General Conclusions and Observations

The results of the evaluation demonstrate that the Program has generated positive results for businesses, entrepreneurs and communities, continues to have a strong rationale, and is supportive of the strategic directions and priorities of both WD and the Federal government.

Although the manner in which strategic directions are translated into specific priorities, programming and service delivery varies among CFDCs, there remains a general consistency with the intent of the Program, WD and the Federal government. It was also found that the community based service delivery model for the Program was highly valued with regional Boards that engage local interests and build community capacity, strong management, and innovative partnerships and projects that are generally viewed as complementary to other regional and community-based agencies and institutions. With respect to maintenance of the current CFDC network, the general consensus among respondents was that this is critical for addressing the service needs of rural communities. Along these same lines, clients indicated a high level of satisfaction with the level and quality of services. The majority of respondents further indicated that the Program demonstrated positive outcomes in terms of the creation and maintenance of jobs, new business start-ups and retention, importation and maintenance of wealth in the regions, and improved community planning and prosperity.

A number of associated issues must be accounted for though, to ensure that the Program and, in turn, the CFDCs are both effective and sustainable over the longer term.

Due in part to financial pressures, a number of CFDCs have reported that they are no longer strategically committed to serving as the “lender of last resort” to entrepreneurs and new business ventures. Rather, there is a growing emphasis on managing loan portfolios in a manner that serves to reduce the risk of unrecoverable debt and increases the return on these funds.
There is a need for further collaboration among CFDCs in terms of sharing resources and best practices, and in strengthening partnerships with local groups and communities (e.g., Aboriginal groups).
The provision of core funding is commonly acknowledged as being critical to the ongoing viability of the vast majority of the 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 the contribution agreements is questionable. This constrains, in turn, the ability to service more remote areas with distant communities, to attract and retain key staff, to provide staff with adequate professional development opportunities, to commit to longer-term projects, and to engage in community economic development initiatives.
The governance model varies among CFDCs, ranging from more of a Carver policy-based framework to “hands-on” director involvement. Such differences also exist in the level of representation, recruitment and turnover at a Board level.
The majority of Board respondents reported that CFDC managers demonstrated strong capabilities and performance, although the attendant risk is that the loss of a competent senior manager in the absence of any succession plan could have a significant and detrimental effect on the operations of the office.
With some notable exceptions, particularly in Saskatchewan, respondents described provincial associations as providing needed support and value. However, improved communications over the role and contributions of the associations, especially the Pan West association, are warranted given uncertainty expressed over mandates and services. In the case of the Pan West association, this may reflect both the need for enhanced communications and that this institution is less mature in its development.
There is a need for further refinement of the measures of performance used in the Program, and as reported by CFDCs. This would entail the use of a smaller set of metrics that are both relevant and targeted towards the key decisions to be made. Frustration was also expressed by a majority of management and senior staff respondents over the monitoring and reporting process being too time and resource intensive. Inconsistencies in statistics, and between templates that are used and reporting formats, has resulted in what is seen to be a “very bureaucratic process”.
There was a general lack of certainty among Board, management and senior staff respondents as to the use of reported information by WD for decision-making.
A general lack of awareness among the communities and in relation to the Program and CFDC services was also raised as a concern. The attendant risk to be managed, however, is the creation of demand for services through successful outreach that might exceed what can be provided using available resources.

Overall, there is a need to address the implications for future delivery of services under the Program given funding constraints as well as consistency in governance, the level of engagement among CFDCs and with First Nations, succession of senior management, performance measurement and reporting, and further outreach. With respect to the associations, improved communications over their roles, mandates and services is also warranted.

<< previous | contents | next >>