Directorates
·	Director General's Office
·	Data Development
·	Strategic Evaluations
·	Partnership and Continuous Evaluations
Publications
·	Evaluation Reports
·	Evaluation Briefs
·	Labour Market Development Agreement Series
·	Lessons Learned Series
·	Evaluation Tool Kit Series
·	Evaluation Forum Newsletter
·	From Theory To Practice

Purpose and Context of the Evaluation

This report presents the results of the evaluation of the Official Language Minority Communities Support Fund. The Fund is administered by the Secretariat, Official Language Minority Communities (SOLMC) of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC, formerly HRDC) and is one of the methods used by HRSDC to implement section 41 of the Part VII of the Official Languages Act.¹

The Fund is provided as a Labour Market Partnership (LMP) initiative under the Part II Employment Benefits and Support Measures (EBSM) of the Employment Insurance Act. It was launched on June 12, 1999 and allocated $21 million over a three-year period. On March 19, 2002, HRSDC announced a two-year extension of the Fund with a budget of $12 million per year for that period.

The Support Fund is implemented through two national committees:

• the National Committee for Canadian Francophonie Human Resources Development (referred to in this report as the Francophone Committee), and
• the National Human Resources Development Committee for the English Linguistic Minority (referred to in this report as the Anglophone Committee).

The two national committees implement their strategic plans with the help of the Regroupements de développement économique et d'employabilité (RDÉEs) and the Community Economic Development and Employability Committees (CEDECs).

The Support Fund assists the two national committees and their delegated organizations² in their efforts to foster economic development, employability and capacity building within Canada's Official Language Minority Communities. The Fund provides financial assistance through contribution agreements.

The evaluation of the Support Fund was conducted during the winter and spring of 2002 and covers the period from the launch of the Fund in 1999 until January 2002.

The evaluation's mandate was focused on three main areas:

• determine the relevance of the Support Fund in light of the needs of Official Language Minority Communities, the mandate and the responsibilities of HRSDC;
• examine the design, delivery and implementation of the Support Fund; and
• examine the achievement of the short and medium-term objectives and determine the key results.

This formative evaluation did not cover the long-term impacts of the Fund. These impacts include, among others, economic development, job creation and community capacity building.

Methodology

Four main data collection methods were used:

• a review of documentation, including the Support Fund documentation and publications of HRSDC, Federal departments and the two national committees;
• an analysis of the files of the first 18 contribution agreements;
• interviews with 46 key informants, including managers of the SOLMC, members of the two national committees, the RDÉEs, RDÉE partners, the CEDECs, and some HRSDC regional coordinators responsible for the implementation of section 41 of the Official Languages Act; and
• a written questionnaire administered to 153 members of the two national committees, the RDÉEs, RDÉE partners, and the CEDECs.

The approach used for the evaluation emphasized the use of multiple lines of evidence. Particular care was placed on ensuring that the data collected under the four data collection methods were comparable and complementary so that the findings from one source could be informed, corroborated or further explored by the other sources. Although the research design relied heavily on qualitative methodologies, the evaluation emphasized the systematic analysis of these data and used qualitative findings in concert with quantitative and concrete evidence where possible to increase confidence in the main findings.

The evaluation used thirteen performance indicators to examine the Support Fund. These indicators were grouped according to the main evaluation issues:

• the relevance and design of the Support Fund;
• implementation and delivery; and
• preliminary results and enabling effects³ of the Support Fund.

Evaluation Findings and Conclusions

The main findings and conclusions are summarized below:

Relevance and Design of the Support Fund

The Support Fund is consistent with part VII of the Official Languages Act

The analysis of the key informant interviews and documentation related to the Support Fund indicates that the Support Fund is conceptually consistent with section 41 of Part VII of the Official Languages Act. The Fund provides a means for HRSDC to meet its responsibilities under Part VII, relating to enhancing the vitality and the development of Official Language Minority Communities.

The documentation review and interviews also indicate that concepts, approaches and mechanisms related to the functioning of the Support Fund and the two national committees were used as models by Health Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Consultation with Official Language Minority Communities has ensured the relevance of the Support Fund to these communities

The documentation review, events leading up to the creation of the Support Fund and the interviews with community representatives demonstrate that the Support Fund is the result of significant consultation between the Francophone communities and HRSDC. The Anglophone community in Quebec and other federal institutions joined the consultative process more recently and have broadened the scope and relevance of the Support Fund.

A dichotomy exists between the Support Fund objectives and its funding source

The Support Fund is an LMP initiative under the EBSM. This means that the contribution agreements signed under the Support Fund must comply with the terms and conditions of the EBSM. Comparing the objectives of the EBSM to the objectives of the Support Fund indicates a dichotomy between their objectives, however, especially with respect to economic development. This conclusion is corroborated by the analysis of documentation and the interviews.

In fact, the objective of the EBSM is to assist individuals to prepare for, obtain and maintain employment, resulting in savings to the EI Account. As part of this overall objective, LMP initiatives enable organizations to identify their human resources needs and develop plans to address these needs. These partnerships can also be used to implement workforce adjustment measures. The objectives of the Support Fund are economic development, employability and community capacity building.

The delegated organizations are in a situation of uncertainty

The absence of longer-term funding and the dichotomy between the objectives of the Support Fund and the EBSM are contributing to a situation of uncertainty for the delegated organizations, because the viability of these organizations and the scope of their actions are generally considered to be closely linked to the Support Fund. The uncertainty is also contributing to staff turnover and re-training.

The Francophone Committee's strategic plan is consistent with the mandate and objectives of the Support Fund, but it is less evident that the Anglophone Committee's strategic plan is consistent

The analysis of documentation, the contribution agreement files, and key informant interviews confirms that the strategic plan, priorities and directions of the Francophone Committee are consistent with the mandate and objectives of the Support Fund. In the case of the Anglophone Committee, there is a greater focus on community capacity building, community economic development and less focus on the economic development objective of the Support Fund. The key informant interviews, publications and contribution agreements files of the Anglophone Committee indicated a very diverse range of activities that were poorly targeted and difficult to reconcile with the concept of community economic development. A very broad interpretation was given to the concept of "community capacity building", including that of creating and eventually establishing the conditions essential to community economic development. However, some activities of the Anglophone Committee do fall more clearly into the category of community economic development.

Part of the reason for the different direction of the Anglophone Committee may be that the Support Fund was initially designed around the specific needs of Francophone Official Language Minority Communities and their needs may differ from those of Anglophone Official Language Minority Communities.

The Support Fund has, to some extent, mechanisms in place to minimise duplication with other federal initiatives and to complement other sources of funds

The interviews and documentation review indicated that the Support Fund has mechanisms in place to minimise duplication with other federal initiatives and to complement other sources of funds. The Fund was designed to complement existing programs, to encourage partnerships and to minimize the possibility of duplication of funds. One of the roles of the members of the review committee is to ensure that planned contribution agreements would not duplicate or replace other programs. Also, the approval of contribution agreements requires the identification of all funding sources.

Delivery and Implementation

The Support Fund has helped to establish a national infrastructure that is consistent with its objectives

The existence and operation of a national infrastructure consisting of the two national committees, the RDÉEs and the CEDECs is consistent with the Support Fund's short-term objectives of strengthening and establishing partnership networks, and supporting the Francophone and Anglophone Committees.

The management of the Support Fund could be improved in certain areas, such as monitoring and data collection systems

The SOLMC developed a Results-based Management and Accountability Framework in April 2001. The framework included performance indicators that are associated with the Support Fund objectives. The contribution agreements examined by this evaluation were signed prior to April 2001. Although the contribution agreement files included a list of expected results, there was a wide variation in terms of specificity. Also, the expected results were not linked to performance indicators. Only a minority of files describes the expected results with enough precision to link them to performance indicators.

The interviews with the delegated organizations, the review of the Support Fund Results-based Management and Accountability Framework and the contribution agreement files also indicated that the SOLMC has not set out clear and measurable objectives and that the SOLMC and delegated organizations have not been making use of performance indicators. In addition, the activity reports produced by the delegated organizations were found to be of marginal value because their purpose, uses and content have not been adequately specified.

The SOLMC and the national committees have not developed an integrated data collection system. Other than the contribution agreement files, the SOLMC does not appear to have a data collection tool.

Preliminary Results and Enabling Effects of the Support Fund

A high level of achievement towards establishing a supporting infrastructure was evident under the first 18 contribution agreements

Examples of achievements include the establishment of the RDÉEs and CEDECs and the development of strategic planning.

In several regions, some short-term accomplishments in the areas of tourism and support for business development have been reported, which may be effective in helping to achieve the long term objectives of the Support Fund. Specific examples include creating a business incubator in Manitoba and, in British Columbia, the provincial Department of Tourism has incorporated a series of tourism promotion products developed by the RDÉE into its own tourism promotion program.

There is preliminary evidence that the Support Fund is helping to mobilize communities and increase community capacity for economic development and employment

The strategic plans developed by the delegated organizations, the related activities and interviews with stakeholders indicate that the Support Fund is helping to mobilize communities. Respondents to the written questionnaire indicated that they believe that the Support Fund has been or will be highly effective in making progress in economic development and employability that would not otherwise have been possible.

There is preliminary evidence that the Support Fund is leveraging complementary funding and activities to implement strategic plans

The preliminary evidence indicates that the Support Fund is leveraging additional funding and activities by third parties, including federal, provincial and private investors. Two examples are Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Agriculture Rural Minority Language Community Planning Initiative and the business incubator in Manitoba.

There is room for increased involvement of federal departments and agencies who are members of the Francophone and Anglophone Committees

Key Informants, particularly those from the delegated organizations, indicated that there is room for more involvement by federal institutions in terms of adapting their policies, programs and services to the economic development and employability needs of Official Language Minority Communities.

Knowledge of the local labour market needs to be developed

The interviews with members of the delegated organizations and the absence of community diagnosis and workforce data suggest that the delegated organizations have only a partial and uneven understanding of the needs of the local workforce and labour market and that some of these organizations need to develop a better knowledge in these areas.

Footnotes

1	Under section 41, Part VII of the Official Languages Act, the Federal Government is committed to: "Enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting their development, as well as fostering full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society".
2	The delegated organizations refer to the organizations authorized to present funding applications and to sign contribution agreements under the Support Fund and include: the community table of the Francophone Committee; the community table of the Anglophone Committee; the Regroupements de développement économique et d'employabilité (RDÉEs) and the Community Economic Development and Employability Committees (CEDECs). The Francophone and Anglophone Committees are charged with providing advice on the policies, programs and services of HRSDC and other federal partners. They perform a number of essential coordination, information, liaison, research, and development functions. The CEDECs, funded through the Anglophone Committee, motivate Anglophone minority communities in the areas of community capacity building and community economic development. The RDÉEs sign and implement contribution agreements that are aligned with the strategic plans of the Francophone Committee.
3	Enabling effects refer to all policies, programs, interventions or investments that will contribute to the development or perfecting of the institutional infrastructure of communities, and any instrument that will enable them to take control of and generate sustainable community economic growth, including the definition of development strategies, the mobilizing of the key human and entrepreneurial resources of communities, the improvement of employability for their members, the creation of jobs, the creation or enhancement of cooperatives, strategic and business partnerships, and, gradually, the assembling of a critical mass of capital.