indigenous-owned or -operated and primarily serving Indigenous
populations specifically. They noted that organizations that are not
Indigenous-owned or -operated should not be considered Indigenous
organizations (even if they primarily serve Indigenous populations
specifically). (Please see section 3 below for additional discussion of
Stream Three eligibility specifics).
•
This differs from definitions widely used by the Government
of Canada (including the Procurement Strategy for Indigenous Business (PSIB))
and Indigenous Organization’s like the Canadian Council on Aboriginal
Businesses (CCAB) who require majority (51%+) Indigenous ownership
(shareholders) and control (Board membership) as well as significant (33%)
Indigenous operation. These definitions generally do not include criteria for
serving Indigenous people.
|
|
•
What is the recommended percentage (if any) of
non-Indigenous delivery organizations that should be eligible for Streams Two
and Three?
•
Is it only Indigenous organizations who can apply (as
opposed to some non-Indigenous orgs who serve Indigenous populations)?
|
•
While participants did not provide percentages, responses
were mixed in terms of support for funding non-Indigenous organizations (who
do not meet the above definition of an Indigenous organization).
o Most
survey participants opposed funding non-Indigenous service providers for
Stream Two (64%) and Three (60%) on their own (outside of partnerships
with Indigenous organizations). This is consistent with SSDIC current
eligibility criteria which does not fund non-Indigenous organizations on
their own.
§ Interview
participants indicated that non-Indigenous organizations could be
eligible for Stream Two and Three funding if they primarily serve Indigenous
populations specifically. However, Indigenous organizations should be
prioritized, meaning they should be funded first, with non-Indigenous
organizations funded only if there is a remaining surplus of funds. In
practice, the over-subscription to SSDIC means non-Indigenous organizations
are unlikely to receive funding.
o There
was no consensus on funding non-Indigenous organizations that are partnered
with Indigenous organizations but fewer than half of survey respondents were
in favour (43% for Stream Two and 48% for Stream Three). It is possible that
a greater percentage of respondents support these partnerships for Stream
Three because of a recognized shortage of Indigenous 2SLGBTQQIA+
organizations. There was also no consensus on whether the current funding
reserved for partnerships should remain capped at 25 percent (32%), lowered
(20%) or eliminated (17%), or increased (21%).
§ In
the interviews and the open-ended survey comments, there is recognition of
the capacity benefits of partnership but also concerns about how to determine
if these partnerships are authentic and truly benefit Indigenous communities
and organizations especially in the longer-term (by allowing them to develop
their own capacity). To ensure that is the case, interview participants want
the Indigenous organization to be the primary applicant and to receive the
funds.
|
|
3. Consult
with Indigenous Women, Girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ organizations on the design and
delivery of the Stream Three component: What is the recommended design and
delivery for the new Stream Three funding?
|
|
•
Determine formula(s), eligibility, other considerations
(e.g., review committee processes) of the Stream Three component as this has
not yet been done.
|
•
Survey respondents favour making Stream Three funding
available to any Indigenous organization serving women, girls, and
2SLGBTQQIA+ communities (70%), and not only to organizations led by
individuals from these communities (23%). That is, Stream Three applicants do
not necessarily need to be owned or operated by Indigenous women or
2SLGBTQQIA+ people, but need to serve these populations (whereas Stream Two
needs to be both owned/operated by and serve Indigenous populations). This
may reflect awareness of:
o a
shortage of organizations led by Indigenous women, girls, and members of the
2SLGBTQQIA+ community; and / or
o capacity
shortages among the few existing organizations that are led by Indigenous
women, girls, and members of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community.
•
Interview participants recommended that service provider
organizations be required to provide evidence of their focus and impact on
these populations (e.g., mission or mandate, strategic plan, testimonials).
•
To ensure equity in serving both groups, interview
participants suggested allocating separate funding pots within Stream Three
for projects for women and girls and for 2SLGBTQIA+. This is best
accomplished as an additional consideration within the Stream (like geography
or distinction) since the priority should be impact.
|
|
4. Additional
Considerations (not posed in the statement of work)
|
|
•
The need for Multi-Year funding.
|
•
Participants raised a number of challenges with the current
approach requiring annual funding applications, including an administrative
burden that falls on already underfunded and understaffed organizations and
communities, and the associated costs.
o Multi-year
funding has a number of benefits that collectively support program
sustainability, including:
§ reduced
administrative burden and associated costs;
§ enhanced
staff retention;
§ more
reliable program data as an evidence base to inform program planning; and
§ longer-term
program outcomes.
•
Stable funding for federal government Indigenous sports
programs is among the TRC’s Calls to Action Report (90(i)) (TRC, 2015)
|
|
•
Provide greater flexibility to organizations in how they
define and measure success (impact).
|
•
Interview participants want greater flexibility to define
their own goals and measures of success to be more reflective of Indigenous
values and ways of knowing and being. For example, organizations may find it
more relevant to share success stories in audio-visual format rather than
demographic or other statistical information.
|
Recommendations:
The
following recommendations are framed within a staged approach for
implementation in the short-, medium-, and long-term. Short-term
recommendations provide small changes that can be made within the current SSDIC
system, without substantive modifications; medium-term recommendations promote
a more rigorous process of redeveloping the funding formulas for these Streams
in the interim; and long-term recommendations relate to a substantive program
transformation to a community-driven, needs-based approach grounded-in
Indigenous sovereignty that honours UNDRIP and the TRC Calls to Action.
Collectively, they provide a roadmap for the transition to occur through the
implementation of a series of steps over time.
|
Short-Term
(1 year)
|
Medium-Term
(2-3 years)
|
Long-Term
(4-5 years)
|
|
1.
Provide multi-year funding
· Provide opportunities for multi-year funding across all
Streams to promote program stability consistent with the TRC’s Call to Action
90(i) (TRC, 2015, p. 10).
2.
Update and clarify Indigenous
Organization definitions and eligibility criteria
· Update the definition of Indigenous organizations for all
Streams as those that are:
o Indigenous-owned (51% + Indigenous shareholders) or
Indigenous-operated (51% + Indigenous staff);
o and primarily serve Indigenous populations through their
programs (51% + clients are Indigenous);
o and emphasize the inclusion of Métis organizations and
Communities as eligible funding recipients more explicitly.
§ Develop
a program communications plan for all Streams, with specific materials and
actions to promote this information to Métis organizations and Communities.
•
For Stream Three, eligible organizations (that are not
Indigenous Communities/Nations) should be required to have a mandate to serve
Indigenous women / girls / 2SLGBTQQIA+ primarily or exclusively.
3.
Allocate funding to both Indigenous
and Non-Indigenous organizations
•
For Stream Two, continue to allocate at least 75% of the
funding to organizations that are majority Indigenous-operated (and / or
Indigenous-owned), and up to 25% to non-Indigenous organizations that
primarily serve Indigenous populations specifically and are partnering with
Indigenous organizations.
o As noted in the context section, while organizations
favoured an approach that prioritizes Indigenous organizations, this could
lead to widespread funding gaps for Indigenous communities that are not in
close proximity to an Indigenous service provider and because Indigenous
organizations are not necessarily representatives for the Communities they
serve.
o Set and communicate a timeline for eliminating the 25%
allocation to non-Indigenous organizations so that Indigenous
Communities/Nations can prepare accordingly.
•
For Stream Three, allocate funding by priority group as follows,
until funding is expended:
o First to organizations owned (51% + shareholders) or
operated (51% + staff) by Indigenous women / girls / or members of the
2SLGBTQQIA+ community and primarily serve Indigenous women / girls / or
members of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community through their programs (51% + clients);
and
o Then to organizations Indigenous-owned (51% + Indigenous
shareholders) or Indigenous-operated (51% + Indigenous staff) and primarily
serve Indigenous women / girls / or members of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community
through their programs (51% + clients); and
o Finally to organizations that do not meet the above
criteria but primarily serve Indigenous women / girls / or members of the
2SLGBTQQIA+ community through their programs (51% + clients).
4.
Gain Community input on needs to inform
Stream One funding formula
· Explore how to develop a data framework to collect data on
community needs and other factors that will inform the development of the
funding formula. While this process must engage Indigenous communities, it could
include collaborations with other Government programs or identifying existing
sources of this information, in the interest of reserving as much program
funding as possible for communities.
•
Retain an expert on funding formulas to ensure process
supports collection of data that can inform funding formula options to
present to stakeholders for all streams.
•
Maintain the current Stream One formula while this work is
underway.
|
5.
Develop funding formula for Stream One,
and consider implications for Stream Two/Three consideration matrices
•
Develop Indigenous Community data framework for needs and
other factors with Indigenous communities based on a process of engagements
and community-based partnership research.
•
Collect data on community needs and other factors to inform
funding formula development.
•
Collect data on how to define an Indigenous Community and
other factors (such as how to ensure funding Indigenous people in urban
settings) that will inform the transition of the funding flow from government
to Indigenous Communities directly (as opposed to the funding flowing to
organizations serving Communities).
•
Develop funding formula for allocation of Stream One (and
for possible consideration for Streams Two and Three) to organizations, based
on the data collected from this process using this framework, with funding
formula expert modelling formulas based on needs and distinctions-based
funding formula model that consider community barriers, access to resources,
and transportation costs in each region, in combination with population and
geography.
•
Develop preliminary funding formula for allocation of all
Streams to Indigenous Communities, based on the data collected from this
process using this framework, with funding formula expert modelling formulas
based on needs and distinctions-based funding formula model that consider
community barriers, access to resources, and transportation costs in each
region, in combination with population and geography.
•
Share back the funding formula model options (suggest 3 to
5) with organizational and Community stakeholders, modelling specific
scenarios and outcomes, and engage them in an options analysis to develop a
consensus on the most suitable model.
6.
Implement organization formula funding
in the interim
•
Apply formulas to funding allocation by Stream.
•
Develop and implement a communications plan and materials
to ensure all stakeholders understand the new formula and have equitable
access to funding, based on eligibility.
|
7.
Pilot community- and needs-based
formula funding
•
Apply Community formulas to funding allocation by Stream.
•
Develop and implement a communications plan and materials
to ensure Indigenous Communities (and service providers) understand the new
formula and have equitable access to funding, based on eligibility.
8.
Evaluate community- and needs-based
formula funding
•
Conduct an Indigenous community-based program evaluation of
the pilot.
•
Share back the results of the evaluation and recommended
program changes with Communities for validation.
•
Adjust the community- and needs-based approach, including
the formulas as needed based on the evaluation and Community validation
results.
9.
Implement the adjusted community- and
needs-based formula
•
Implement the new community- and needs-based approach,
including the formulas as needed based on the evaluation and Community
validation results.
•
Develop and implement a communications plan and materials
to ensure Indigenous Communities (and service providers) understand the new
formula and have equitable access to funding, based on eligibility.
10.
Support longitudinal Community data
collection
•
Embed an ongoing community evaluation process that collects
long-term data aligned with the data framework developed to provide outcomes
across all indicators in the long-term.
|
The contract value was $100,941.77 (HST included)
I hereby certify as
senior officer of Environics that the deliverables fully comply with the
Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the
Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, and Procedures for Planning
and Contracting Public Opinion Research. Specifically, the deliverables do not
include information on electoral voting intentions, political party
preferences, standings with the electorate, or ratings of the performance of a
political party or its leaders.
Sarah
Roberton
Vice President, Public Affairs
Environics Research Group
sarah.roberton@environics.ca
613-793-2229
Supplier name: Environics Research Group
PWGSC
contract number: C1111-22-0166
Original
contract date: 2022-09-20
For more information on
this report, please contact the Department of Canadian Heritage at: PCH.info-info.PCH@canada.ca.
