ARCHIVED - Summative Evaluation of the Contribution for Inuit Counselling in the South

Archived information

This Web page has been archived on the Web. Archived information is provided for reference, research or record keeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Date: May 14, 2010
(Project Number: 1570-7/09093)

PDF Version (146 Kb, 32 Pages)

 

 

Table of Contents




List of Acronyms

EPMRB
Evaluation, Performance Measurement and Review Branch

EPMRC
Evaluation, Performance Measurement and Review Committee

ICS
Inuit Counselling in the South

INAC
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

IRS
Inuit Relations Secretariat

ITK
Inuit Tapariit Kanatami

NAO
Northern Affairs Organization

OFI
Office of the Federal Interlocutor

PCH
Department of Canadian Heritage

RCAP
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples

TI
Tungasuvvingat Inuit

UAS
Urban Aboriginal Strategy

Return to Table of Contents






Executive Summary

This report presents the evaluation of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's (INAC) "Contributions for Inuit Counselling in the South" (ICS), which was conducted to meet Treasury Board requirement for renewal. The evaluation focussed on the period between 2005-06 and 2009-10, and addressed questions related to continuing relevance, performance and effectiveness.

The contribution's objective is to support Inuit-led organizations in their efforts to:

"...offer counselling services and programming to Inuit who have relocated to the South in a manner that is consistent with their cultural traditions, thereby improving the quality of life for Inuit people in urban environments."

In addition, the contribution is also expected to increase the capacity of local Inuit to manage their own affairs (e.g., through the administration of such programs and services).

Through the contribution, INAC has provided $80,000 annually to Tungasuvvingat Inuit (TI), an Inuit-led community centre in Ottawa, which offers Inuit living in the area a wide range of programs and services related to employment and training, life skills, youth, culture, family resources, and health (no other recipients have received funding through the ICS).

In light of the relative size of the contribution, the evaluation was conducted almost entirely in-house, with some support from external consultants (T.K. Gussman and DPRA Canada) for the literature review.

Key findings and conclusions from the evaluation are as follows:

Relevance

The evaluation concluded that there is a continuing need to support culturally relevant counselling services for urban Inuit. Furthermore, this need is increasing as a result of continuing growth of urban Inuit, not only in Ottawa, but elsewhere in the country. The contribution is flexible enough to recognize the potential for multiple recipients, but is not structured so as to recognize the growth of the urban Inuit population in the North (i.e., Yellowknife).

The evaluation also concluded that the ICS contribution is consistent with federal government and departmental priorities, strategic outcomes, and roles and responsibilities. However, the contribution does not fit easily within the mandate, objectives or responsibilities of the Northern Affairs Organization (NAO) where it is currently housed.

Performance / Success

The evidence indicates that TI has, with the ICS' funding, developed into a well respected Inuit-led organization, which through the leveraging of INAC's support, provides Inuit-specific programs and services in partnership with a wide range of (government and non-government) funding partners. Unexpected impacts were found at the national level. TI is now working with urban Inuit communities across Canada to help them in their own cities. TI's successes demonstrate there has been increased capacity among urban Inuit to administer and manage their own affairs. The evaluation was unable to determine, however, the extent to which either TI's success or the impacts it has had can be attributed to the ICS contribution.

Effectiveness (Efficiency and Economy)

Evidence suggests that counselling services are effectively delivered by culturally-specific community-led organizations. The evaluation also found that the approach used with the ICS contribution to support capacity building, though effective, is outdated as is the process for allocating funds.

Performance measurement is an important element to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of core funding, and as such reporting requirements currently in place for the ICS contribution are not sufficient to provide such information; instead, the ICS contribution exemplifies already identified problems with Grants and Contributions within the federal government, such as a multitude of reporting requirements even for a single federal department, and a focus on activities, which does not provide either the federal government or the beneficiary organization with performance and outcome data. Finally, a lack of clarity around the roles and responsibilities of the NAO and the Inuit Relations Secretariat (IRS) led to inefficiencies in the management of the ICS contribution.

Alternatives or Modifications

Based on an assessment of various federal organizations and their programs, the evaluation concluded that the ICS contribution does not fit within the organizational structures or mandate of INAC's NAO or the IRS. Although its mandate does align with those of the Office of the Federal Interlocutor and of Canadian Heritage's Aboriginal Peoples Program Directorate, the evaluation concluded that delivery parameters of existing programs within these two organizations present barriers, as do the funding parameters of the current authority.

Maintaining the ICS contribution in its current format but moving it to a different management location in the federal government would do little to support urban Inuit outside of Ottawa. Additional evaluations and studies currently underway may provide more information as to the best manner in which the federal government can continue to support core activities of Inuit urban centres such as TI in the future.

It is recommended that INAC:

  1. INAC's NAO, in collaboration with the IRS, should consider where the ICS contribution and urban Inuit may be best supported within the federal family, taking into consideration the various evaluation and research exercises pertaining to urban Aboriginal people to be completed during 2010-11, including information on the evolving needs of Inuit living in urban communities. The option of transferring the funding associated with the ICS authority to the Basic Organizational Capacity funding for TI should also be explored as both authorities essentially support core activities.
  2. In the short term, INAC's NAO and IRS should clarify and document the roles and responsibilities of their respective organizations vis-à-vis the ICS contribution and its recipient(s), and determine how best to improve recipient reporting so as to better align with current performance measurement requirements.
Return to Table of Contents






Management Response / Action Plan

Project Title: Summative Evaluation of the Contribution
for Inuit Counselling in the South
Project # 09093 Sector: Northern Affairs Organization (NAO)
RecommendationsActionsResponsible Manager (Title / Sector)Planned Implementation / Completion Dates
1. INAC's NAO, in collaboration with IRS, should consider where the ICS contribution and urban Inuit may be best supported within the federal family. This consideration should take account the various evaluation and research exercises pertaining to urban Aboriginal people, which are to be completed during 2010-11, including information on the evolving needs of Inuit living in urban communities. The option of transferring the funding associated with the ICS authority to the Basic Organizational Capacity (BOC) funding for TI should also be explored as both authorities essentially support core activities.
  • NAO will engage IRS in an examination of the feasibility of transferring the funding associated with the ICS authority to the BOC.
Director, Northern Governance (Nunavut) May 15 - July 31, 2010
  • In addition, NAO, in collaboration with IRS, will consider where the ICS contribution and urban Inuit may be best supported within the federal family taking into consideration findings from other evaluation and research exercises pertaining to urban Aboriginal people, as well as any other information deemed important.
Executive Director, Inuit Relations Secretariat Consideration will begin immediately, and will take into account findings from the evaluation and research exercises. It is anticipated that this work will be concluded by the end of the fiscal year 2010-2011.
2. In the short term, INAC's NAO and IRS should clarify and document the roles and responsibilities of their respective organizations vis-à-vis the ICS contribution and its recipient(s) and determine how best to improve recipient reporting so as to better align with current performance measurement requirements.
  • NAO and IRS will jointly develop a document outlining the roles and responsibilities of their respective groups vis-à-vis the ICS contribution and its recipient(s).
Director, Northern Governance (Nunavut) May 15 - June 30, 2010
  • Provide such direction to the recipient.
Executive Director, Inuit Relations Secretariat
 
Return to Table of Contents






1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

This is the final report of the Summative Evaluation of "Contributions for Inuit Counselling in the South" (ICS). The evaluation was conducted to fulfill Treasury Board's requirement for evaluation. Preliminary findings of this evaluation were presented to the Evaluation, Performance Measurement and Review Committee (EPMRC) in February 2010.

1.2 Program Profile

Background

From the mid-1960s until 1985, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's (INAC) Northern Affairs Program offered counselling services and emergency assistance to Inuit residents of the National Capital Region. In 1987-88, INAC was authorized to contribute funds towards the establishment of an Inuit centre in Ottawa (Tungasuvvingat Inuit), offering programming tailored to the needs and cultural traditions of Inuit who had migrated to the area. INAC continues to support these programs and services today, under the authority "Contributions for Inuit Counselling in the South" (hereafter, "ICS" or the "contribution").

Program Objectives, Expected Outcomes

The contribution's objective is to support Inuit led organizations in their efforts to:

"...offer counselling services and programming to Inuit who have relocated to the South in a manner that is consistent with their cultural traditions, thereby improving the quality of life for Inuit people in urban environments."

In addition, the contribution is also expected to increase the capacity of local Inuit to manage their own affairs (e.g., through the administration of such programs and services).

No performance measurement strategy, Results-based Management Accountability Framework or logic model has been developed for this program. As such, the evaluation drew upon the objectives and expected results detailed in the ICS's Terms and Conditions to guide the study. The expected long-term outcome is an improved quality of life for Inuit in urban areas. More specifically, the ICS is expected to reduce the incidence of severe socio-economic problems among Inuit who have migrated to the South.

Program Resources and Eligible Expenditures

While the ICS allows for multiple recipients, Tungasuvvingat Inuit (TI) has, to date, been the sole recipient. Through the contribution, INAC has provided TI $80,000 annually for eligible expenditures. These include: salaries and benefits to employees and casual workers, contract costs for administrative services, professional fees, the rental of office and meeting space, communications, photocopying and printing, office supplies, travel and other administrative costs.

Program Management, Key Stakeholders and Beneficiaries

The program is currently administered by INAC's Northern Affairs Organization (NAO) (Northern Governance – Nunavut Directorate). Since 2007, and in line with INAC's efforts to identify Inuit specific spending, the Inuit Relation Secretariat (IRS) has been required to sign off on funding proposals and reports associated with the contribution as the recipient has been identified as an Inuit-led organization.

The sole recipient organization, TI, was incorporated in 1987 as a charitable organization. Its primary mandate is to provide social support for Inuit residing in Ontario as follows: to assist Inuit adjusting to southern urban culture; to provide vocational and employment advice; to assist with family and personal difficulties; to counsel and make referrals for those requesting assistance in dealing with substance abuse; to provide personal financial management information and counselling; and to set up community and recreational programs. [Note 1];

TI currently offers a wide range of programs and services related to a Family Resource Centre, health, diabetes and addiction/trauma counselling, social counselling, employment and skills training, culture and youth. Its board is comprised of community members – Elders, public sector employees (teacher and federal public servant), staff of the Inuit Tapariit Kanatami (ITK), and national leaders, including the past president of Pauktuutit and the current president of ITK.

TI has also been expanding its reach to the national level. In 2008, TI's Board of Directors approved a motion to address gaps in programs and service delivery for Inuit across Canada with the understanding that any additional core funding for expansion would not affect program funding TI currently receives. At the time of writing, further discussions were anticipated around TI's national level activities later this spring.

Current reporting requirements associated with the contribution include mid and year end activity and financial reports.

Return to Table of Contents






2. Evaluation Methodology

2.1 Evaluation Scope and Issues

The evaluation focussed on the period between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010, as well as the evolution of INAC's relationship with TI. The evaluation's Terms of Reference were approved by INAC's EPMRC in December 2009. The Evaluation, Performance Measurement and Review Branch (EPMRB) conducted field work between January 2010 and March 2010, and, as stated earlier, presented preliminary findings to the EPMRC in late February 2010.

In line with the Treasury Board's Policy on Evaluation and the evaluation's Terms of Reference, this study focused on the continuing relevance and performance (success, effectiveness and efficiency) of the program. [Note 2]

2.2 Evaluation Method

The evaluation was conducted almost entirely in-house by EPMRB. The consulting firms T.K. Gussman and DPRA Canada provided assistance with the literature review. Data collection activities consisted of:

Literature Review: This review involved a scan of peer-reviewed academic articles, evaluation reports, surveys, as well as research and policy papers developed by representative and independent research organizations. It focused on issues related to Inuit socio-economic conditions and perspectives, capacity building, urban Aboriginal governance and assessments of culturally specific programming. Included in the review were two peer-reviewed journal articles and one non-peer reviewed article co-authored and researched by TI staff. [Note 3]

Document and File Review: This review included an examination of the program proposal, project proposals, TI's activity and financial reports, TI service usage data, needs assessments, as well as federal policy and strategic planning documents.

Key Informant Interviews: Sixteen key informant interviews were conducted, including with TI officials and board members (ten), INAC officials (four) and other federal government officials (two).

2.3 Stakeholder Engagement

In line with EPMRB's Engagement Policy, TI was actively engaged in the evaluation. TI provided information on, and access to, key informants and documentation. The organization also reviewed the evaluation issues and questions, methodology report and final report.

Officials from both NAO and the IRS provided input on the Terms of Reference, as well as comments on the methodology report, preliminary findings and the final report, in line with EPMRB's Quality Assurance Strategy.

2.4 Methodological Limits and Considerations

The evaluation methodology was designed to correspond with the risk and materiality of the contribution. While small in scale, the evaluation addresses Treasury Board's core evaluation issues and follows EPMRB's Quality Assurance Strategy, including the application of INAC's Gender-Based Analysis Policy. Multiple lines of evidence were employed to support the findings and both the methodology and final report were subjected to internal peer review.

The most significant challenge in evaluating this contribution authority is that it has only ever funded one organization (TI), and the contribution's funding does not (now) represent a significant proportion of the recipient's overall budget. That is, according to TI, the organization's budget increased from $80,000 in 1986 (i.e., the total amount of the contribution then and today) to $4.5 million (including capital assets) by 2009-10.

A number of other constraints should be taken into consideration when reviewing the report. The study's timelines posed a significant challenge. Despite the contribution's modest budget and reach, this study could not be included within a larger evaluation treating related policy areas because of the necessity for providing evaluative evidence by the end of fiscal year 2009-2010.

It was difficult to assess performance, efficiency and economy or to attribute success to INAC's contribution, particularly at the community level. This is due to the size of INAC's contribution relative to TI's overall budget, as well as to the contribution's outdated approach to reporting and the absence of performance measurement data.

Due to the narrow scope of the evaluation, primary research was limited. Beneficiaries or potential clients of TI were not contacted, in part due to the sensitivity of some of the subject matter and the diversity of TI's programs and services. As the Terms of Reference were being developed, other larger evaluation initiatives were underway, which will likely investigate urban Inuit issues. These include evaluations conducted by INAC (Urban Aboriginal Strategy and IRS) and Canadian Heritage (Aboriginal Peoples Program Directorate).

The evaluation incorporated some data from the newly released Urban Aboriginal Peoples Study conducted by the Environics Institute. [Note 4] While a study of Inuit specific responses is expected later this year, the overall study does report responses by Aboriginal groups, including Inuit. To note, however, the data oversampled Inuit in Ottawa (150 of the 265 interviews of urban Inuit were conducted in Ottawa). TI entered into a partnership with the Environics Institute in 2009 to employ 10 or 12 Inuit to do some basic research in and around Ottawa for the survey. [Note 5]

Return to Table of Contents






3. Evaluation Findings - Relevance

3.1 Continuing Need

The following sections address the question: Does there continue to be a need to support the social and economic integration of Inuit in urban areas?

Growth in the Urban Inuit Population

In 1986, INAC commissioned a needs assessment study of Inuit in Ottawa and determined there were approximately 150 Inuit living or travelling to Ottawa for extended periods. [Note 6] The demand for services created by this population led to INAC's support for the creation of TI. By 2006, Statistics Canada reported that 725 Inuit were living in the Ottawa-Gatineau area. By late 2009, some unofficial estimates placed the urban Inuit population of Ottawa at approximately 1,500. A near doubling in the Ottawa population since 2006 seems unlikely; the discrepancy may be due to differences in how Inuit were identified in the 2006 Census and how they are identified at the community level. Other possible reasons were identified by key informants as low self identification as Inuit in the census, challenges in reaching the homeless, language barriers and differing official definitions around Aboriginal identity. [Note 7]

While Ottawa has consistently been identified as having the largest population of urban Inuit outside Inuit Nunangat ("Inuit Homeland" made up of Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, Nunavut and Inuvialuit), there has also been growth in other cities in the South as well as in the North.

In 2006, Yellowknife (640) was identified as home to the largest Canadian urban Inuit population after Ottawa. Three other urban centres are also identified as having relatively sizeable Inuit populations: Edmonton (590), Montreal (570), and Winnipeg (355). By 2006, 17 percent of Canada's Inuit (8,395 individuals) lived in urban centres outside Inuit Nunangat, up from 13 percent in 1996. [Note 8]

Socio-Economic Conditions and Needs

Key informants indicate that urban Inuit, both newcomers and long-time residents, continue to face similar challenges adapting to southern urban areas as they did twenty years ago when TI was first launched. These challenges include lower health and socio-economic status compared to non-Aboriginal people; language and educational/credential barriers, which impede access to or success in education and employment; and isolation and culture shock associated with moving from small, largely Inuit communities to large urban centres where Inuit are the minority.

According to 2006 Census data, as reported by INAC, urban Inuit living outside Inuit Nunangat appeared to have higher education and employment rates than residents of Inuit Nunangat, but there remains a significant gap between Inuit in both locations and the non-Aboriginal population. For example:

Key Informants noted as well that the needs of the Ottawa Inuit population are also becoming increasingly more complex as are factors, which are bringing Inuit to the city. These were identified as including, for example, medical and health reasons, educational pursuits, employment opportunities, incarceration (and post-incarceration realities), as well as difficult socio-economic conditions in the North and/or family violence in home communities. [Note 11]

Environic's 2010 Urban Aboriginal Peoples Study indicates that almost nine out of ten Inuit in southern cities are first generation urban residents. [Note 12]The study also noted that Aboriginal peoples, in general, move to the city for family, education and work opportunities, as well as for the amenities and services available, but noted that women move to urban areas for somewhat different reasons than men. While men were more likely to state that they moved to find work, women explained they moved to urban areas due to family and education, while a small group said they first moved to escape a bad family situation and find a better place to raise their children. [Note 13]

The evaluation attempted to determine if the need for counselling services differed between genders. Some anecdotal evidence indicated women used certain services and programs more than men, and that some families led by single women are seeking services and attending programs after fleeing domestic violence in their communities in the North, thereby reflecting the differing reasons to move cited above in the 2010 Urban Aboriginal Peoples Study.

Importance of Culturally Relevant Programs and Services

The literature indicates that culturally relevant programs and services play an important role in addressing the needs of Canada's urban Aboriginal population. Indeed, the specific needs of urban Aboriginal Canadians is recognized by the Urban Aboriginal Strategy (UAS), and thus, by a wide range of departments who support this strategy, including INAC, Canadian Heritage and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.

The UAS is designed "to attempt to alleviate some of the disparity between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people." [Note 14] The UAS is based on the acknowledgement that Aboriginal people living in urban areas do not use or access services and programs the same way the non-Aboriginal population does, and as such, there is a need for an urban Aboriginal-specific and Aboriginal-led approach to improve Aboriginal well-being in urban centres. Urban Inuit and others interviewed for this evaluation have expressed their appreciation for Inuit (rather than pan-Aboriginal) programs and services. One key informant provided this example:

"Aboriginal Friendship Centres [supported by the federal government and intended to be pan-Aboriginal in nature] use healing circles, medicine wheels, smudging and tobacco – Inuit use none of these things. Inuit eat different food and speak a different language. It isn't that Aboriginal Friendship Centres aren't welcoming, they are, but Inuit don't feel at home [there]. This sense of belonging is very important – especially if you need mental health treatment. People don't open up if they don't feel at home."

The evaluation found limited evidence of research looking specifically at the culturally needs of Inuit in urban centres. One study, which TI co-authored, indicates there is a sense of distinction between the Inuit community and the non-Inuit world. Inuit-specific services have the most cultural relevance, whereas services that are shared with First Nations may be perceived as non-Inuit and less relevant. [Note 15] Policy statements from three national Inuit representative organizations [Note 16] also underline the importance of culturally-relevant services. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal People came to a similar conclusion in 1996, when its report noted there was a need to enhance cultural identities within urban areas in order to prevent a "melting pot" of Aboriginal cultures. [Note 17]

Further evidence of the importance of cultural relevance to urban Inuit comes from Townsend and Wernick, who wrote in 2008 that:

"... increasing numbers of Aboriginal youth will find themselves working and raising families in large cities, while striving to maintain or re-establish ties to their communities and traditional cultures." [Note 18]

While Townsend and Wernick did not specifically identify Inuit youth, it should be noted that INAC (Strategic Research and Analysis Directorate) highlights the fact that the Inuit are the "most youthful among all Aboriginal groups." In 2006, the median age of the Inuit population was 21 years compared with 40 years for the non-Aboriginal population. [Note 19]

3.2 Alignment with Federal and INAC Priorities, Roles and Responsibilities

This section of the report addresses the questions:

The evidence gathered points out that the ICS contribution remains consistent with federal government priorities as enunciated in the 2009 Budget, House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance (2009) and the Blue Ribbon Panel on Grants and Contributions (2006). This consistency is rooted in the government's priorities around the well-being of Aboriginal people in Canada and its support for delivering programs and services in a cooperative manner that addresses the needs of recipient.

The evaluation found that the objectives of the ICS contribution are also consistent with INAC's overarching priorities for improved educational outcomes, economic well-being, prosperity and self-reliance, as well as providing contributions towards better health outcomes and safer communities for all Aboriginal people.

The ICS contribution remains consistent with the role of INAC in particular. Through the IRS, for example, INAC is responsible for, among other things, liaising effectively between the Government of Canada and Inuit communities, governments and organizations in the implementation of policies and delivery of services. The contribution's objectives are also congruent with the strategic outcomes expected of the People (Individual and family well-being for First Nations and Inuit) and of the Office of the Federal Interlocutor (OFI) (OFI – Socio-economic well-being of Métis, Non-Status Indians and urban Aboriginal people). Additionally, OFI (located within INAC) is mandated to be the primary interlocutor for Métis, Non-Status Indians and urban Aboriginal peoples (including urban Inuit). [Note 20] OFI is also the lead organization for the horizontal federal Urban Aboriginal Strategy. Though other federal departments also play a role in providing services and programs to Aboriginal people living in urban areas, OFI has assumed responsibility for on-the-ground service delivery of the Urban Aboriginal Strategy. [Note 21]

There is less congruence between the ICS contribution and the expected outcomes of INAC's NAO, which currently manages the contribution. The strategic outcome for this area is: "The people of the North are self-reliant, healthy, skilled and live in prosperous communities." While the evidence suggests there are significant relations between TI and the North, and that some Inuit may only be living in the South on a temporary basis, a growing number of urban Inuit are born, raised, and live permanently in the South. It is problematic to consider urban Inuit living in southern cities as "Northerners." Moreover, the contribution is not consistent with the nature of NAO's work, which is policy rather than program and services oriented with it focus on helping the "North realize its true potential as a healthy, prosperous and secure region within a strong and sovereign Canada through partnerships with territorial governments, Aboriginal groups, non-Aboriginal Northerners, the private sector and other stakeholders." [Note 22]

Return to Table of Contents






4. Evaluation Findings - Performance / Success

This chapter addresses the following evaluation questions:

4.1 Organizational Capacity Building

The expected capacity building results associated with the ICS are: increased capacity of Inuit to administer and manage their own affairs; and the delivery of culturally appropriate services. The evaluation found evidence of positive results at the local level, and unexpected results at the regional and national levels related to the contribution.

Results at the Local Level: Growth, Diversity in Programs, Significant Leveraging:

Beginning in the mid-1960s, INAC established extensive social support services for Inuit in Ottawa. These included help in finding a place to live, orientation to city life, academic tutoring, recreation, social counselling and financial assistance). In 1985, a study was commissioned by INAC to recommend options for meeting the needs of these Inuit. The study noted that the counselling service was:

"...the result of programmatic steps to address real need in the Inuit community. The result [was] an anomaly in the policy oriented headquarters operation of the Northern Affairs Program in Ottawa." [Note 23]

In 1986-87, Treasury Board granted INAC the authority to contribute $80,000 a year towards the establishment of TI in order to devolve the delivery of counselling service from INAC to an Inuit-led centre. This decision supported the initial hiring of 1.5 full-time staff to serve approximately 115 Inuit living in the Ottawa region, as well as approximately 40 Inuit visitors annually (visiting to access educational or health services, or in order to search for employment opportunities). This decision also reflected INAC's support for the notion that cultural relevance and Inuit ownership were key to addressing the socio-economic and cultural needs of Inuit living in Ottawa.

Today, TI reports to a Board of Directors represented by Inuit leaders from the local and national scenes and has a staff of 50 individuals, 85 percent of which are Inuit; TI also reports a volunteer complement of approximately the same number (between 40-60 persons). TI serves an estimated 1,100 Inuit families and/or individuals in the Ottawa region, up from approximately 200 families in 2005-06. This upward trend is also evident in the number of individuals TI reports as accessing its employment training programs, medical services and youth programs. Recent funding provided by the Province of Ontario for a first census of its users resulted in an improved capacity to track and report on usage (and an appreciation that less recent estimates may have been low). In addition to reporting to its Board of Directors, TI publishes newsletters two or three times a year to inform the community of its various activities and initiatives (these same newsletters support activity-based reporting to INAC).

According to its audited financial statements, TI's budget for 2009-10 was $2.6 million in revenue (excluding capital assets). That same year, TI delivered over 20 programs and projects covering a wide range of social, cultural, health and employment-oriented programs and services, as well as housing, with the support of over 12 funders representing a multitude of public and private agencies. These include the federal government (INAC, Public Health Agency of Canada, Service Canada, and Canadian Heritage, provincial and territorial governments (Ontario and Nunavut), the City of Ottawa, and others including the United Way, the Aboriginal Healing Foundation, YMCA, Tim Hortons, and private donors.

A review of TI's financial and activity reports over the past few years indicates that the number of projects it runs fluctuate, some because of the duration of programs, and in one case owing to the establishment of another Inuit organization serving a more specialized audience (for example, Head Start programming supported by the Public Health Agency of Canada).

Unexpected Results at the National Level:TI's reputation has led individuals and organizations from across the country to seek out TI's advice. Key informants highlighted that TI receives calls from centres or individuals requesting advice on how best to serve Inuit (either at the individual or community level) in their own community. In addition, TI, with financial support from INAC's IRS (via the Basic Organizational Capacity contribution authority), is actively engaged in providing advice to Inuit organizations in other cities while working to identify a strategy or approach to address needs and to identify funding sources.

The evaluation also found evidence of unexpected results between the Ottawa based centre and the North. TI has established links between itself and the North, at both the organizational and governmental levels. For example, the Government of Nunavut has a service agreement with TI, enabling it to send its citizens for treatment to TI's Mamisarvik Healing Centre, at present, the only trauma and addictions treatment centre in Canada to provide Inuit-specific programs and services and funded by the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

TI has also received funding from Canadian Heritage to deliver youth programs in Montreal, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Yellowknife, St. John's, and Ottawa. Local programming includes cultural development (such as arts and crafts and performance workshops), life skills and personal development (such as counselling support on addiction awareness, employment/ training and education opportunities), and leadership development.

4.2 Social Impacts

As earlier noted, the ICS's expected results are a reduction in the incidence of severe socio-economic problems that may arise when relocating to the South, and higher quality of life for relocated Inuit. The evaluation deemed the expected social results to likely be unrealistic given the size and nature of the contribution and to warrant re-examination. As such, the evaluation looked for evidence that the ICS contribution and TI's activities contributed to a higher quality of life for relocated Inuit and a reduction in the incidence of severe socio-economic problems.

However, performance data is limited, as are external sources of data and research on changes in urban Inuit conditions; what does exist is increasingly outdated. In addition to statistics mentioned previously, census data that predates the current economic situation indicates some improvements in employment between 2001 and 2006: rates for adult Inuit outside Inuit Nunangat rose from 58.2 percent to 66.0 percent between 2001 and 2006. There remain, however, ongoing significant gaps in comparison to the non-Aboriginal population. [Note 24]

The 2010 Urban Aboriginal Peoples Study found that a majority of Inuit surveyed are aware of Aboriginal cultural activities in their city and participate in them regularly. In fact, the study reports that 71 percent of interviewed Inuit reported that they were likely to occasionally or often use and rely on Aboriginal services and organizations. [Note 25]

Based on their personal or professional associations with TI, stakeholders highlighted a wide range of results they felt could inform the evaluation's understanding of TI's contribution to improving the quality of life for Inuit in Ottawa. For instance, the establishment of a food bank was noted as one such contribution toward alleviating severe socio-economic problems, and the hosting of community feasts where country foods are served contributed towards improved quality of life.

Further results were reported across a wide range of areas consistent with the multifaceted nature of TI's programs. These included personal successes (overcoming alcohol addiction, gaining employment credentials, gaining a greater awareness of health risks), greater awareness among urban Inuit of municipal services, better preparedness for school and reductions in drop-out rates among urban Inuit youth, and reduction in the incidence of Inuit facing or experiencing homelessness.

4.3 Attribution of TI's Success to INAC's Contribution

It was simple to establish that INAC's contribution was instrumental to the establishment and operations of the TI in the early years of the Department's support. The evaluation found challenges in attributing TI's achievements to INAC's ICS contribution at this point in time given the relative size of INAC's contribution to TI's overall budget as well as the limited quality of INAC's results reporting requirements. However, key informants maintain that the ICS contribution is critical because it has represented a stable and consistent source of non-targeted funding, which has enabled TI to secure, maintain and expand its programming.

More specifically, stakeholders credit the ICS contribution with:

Such comments reinforce the central message of Canada's recently revised Transfer Payment Policy (2008), which underscores the importance of flexible funding arrangements and the incorporation of Aboriginal perspectives in funding decisions.

Return to Table of Contents






5. Evaluation Findings - Effectiveness (Efficiency and Economy)

This chapter reports the evaluation findings vis-à-vis the following questions:

Given the evaluation's scope and limited data availability, the above questions were assessed from the perspective of the ICS's consistency or inconsistency with identified best practices. 

5.1 Consistency with Efficient Practices: Cultural Relevance

Section 3 provided stakeholder perspectives on the relevance ascribed to Inuit specific services. While an exhaustive literature review was not undertaken, the key national and international sources reviewed indicate that culturally and linguistically relevant community-led programs are considered good practice in various settings. They are also associated with cost-efficiencies, particularly where they result in supporting otherwise difficult to reach groups, result in increased uptake, and/or where the use of volunteers is factored in.

The evaluation did not identify a commonly accepted method for determining the efficiency and effectiveness of culturally relevant services. Across organizations, the costs of administration in comparison with programs or services are typically referenced, as are appreciations of funds leveraged per dollar contributed. In some cases, the costs of delivery by community-led organizations are compared against the costs of government-run services. Economic modelling has been employed to determine the costs of not providing programs and services (culturally relevant or not). In such cases, non-monetary outcomes such as increased social cohesion and capacity would likely be considered part of the mix.

5.2 The ICS's Approach to Capacity Building: A Mixed Review

As demonstrated in Chapter 4, the ICS contribution has had a significant impact in establishing TI as an Inuit-led urban community service provider. The ICS contribution presumed that core support is an effective means of building the capacity of Inuit-led urban organizations, and key stakeholders credit this core support with allowing TI the flexibility and stability to diversify its funding bases and to assist it as project opportunities come and go.

At present, INAC does not have an overarching strategy or approach to capacity development, which could provide guidance for ICS. [Note 26] As a result of recent changes in federal policy and departmental initiatives, INAC is placing increased attention on issues of capacity building, however, much of this work is still under development. Moreover, recent evaluations undertaken of Aboriginal institutions or funding mechanisms, while looking at capacity building, did not directly review the issue of core funding.

The literature reviewed supports the notion that core funding can make an important contribution to the effectiveness and efficiency of organizations, and noted the impact of such funding for some organisations within an increasingly competitive market- or project-driven environment. [Note 27] The scan also served to identify examples of good or state-of-the art practices in policy, research and evaluations at the municipal, provincial, federal and international levels. At the federal level, these included:

The literature scan and key informants also raised questions about the criteria for, and continuity of funding, and the conditions in which support is most useful, for example:

INAC's approach to supporting ICS (e.g., $80,000 annually in support of core activities to support programs and services) has not changed since the program began more than two decades ago. The arrangement has thus provided TI a certain degree of certainty in accessing funds. Additionally, key informants indicated that it is easier for TI to access the ICS contribution because this contribution is culturally specific to Inuit, whereas Inuit organizations may face challenges or barriers to accessing funding envelopes dedicated to urban Aboriginal issues generally because they make up a relatively small size of this population.

Moreover, while it is clear that the TI experience has much to contribute in informing INAC's evolving approach to addressing urban Inuit issues and strengthening institutional capacity, the process by which it receives funding as well as the criteria established to determine funding levels now appear out-of-step with current practice, both in Canada and internationally, and with changing demographics of Inuit across urban centres in Canada (in both the South and North).  

5.3 Ineffective Reporting Requirements

Ineffective and Burdensome Reporting Requirements:

As indicated elsewhere in this report, the ICS contribution's inadequate and outdated approach to performance measurement has hampered efforts to assess the program's results, effectiveness and efficiency. According to knowledgeable stakeholders, the recipient's reporting requirements have not altered substantially since the mid-1980s, although there has been some improvements in terms of respect for the confidentiality of TI's clients (e.g., at one time TI was required to submit the names of the persons it was serving).

While the Terms and Conditions for the contribution require performance-based reporting, TI is currently required to submit semi-annual activity and financial reports (including audited financial statements) to INAC. The activity reports are not oriented to assist either TI or INAC in assessing performance or impacts neither in terms of organizational capacity nor in terms of community level impacts (e.g., reduced incidence of severe socio-economic problems, or higher quality of life).

TI faces multiple reporting requirements from a broad range of funders, a factor, which further impedes a clear picture of its impacts at the local level. Considering only requirements around INAC funding, TI faces multiple and inconsistent funding and reporting requirements. Table 1 presents an example of the contradictions at the reporting level:

Table 1: Reporting Requirements set by INAC to TI - 2009-2010
Purpose of ReportReporting Period and Due DatePerformance Measurement requirements
Source: INAC. Recipient Reporting Guide 2009-10.
Basic Organizational Capacity Program  Annual Report (TI, 2008/09: $236,000)
...to describe the activities that were undertaken and the results achieved over the course of the year. Annually, on or before April 30 Recipients are asked to:
  • report on questions related to program's immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes (i.e., engagement, analysis and development of policy positions, and the provision of input or advice);
  • describe any key changes made to the budget and /or work plan;
  • share a success story; and
  • share any difficulties /challenges they have encountered.
Inuit Counselling Activity and Financial Report (TI, 2008/09: $80,000)
... to demonstrate ...funds have been used in a manner that is consistent with the program objectives. Semi-annually (Quarterly until recently) October 12, April 10 No performance measurement requirements (Respondent required to provide a detailed description of activities undertaken in counselling, programs and services)
Cultural Education Centres Program Reporting (TI, 2008/09: $56,500)
Not identified At a minimum, annually (may also be required quarterly)

May 15th
Recipients are asked to:
  • identify which program objective or objectives their proposal had targeted (A check off list with eight options follows);
  • state whether their goal(s) and objective(s) were met in relation to their work plan; and
  • provide baseline and end of project information / data (i.e., Where were you at the start of the project / where are you now?).
 

As part of the EPMRB's Evaluation of the IRS (currently underway), EPMRB will take the opportunity afforded by the IRS's role in reviewing the Department's support for Inuit-led organizations to look for other instances of conflicting eligibility, performance measurement and reporting practices which may producing unnecessary reporting burdens or detract from the Department's overarching objectives for capacity building.

5.4 Operational Silo

The ICS was designed in 1986 to address a practical challenge faced by INAC's national Headquarters, that is, how to find a more effective means of addressing the needs of urban Inuit in Ottawa than through direct delivery by INAC personnel. It has remained with the NAO for more than 20 years.

While the evidence indicates that there are strong links between Inuit in Nunangaat and southern urban centres – and between TI and the North, the NAO is simply not oriented towards, responsible for, or familiar with urban Inuit programs and services. Nor as suggested in the previous chapter, is it familiar with organizational capacity building in that context. Corporate memory about the project is weak. With the growth of the urban Inuit population, these gaps in both mandate and knowledge are inconsistent with maximizing INAC's investment, while limiting the potential for a level playing field for other urban Inuit service organizations.

The evaluation also found evidence of a lack in clarity in the respective roles and responsibilities of NAO and IRS for this authority. At present, while the ICS contribution is managed by INAC's NAO, TI's proposal, financial and technical reports for the ICS contribution (as well as for other funding TI receives from INAC) are signed off by the IRS, in line with the department-wide practice dating from 2007 whereby all funding to Inuit organizations flows through the IRS.

This practice has raised questions for some stakeholders as to who is ultimately responsible for the contribution and resulted in delays in processing and payments. The IRS has stated that the funds simply flow through the IRS, and that NAO remains ultimately responsible for the contribution. However, program documents indicate that the IRS authorized a change in the proposal and reporting submission requirements. Staff turnover at INAC have complicated the resolution of this accountability issue, as has the absence of a written agreement between NAO and IRS stipulating or distinguishing responsibilities for review, recommendation and/or approval of the ICS's proposals or reports.

Return to Table of Contents






6. Possible Alternatives or Modifications

6.1 Challenges to Current Design and Delivery

Previous chapters provide evidence that the ICS contribution helped to establish TI and to make it a nationally recognized and respected centre. In itself, TI appears to be a best practice as a locally-administered service delivery organization, which has increased the capacity of urban Inuit to manage their own affairs and helped it grow into "a well respected institution" at the local level, and increasingly at a national level.

The evidence also indicates the ICS contribution is not sustainable as it is currently implemented:

6.2 Possible Alternatives – Advantages, Barriers and Considerations

In order to answer the question "What lessons learned, best practices, or alternatives could enhance the program?", this chapter examines potential options for relocation or modifications to the ICS contribution, including the advantages and challenges of each option.

To do so, this examination considered consistencies, overlaps or duplications with other existing authorities or mandates of other organizations within INAC and elsewhere in the federal government.

This examination took as starting points that the ICS was designed to develop and strengthen an effective Inuit-led community organization via core support and that community organizations are among the most diverse of voluntary organizations, in that they provide a wide variety of services to a wide variety of clientele with a wide range of needs (such as elderly, youth, mental health, newcomer settlement etc). The evaluation looked at whether the organization or program would allow for a culturally relevant approach, for continued organizational support, for an environment in which performance results and lessons can more effectively inform approaches and support for Aboriginal urban policy and programming,

Within INAC, the evaluation looked at the OFI for Métis and Non-Status Indians. OFI's mandate is to help further the efforts of Métis, non-status Indians and urban Aboriginal, assisting such groups to realize their full potential economically, socially and politically in Canadian society. As such, OFI's role appears to align well with the mandate of the ICS contribution. Furthermore, OFI understands the urban Aboriginal environment across Canada and has regional offices set up in various provinces to address the needs and provide services to Aboriginal people living in urban areas. However, while OFI does provide core funding through its contribution program, this support is directed towards advancing issues within the federal government (not in supporting program delivery).

The mandate of the UAS, which is led by OFI, also appears to align with the objectives of the ICS contribution in that it is intended to support the delivery of culturally relevant programs and services to urban Aboriginal populations. UAS funding is, for the most part, project and proposal driven (to note: TI participated in the UAS in Ottawa, but subsequently withdrew due to difficulties it was finding in accessing funding).

UAS does provide core funding, but largely for the purpose of strengthening community level committees, not for individual organizations. That said, the evaluation did find that one OFI regional office has provided seed funding to local Inuit to assist them in forming an Inuit-led community organization. However, in comparison with the ICS (which provides $80,000), and with Canadian Heritage's Aboriginal Friendship Centre Program (which provides centres between $85,000 and $180,000, on average), this funding was at a very modest level and time frame (e.g., $40,000 over two years). Lastly, the UAS does not currently operate in some of the communities where urban Inuit are concentrated (e.g., Montreal; St. John's). To note, however, INAC is currently undertaking an evaluation of the UAS in which the strategy's continued relevance, performance and efficiency will be examined.

The evaluation also looked at a possible fit with the activities of the IRS, particularly as it is working with OFI and supporting the feasibility of a pan-Canadian approach (and possible funding sources) for the provision of programs and services to urban Inuit across Canada (and through which TI is receiving support through "Contributions for Basic Organizational Capacity" (BOC). However, while the IRS has provided some support for the delivery of programs and services in special circumstances (e.g., a horizontal pilot project for youth in Pangnirtung), the IRS does not manage service delivery programs. The core support it provides through BOC is oriented to policy development rather than to service delivery.

It should be noted that the IRS is also being evaluated by INAC at this time. This evaluation includes a case study on the IRS's role in advancing the interests of urban Inuit, including capacity building and the identification of funding sources. It is possible that this evaluation could look further at possible supports from line departments.

The evaluation also found consistencies with Canadian Heritage's Aboriginal Peoples Program (delivered through the Aboriginal People's Directorate), which provides both core funding as well as program funding to Aboriginal organization through the lens of culture. One component of this program is funding for Aboriginal Friendship Centres program, which aligns with the ICS contribution as it provides core funding as well as further incentives to encourage equal access and participation in Canadian society of urban Aboriginal people while fostering and strengthening Aboriginal cultural distinctiveness. [Note 32] The funding for each centre ranges from about $85,000 to $120,000 per year. In addition to core funding through the Aboriginal Friendship Centres, Canadian Heritage's Aboriginal Peoples Program supports other initiatives under the same authority around culture, youth, language, etc. Its horizontal approach could provide the support for both the core and program funding an Inuit centre requires.

There are challenges though in associating the ICS contribution with Canadian Heritage's Aboriginal Peoples Program. The funding for Aboriginal Friendship Centres is not currently available to centres outside the National Association of Friendship Centres (NAFC) network, and is not guaranteed for centres even once they are part of the NAFC network. This program is currently being evaluated as part of a comprehensive evaluation of the programs supported by the Aboriginal Peoples Program Directorate of Canadian Heritage. The Directorate is also conducting studies around the impacts of culture and identity on urban Aboriginal people.

The evaluation did not examine a potential fit with sector or line departments. This was in part due to the scope of the current exercise, recognition of the multi-faceted work conducted by TI and the wide range of programs that it currently draws upon or that support to some extent or another urban Aboriginal populations. At Health Canada, for example, support is provided in a number of areas relevant to the work of TI, for example, diabetes, youth suicide prevention, maternal and child health, health human resources, the Aboriginal Health Transition Fund, and mental health and emotional support for former students of Residential Schools and their families.

In conclusion, the evaluation found evidence of a number of activities, which have elements in common with the ICS. Yet, a number of challenges may exist to integrating support for Inuit counselling into them at this time. One option might be to transfer the management of the entire authority to another federal program, rather than looking to integrate it into another existing authority. However, questions would remain as to continued justification for supporting a single institution over the longer term or the degree to which other institutions could be supported. As noted throughout this evaluation, however, there are a number of other evaluations and studies underway, which could shed more light on future directions, namely:

Return to Table of Contents






7. Conclusions and Recommendations

7.1 Conclusions

This evaluation examined INAC's Contribution for Inuit Counselling in the South, which provides funding for the core activities of TI, an Inuit-led community centre in Ottawa. The evaluation supports the following conclusions:

Relevance

The evaluation concluded that there is a continuing need to support culturally relevant counselling services for urban Inuit. Furthermore, this need is increasing as a result of continuing growth of urban Inuit, not only in Ottawa, but elsewhere in the country. The contribution is flexible enough to recognize the potential for multiple recipients, but is not structured so as to recognize the growth of the Inuit population in the North (i.e., Yellowknife).

The evaluation also concluded that the ICS contribution is consistent with federal government and departmental priorities, strategic outcomes, and roles and responsibilities. However, the contribution does not fit easily within the mandate, objectives or responsibilities of the NAO where it is currently housed.

Performance / Success

The evidence indicates that TI has, with the ICS' funding, developed into a well respected Inuit-led organization, which through the leveraging of INAC's support, provides Inuit-specific programs and services in partnership with a wide range of (government and non-government) funding partners. Unexpected impacts were found at the national level. TI is now working with urban Inuit communities across Canada to help them in their own cities. TI's successes demonstrate there has been increased capacity among urban Inuit to administer and manage their own affairs. The evaluation was unable to determine, however, the extent to which either TI's success or the impacts it has had can be attributed to the ICS contribution.

Effectiveness (Efficiency and Economy)

Evidence suggests that counselling services are effectively delivered by culturally-specific community-led organizations. The evaluation also found that the approach used with the ICS contribution to support capacity building, though effective, is outdated as is the process for allocating funds.

Performance measurement is an important element to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of core funding, and as such reporting requirements currently in place for the ICS contribution are not sufficient to provide such information. Instead, the ICS contribution exemplifies already identified problems with Grants and Contributions within the federal government, such as a multitude of reporting requirements within a single federal department, and a focus on activities, which does not provide either the federal government or the beneficiary organization with performance and outcome data. Finally, a lack of clarity around roles and responsibilities of between NAO and the IRS within INAC has led to inefficiencies in the management of the ICS contribution.

Alternatives or Modifications

Based on an assessment of various federal organizations and their programs, the evaluation concluded that the ICS contribution does not fit within the organizational structures or mandate of INAC's NAO or the IRS. Although its mandate does align with those of the OFI and of Canadian Heritage's Aboriginal Peoples Program Directorate, the evaluation concluded that delivery parameters of existing programs within these two organizations present barriers, as do the funding parameters of the authority.

Maintaining the ICS contribution in its current format but moving it to a different management location in the federal government would do little to support urban Inuit outside of Ottawa. Additional evaluations and studies currently underway may provide more information as to the best manner in which the federal government can continue to support core activities of Inuit urban centres such as TI in the future.

7.2 Recommendations

It is recommended that:

  1. INAC's NAO, in collaboration with the IRS, should consider where the ICS contribution and urban Inuit may be best supported within the federal family, taking into consideration the various evaluation and research exercises pertaining to urban Aboriginal people to be completed during 2010-11, including information on the evolving needs of Inuit living in urban communities. The option of transferring the funding associated with the ICS authority to the BOC funding for TI should also be explored as both authorities essentially support core activities.
  2. In the short term, INAC's NAO and IRS should clarify and document the roles and responsibilities of their respective organizations vis-à-vis the ICS contribution and its recipient(s), and determine how best to improve recipient reporting so as to better align with current performance measurement requirements.
Return to Table of Contents






Footnotes:

  1. Tungasuvvingat Inuit. Mandate. (return to source paragraph)
  2. Some questions were modified from the evaluation's Terms of Reference. (return to source paragraph)
  3. McShane, Kelly E., Paul D. Hastings, Janet K. Smylie, Conrad Prince, Tungasuvvingat Inuit Family Resource Centre. "Examining Evidence of Autonomy and Relatedness in Urban Inuit Parenting." Culture and Psychology. Vol 15, Iss 4, pp 411-431. Dec. 2009; McShane, K.E., Janet K. Smylie, Paul D. Hastings, Carmel M. Martin and Tunngasuvvingat Inuit Family Resource Center. "Guiding Health Promotion Efforts with Urban Inuit." Canadian Journal of Public Health. Vol 97, no 4, pp 296-299. 2006; and Smylie, Janet, Kelly McShane, Tungasuvvingat Inuit Family Resource Centre. "Understanding Knowledge Translation in an Urban Inuit Community." Ottawa: Canadian Institute of Health Research KT Casebook. 2006. (return to source paragraph)
  4. Environics Institute. Urban Aboriginal Peoples Study: Main Report. April 2010. (return to source paragraph)
  5. TI. 2009. Annual Report: 2008-09. (return to source paragraph)
  6. InterGroup Consultants Ltd. Review and Assessment of Options for Meeting the Needs of Inuit in Ottawa. March 1986. Prepared for the Social and Cultural Development Division, Northern Affairs Division, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. p. 4. (return to source paragraph)
  7. In the 2006 Census, Statistics Canada includes in the Inuit population all persons reporting a single answer of "Inuit" to its Aboriginal identity question. INAC's Strategic Research and Analysis Directorate excludes those who reported a single answer of "Inuit" to the Aboriginal identity question, but who also answered "yes" to a question on registration status under the Indian Act. As such, INAC Census analyses exclude from the Inuit data those persons who may identify as both Indian and Registered Indians. In the 2006 Census, Statistics Canada identified 50,485 Inuit while INAC identified 49,115 Inuit. (return to source paragraph)
  8. Gionet, Linda. Statistics Canada. Inuit in Canada: Selected Findings from the 2006 Census. Canadian Social Trends, Number 86. November 2008. p. 59. An additional five percent of all Inuit are reported to have lived in rural areas outside Inuit Nunangat in 2006. (return to source paragraph)
  9. INAC. A Demographic and Socio-Economic Portrait of Aboriginal Populations in Canada. Ottawa, 2009. (return to source paragraph)
  10. INAC. Comparison of Socio-Economic Conditions, Registerered Indian, Non-Status Indian, Metis and Inuit Populations in Canada, 2001 and 2006. Ottawa, 2010. (return to source paragraph)
  11. INAC. A Demographic and Socio-Economic Portrait of Aboriginal Populations in Canada. Ottawa, 2009. (return to source paragraph)
  12. Environics Institute. Urban Aboriginal Peoples Study: Main Report. April 2010. p. 29. (return to source paragraph)
  13. Ibid. p. 28. (return to source paragraph)
  14. Office of the Federal Interlocutor. Integrated Results-based Management and Accountability Framework and Risk-based Audit Framework: Renewal of the Urban Aboriginal Strategy. September 2007. p. 4. (return to source paragraph)
  15. McShane, K.E., Janet K. Smylie, Paul D. Hastings, Carmel M. Martin and Tunngasuvvingat Inuit Family Resource Center. "Guiding Health Promotion Efforts with Urban Inuit." Canadian Journal of Public Health. Vol 97, no 4, pp 296-299. 2006. (return to source paragraph)
  16. See for example, ITK and Inuit Circumpolar Conference. Building Inuit Nunaat: The Inuit Action Plan (February 2007); and Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada. The Inuit Way: A Guide to Inuit Culture. Ottawa: Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada. 2006. (return to source paragraph)
  17. RCAP Publications. Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Volume 4: Perspectives and Realities - Chapter 7: Urban Perspectives. 1996. (return to source paragraph)
  18. Townsend, Thomas and Michael Wernick. "Hope or Heartbreak: Aboriginal Youth and Canada's Future." Horizons. Ottawa: Policy Research Initiatives. Vol 10, No 1, pp. 4-7. March 2008. Policy Research Institute. p. 5. (return to source paragraph)
  19. INAC. A Demographic and Socio-Economic Portrait of Aboriginal Populations in Canada. Ottawa, 2009. According to this source, the median age for the overall Aboriginal population was 27 in 2006. (return to source paragraph)
  20. INAC. Report on Plans and Priorities 2010-11. p. 4. (return to source paragraph)
  21. INAC. Report on Plans and Priorities 2010-11. p. 40. (return to source paragraph)
  22. INAC. Report on Plans and Priorities 2010-2011. p. 35. (return to source paragraph)
  23. InterGroup Consultants Ltd. Review and Assessment of Options for Meeting the Needs of Inuit in Ottawa. March 1986. Prepared for the Social and Cultural Development Division, Northern Affairs Division, INAC. p. 1. (return to source paragraph)
  24. Statistics Canada. 2008. Inuit in Canada: Select Findings from the 2006 Census (return to source paragraph)
  25. Environics Institute. Urban Aboriginal Peoples Study: Main Report. April 2010. p. 68. As mentioned previously, caution should be taken when interpreting the results of this study specific to Inuit since Inuit were oversampled in Ottawa, a city with a well-established urban Inuit centre. (return to source paragraph)
  26. INAC, 2009. Audit of Capacity Development. (return to source paragraph)
  27. See, for example, Clutterback and Howarth (no date). Heads up Ontario! Current Conditions and Promising Reforms to Strengthen Ontario's Non-Profit Community Services Sector. Submitted to the Community Social Planning Council of Toronto; Canadian Council of Social Development. June 2006. Pan-Canadian Funding Practices in Communities: Challenges and opportunities for the Government of Canada; Task Force on Community Investment. 2006. Achieving Coherence in Government of Canada Funding Practices in Communities; Canadian Heritage. 2005. Summative Evaluation of the Aboriginal Friendship Centers Program. (return to source paragraph)
  28. Lynn Eakin and Heather Graham, (2009), Canada's Non-Profit Maze: A scan of legislation and regulation impacting revenue generation in the non-profit sector, May 2009 (Wellesley Institute). (return to source paragraph)
  29. Information in this paragraph is drawn from INAC. 2010. Evaluation of Community-Based Healing Initiatives Supported through the Aboriginal Health Foundation and from Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (return to source paragraph)
  30. Community Relations Unit (CRU) of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) and carried out by the Equality Directorate Research Branch of OFMDFM .(return to source paragraph)
  31. Lloyds TSB Foundation for England and Wales. 2003. A Measured Approach: Impact Assessment Report (Executive Summary). (return to source paragraph)
  32. Department of Canadian Heritage. May 2005. Summative Evaluation of the Aboriginal Friendship Centres Program: Final Report. (return to source paragraph)
 
 
Date modified: