3.0 Evaluation Findings

This section presents the overall findings of the evaluation. The section begins with the findings of the evaluation of the CEDIP program.

3.1 Community Economic Development Internship Program

As mentioned earlier, the objective of the CEDIP Program is to provide support to CFDCs and WEIs to hire recent post-secondary graduates to assist their organization in economic development and diversification in their communities. Overall, the CEDIP is intended to “offer meaningful career experience to a recent graduate”. This evaluation study assessed the relevance and success of the CEDIP. The study also gathered views on the effectiveness of program delivery as well as possible improvements in that area.

3.1.1 Relevance

Most respondents agreed that there was a need for CEDIP. Respondents generally agreed that CEDIP was relevant as there is a need for supporting economic development activities coordinated by the WCBSN members. One respondent noted that the CFDCs who use the program find it very important. As outlined below, the program has a number of impacts on the organizations, youth and the community.

Only two WD respondents questioned the relevance of the program. One respondent is of the opinion that both CEDIP and CEDO should be reviewed. According to the respondent, the CEDIP program would benefit interns if they were offered a job at the end of their term (they are not in most cases).

3.1.2 Results

Survey Results

Exhibit 3.1 Did your organization receive any funds
for CEDIP projects within the last 2 years?
	Total	CFDC respondents only	Province
			AB	BC	MB	SK
Total	96	95	29	35	17	16
Yes	58.7%	59.4%	60.0%	66.7%	45.5%	53.3%
No	37.7%	37.0%	28.0%	33.3%	54.5%	46.7%
Don't know	3.6%	3.6%	12.0%	.0%	.0%	.0%

Exhibit 3.1 above describes the number of CEDIP projects reported by the respondents and their regional distribution. As indicated, 59 percent said that they received funding for a CEDIP project. BC seems to make a higher usage of the program (67 percent of the respondents had a project), while Manitoba respondents report a lower usage (46 percent).

Exhibit 3.2 Occupations of Interns Following Internships
	Total	Total	Total	Total
	1^st Intern	2^nd Intern	3^rd Intern	All Interns
Total number of Interns	57	27	9	93
Working at a new job	54.2%	39.2%	11.1%	45.7%
Attending school	21.1%	28.6%	44.4%	25.5%
Looking for work	1.7%	21.4%	22.2%	9.5%
Other (please specify)	15.7%	0%	11.1%	10.6%
Don't know	7.0%	12.3%	11.1%	8.5%

Exhibit 3.2 describes the impacts of the program on the interns. According to results, 46 percent of the interns were working at a new job (since the Internship), and 26 percent were attending school after their internship. Less than 10 percent were looking for work.

Exhibit 3.3: Impact of CEDIP Projects
Develop community economic development skills for the intern
Develop relevant job experience of the intern
Help the community develop HR capacity in economic development
	None or little extent	Moderate	Great extent

Exhibit 3.3 above provides additional impact information reported by WCBSN members. According to survey findings:

Almost all respondents report that their projects helped the interns develop economic development skills and job experience to “a great extent”.
Sixty percent said that their project helped the community develop HR capacity in economic development to a great extent. About one-third (29 percent) said that their projects helped develop that capacity to a moderate extent.

Exhibit 3.4: Impact Areas of CEDIP Projects
Help the community attract new institutions
Help the community retain existing businesses
Help the community attract new businesses
Help the community obtain funding from another government program
Help the community improve planning
	None or little extent	Moderate	Great extent

Exhibit 3.4 presents additional survey information on the impacts of CEDIP. Various impact areas were suggested to respondents and these were asked to mention to what extent their projects had an impact on these¹.

As shown, the most significant impact areas are in community planning and business retainment. Eighty-five percent (85) of the survey respondents reported that their project had an impact on these from a “moderate” to “great extent”.
Less respondents noted an impact in terms of attracting new institutions (e.g., research, educational or government institutions): 42 percent felt that their projects had no or little impact in that area.

Key Informant Interviews

The interviews confirm that the program had a positive impact on both the interns and the communities. Respondents noted that CEDIP has a number of benefits, including the following:

From the Interns’ perspective, respondents mentioned that the internships allow them to acquire experience in community economic development – as long as the work goes beyond filing papers. For example, one respondent mentioned that their CEDIP project involved intern work on tourism and community marketing issues. The CFDCs appreciate the work done by interns as they lack resources to do additional community economic development work. Support to interns is believed to be adequate.
From the CFDC’s perspective, it is a valuable program as they have limited resources to actually conduct CED activities.
As for the communities, a number of respondents (4) mentioned that they benefit from the fact that the program helps the communities retain youth, at least for the time of the internship, which may eventually bridge to another job in the community. In some cases, the program helps attract youth back to their communities.

According to interview respondents, the program has a strong impact in BC, where CEDIP is used to a greater extent than average across the WD regions. A stakeholder noted that longer internships are more successful than shorter ones. He suggests that they should be a minimum of nine months, while another respondent suggested two years.

One respondent said that CEDIP is spreading money out too thin to actually have an impact. He also thought that the program shifted from its original intent, which was to provide a temporary job experience for interns in transition – not a temporary position leading to a full-time position.

Exhibit 3.5: Satisfaction with WD Delivery of CEDIP Projects
The level of funding provided
Turnaround time between application and response
The clarity of guidelines for filling out the application
Support provided to complete the application
The project reporting requirements
Overall satisfaction
	Dissatisfied	Neither	Satisfied

3.1.3 Delivery And Suggestions for Program Improvement

Survey Findings

The above exhibit presents the WCBSN respondents’ assessment of the WD delivery of the CEDIP program. According to the survey:

The majority of WCBSN members surveyed (85 percent) are satisfied with the delivery of the program overall. About seven respondents in ten are also satisfied with the application guidelines, the support provided for application purposes, and the reporting requirements. Only 36 percent are satisfied with the level of funding.
A lower percentage of respondents (64 percent) are satisfied with the turnaround time between application and response.

Key Informant Interviews

According to the key informant interviews, a number of changes would improve the results of the program. Two WD respondents thought that CEDIP projects should be more consistent and strategic. For example, they should all involve career-oriented work, not just clerical work. They could also be more strategic for the community.

As for the management of the program, it was also mentioned that the selection for both the interns and the host organizations should be based on pre-established criteria and be broadly disseminated. One respondent noted that the WCBSN organizations should maintain the responsibility of selecting the interns.

Regarding funding, interviews confirm the survey findings. A WD respondent noted that the timeliness of the funding decisions could be improved. The delay for approvals leaves little time for planning. A CFDC respondent noted that delays in approvals actually reduce internship time. Three respondents noted that CEDIP would benefit from more funds. The level for each project should reflect an appropriate salary. WD officials confirmed that the average amount provided for each internship has diminished: in 2001-2002, average project funding was $30,000. This amount was reduced to $20,000 in 2002-2003, and to $10,000 in 2003-2004. In many cases, the length of the internships has been reduced as a result of these reductions.

A respondent thought that a pre-determined amount should be given to all CFDCs, without any application process. Results would be reported in the quarterly reports. This would ensure more consistency in the level of funding provided (apparently, there are variations). Another respondent noted that in their region, the CEDIP funding will be rolled into the operational funding next year. Each organization will get about $25,000 for either CEDO or CEDIP. Apparently, this will reduce the administrative burden on the WCBSN member in terms of application and reporting.

3.1.4 Evaluation of CEDIP: Summary of Key findings

Relevance: Overall, most agree that there is a need for CEDIP, for the interns, the WCBSN members and the communities.
Results: The program has a significant impact on the interns, the majority having found employment after their internship. Many opted to go back to school. There is a strong agreement that the interns develop economic development related skills during their internship. The program is also effective in helping communities retain youth.; Most respondent report positive impacts on community planning, as well as helping communities attract new businesses.
Design and Suggestions for Program Improvement: Many respondents raised the issue of the (insufficient) level of funding. The average level is currently $10,000 (down from $30,000), which only covers part of the internship costs.; The program would benefit from a more clear and concise administrative process, including clear selection criteria, and a quicker turnaround time between application and response.

¹ It should be noted that CEDIP projects are not necessarily expected to have impacts on all of these suggested impact areas. The purpose of the survey question was to assess the range of impact areas. It was NOT to assess the degree to which the projects had an impact on these areas as expected.

<< previous | next >>