Evaluation Findings

The allocation of funding towards, and the use of, a community based non-profit delivery model is appropriate and logically supports the achievement of the program’s strategic intent.

Although the delivery of services should be carried out in an efficient and responsive manner, there must also be an appropriate allocation of resources to ensure ongoing viability and sustained results.

• Entrepreneurs and individuals,
• Credit unions and other financial institutions,
• Community groups,
• Other federal government departments, provincial agencies, regional districts and municipalities,
• First Nations,
• Non-government organizations,
• Businesses,

• Professional services organizations,
• Private consultants,
• Educational institutions,
• Associations (e.g., Chamber of Commerce, industry trade associations, etc),
• Special interest groups,
• Local community economic development agencies, and
• Other public institutions

They do an excellent job of “leveraging partnerships” – Local Partner Respondent

The “CFDC can’t be everything to everybody” – Local Partner Respondent

• The pursuit of a housing community with geo-thermal heating in Wawanes and in cooperation with numerous community partners including Manitoba Hydro.

• Partnerships with local colleges for training initiatives and hosting such events as youth business and entrepreneurial forums.

• Joining with First Nations and other community non-government organizations to pursue community economic development initiatives such as investments in, and operations of, heritage sites.

• Establishing agreements with local credit unions to manage the financial needs of client operations as they mature, and in the syndication of loans with other development agencies to share risk.

Recognizing this level of activity in forming and maintaining partnerships with a variety of stakeholders, it was also noted that there might be a need for further collaboration among the CFDCs in terms of sharing resources and providing for collective access to programs, and strengthening of partnerships with Aboriginal groups and communities. It is also critical that these partners and other community organizations perceive the CFDCs and the services that they offer as being complementary to their own mandates and initiatives. This generally appears to be the case, with a recent study reporting that upwards of 80% of community representatives that were consulted reported that CFDCs positively affected their ability to achieve desired objectives.²

With changes in the level and nature of WD funding over the past six fiscal years, as highlighted in Exhibit 2 on the following page, the provision of core funding is commonly acknowledged as being critical to the ongoing viability of the vast majority of CFDCs. However, the degree to which this core funding is considered sufficient to cover the scope and geographic areas of service as well as the requirements stipulated in contribution agreements was questioned by many respondents. Specific responses included:

Board and Management Respondents

• Core WD funding is insufficient to cover all costs associated with maintaining four full-time equivalent management and staff positions.
• Funding has decreased in total over the years, so to avoid shutting the CFDC down, have had to improvise.
• Reductions in total funding have significantly impacted the ability to meet needs.
• Trying to do more today with less money than ten years ago.
  

“Retention of skilled employees is an issue” – Local Partner Respondent

There is a high cost of travel for a large geographic region – Board Respondent

Funding is limited and it is hard to attract and maintain staff – Senior Staff Respondent

Long term planning is “impossible” with current funding agreements – Board Respondent

“It is a challenge and a lot of time spent on final quarter funded programs that are unproductive.” – Board Respondent

Difficult to commit to longer-term projects for “fear that funding will stop and that skilled staff may leave to more secure positions” – Executive Respondent

“Have to live off investment funds” – Board Respondent

Local Partner Respondents

• Funding is an ongoing, critical need.
• Limited by funding to do more work in smaller communities.
• Without WD funding, services would be severely reduced.
• The CFDC has been able to meet many commitments, although there are many further opportunities. The limited funds are a constraint.

Senior Staff Respondents

• Could use more dollars for operational purposes – core funding does not even cover salaries.
• Operational funding is a factor for the CFDC given a huge territory and high travel costs.
• WD is “why we are who we are, but a small part of what we do”.
• Funding is well intended, but inadequate.
• Could use more operating funds to provide more training services to clients and to staff.

Corporate and Regional Interview Respondents

• The CFDCs are very dependent on available resources and as such there are human resource and financial capacity issues.
• The Program is the primary vehicle for servicing rural needs but “the problem is where to draw the line” as more service expectations are added and funds are constrained.
• The large geographic size and population base for some CFDCs make it difficult for them to meet community needs given available resources.

The noted challenges and limitations that are associated with the level of WD core funding are of particular concern for those CFDCs where the ratio to total funding approaches 100%. As highlighted in Exhibit 3 on the following page, the proportion of core funding to total funding varies dramatically across the twenty CFDCs that participated in this evaluation, with some offices being highly dependent on the financial contribution from WD. For these offices, it is reasonable to expect that they face greater difficulties in maintaining services and regional access in comparison to other CFDCs that have managed to diversify their funding sources.

Other concerns raised in relation to the appropriateness of WD core funding included:

• Travel costs for more remote areas with distant communities, as is the case for the Kityan CFDC among others, can be extremely high and limited funding constrains the ability to provide for equitable access to services.
• Limited funds that can be used to compensate staff, and the resulting implications in terms of providing competitive salaries, has made it harder to attract and retain key individuals. This is particularly a concern since a noted strength of the CFDC model has been described as, “locally staffed and locally driven”, and given the impact on service quality that staff can have.