Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program

Transcription

1 Now and Tomorrow Excellence in Everything We Do Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program Final Report June 23, 2014 Strategic Policy and Research Branch SP E

2

3 Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program Final Report Evaluation Directorate Strategic Policy and Research Branch Employment and Social Development Canada June 23, 2014

4 You can download this publication by going online: This document is available on demand in multiple formats (large print, Braille, audio cassette, audio CD, e-text diskette, e-text CD, or DAISY), by contacting O-Canada ( ). If you use a teletypewriter (TTY), call Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, 2014 For information regarding reproduction rights: droitdauteur.copyright@hrsdc-rhdcc.gc.ca PDF Cat. No.: Em4-2/2014E-PDF ISBN/ISSN: ESDC Cat. No.: SP E

5 Table of Contents Executive Summary... vii Management Response... xi 1. Introduction Program Background Evaluation Scope and Methodology Key Findings Program Effectiveness Contribution to Social Inclusion Development of Tools and Approaches Use of Tools and Approaches Partnerships Key Findings Program Relevance Continued Need Program Rationale Lessons Learned and Best Practices for Competitive Funding Processes Key findings Efficiency and Economy Value for Money Performance Measurement Strategy Conclusions Effectiveness Achievement of Expected Outcomes Relevance Need for the Program Performance Efficiency and Economy Recommendations Annex A Methodology Annex B Program Description... 29

6

7 List of Acronyms CfP CII CSGC ECD ESDC HRSDC* MHCC OLMC SDPP SDPP-D UEY VSI VSS Call for Proposals Community Inclusion Initiative Common System for Grants and Contributions Early Childhood Development Employment and Social Development Canada Human Resources and Skills Development Canada Mental Health Commission of Canada Official Language Minority Communities Social Development Partnerships Program Social Development Partnerships Program Disability Understanding the Early Years Voluntary Sector Initiative Voluntary Sector Strategy * As of July 2013, the official names of the minister and department are the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, and the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC). The name of the previous department, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), is used in this report in a historical context only. Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program v

8

9 Executive Summary The Social Development Partnerships Program (SDPP) is a nationally delivered program aimed at furthering broad social goals by making strategic investments in not-for-profit organizations to support the generation and dissemination of knowledge, foster partnerships to achieve shared goals, and help build Canada s not-for-profit sector capacity. This report presents findings from the evaluation of the SDPP, covering the program s activities from through to SDPP funds MHCC This evaluation was undertaken as a requirement With the support of SDPP funding, of the Financial Administration Act and shall the Mental Health Commission be approved by the Deputy Minister by June Pursuant to the Treasury Board Policy of Canada (MHCC) spearheaded the on Evaluation requirements, the current evaluation development of the National Standard assesses issues related to program relevance, of Canada for Mental Health and Safety in performance and alternatives and aims at informing the Workplace, which is the first of its kind future competitive funding processes based upon in the world. The Standard raises awareness best practices and lessons learned from the of mental health and the workplace and SDPP Disability (SDPP-D) 2009 call for proposals process. The SDPP is undergoing a transformation the MHCC provides support to businesses towards a funding model based on competitive to implement the Standard in the workplace. calls for proposals, multi-sectoral partnerships, and leveraging of investments by community partners. This transformation is being driven primarily by the framework to support social partnerships as announced in the Speech from the Throne 2010 and in Budget Key Findings Effectiveness SDPP has contributed to the inclusion of vulnerable or excluded social groups to some extent in the short-term. Examples of targeted groups include people with disabilities and young children and their families. Given that the funding period of most projects terminated recently, there was no evidence available to assess the sustainability of the contributions in the medium and long-term. SDPP has helped foster collaboration and partnerships to advance shared social goals and priorities. Thus, SDPP funding is important for its contribution to a project, to attract partners and to leverage new investments. SDPP projects have created and shared knowledge related to vulnerable or excluded populations. Some organizations have maintained the knowledge transfer beyond the funding period through innovative approaches while others have not. Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program vii

10 SDPP developed tools and approaches are considered to be useful to increase knowledge, raise awareness and share best practices and lessons learned, as demonstrated by the highlighted contributions to the All Abilities Welcome project and the Mental Health Commission of Canada. Rationale There is a continued need for support for the not-for-profit organizations to address the needs of vulnerable populations. However, the lack of national data on the needs and numbers of Canadians which are part of the vulnerable population makes it very difficult to establish what proportion could have benefited directly or indirectly from SDPP funded projects. SDPP is in alignment with federal and departmental priorities. The roles and responsibilities of the federal government in the delivery of the SDPP are generally appropriate. Limited evidence of duplication has been identified. Looking ahead, not-for-profit organizations are aware of the desire of the federal government to increase the impacts of its spending. Lessons learned and best practices have been identified for future programming consideration. Efficiency How SDPP Contributes The All Abilities Welcome (AAW) project, funded by SDPP-D, resulted in the production of a toolkit for disseminating information on the inclusion of people with disabilities PWD in recreational programming, as well as the training of 75 speakers (ambassadors) to lead 150 workshops. The project maintains a web presence, making the toolkit available. Speakers may be booked for events by contacting the funded organization. SDPP has made efforts to improve and simplify reporting and reduce administrative burden. However, evidence reveals that there is little follow-up on project success, which could inform an understanding of whether money is spent where it is most effective. SDPP project applications have not systematically included sufficient information on expected medium and long-term expected outcomes and data collection/sharing strategy limiting the ability to assess long-term outcomes and impacts. Recommendations 1. ESDC might want to consider engaging more with not-for-profit organizations to assist them with the upcoming changes to the SDPP funding model, when appropriate. 2. Ensure sufficient time is provided for organizations to respond to funding opportunities, when possible; consider asking organizations to develop sustainability plans to accompany their funding applications; and simplify and streamline the process, wherever applicable. viii Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program

11 3. Consider flexibility when it comes to the eligibility criteria of future SDPP applications. SDPP might want to consider different leveraging and partnering requirements for projects, as appropriate. 4. Ensure that a performance measurement strategy is developed to reflect program changes. Strategies should include clearly defined and measurable indicators as well as a plan for continued follow-up that will facilitate measurement of longer-term impact of SDPP. Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program ix

12

13 Management Response Introduction The Social Development Partnership Program (SDPP), first implemented in 1998, is a national program that makes strategic investments in eligible not-for-profit sector organizations to help improve the lives of people with disabilities, children and families and other vulnerable populations. There are two main components of the SDPP: the Disabilities component (SDPP-D), and the Children and Families component (SDPP-C&F). The terms and conditions of the SDPP are also used on occasion to administer other social develop programs The Office for Disability Issues is the lead on the policy development of the SDPP-D and the Community Development and Homelessness Partnerships Directorate is the lead on the policy development of the SDPP-C&F, both reside within the Income Security and Social Development Branch (ISSDB), while as of July 2012, the National Grants and Contributions Delivery Centre, within the Program Operations Branch, is responsible for the delivery of grants and contributions under the program. Due to the fact that several of the components of the SDPP had already been covered in recent evaluations, the current evaluation focused on gathering new evidence from the 2009 SDPP-D open call for proposals and review of SDPP-C&F Pilot projects which are still ongoing. The Management Response describes the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada s (ESDC) approach to addressing each recommendation and is structured as follows: Department s responses to recommendations, actions taken and planned activities. The Management Response will be implemented collaboratively by the Income Security and Social Development Branch, and the Program Operations Branch where appropriate. Recommendation 1 ESDC might want to consider engaging more with not for profit organizations to assist them with the upcoming changes to the SDPP funding model, when appropriate. Management agrees with this recommendation, however, it may apply differently to the two components of the SDPP. Actions This recommendation is already being addressed under SDPP-D: a transition support strategy was developed in by the SDPP-D to assist organizations impacted by transformation. This strategy included a series of learning events, opportunities and measures to support organizations. Specifically, three webinars were held in and a day long training session on social partnerships and fundraising was held in February Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program xi

14 SDPP-D engaged national disability organizations on the development of parameters for a national funding stream under the transformed SDPP-D. SDPP-C&F has been testing, through Pilots and other sources of information, the capacity of not-for-profits to respond to possible program changes under various conditions (e.g., rural, isolated NFPs). Planned Activities Further engagement activities will be planned over the next two years in order to inform and solicit views about potential changes to the SDPP. Recommendation 2 Ensure that sufficient time is provided for organizations to respond to funding opportunities, when possible; consider asking organizations to develop sustainability plans to accompany their funding applications; and simplify and streamline the process, wherever applicable. Management agrees with this recommendation, however, it may apply differently to the two components of SDPP. Actions The SDPP continues to apply continuous improvement measures through various methods. For example, SDPP-C&F has solicited feedback from funded pilot recipients about the Grants & Contributions processes and forms. This is being done on an ongoing basis. On December 17, 2012, the Department implemented the new Standard Application for Funding for contribution programs that is a more streamlined, efficient and focused method for organizations to submit funding applications. On June 17, 2013, the Department extended the use of the Standard Application for Funding to grant programs. Planned Activities Using various communications mechanisms, the Department will encourage organizations to independently and on an on-going basis consider possible projects that would be of interest to ESDC, and explore potential partnerships in order to increase organizations preparedness to respond to calls for proposal. For SDPP-D competitive funding processes, in consultation with the Program Operations Branch consideration will be given to launching calls for proposals at the same time annually and/or extending the length of the application period. xii Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program

15 The SDPP will develop criteria to assess the sustainability of projects, where appropriate, in consultation with the Program Operations Branch. For future funding opportunities, SDPP-D will consider requesting that applicants provide sustainability plans, when appropriate, which specify how the project will be sustained in the long term. This will facilitate measurement of medium and longer term impacts for projects that continue after the ESDC funding is finished. Recommendation 3 Consider flexibility when it comes to the eligibility criteria of future SDPP applications. SDPP might want to consider different leveraging and partnering requirements for projects or organizations, as appropriate. Management agrees with this recommendation, and acknowledges that the capacity and capabilities of each organization may be impacted by the size of the groups they represent. Actions With respect to leveraging, SDPP-C&F is currently testing three different leveraging ratios. Information on leveraging and partnerships will continue to be collected from the program and will be used to inform the steady-state. Both cash and in-kind contributions are counted towards leveraged amounts. Planned Activities In the next competitive call for proposals, the SDPP could consider flexibility regarding leveraging requirements for projects, such as establishing a leveraging percentage for a given CFP or initiative which could be based, in part, on targeted organizations and activities. Flexibility was used in the SDPP-D 2012 CFP so that applicants could meet the 10% leveraging requirement through either cash or in-kind contributions. The Department will continue to encourage partnerships within and outside of the not for-profit community, whenever appropriate. Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program xiii

16 Recommendation 4 Ensure that a performance measurement strategy is developed to reflect program changes. Strategies should include clearly defined and measurable indicators as well as a plan for continued follow-up that will facilitate measurement of longer-term impact of SDPP. Management agrees with this recommendation. Actions The Program commenced work on a revised performance measurement strategy in 2014, which will increase the focus on measuring intermediate and long-term outcomes, and will include defined and measurable indicators to the degree that it is feasible. The long term nature of interventions under this Program will be acknowledged in the strategy. Planned Activities For future funding opportunities, SDPP-D will consider requesting that applicants provide sustainability plans which specify how the project will be sustained in the long term. This will facilitate measurement of medium and longer term impacts. The SDPP-D will engage the disability community in 2014 in a discussion regarding how to best measure outcomes to facilitate measurement of the impact of the Program. This has already been signalled to disability stakeholders. In the transformed program, SDPP-C&F will expect applicants to demonstrate that they have a robust evaluation plan in place and have the capacity to measure their impact. xiv Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program

17 1. Introduction This report presents key findings and recommendations resulting from the Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program (SDPP), covering the program s activities from through to The objective of this evaluation is to inform future competitive funding processes based upon best practices and lessons learned from the SDPP-D 2009 Call for Proposals process. The specific evaluation scope, focus, issues and questions, a description of the methodologies used and the limitations of the methods are all presented in Annex A. SDPP is composed of two components: Children and Families (C&F) and People with Disabilities. In addition, the Voluntary Sector Strategy (VSS) and the Understanding the Early Years Initiative (UEY), were part of this evaluation given they shared the SDPP program authorities. All components and initiatives are described in Annex B. The evaluation was undertaken as a requirement of the Financial Administration Act. Pursuant to the Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation requirements, the current evaluation assesses issues related to program relevance, performance and alternatives and aims at informing future competitive funding processes based upon best practices and lessons learned from the SDPP-D 2009 Call for Proposals process. The SDPP is undergoing a transformation towards a funding model based on competitive calls for proposals, multi-sectoral partnerships, and leveraging of investments by community partners. This transformation is being driven primarily by the framework to support social partnerships as announced in the Speech from the Throne 2010 and in Budget Program Background The SDPP is a broad-based program that works in partnership with social not-for profit organizations to help improve life outcomes for people with disabilities, children and families, and other vulnerable or excluded populations. It was implemented in April 1998 as a result of a consultative exercise held in and the 1996 Federal Task Force recommendations on Disability issues and was renewed in January 2003, for a five year period. In December 2008, the Minister approved the continuation of the SDPP Terms and Conditions to March The continuation was contingent on transformation, (which the program is currently undergoing), towards a funding model based on competitive calls for proposals, multi-sectoral partnerships, and leveraging of investments by community partners. The terms and conditions for the SDPP were updated in the summer of 2010 to incorporate the Prime Minister s Volunteer Awards. For each fiscal year from to , the resources allocated by SDPP were about $2M in operations and maintenance and $19.3M in grants and contributions. The grants and contributions funding for the Disability component was $11M per fiscal year and the funding for the Children and Families component was $8.3M per fiscal year. Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program 1

18 The objectives of the SDPP are to: support the development and utilization of effective approaches to address social issues and challenges; develop, exchange and apply knowledge, tools and resources that address the social needs of individuals, families and communities; foster partnerships and networks to address existing and emerging social issues; recognize and support the ability of not-for-profit organizations to identify and address social development priorities; and recognize and promote community engagement initiatives (e.g. volunteerism, corporate social responsibility, innovation by not-for-profit organizations, partnerships, coalitions). There are two main components of the SDPP and other initiatives which use SDPP Terms and Conditions: 1) The Disabilities component (SDPP-D) supports projects intended to improve the participation and integration of people with disabilities in all aspects of Canadian society. First implemented in 1998, the SDPP-D is a national program that provides $11M annually to support not-for-profit organizations across Canada in tackling barriers faced by people with disabilities with respect to social inclusion. Until 2012, the funding was disbursed in three streams: $3M for open thematic calls; $3M for the Community Inclusion Initiative (CII); and $5M in directed funding for eighteen targeted national disability organizations. The CII was launched in 1997 as a national community development initiative designed to promote the full participation and inclusion of Canadians with intellectual disabilities. Organizational grants and the CII are being phased out as part of the SDPP-D transformation. 2) The Children and Families component supports projects for children and families by providing a mix of program and service supports to respond to children and families needs, choices, and preferences. Through the SDPP funding is provided to eligible not for-profit organizations for projects that help to improve the lives of children and families. Children and Families Pilots: are testing the impact of cross-sectoral partnerships through mandatory leveraging under the SDPP. There are three types of pilots: Community Partnerships, Third Party Leadership and Community Innovation. The Community Partnerships pilot tests the premise that community partnerships, and leveraged funds can increase the impact of federal spending. The targeted leveraging ratio for this project is 1:1. Third Party Leadership pilot projects test whether non-governmental organizations that manage grants and other funding at the regional or local level, and have the willingness to secure additional non-federal government resources, are able to leverage federal investments and manage and account for pooled funds, while delivering community projects. The targeted leveraging ratio for these projects is 1:3. 2 Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program

19 Community Innovation pilot projects test the ability of leveraged partnerships in rural and isolated parts of Canada to create innovative solutions to a social issue, while attracting in-kind and financial resources beyond our federal investment. The targeted leveraging ratio for these projects is 3:1. These tests inform the modernization and transformation of SDPP. 3) Other initiatives: Understanding the Early Years Initiative (UEY), implemented in 2004, was a seven year $39.8M initiative that ended in March It aimed to enhance communities capacity to support young children and their families. The primary objective of the UEY Initiative was to enable community members to work together to address the needs of children aged six years and under by: 1) enhancing family and community understanding about the importance of young children s development and approaches to help children thrive; and 2) strengthening the ability of communities to use local data to help them make decisions to enhance children s lives. Voluntary Sector Strategy (VSS) was a four year, $12M initiative, which began in 2005 and sunset in A collaborative effort between the federal government and the voluntary sector, the VSS aimed to lay the groundwork for a new framework of community-based collaboration and innovation with the non-profit sector to improve the economic and social well-being of Canadians. The SDPP is undergoing transformation towards a funding model based on competitive calls for proposals, multi-sectoral partnerships, and leveraging of investments by community partners. This transformation is being driven primarily by the framework to support social partnerships as announced in the Speech from the Throne 2010 and in Budget The transformation of the Children and Family Component and the Disability Component are following different approaches and are being carried out on different timelines. Beginning in , the SDPP-D has steadily moved towards a more competitive funding model that will introduce new leveraging requirements, improve the transparency of funding through the use of more calls for proposals, and increase the focus on project results and outcomes. Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program 3

20 1.2 Evaluation Scope and Methodology This SDPP evaluation is calibrated to maximize the use of evaluation resources while addressing Treasury Board Secretariat requirements. It comprises a review of the findings from the evaluations of the UEY, the VSS, and the first year of the Children and Families Pilots ( ). Also included are new evidence from key informant interviews with ESDC staff, a file review of the seventeen projects funded under the 2009 SDPP-Disability call for proposals and case studies conducted with nine of the seventeen projects funded. A detailed discussion of the methodology used for this SDPP evaluation can be found in Annex A of this report. Details on the evidence are available in the Technical Reports. 1 1 Two technical reports are available upon request: Technical Report on Document and File Review; and, Technical Report on Key Informant Interview and Case Study Technical Report. 4 Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program

21 2. Key Findings Program Effectiveness 2.1 Contribution to Social Inclusion The Social Development Partnerships Program (SDPP) has contributed to the inclusion of vulnerable or excluded social groups to some extent in the short-term. Given that the funding period of most projects terminated recently, there was no evidence available to assess the sustainability of the contributions in the medium and long-term. The SDPP supports the inclusion of socially vulnerable groups through targeted investments in non-profit organizations. Summative evaluations of the Voluntary Sector Strategy (VSS) and Understanding the Early Years (UEY) Initiative provided evidence that the SDPP has been successful in contributing to social inclusion, at least in the short-term. The UEY Initiative fostered inclusion by working with the voluntary sector to develop ways of producing and disseminating knowledge on early childhood development. Inclusion was therefore supported through the mobilization of knowledge and resources to adopt best practices of early childhood development. The UEY Evaluation reported that UEY helped communities to progress; that UEY made communities more inclusive, and that UEY made communities more responsive to children s needs. The VSS, on the How SDPP-D Contributes other hand, funded organizations working towards greater inclusion of vulnerable social groups; or they The Tetra Youth Transitions Project had inclusion as a component of their organizations partnered with volunteer 4 th year objectives or mandate. engineering students in various Evidence from the project files of the universities to work one-on-one with seventeen SDPP-D funded projects suggests that disabled youth to design and make projects have improved or in some instance should custom assistive aids or modifications improve the conditions of people with disabilities to their environment. These help the youth to achieve the broader goal of social inclusion. achieve greater independence, autonomy, Of the seventeen projects included in the File Review, all appear to have had an impact in the and enables them to more fully integrate short-term but there was no evidence available to into their communities. measure the extent to which the projects helped improve the lives of people with disabilities. For example, the Neil Squire Society project resulted in a contribution to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission consultation. However, no evidence could demonstrate the outcomes of the consultation and how many people with disabilities have participated and benefited from the consultation. So it cannot be ascertained whether or not the project improved the lives of people with disabilities. Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program 5

22 Community representatives interviewed in relation to the SDPP-D case studies felt that their projects contributed to the social inclusion of people with disabilities. Specifically, interviewees pointed to how their projects developed and exchanged knowledge, tools or resources that sustain social inclusion. For example, the project undertaken by the British Columbia Coalition of People with Disabilities addressed the priority of promoting accessbility. To this end, a train-the-trainer workshop manual was developed on emergency preparedness for people with disabilities and delivered in partnership with disability organizations and volunteer centres. Focusing on the workplace, the Mental Health Commission of Canada received funding to develop a National Standard on Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace, which will support the participation and inclusion of people with psychological health issues and which is already being adopted in part or whole by many employers. Despite the success of these projects in meeting their short-term objectives, the evidence was unclear on whether funding is directed to the most effective investments. Community representatives were divided in opinion when it came to whether or not the call for proposals process results in funding being directed to the most effective investments. Projects lack follow-up on medium and long term impacts, which mean there is little to no evidence available to assess projects. While it is too early to assess whether or not the Children and Families Pilots have contributed to social inclusion, early reporting indicates that projects are addressing a diversity of social policy issues as illustrated in Table 1 below. If implemented according to plans, these pilots could make a direct contribution to social inclusion for individuals, families, and communities. Table 1: Number of Projects by Policy Issue ( ) Policy Issue Number of Children and Families Pilots 1) Social supports for children and families 4 2) Social support for youth 1 3) Volunteer support and development 3 4) Inclusive, cohesive, self-sufficient communities 3 5) Development of the social enterprise sector 1 Total projects 12 6 Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program

23 2.2 Development of Tools and Approaches SDPP projects have created and shared knowledge related to vulnerable or excluded populations. Some organizations have maintained the knowledge transfer beyond the funding period through innovative approaches while others have not. The various lines of evidence collected and analyzed suggest that the SDPP was successful in promoting the development and sharing of tools and approaches through the funded projects. SDPP projects were, in most cases, able to achieve their objectives of developing tools and approaches that contribute to the inclusion of vulnerable social groups. Tools and approaches developed through these projects included resource guides, research briefs, website and web-based tools, advertisements, presentations, video documentaries, training materials, brochures, and fact sheets. Specifically: UEY participating communities produced research and community mapping reports, conducted planning sessions, and developed evidence-based Community Action Plans. In support of the Action Plans, UEY community products included resource guides, research briefs, website page/web tools, presentations, UEY brochures/fact sheets, posters/calendars, parenting tools, a UEY Newsletter, and news articles, press releases, media interviews, as well as television advertisements. These activities and tools contributed to a better understanding of the experiences of children in the early years. Representatives from all of the fourteen funded VSS projects felt that they were able to produce and disseminate a range of tools and resources, which included: documentation of innovative practices; tools and resources to assist with the implementation of best practices, including online tools and websites; events, such as conferences, workshops, and community forums; and a policy monitoring process and associated tools. Some respondents commented that they are still in contact with project partners and engaging in collaborative activities allowing for ongoing sharing of information and knowledge. Key informants reported that there were monthly teleconferences with the fourteen projects in order to support knowledge sharing. In terms of sustainability, eleven of the fourteen projects were able to continue activities or use resources beyond the VSS. The key component in creating and maintaining sustainability was the ability to secure ongoing funding from other sources. Evidence from 2009 SDPP-D project files illustrates that organizations were able to develop tools and resources that met the objective of inclusivity for people with disabilities. These various types of tools were directed towards different audience groups. Seven out of seventeen funded projects used online tools, such as websites, to connect and inform target populations of opportunities, services, and health-related information. The Canadian Working Group on HIV and Rehabilitation, for example, developed a website about employment programming, income support, and current events to share information with people with episodic disabilities. An extensive listserv was also developed to better direct specific information and communications among persons with episodic disabilities. Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program 7

24 The web and web-based software is a proven mechanism for developing tools that can be accessed by persons with disabilities. The Canadian Hearing Society, for example, developed videos disseminating services and information for deaf Canadians in American Sign Language (ASL) and Langue des signes québécoise (LSQ), accessed through their website. St. Mary s University partnered with IBM to develop a web-based platform for speech recognition software to help persons with disabilities access learning materials. Given SDPP s emphasis on knowledge transfer, training and other related educational materials are very common types of tools developed through funded projects. Many organizations developed training guides or other training materials. For example, the Active Living Alliance developed a toolkit disseminating information on inclusion of people with disabilities into recreational programming. Advocates were trained to speak at events and lead workshops sharing knowledge on inclusion in recreational programming. The British Colombia Coalition of Persons with Disabilities developed a train the trainer guide to prepare regional leaders to engage in emergency and disaster preparedness in a manner that is inclusive of people with disabilities. 2.3 Use of Tools and Approaches SDPP-developed tools and approaches are considered to be useful to increase knowledge, raise awareness and share best practices and lessons learned. The UEY Initiative evaluation concluded that the Initiative was successful in improving early childhood development through the tools and approaches that were utilized in participating projects. The VSS projects were able to produce and disseminate (to varying extents) a range of outputs including: documentation of innovative practices that were identified and explored throughout each project; tools and resources to assist with the implementation of best practices, including online tools and websites; a variety of events, including conferences, workshops, community forums, for knowledge sharing, including training on specific best practices; and a policy monitoring process and associated tools. Eight out of the fourteen VSS funded projects reported an increase in the number of tools used as a result of their supported projects. Despite these successes, some organizations described challenges they faced, including lack of capacity to partner sufficiently with other organizations to fully disseminate their tools and approaches. In addition, the review of files from funded projects indicated that all projects had some aspect of knowledge sharing; innovations and best practices were shared although the level of uptake was unclear; and organizations increased their use of specific tools. Representatives from most funded projects believed that there was an increase in knowledge and use of innovative best practices and resources as a result of their projects. Depending on the project this may have included: increased uptake and awareness of existing tools or models; the development of new tools or models; and improved subject matter knowledge. 8 Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program

25 Evidence from the case studies and project files review suggests relatively broad and effective use of most SDPP-D project-funded tools; at least in the short term (medium and long term could not be assessed as the projects were too recently concluded). Most of the tools and resources examined as part of the case studies continue to be used, and benefit people with disabilities (and in some instances, the larger population). This was not however, the case for all organizations. The finite funding period, coupled with a lack of alternative longer-time funding sources, meant that a few organizations have not been able to continue the project work at all, or not in the same manner, beyond the SDPP funding period. The organizations that continue to share tools and resources in some manner have found new partnership opportunities, or have introduced cost recovery measures. 2.4 Partnerships The Universal Liberated Learning Youth Initiative with Saint Mary s University was to facilitate the use of specially designed speech recognition technology to automatically transcribe speech, display it as readable text, and produce accessible, multi-media transcripts. The system was deployed in three regions: Atlantic Canada, Western Canada and Central Canada. Over 200 post-secondary students with disabilities used the hosted transcription system during the to time period. SDPP has helped foster collaboration and partnerships to advance shared social goals and priorities. Thus, SDPP funding is important for its contribution to a project, to attract partners and to leverage new investments. Findings from multiple lines of evidence suggest that the SDPP has helped foster collaboration and partnerships to advance shared social goals and priorities. The Understanding the Early Years initiative evaluation found that communities involved in the Initiative laid some groundwork for ongoing efforts to address early childhood development issues. This was accomplished through the establishment of extensive partnerships with community organizations and individuals, and strengthened linkages with provincial and municipal governments and school boards. UEY facilitated the participation of networks of community-involved people highly committed to improving outcomes for children. It was noted by some UEY coalition members, as well as by some federal and provincial representatives, that to be most effective, this network required the presence of a full-time coordinator. In this context of community-level collaboration, networking and partnership, the community-level research became a valuable tool to strengthen local networks and partnerships. It stimulated collaborative planning and action, brought people together to discuss the needs of their community s children, encouraged community involvement, and supported the work of a broadly based community coalition in developing, sharing and using knowledge. In terms of sustainability, the UEY evaluation found that many Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program 9

26 participating communities continued these partnerships, at least to some degree, after the SDPP funding ended but that in the absence of UEY funding, they were not able to continue to employ coordinators. Similarly, the VSS evaluation found that funded projects involved opportunities for the development of partnerships and strategic alliances through in-person meetings and regular communication. At least five partnerships were formed in each project, and some projects allowed for sustained contact with partners, engaging in collaborative activities providing ongoing sharing of information and knowledge, beyond the funding period. However, some evidence indicated that these relationships were not sustainable once the VSS concluded as partners no longer had a concrete reason to communicate. All of the seventeen SDPP-D funded projects involved partners either in the development and/or dissemination of tools and resources a criterion against which proposals were assessed. Community representatives reported that the partnership approach is pushing the not-for-profit organizations out of their comfort zones, raising their level of expertise, and expanding their capacity. The limited evidence available suggests that at least some of the disability organizations funded under the SDPP-D 2009 CfP With the support of SDPP-D funding, have sustained partnerships beyond the funding the Mental Health Commission of period. While community representatives were Canada (MHCC) partnered with Health uncertain how many of the partnerships continued Canada, and the Public Health Agency after funding had ceased, the SDPP-D case studies of Canada, the Great-West Life Centre offered some evidence of the sustainability of the partnerships. There is evidence that most funded for Mental Health in the Workplace and organizations that participated in the case studies Bell Canada in the development of the have maintained the initial partnerships in some National Standard of Canada for Mental capacity or they have established new partnerships Health and Safety in the Workplace. as a result of the funded project. Finally, there is early evidence from the Children and Families Pilots that organizations have been successful in establishing partnerships. For example, the number of partners committed for each Community Innovation project ranges from four to fifteen, with an average of nine partners per project. It is noteworthy that most of the partners engaged in the early stages are not new partner organizations they are organizations with which the funding recipients have had pre-established relationships. 10 Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program

27 3. Key Findings Program Relevance 3.1 Continued Need There is a continued need for support for the not-for-profit organizations to address the needs of vulnerable populations. However, the lack of national data on the needs and numbers of Canadians which are part of the vulnerable population makes it very difficult to establish what proportion could have benefited directly or indirectly from Social Development Partnerships Program (SDPP) funded projects. Evidence suggests that there is a continued need for the SDPP to provide funding to not for profit organizations in order to address the needs of vulnerable populations. The not-for-profit sector plays a key role in supporting vulnerable populations in Canada. Despite having had success in developing social partnerships and leveraging, not-for-profit organizations still require support to address the well-being of vulnerable populations. Several case study participants said that their organizations need ongoing financial assistance to fund internal capacity and projects that support vulnerable populations. Nearly all the case study participants noted that the SDPP is one of the few sources for this type of funding and few funding alternatives are available for the wide variety of projects the SDPP supports. Findings form all lines of evidence indicated that projects were able to meet short-term needs; however projects need continued support in order to meet medium and long term objectives. The Understanding the Early Years (UEY) Initiative evaluation noted concerns that, despite success, disruptions to funding would have a severe impact on the ability of their organizations to accomplish their goals. The Volunteer Sector Strategy (VSS) evaluation findings suggested that there was much more that could have been done to create sustained networks and tools for continued sharing of innovations. Data from the SDPP-D project reporting suggest that additional (or continued) funding for projects would have assisted in helping more persons with disabilities and in more fully disseminating the tools and resources developed as a result of the funding. Findings from the Children and Families Pilots indicate that projects are expected to meet the goals of leveraging non-federal, in part, because having federal funding has improved organizations ability to attract partners and capital. Thus, there is a perceived need for continued SDPP funding support, either to maintain project outcomes, or to multiply the benefits extend dissemination of tools and innovative practices and research beyond the funded organization and its partners. In looking ahead, SDPP-D case study participants pointed to several priorities for future SDPP funding. These include projects focused on seniors with disabilities, as well as economic security for persons with disabilities, projects designed to promote health, or to solve education and employment issues for persons with disabilities or issues of accessibility to full participation, and projects that build the capacity of disability organizations to engage in research. Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program 11

28 3.2 Program Rationale The SDPP is in alignment with federal and departmental priorities. The roles and responsibilities of the federal government in the delivery of the SDPP are generally appropriate. Limited evidence of duplication has been identified. Evidence indicates that SDPP aligns with Government of Canada policies and priorities. The transformation is being driven primarily by the framework to support social partnerships as announced in the Speech from the Throne 2010 and in Budget Furthermore, as indicated in Budget 2012, the Government will continue to explore social finance instruments as a way to further encourage the development of government-community partnerships. The program is also aligned with ESDC s third Strategic Outcome: Income security, access to opportunities and well-being for individuals, families and communities. Community representatives interviewed pointed to the fact that ESDC is in the business of helping vulnerable populations, and that the SDPP achieves this mandate through strategic investments in eligible not-for-profit organizations for projects designed to help improve life outcomes for vulnerable populations. The Children and Families Pilots, and the future directions of the SDPP funding model, furthermore, are indicative of the program s alignment with the government s focus on increasing the impacts of federal spending. Although the UEY Initiative and the VSS have sunset, evidence suggests that the objectives of both aligned with federal and departmental priorities. The UEY Initiative focused on the value of helping families attain greater well-being for children, and the VSS focused on building capacity in the voluntary sector to improve the economic and social well-being of Canadians. The roles and responsibilities of the federal government in the delivery of the SDPP are generally appropriate. When the UEY Initiative was introduced, building knowledge and gathering information were seen to be appropriate roles for the federal government because both activities brought a national perspective to early childhood development (ECD) issues. While the UEY Initiative was designed to be complementary to provincial and territorial roles, there was some evidence of overlap with other initiatives focused on ECD in the later years (likely due to the fact that priorities shifted in some jurisdictions over time). Interviews with federal and provincial government representatives found that when the UEY Initiative began it was seen as showing an appropriate federal leadership role, in that some jurisdictions had not yet undertaken any action in ECD, or in using research to support ECD investments. However, the federal government was not the only jurisdiction with interest in acting to improve children s outcomes during the period. Although the UEY Initiative was designed to complement provincial/territorial roles, evidence from the case studies and interviews with provincial government representatives showed some overlap with initiatives focusing on ECD and a research-based approach in some provinces. 12 Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program

29 When the VSS was implemented, there was a perceived gap in available funding for innovative projects. Since the federal government relates to the voluntary sector on a pan-canadian basis, stakeholders felt that the federal government was uniquely positioned to fill that funding opportunity. In terms of duplication, there may have been some overlap with programs in other jurisdictions (although this was difficult to gauge from the available evidence). Approximately 45% of the unfunded survey respondents were able to secure funding from sources other than the federal government. The VSS and UEY evaluations concluded that the roles and responsibilities of the federal government are appropriate. That said, the role of the government is changing from funder to enabler. In the 2010 Speech from the Throne, the government committed to look to innovative charities and forward-thinking private-sector companies to partner on new approaches to many social challenges. Finally, looking at current projects and initiatives, community representatives from disability organizations indicated that the SDPP is the only social development program with an impact on social inclusion on the national level. From the perspective of the disability organizations, there are no programs similar to the SDPP at the federal, provincial/territorial or community levels that provide comparable financial supports to assist organizations in advancing the full participation of vulnerable populations. 3.3 Lessons Learned and Best Practices for Competitive Funding Processes Looking ahead, not-for-profit organizations are aware of the desire of the federal government to increase the impacts of its spending. Lessons learned and best practices have been identified for future programming considerations. Evidence suggests that not-for-profit disability organizations are aware of the impending changes to the SDPP funding model. The document review found that organizational grant funding and Community Inclusion Initiative (CII) recipients were made aware of these proposed changes through a number of ESDC communications with stakeholders. Evaluation findings point to some lessons learned and best practices that can inform the future considerations for competitive processes. Lessons learned and best practices relate generally to the development of partnerships, leveraging (mostly from the Children and Families Pilots), and administration, including: Organizations could benefit from information or training sessions on engaging the private sector. Early evidence from the Children and Families Pilots reveals that new leveraged funds were more likely to come from other levels of government than from the private sector. This suggests that organizations may have difficulty interfacing with the private sector to solicit and secure funding. Having federal funding appears to improve organizations ability to attract partners and capital. Evaluation of the Social Development Partnerships Program 13