|
|
     |
||
 |
     |
 |
|
This section of the report highlights the main findings for the four performance indicators and sub-indicators that were used to examine implementation and delivery of the Support Fund. Indicator #5: Quality of the management of the Support FundThis indicator was reviewed on the basis of five sub-indicators. #5a. The eligibility criteria and the operation of the funding application approval process The eligibility criteria and approval process for contribution agreements are considered by most to be generally working well, despite the lack of alignment between the objectives of the Support Fund and the EBSM (as noted under indicator #2) The funding application approval process includes several steps. The community side makes an initial verification of the consistency of the funding application with the Francophone Committee's strategic priorities.32 The SOLMC then conducts a detailed analysis of the applications relying on its knowledge of the operation, effectiveness and stage of development of the applicant. In principle, the application is then sent to the review committee (note that the review committee is examined under indicator #5b). The application is then approved, sometimes after a final consultation with the applicant. The number of applications rejected is small because initial project concepts that do not fall within the Support Fund's eligibility criteria (presented in Appendix F) are re-oriented, or redirected to other more appropriate sources of funding, before they reach the formal application stage for the Support Fund. Despite the lack of alignment between the objectives of the Support Fund and the EBSM (as noted in the discussion of indicator #2), respondents to the written questionnaire gave a high positive rating of 3.4 out of 4 to the question of whether the Support Fund's funding application eligibility criteria are appropriate and will contribute to economic development leading eventually to job creation (See Question 5 of the questionnaire in Appendix A). In most instances, the interview respondents also indicated that the approval process is generally working well, although several areas of concern were noted and are discussed below. There is concern that the administrative process is becoming burdensome Close to half of the 14 leaders of delegated organizations mentioned how burdensome the process and the requirements for the preparation and submission of funding applications are. The SOLMC stressed that from the start the government and community sides wanted the Support Fund to have as light an administrative process as possible, while adhering to the requirements for sound management of public funds, in order to ensure optimum operation of the Support Fund and its maximum effectiveness in the field. Both the SOLMC and the community side are beginning to be concerned about the burden gradually developing around this administrative process. There is evidence of a lack of clarity and a lack of a common understanding regarding the criteria and process for determining amounts for regular and "major project" contribution agreements Close to half of the 14 leaders of delegated organizations mentioned the lack of specific information on the criteria used to determine the size of the budget allocated to a given RDÉE. According to the SOLMC, the confusion comes in part from the fact that the community side's appreciation of the factors determining the amounts allocated under each contribution agreement differs from its own. For its part, the community side claims that there is an annual allocation of $100,000 for each delegated organization for the realization of each priority sector duly planned and ready for implementation and $100,000 for the coordination of these four sectors. This formula has given rise to specific expectations in the communities. The SOLMC states that it never issued such a precise formula. It also stated that the amount allocated depends on the organizational and administrative capacity of the delegated organization, its ability to carry out each of the priorities, and the degree and quality of the use and management of the funds during the previous year. The amount allocated also depends on the innovative and motivating nature of the application and the existence of a proper strategy that will allow the contribution agreement to be used as a lever for investment by other public or private sources. Depending on the circumstances, the amount allocated could be higher or lower than the formula communicated by the community side. Since the total of the funding applications exceeded the funds available for 2002-2003, it was necessary to limit the allocations. This approach has not been necessary in previous years since the amounts allocated were generally less because a number of delegated organizations were still in the start-up phase. Some of the delegated organizations in the North and in Western Canada expressed concern because they had invested a great deal of energy and mobilized segments of their communities to prepare applications in anticipation of the maximum funding only to learn later that the maximum limit was much lower. This was the case with three organizations in the northern territories. The organizations believe that their credibility was damaged and that some community members were discouraged following the announcement of the amount of the contribution agreement. There is provision in the Support Fund for the approval of a contribution for a major project once per delegated organization in the Support Fund's current cycle. The eligibility criteria for these "major" projects are somewhat vague. According to the SOLMC, the project must apply to the whole province and potentially be applicable to other regions or nationally. It must involve a significant number of partners at both the organizational and financial levels. The SOLMC indicated that the Support Fund's overall budget does not allow for the approval of several major projects each year. However, respondents in one community in particular reported that the credibility of the RDÉE and its ability to continue to be an effective agent of economic development depends on the anticipated approval of the major project. The Support Fund has, to some extent, mechanisms in place to minimize 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. For example, as noted under indicator #5b, one of the roles of the members of the review committee is to ensure that planned contributions would not duplicate or replace existing programs. In addition, the approval of contribution agreements requires the identification of all funding sources. Several contribution agreements mention the kind of contributions expected from partners other than HRSDC, although very few of them specify the exact amounts. #5b. Operation of the review committees The evidence indicates that some regional coordinators and other members of the review committees do not adequately understand the Support Fund or their role in the process of reviewing contribution applications. This could limit the reliability of their recommendations and their contribution to the decision making process of the review committees. The documentation related to the Support Fund indicates that HRSDC's regional coordinators are required to sit on the funding application review committees along with representatives from other departments and representatives from the community side. Review committee members must fill out a control sheet and ensure that the planned contribution would not duplicate or replace existing programs. In principle, as they do for other programs, the coordinators and other members of the review committees must keep abreast of the progress of contribution agreements in their region and, if necessary, provide support to the delegated organizations. The SOLMC's operating budget includes a substantial allocation to HRSDC regional offices to carry out various activities under Part VII, including a number of functions related to the Support Fund. The interviews with members of the review committees and their responses to the written questionnaire indicated that their knowledge and their involvement in the review of funding applications vary widely. Members from the community side who sit on the review committees are very well informed about the eligibility criteria. The coordinators from other departments, however, reported that they were not given clear enough information on the eligibility criteria and the level of funding awarded. Of the ten HRSDC regional coordinators who should have completed the written questionnaire, seven responded and two did not, while a third indicated that he had not been at the job long enough to feel comfortable answering the questionnaire. Even among those who did respond, a few commented that they were reluctant to respond to the questionnaire because of their limited knowledge of the Support Fund. A majority of the regional coordinators indicated that their own role with respect to the Support Fund is not clearly defined. For their part, the SOLMC managers reported that they make annual presentations to the coordinators on the Support Fund. #5c. Level of investment and distribution of the budget envelope Forty-nine contribution agreements were signed between the introduction of the Support Fund and March 31, 2002. Although the budget for the Support Fund was $21 million for the first three years, only about $15 million was invested during that time As indicated in Section 1 of this report, the Support Fund's budget for the first three years was $21 million. This budget was allocated to the Fund on the basis of $5 million in 1999-2000, $7 million in 2000-2001, and $9 million in 2001-2002. Ultimately, $1,434,484 was invested in the first year, $5,396,693 in the second year, and $8,219,115 in the final year, for a total investment of $15,047,292.33 These total expenditures represent about 72 percent of the Fund's available budget. The SOLMC managers explained that the differences in the first two years reflected the fact that some RDÉEs were in the process of being set up and, therefore, were unable to carry out any more programming at that time. There is also a gap between the total amounts approved under some contribution agreements and the amounts transferred, with the evidence suggesting that the amounts transferred were tied to implementation of the agreements In some cases, the amounts transferred were less than the amounts approved under the contribution agreements. For 2002-2003, the SOLMC received a budget increase of $1.5M and approved a total of $10,141,665 in contribution agreements. The final investment was $8,219,115, however, which represents a difference of 19 percent. The evidence suggests that the amounts transferred were tied to implementation of the contribution agreements. For example, there were delays in the start-up of some contribution agreement initiatives due to the time taken to hire staff and, as a result, there was a corresponding reduction in the amounts transferred. The difference between the amounts approved under certain contribution agreements and the amounts transferred also reflected, depending on the case, the delegated organization's inability to act, the complexity or level of difficulty inherent in community economic development faced by the delegated organization, or delays in the approval cycle and implementation of the contribution agreements. The delegated organizations reported being very satisfied with the quickness with which SOLMC paid the amounts approved. The transfers were made regularly throughout the year and were conditional on the submission of satisfactory financial and activity reports. The Support Fund is reaching Official Language Minority Communities in different provinces The distribution of the Support Fund's budget across Canada indicates that there was a level of equity among the minority communities in different provinces. The amounts allocated to the Northern territories were less because of their later start-up and their small population. Ontario received less than had been anticipated because of the disagreements that existed (as discussed under indicator #4), although it appears that the allocation for 2002-2003 is within the norm. To date, three major projects have been allocated, including a major project to the Francophone Committee for the launch and operation of the Gazel.ca portal, a medium-size project in Manitoba and a smaller project in Nova Scotia. #5d. Monitoring the realization of the undertakings of the contribution agreements and their administration and financial management The evidence suggests that it may be useful to consider ways to improve the monitoring of deliverables and the results of the contribution agreements The SOLMC gradually put in place oversight procedures relating to implementation of the contribution agreements and compliance of expenditures by the delegated organizations with the administrative policy governing those agreements. Each delegated organization is required to submit two monthly reports: a financial report and an activity report. The SOLMC regularly visits each of the contribution agreement signatories to verify on-site progress toward implementation and the quality of financial management and operations. This work includes verifying vouchers for expenses claimed. There are two currents of thought among the delegated organizations concerning the level of oversight exercised by the SOLMC. More than half of the interview respondents from delegated organizations, especially those from organizations that have demonstrated their competency and put in place management measures in compliance with accepted practices, find the monthly reports to be too onerous and of little value. Those respondents believe that the administrative burden associated with the Support Fund delays achievement of other important initiatives and consequently limits the Support Fund's effectiveness. Other respondents from delegated organizations find monthly reporting quite normal, and a small minority of them find the reports to be useful since they use the processes as mechanisms for managing and controlling their operations. To the extent that one of the desired outcomes of the Support Fund is to generate major investments from other public and private sources, organizations that are successful in this area report that they feel constrained by the need to complete the required monthly, quarterly and annual reports,34 a requirement that they feel consumes their available energies to no purpose. The SOLMC views its reporting requirements around the Support Fund as necessary for the diligent management of public funds and reflective of the fact that certain delegated organizations are in the start-up phase and/or are consolidating their resources. Managers of the delegated organizations and HRSDC would be in favour of quarterly reports, which is the minimum requirement for the EBSM, for organizations with a proven administrative capacity. However, departmental respondents do not believe that it would be appropriate to have two different reporting regimes. The analysis of contribution agreement files conducted for this evaluation included a review of activity reports produced by the delegated organizations. The review identified a number of shortcomings with the current reporting system, such as a lack of clarity regarding the intended purpose, uses and content. Further details are provided in the discussion of indicator # 7. The current reporting structure may be limiting the SOLMC's ability to collect data When asked about the implementation plans for the four strategic priorities of the Anglophone Committee, the SOLMC was not able to confirm the existence of such plans. After further investigation, the SOLMC did confirm the development of an implementation plan for only one sector, namely, communication. The quality and adequacy of data collection and processing systems are also examined in more detail under indicator #7. #5e. Training and support provided to delegated and dependent organizations, 35 including by the SOLMC and the two community tables Support from the SOLMC to the delegated organizations has improved and is considered to be excellent by a small majority of the interviewed managers of delegated organizations According to the interviewed managers and officials of the SOLMC, there was a large learning curve when the Support Fund was launched and virtually everything had to be created on both sides. The delegated organizations36 reported a generally positive evolution in the training and support provided to them by the SOLMC. Respondents from the community organizations indicated that initially, however, there was a lack of uniformity in the information provided by the SOLMC. For example, these respondents indicated that some SOLMC employees were unfamiliar with the fundamental elements or the parameters of the Support Fund and sometimes sought to become involved in the internal operations of the community organizations. According to the SOLMC, part of the initial confusion arose from the need to develop appropriate policies or practices on the run. Also, the managers and officials of the SOLMC feel that the community organizations do not always appreciate the requirements of the LMP and what is involved in managing contribution agreements and public funds. Since the initial period, however, various practices have been put in place, expectations have been clarified and there is better collaboration as a result. Education was needed on both sides and, from all indications, it seems to have occurred to a large degree. The Quebec community table of the Anglophone Committee indicated that it is very satisfied in general with its relationship with the SOLMC and the latter's support. They did note, however, that they are experiencing pressure from the SOLMC to focus the Committee's strategic plan on job creation so that the SOLMC can justify its investment. As discussed under indicator #3, the community table is more interested in focusing initially on community capacity building and community economic development. A minority of the managers of the delegated organizations felt that there continues to be a lack of uniformity in the information provided by the SOLMC Although most of the managers of delegated organizations reported a positive evolution in the training and support provided to them by the SOLMC, a minority feel that there continues to be significant discrepancies in the accuracy, consistency and timeliness of information provided by the SOLMC. Some managers of the delegated organizations have considerable concerns about staff turnover at the SOLMC. In some cases, they were assigned four different officers over three years. They noted that each new person has to be brought up to date on the context and the evolution of the delegated organization's contribution agreement and has to be educated about the fundamental principles and practices of the Support Fund. The SOLMC is aware of these concerns and attributes its staff turnover to two factors. First, employee turnover at HRSDC is currently very high in general. Second, uncertainty around the Support Fund's continuation and the positions at the SOLMC may prompt some employees to take other opportunities.37 As noted in the discussion of indicators #1 and #2, there has been growing concern in recent months around the Support Fund's renewal and funding under EBSM. Although very pleased with the Fund's renewal for 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, a number of organizations are worried about the narrowing of their programming options. They understand that these restrictions are intended to bring activities more in line with the EBSM but they are disappointed by the partial shift away from the initial intention of the Support Fund as defined by HRSDC when it was created on June 12, 1999. There is growing appreciation for the support provided by the community side of the Francophone Committee to the RDÉEs, except among a minority of Franco-Ontarian respondents In general, the RDÉEs appreciate the services and support they receive from the Francophone Committee. Although this support was considered to be somewhat uneven initially, the situation has been better for more than a year. The strategic sectors are operating more effectively (as discussed in more detail under indicator #9) and the officers from the same sector get together regularly to obtain and share information and to plan. There is ongoing direct support and the special assistance provided by the officer on loan from the SOLMC and the facilitation role of that person in terms of access to the various HRSDC programs is appreciated. A number of respondents are reassured by the remodelling of the Gazel.ca protocol, which included placing Gazel.ca under the direct control of the community side and changing its direction to make it more useful to the RDÉEs, their partners and entrepreneurs. The RDÉEs are generally happy with the project to create an enhanced community economic development training program. The RDÉEs and their partners also greatly appreciate the Lauriers de la PME Awards because of the pride, increased knowledge and sharing of experiences that these awards generate. As discussed under indicator #4, some of the Ontario respondents are less pleased with the support from the community side of the Francophone Committee. In their view, there is interference rather than support. About half of the CEDEC members who participated in either the interview or written questionnaire were satisfied with the support provided to them by the community table of the Anglophone Committee, while a minority of the respondents were not at all satisfied Although the CEDECs are not yet delegated organizations, some, if not all, may eventually become so. At present, they receive services and resources through the community table. Each one has access to the services of a REDO. REDOs that have been in place since the beginning have received some 50 hours of training to date and feel that they have been well trained by the community table. Communication within the organization has improved and the systems and tools developed by the community table are seen as useful by its employees and managers. The support provided by the community table was considered satisfactory by half of the CEDEC members who participated in the telephone interviews and by slightly more than half of the members consulted by the questionnaire. However, a minority of the respondents seriously questioned both the training and the support provided. Indicator #6: Quality of the administration and management of the contribution agreements by the organizationsFor the most part, the steps being taken by the delegated organizations and the oversight of the SOLMC appear to offer effective management of the contribution agreements, although some of the managers of the delegated organizations consider the oversight of the SOLMC to be excessive at times Almost all of the managers of delegated organizations stated that they have the expertise and experience necessary for the sound management of the contribution agreements and confirm that they have put in place accounting and financial systems to ensure such sound management. As noted under indicator #5d, some respondents use the reporting process required by the SOLMC as a tool to assist in their management activities. Respondents to the written questionnaire assigned a positive rating of 3.12 out of 4 to the question regarding the degree to which the RDÉEs and CEDECs have the ability, resources and skills needed to help the community further its economic development capacity and thus carry out its mandate under the contribution agreement funded by the Support Fund. (See Question 7 of the questionnaire in Appendix A). In general, the SOLMC expressed satisfaction with the delegated organizations' management and maintains relatively tight oversight. If minor administrative shortcomings are identified, the SOLMC prescribes corrective action. In other instances, where the capacity of the management team is relatively weak, the SOLMC has reduced the amount of the contribution agreement until the situation has stabilized. Delegated organizations subject to such precautionary measures reported that they are not always informed of the reasons for them. In one case where the organization was experiencing instability, the Department appears to have been reluctant to step in, indicating that it did not want to interfere in the internal operations of the delegated organizations. On their own initiative during the interviews, a small majority of community partners in Quebec and a few respondents from Francophone communities expressed concerns about the choices being made by the Anglophone Committee's community table and the RDÉEs respectively with respect to the use of the available funds. These respondents believe that too much money is being spent on excessive administrative processes and too many internal meetings and in hiring too many employees, to the detriment of direct investment in the development of communities. A review of the activity reports supports these concerns. Indicator #7: Quality and adequacy of data collection and processing systems This indicator was reviewed using two sub-indicators. #7a. Quality and adequacy of data collection and processing systems by the SOLMC, in relation to the objectives of the Support Fund In general, each of the 18 contribution agreement files reviewed by the evaluation contained the following:
The analysis of these files examined nine factors, as shown in Exhibit 2. These factors included some related to the quality and adequacy of data collection and processing systems by the SOLMC.
Although the summaries prepared by SOLMC analysts and the contribution agreements mention the strategic priorities or directions, these file documents do not mention the corresponding deliverables The contribution agreements and "Executive summaries — Analysis and recommendation" prepared by SOLMC analysts indicated the strategic priorities or directions for the funding arrangement under the Support Fund. These file documents did not, however, indicate the corresponding deliverables. This omission leaves the door open to a somewhat vague interpretation of the deliverables that should be associated with the funding. The SOLMC has not set out clear and measurable objectives and has not been making use of performance indicators The analysis of the contribution files, logic model, Results-based Management and Accountability Framework and other official documents shows that the SOLMC has not set out clear and measurable objectives. Some examples of this are noted below.
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. It should be noted that the contribution agreement files examined by the evaluation were for agreements signed prior to April 2001. Although all the files include a list of expected results, there is a wide variation in the specificity and operationalization of these results. In addition, only a minority of files described the expected results with enough precision to link them to performance indicators. Without clear and measurable objectives and the use of a corresponding framework of performance indicators, it will be difficult for the delegated organizations, national committees and the SOLMC to measure their progress and determine the impacts of the Support Fund.39 The activity reports produced by the delegated organizations are of marginal value The review of the activity reports contained in the files identified certain shortcomings. In general, the reviewed reports consisted of lists of meetings and activities. The reports did not contain any analysis of the progress made toward achievement of the undertakings in the contribution agreements, the identification of challenges or special opportunities, or an evaluation of the results achieved. Overall, there was no standardization of the content, and the usefulness of these reports varied. The SOLMC and the two national committees do not appear to have specified the intended purpose and uses of these reports other than to justify the transfer of funds. The SOLMC and the national committees have not developed an integrated data collection system that would facilitate the documentation and analysis of progress towards achievement of Support Fund objectives Other than the contribution agreement files and the financial reports, the SOLMC does not appear to have an integrated data collection system that would facilitate the documentation and analysis of progress toward achievement of the Support Fund's objectives. #7b. Quality and adequacy of data collection and processing systems by the delegated organizations, in relation to the objectives of the Support Fund The development of data collection systems appear to be in the very early stage and performance indicators were not being used by the delegated organizations It was difficult, as part of the present evaluation, to determine the scope and adequacy of the data collection systems of the delegated organizations because the evaluation was undertaken to examine the Support Fund and not the delegated organizations. However, information gathered during the interviews, from the review of the contribution agreement activity reports and from the documentation review indicates that the data collection systems are still in the very early stage, at best, and are tied to lists of activities and projects rather than to performance indicators. The inadequacy of the quality and quantity of relevant data is also reflected in the difficulty that several of the delegated organizations and the SOLMC have in providing more precise information on the outcomes of the Support Fund. Without data collection and processing systems, it will be difficult for the national committees, the RDÉEs and the CEDECs to measure the progress of their work and the impact that it has on the economic vitality of their communities. Indicator #8: Relevance of the organizational structures of the delegated and dependent organizations based on the Support Fund's objectives, including integration of the key community economic development and employability stakeholdersThe delegated and dependent organizations form a Canada-wide infrastructure that is consistent with the Support Fund's short-term objectives of strengthening and establishing partnership networks and supporting the Francophone and Anglophone Committees The two national committees, the 12 RDÉEs and the eight CEDECs were either created or enhanced to help advance the economic development and employability of the Official Language Minority Communities. According to the vast majority of respondents, all of these interconnected components form a Canada-wide infrastructure for community economic development and employability for Official Language Minority Communities. The existence and operation of the Francophone Committee is consistent with the Support Fund's objectives of strengthening and establishing partnership networks in support of Official Language Minority Communities The Francophone Committee is a joint committee co-chaired by a member of the community side and an HRSDC senior official. The government side is composed of a representative from each of the nine departments that signed the memorandum of understanding. The community side also has nine members generally representing the business community, with three members from Western Canada, three from Ontario and three from the Atlantic region. The work of the Francophone Committee is supported by a community secretariat and the SOLMC. The federal institutions represented on the Francophone Committee share information among themselves and with the Francophone and Acadian communities. The national Francophone structure operates quite well and is greatly appreciated by the Francophone and Acadian respondents. Two issues identified for the Francophone Committee are the uneven level of financial commitment to economic development among the federal institutions represented on the Committee and concerns about the selection of members for the community side for Ontario The level of financial commitment to economic development among the federal institutions represented on the Francophone Committee is uneven. Several institutions appear to be letting HRSDC carry the load, although this is not the case with the Department of Western Economic Diversification and recently Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Canadian Heritage. The evidence suggests that the uneven level of financial commitment among federal institutions has implications for the delegated organizations and HRSDC. Interview respondents from 11 of the 15 organizations directly involved (i.e. the 12 RDÉEs, the two national committees and HRSDC) reported that the lack of a greater commitment by the other institutional members limits the scope of the Francophone Committee's work and the potential synergies that could be generated by the Support Fund. In the case of HRSDC, this situation places the Department in the difficult role of playing a large part in an initiative that exceeds the parameters of the Department's mandate to some degree, especially in the area of economic development. (This issue is examined in more detail under indicator #11). Four Franco-Ontarian respondents who are members of organizations with an economic mandate questioned the representativeness and the selection process of the members for the community side for Ontario (as discussed under indicator #4). The existence and operation of the RDÉEs is consistent with the objectives of strengthening and establishing partnership networks in support of Official Language Minority Communities In general, there are three models of RDÉE organizational structure in the Francophone and Acadian communities. a) Responsibilities assumed by an existing agency: In the Western provinces, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, responsibility for the operation of the RDÉE was assumed by existing economic development agencies. In most of these cases, coordinating or consultation committees have been set up to ensure the geographic and/or sectoral representativeness of the RDÉE. The effectiveness of these consultation structures varies: they are appreciated by some partners and criticized by other members of the community who question how well the structures are working. In one case in particular, a delegated organization that is located in a sub-region of the province appears to be having significant difficulty transforming itself into a provincial organization and attracting the involvement of persons from other regions. In another case, the RDÉE served as a catalyst and enabled several organizations to work together on economic development. In a third case, the RDÉE consultative committee lost the majority of its members. b) Launched by a spokesperson organization: In Newfoundland and Labrador and the three Northern Canadian territories, spokesperson organizations from the respective Francophone communities have taken charge of the operation of the RDÉE, which is incorporated as an activity sector in their organizational structure. Given the small populations and the limited capacity to act at the present time, it was considered advisable for the spokesperson organization to launch the RDÉE, define its economic development strategy and ensure its implementation. c) Created as a new organization: In two provinces, the RDÉEs were created from scratch. In Nova Scotia, the creation of the RDÉE encountered difficulties but resulted in the realignment of the dynamic forces; this movement is supported by a majority of respondents. In Ontario, the RDÉE function was initially assumed by an existing organization. However, the impasse that quickly developed between that organization and some of its sister organizations, on the one hand, and the Francophone Committee on the other hand, put a stop to this arrangement and eventually led to the creation of the current Ontario RDÉE.40 This RDÉE includes three regional components in the north, south and east. Four organizations active in economic development are members of the board of directors. Although satisfied with the RDÉE's structure, some community respondents are worried about what they see as the excessive control exercised by these four organizations and the confusion that arises from it in terms of the RDÉE's role and identity. Respondents to the written questionnaire gave a positive rating of 2.91 out of 4 to the question regarding the degree to which the key stakeholders in economic development and employability have been brought together. (See Question 9 of the questionnaire in Appendix A). The rating given by the RDÉE members was somewhat higher (3.00), while the rating given by the RDÉE partners was slightly lower (2.90). It is difficult to understand the relatively low rating from RDÉE partners since the interviews and documentation review indicated the opposite, that is, a very high level of integration for organizations with an economic mandate.41 Respondents to the written questionnaire gave a positive rating of 3.03 out of 4 to the question regarding the degree to which the communities and relevant economic development stakeholders in the region, province or territory were consulted on the selection of the members for the RDÉE or CEDEC. (See Question 4 of the questionnaire in Appendix A). A high proportion of the RDÉE members who answered the questionnaire believe that communities and relevant stakeholders were adequately consulted in the selection of the people to sit on the RDÉE steering committees (with a rating of 3.34). This proportion was positive but significantly lower in the case of RDÉE community partners (with a rating of 2.81). The structures of the Anglophone Committee and the CEDECs are still evolving The present composition of the Anglophone Committee will change with the upcoming involvement of six federal institutions under the new memorandum of understanding. The community table consists of one representative from each of the eight CEDECs42 and one from each of the eight regional organizations.43 In addition to the usual executive and administrative structures, the Anglophone Committee also has four permanent sector working groups, including one on community capacity building, which is the most advanced. Over the past three years, each of the eight CEDECs has been established with the on-site support of a REDO. The CEDECs are not incorporated, although a report on this issue is apparently to be completed shortly. At present, the community table is the only organization signing the contribution agreements with the Department. It supports the development and work of the CEDECs by providing a REDO and a small operating budget. The activities of the CEDECs in the field include numerous meetings with various individuals and community organizations to raise awareness and visibility, participation in an extensive community consultation on the overall development of a region, involvement in creating a call centre, sponsorship of various school competitions including a competition to develop a logo for a CEDEC, support for the development of Local Action Groups,44 working with a community to beautify a main street, support for the expansion of a cooperative selling artistic tourism products, and participation in the development of social action plans. Interview respondents from within the existing structure are very satisfied with it and believe that the CEDECs are closely connected to their communities. The community table describes them as follows: "These regionally based, volunteer committees represent the National Committee (Anglophone Committee) at the local level. They act as community facilitators by creating opportunities for communities to come together, recognize their existing assets, develop a common vision, and gain access to the public and private-sector partners who can help them realize their vision."45 Two issues identified for the CEDEC's are the lack of participation of organizations with an economic mandate and the lack of consultations when CEDEC members are selected The Support Fund calls for the involvement of the key economic development stakeholders in the communities, both individuals and enterprises. The interviews indicated that there is little involvement of economic development agencies in the CEDECs,46 sometimes by design. Some REDOs reported that they are not seeking the direct involvement of these agencies because the CEDECs are focusing their energies on community capacity building rather than on economic development. A number of CEDEC and community respondents are concerned about the relatively marginal involvement of organizations with an economic mandate and entrepreneurs, which is the case in the majority of CEDECs. As noted above, respondents to the written questionnaire gave a positive rating of 2.91 out of 4 to the question regarding the degree to which the key stakeholders in economic development and employability have been brought together. (See Question 9 of the questionnaire in Appendix A). The rating was slightly positive (2.60) for the Anglophone community (which refers to members or employees of the Anglophone Committee, the REDOs and CEDEC volunteer members and an external partner), which corroborates the information provided by the interviews. Also as noted above, respondents to the written questionnaire gave a positive rating of 3.03 out of 4 to the question regarding the degree to which the communities and relevant economic development stakeholders in the region, province or territory were consulted on the selection of the members for the RDÉE or CEDEC. (See Question 4 of the questionnaire in Appendix A). The rating slipped into the negative range (2.40) in the case of the Anglophone community, however, indicating that a majority of Anglophone respondents to the written questionnaire believes that this consultation was inadequate. The REDOs and CEDEC members interviewed confirmed that CEDEC members are recruited on a volunteer basis without widespread consultation. An issue identified for the SOLMC and the two national committees is responding to the lack of training and experience of many stakeholders in the delegated organizations In both the Francophone and Anglophone communities, the establishing of RDÉEs and CEDECs created a need for human resources and expertise in community economic development, whether in the form of managers, development officers or technicians. In many instances, the pool of resources was too small, which meant that a number of individuals were hired who did not have any relevant training and/or appreciable experience in the community economic development or employability fields. The limited expertise and non-specific skill set of their workforce prompted the two national committees and the RDÉEs to develop training programs. The Francophone Committee also introduced a strategy of collaboration between its sector officers.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![[To Top]](/web/20060127013750im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/top.gif){kind=small}
![[Previous Page]](/web/20060127013750im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/back.gif){kind=small}
![[Table of Contents]](/web/20060127013750im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/content.gif)
![[Next Page]](/web/20060127013750im_/http://www11.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/edd-img/next.gif){kind=small}