Evaluation of the Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage Program

Office of the Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive
Evaluation Services Directorate

December 2011

Cette publication est également offerte en français.

This publication is available upon request in alternative formats.

This publication is available in PDF and HTML formats on the Internet at http ://www.pch.gc.ca/

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2012.
Catalogue No. CH7-10/2011E-PDF

ISBN : 978-1-100-20355-3

Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations

BCAH Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage
CAPF Canada Arts Presentation Fund
CIC Citizenship Immigration Canada
ESD Evaluation Services Directorate
Gs&Cs Grants and contributions
NA Non-applicable
PAA Program Activity Architecture
PCH Patrimoine Canadian Heritage
RPP Report on Plans and Priorities
TBS Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada
VAC Veterans Affairs Canada

Executive Summary

Program Description

The Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage Program (BCAH) was created in 2007 to provide funding support to local arts and heritage events and small capital projects that place an emphasis on local engagement. The Program’s main objective is to build stronger citizen engagement in communities through the performing and visual arts and in the expression, celebration and preservation of local historical heritage. BCAH has three components: I - the Local Arts and Heritage Festivals Component, II - the Community Historical Anniversaries Programming Component and III - the Community Historical Anniversaries Legacy Fund Component. Components I and II are delivered by Canadian Heritage (PCH) regional offices, while the third component is delivered in the National Capital Region. The Citizen Participation Branch, within the Citizenship and Heritage Sector of PCH is responsible for the overall coordination of the Program. The total spending for BCAH increased from $3,481,160 in 2007-2008 to $24,069,200 in 2010-111. The budget for 2011-12 is $22,569,200.

Evaluation Objective and Methodology

Evaluation Context and Purpose

The evaluation was conducted between February and October 2011 and covered Program activities during the period 2007-08 through 2010-11 for Components I and II, and 2009-10 to 2010-11 for Component III, which was launched in August 2009. The evaluation was managed by PCH Evaluation Services Directorate (ESD), Office of the Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive.  ESD carried out the planning phase and some of the data collection phase, while the balance of the data collection, the final analysis and reporting was executed by a private research consulting firm. An Evaluation Working Group, with six representatives from the Citizen Participation Branch and two members of the ESD, guided the study.

A Pre-Implementation Assessment of the adequacy of the controls at a very early stage in program implementation  conducted in 2007-08,  enabled the establishment of a program baseline for measurement purposes and a basis for setting program goals and identified issues and areas requiring improvement prior to this evaluation. The findings from the evaluation will inform the BCAH Program renewal process planned for March 2012. The study assessed the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the Program, including alternative delivery options and improvements. The evaluation responds to the requirements of the Policy and Directives on Transfer Payment and the Treasury Board of Canada’s Policy on Evaluation.

Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation included the following research methods:

  • A Document review included departmental reporting documents and program related documentation.
  • A Literature review included external research papers and reports on participation in the arts and social engagement, websites and documentation of other similar federal and provincial programs and statistical reports. 
  • An Administrative data review included Program administrative data, Program files, recipients’ final project reports and funding recipients’ satisfaction survey.
  • Key informant (KI) interviews  were conducted with forty individuals including 12 current and former BCAH Program staff/management both in the national capital region and in the regions; 14 representatives from organizations funded by the Program; 4 representatives of municipalities where funded projects were located; 3 representatives of organizations that applied to the Program but were denied funding; 5 representatives of organizations that did not apply to the Program; and 2 experts in the field of festivals and community engagement.
  • An On-line survey was conducted with 499 organizations that received funding under Component I and Component II of the Program (N= 1,178) and with 27 organizations that applied but were denied funding under Component I (N=84). Unfunded eligible organizations under Component II and organizations (both funded and unfunded) under Component III could not be surveyed.
  • Case studies of 9 funded projects were conducted, including seven festivals and two commemorative anniversaries with a legacy project. The following criteria were used to select the case studies: regional representation, Program Components representation, and event scale representation. Each case study involved a review of key project documentation as well as a series of key informant interviews of a number of people associated with each project.

Constraints and Limitations

The evaluation is limited by a number of constraints, including:

  • Given the small population of unfunded eligible organizations under Component II and small population of organizations (both funded and unfunded) under Component III, it was impossible to survey these groups. Moreover, the limited number of unfunded organizations under Component I deemed eligible for funding according to the Program that completed the survey (29 out of 84),  limited the evaluation team’s capacity to conduct a robust statistical comparison of funded and unfunded organizations. Such a low sample size does not allow conducting statistically sound comparisons.
  • The administrative data used for the evaluation had noticeable gaps.  The Program’s database has incomplete information, due to gaps in responses from recipients but also due to the fact that some data was not yet entered into the database when the evaluation was conducted. The completion rate for each variable in the final report ranges from 23% to 44%, which is fairly low. This may be explained by the fact that most recipients are grant recipients (88%) with limited administrative capacity who have no formal obligation to submit a final report to BCAH Program unless they re-apply for funding.
  • There was limited evidence gathered to fully assess the ultimate outcome of the program, stemming from the above limitations, as well as from the fact that the evaluation team could not gather direct views from a representative sample of volunteers and the general public.

Evaluation Findings

Program Relevance and Continuing Need

The evaluation assessed to what extent the BCAH Program is relevant and responds to a continuing need. Findings indicate that many positive social outcomes are associated with citizen engagement and that there is a general need for a program such as BCAH to support engagement through arts and heritage. BCAH was the departmental response to a federal budget statement2 about the intent to support local arts and heritage festivals. BCAH is also in line with the Departmental Strategic Outcome 2 “Canadians share, express and appreciate their Canadian identity”, linked by Program Activity 5 related to “Engagement and Community Participation”. Findings stemming from a national survey and focus groups conducted by the Department of Canadian Heritage (PCH, 2007) also indicate that 89% of Canadians believe that the federal government should place at least a moderate amount of importance on supporting the arts and culture in Canada. Moreover, there is evidence from data gathered by Statistics Canada (2007)3  that there is a need to support engagement through volunteering across Canada, as less than 50% of all Canadian adults are actively engaged in volunteering activities. According to this same data source, about 12% of all Canadians account for more than 75% of all volunteering hours.

Performance: Achievement of Expected Outcomes

  • Extent of Achievement of Expected Immediate Outcome: Local Community Organizations Plan and Organize Festivals and Commemorative Activities, and Install Community Legacies. Evaluation findings indicate that the program contributed to the organization and planning of 2,057 festivals, 370 anniversary projects since 2007 and 27 legacy projects since 2009. The planning activities for these festivals and events were generally deemed successful. In the absence of BCAH funding, most organizations representatives surveyed experienced challenges planning and organizing their events and many of them reported having fewer activities and presentations for their event.
  • Extent of Achievement of Intermediate Outcome: Local Players and Citizens are Engaged at the Community Level in Festivals, Events and Activities, as well as Community Legacies that Commemorate Local Historical Anniversaries. According to findings, BCAH Program funding contributed to greater engagement of volunteers and increased support from local partners. BCAH also had a positive impact on the number of partnerships established between funded organizations and local partners. Findings indicate that BCAH helped leverage resources from these partners.
  • Extent of Achievement of Intermediate Outcome: Local Artists, Artisans and Performers of Historical Activities Have Opportunities to Engage with their Community. With the support of BCAH, funded community organizations were able to engage more local artists, artisans and heritage performers. According to findings, the performances and work of local artists, artisans and heritage performers added value to events. The presence of local artists, artisans and heritage performers also helped generate community participation in the events.
  • Extent of Achievement of Ultimate Outcome: Canadians are engaged in the expression, celebration and preservation of local arts and heritage. BCAH contributes to the success of festivals: BCAH-funded festivals attracted an average of 29,482 people per event (compared to 18,573 people before BCAH funding). Individually, the participation numbers at these events equate to millions of participants in events across the country. Commemorations and legacy projects helped increase the level of awareness of heritage in communities, according to evidence.

Performance: Efficiency and Economy

  • Extent of Effectiveness and Efficiency of resources dedicated to Program. An analysis of the administrative costs of BCAH indicates that these costs are deemed acceptable and comparable to other similar programs. The percentage of direct administrative costs over total BCAH Program costs decreased from 51.6%4in 2007-08 the year it was launched, down to 16.4%5 for 2010-11. Efficiency gains may be achieved with further automation of the application and reporting processes.
  • Extent of Cost-Effectiveness of Program. An analysis of key outcomes generated per program dollar indicates that larger urban events are more cost-effective in terms of audience size, but that events in rural areas are more likely to engage more volunteer hours.
  • Potential Alternatives. Although many provinces have programs that fund similar activities and events, there are no obvious components of the program that could be transferred to other public organizations according to the evaluation findings.
  • Potential for Program Duplication. Other federal programs directly or indirectly support festivals, anniversaries and legacy infrastructure, including programs at PCH (Canada Arts Presentation Fund, Celebration and Commemoration Program, Cultural Capitals of Canada awards and Canada Cultural Spaces Fund Program). There is potential duplication between these and BCAH:
    • There is evidence that some event organizers apply to BCAH and other PCH programs as they fund some similar events and eligible expenses are partly the same.
    • Some of these programs also share communalities in terms of expected outcome and/or result achieved.
  • Delivery. Funding recipients are generally satisfied with the services provided by BCAH staff. The program’s project triage and assessment processes are considered effective. However, the application process could be streamlined and further automated. PCH response to the funding applications is also deemed untimely by many recipients.
  • Performance Measurement. Projects are subject to comprehensive performance monitoring, including final reports, on-site monitoring and post-project surveys. However, the performance monitoring is challenged by low response rates to surveys  administered by the program (including projects final reports), in part due to the fact that many agreements are grants (which have no contractual requirement to report the results) and that event organizers are supported by small, often volunteer-run, administrations.
  • Official Languages Requirements. Communications with and services to the general public for the Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage Program have been provided in both official languages, in accordance with the spirit and intent of Part IV of the Official Languages Act.

Recommandations

Considering the evaluation findings, the following actions are recommended.

Recommendation 1: Improve the timeliness of the response to funding applicants by reviewing current applications intake timelines and streamlining the recommendation process.

Events organizers face many constraints when planning and organizing activities. These are usually organized months in advance and one of the major determinants of the parameters of these events is funding. The 2008 Program’s annual client satisfaction survey results indicate that almost half of the survey respondents were somewhat satisfied or not satisfied with the response time to receive a written confirmation of the outcome of their application. The Program’s administrative data review revealed that 44% of funding  recipients under Component I were notified of the outcome of their application on average less than 60 days prior to the event. Being notified close to the start date of the event can create major problems for organizers who need to reserve facilities and performers early on to ensure a successful event. Not providing sufficient notice could also potentially lead to negative publicity for the Program, PCH and the Government of Canada.

Recommendation 2: Improve the application process by further streamlining and automating the process.

While the administrative costs are deemed acceptable, there could be opportunities to further reduce these costs by further automating the application process (online applications). Key informant interviews and survey findings also indicate that there are opportunities to further streamline the application forms by eliminating redundancies and by simplifying and clarifying the questions related to the financial information. This would facilitate the application process for applicants and as a result, reduce the number of queries to program staff (which would provide additional economies to the program).

Recommendation 3: PCH Senior Management should assess the efficiency gains that could result from a review of the commonalities between BCAH Local Festivals component and CAPF Programming component as well as between BCAH Community Historical Anniversaries and Legacy Fund components and other PCH programs such as the Cultural Capitals of Canada, Canada Cultural Spaces Fund and, Celebration and Commemoration.

PCH is currently looking at the way we do our business so that the services we offer Canadians are as efficient and effective as possible. The document and literature review as well as the key informant interviews conducted as part of the evaluation have provided evidence that BCAH and other PCH programs such as Canada Arts Presentation Fund, Cultural Capitals of Canada, Canada Cultural Spaces Fund, Celebration and Commemoration share commonalities as they fund some similar events and activities and, at least partially, similar expenses. Some of these programs also share communalities in terms of expected outcome and/or result achieved. Therefore efficiency gains that could result from a review of the commonalities between BCAH and other PCH programs should be assessed.

________________________________
Richard Willan
Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive
Department of Canadian Heritage

1. Introduction and Context

In the Federal Budget announced in March 2007, the Government of Canada committed itself to invest $30 million per year to support local arts and heritage festivals, which it characterized as “activities and projects that engage Canadians in their communities through the performing and visual arts and in the expression, celebration and preservation of local culture”. 

Of this $30 million annual investment $22.6 million was allocated to establish the Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage (BCAH) Program to support local non-professional performing arts and heritage events. The remaining $7.4 million was invested in the Canada Arts Presentation Fund (CAPF) program

Through the BCAH Program, the Department of Canadian Heritage (PCH) provides funding support to local arts festival and commemorative events and capital projects that celebrate, support, strengthen and encourage local engagement. The Program’s main objective is to build stronger citizen engagement in communities through the performing and visual arts and in the expression, celebration and preservation of local historical heritage (see Logic Model in Appendix C). The Program’s expected outcomes are:

  • Local community organizations plan and organize festivals, commemorative activities and install community legacies
  • Local players and citizens are engaged at the community level in festivals, events and activities, as well as community legacies that commemorate local historical anniversaries
  • Local artists, artisans and performers of historical activities have opportunities to engage with their community
  • Canadians are engaged in the expression, celebration and preservation of local arts and heritage.

2. Program Profile

BCAH has three components: I - the Local Arts and Heritage Festivals Component, II - the Community Historical Anniversaries Programming Component and III - the Community Historical Anniversaries Legacy Fund Component. Components I and II are delivered by Canadian Heritage regional offices, while the third component is delivered in the National Capital Region. The Citizen Participation Branch, within the Citizenship and Heritage Sector of PCH is responsible for the overall coordination of the Program. National Coordination of BCAH Program tools and procedures are centralized at PCH headquarters to ensure consistency across regions.

2.1 Eligibility

The following types of projects are eligible for funding under each of the three components:

  • Recurring festivals, events and activities that engage Canadians in their communities through public presentations of local artists and/or of local historical heritage (Component I);
  • Non-recurring events and activities that engage Canadians in their communities through the commemoration of major anniversaries of significant local events and /or persons (Component II); or
  • Capital projects that engage Canadians in their communities through the commemoration of major anniversaries of significant local events and/or persons (Component III).

Funding amounts of more than $50,000 are disbursed through a contribution agreement. For funding amounts up to $50,000, the Department of Canadian Heritage determines if the funding will be disbursed as a grant or as a contribution.

The maximum funding for any one festival from the Local Festivals and the Community Anniversaries components is $200,000. The Local Festivals and the Community Anniversaries components can support up to 100 percent of the total eligible expenses.

The Legacy Fund can support up to 50 percent of the total eligible expenses for capital projects that restore, renovate, or transform a building or exterior space. The maximum support available from the Legacy Fund for any one project is $500,000.

Full details on BCAH funding eligibility criteria are provided in Appendix I.

2.2 Governance

The BCAH Program is part of the Citizen Participation Branch, within the Citizenship and Heritage Sector of the Department of Canadian Heritage. The Director General of the Citizen Participation Branch reports to the Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship and Heritage. The Director of Community Engagement, where the program is administered, reports to the Director General. A manager for the BCAH Program is responsible for coordinating the delivery of the program and reports to the Director of Community Engagement.

2.3 Delivery Approach

The Department has established a regional delivery model for the Local Festivals and the Community Anniversaries components with program delivery and administration occurring in Canadian Heritage’s regional offices (Western, Prairie and Northern, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic). The standard path for a BCAH file can be summarized as follow:

  • Organizations are made aware of the Program’s guidelines through PCH website.
  • Application deadlines for submitting a funding request are September 30th for events taking place between April 1 and August 31, and April 1 for events occurring between September 1 and March 31.
  • The Department of Canadian Heritage sends a letter of acknowledgment to each applicant within two weeks of receipt of their application.
  • Funding applicants that are deemed ineligible are notified by the Program.
  • Applications are assessed against Program eligibility and scored against evaluation criteria described in the Program terms and conditions. Risk, reasonableness and eligibility of budget items, as well as the applicant’s capacity are assessed at this time.
  • Applications’ assessments are presented to a regional review committee to address any remaining issues and to ensure consistency within and across regions.
  • Recommended funding amount for eligible funding applicant is based on the project’s merit scores and project’s eligible costs, and the total amount of funding allocated to a province or territory.
  • File review and sign-off by the Regional Executive Director is completed.
  • Ministerial approval is obtained.
  • Eligible applicants are notified by the Program.
  • Funding is awarded to eligible applicants. 

The Legacy Fund Component is delivered in the National Capital Region instead of in the Canadian Heritage regional offices. As it is expected that only 30 to 40 projects will be funded every year, it was deemed more efficient and cost-effective to centralize program delivery and administrative operations. The applications are handled through a process similar to the one used for processing applications received under Component I and II.

PCH current service standard is to issue official written notification of funding decisions within 26 weeks (6 months) following the Program's application deadline dates.

The need and extent for monitoring for Components I, II & III, is based on the risk level of the project (the risks for each project are assessed with the Department’s Project Risk Assessment and Management tool).

2.4 Intended Beneficiaries and Key Stakeholders

The direct beneficiaries of the BCAH Program include the non-profit community organizations and Band Councils who organize and present local festivals, activities, and events and install community legacies which showcase the visual and performing arts and/or historical heritage of the community. Ultimately, it is the local community and its citizenry who benefit from these events.  Other BCAH Program stakeholders include:

  • Local artists, artisans and presenters;
  • Community volunteers; and,
  • Local heritage groups.

2.5 Resources and Outputs

Since its launch in 2007, the Program’s grants and contributions actual spending has increased progressively from $1.3 million in 2007-08 to $6.8 million in 2008-09 to $14.4 million in 2009-10 for Component I and II projects.  Funds for Component III were added in 2009-10, bringing the available grants and contributions ongoing budget to $17.655 million (not including $1.5 million that was re-profiled to 2010-11 from the 2009-10 budget).  Operating resources were ramped up as well, peaking in 2009-10 with the implementation of Component 3 and declined slightly in 2010-11 and ongoing (see Table 1). Since its inception, the BCAH Program has received over 3,000 funding applications.  It is currently the third largest program in terms of annual volume in the Department, after the Athlete Assistance Program and the Celebration and Commemoration Program.  Roughly 88 percent of the funding is awarded through grants. BCAH accounts for approximately 13 percent of the Department’s yearly grants and contributions requests. (See Appendix L for BCAH Program key outputs).

Table 1: BCAH Funding Profile

BCAH FUNDING PROFILE

 

2007-08

 2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12 and ongoing

 

$

$

$

$

$
           

Salaries

$ 1,180,000 

$ 2,237,870

$ 2,566,708 

$ 2,704,946 

$ 2,681,446 

EBP (20%)

$ 236,000 

$ 447,574 

$  513,342

$ 540,989 

$ 536,289 

Other Operating

$ 380,178 

$ 459,565 

$ 666,963 

$ 446,799 

$ 418,499 

 

 

 

      

Sub-Total

$ 1,796,178 

$ 3,145,009

$ 3,747,013

$ 3,692,734

$ 3,636,234

 

          

Administrative cost/Total cost Ratio

51,6 %6  

28,7 % 

17,8 % 

15,3 %7 

16,1 % 

Indirect Program Costs

$ 231,582

$ 498,481

$ 802,575

$ 844,928

$ 901,428
           

Vote 1 Total 

$ 2,027,760

$ 3,643,490

$ 4,549,588

 $ 4,537,662

$ 4,537,662
           

Grants

$ 800,000

$ 5,400,000

$ 14,355,000

$ 14,355,000

$ 14,355,000

Contributions

$ 500,000

$ 1,600,000

$ 1,800,000

$ 4,800,000 8

$ 3,300,000

Vote 5 Total

$ 1,300,000

$ 7,000,000

$ 16,155,000

$ 19,155,000

$ 17,655,000
           

Accommodation

$ 153,400

$ 302,900

$ 364,612

$ 376,538

$ 376,538

 

 

 

    

 

TOTAL

$ 3,481,160

$ 10,946,39

$ 21,069,200

$ 24,069,200

 $ 22,569,200

3. Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation

The objectives of the evaluation of the BCAH are to assess:

  • The relevance of the BCAH, specifically:
    • The extent to which the program continues to address a demonstrable need and is responsive to the needs of Canadians.
    • The linkages between program objectives and (i) federal government priorities and (ii) departmental strategic outcomes.
    • The role and responsibilities for the federal government in delivering the program.
  • The program’s performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy):
    • The progress toward expected outcomes (including immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes) with reference to program reach, program design, including the linkage and contribution of outputs to outcomes.
    • The resource utilization in relation to the production of outputs and progress toward expected outcomes.

A matrix of the main evaluation issues, questions and associated indicators is provided in Appendix D. 

The evaluation focused on the relevance and performance, as well as design and delivery and performance measurement and reporting of the BCAH Program during the period of April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2011.

4. Evaluation Methodology and Constraints

4.1 Methodology

An evaluation framework was prepared for the evaluation and considered various evaluation strategies. The evaluation was designed to gather descriptive information and some comparative information, including some pre-post comparisons, comparisons with other similar programs, and comparisons between funded and unfunded organizations. The evaluation design reflects various limitations and constraintsdata availability and the level of maturity of the program (only four years and only two years with all three components in place). The following sources of evidence were utilized:

  • A document review was conducted andcovered Program foundational documents, as well as Projects data through recipients’ final reports. Corporate documents such as PCH Program Activity Architectures, the 2010-2011 Report on Plans and Priorities and the Report on BCAH Program Results submitted to Treasury Board in 20109 were also examined. Appendix A lists the documents reviewed in the course of the evaluation.
  • A literature review of recently published literature was undertaken in order to gather information on similar programs, both in Canada and abroad, as well as a review of literature on subject matter related to the BCAH Program to address evaluation issues linked to Program relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy). The literature review covered published reports, articles and websites as well as periodicals documenting the current context of the festival and heritage sectors domestically and internationally and their impacts on participants and host communities, including publications from Australia, United States and United Kingdom. It examined the context that led to the Program and its rationale. Additionally, the literature review included a comparison of other PCH programs and programs from other levels of government or countries that present some commonalities with the BCAH Program. Appendix B lists the literature reviewed in the course of the evaluation.
     
  • Key informant interviews were held with forty individuals:

    • Current and former BCAH Program staff/management both in the National Capital Region and in the regions (n=12);
    • Representatives of BCAH Program funded organizations (applicants) (n=14);
    • Representatives of BCAH Program unfunded organizations (applicants to the BCAH Program who were deemed eligible but denied funding by the Program) (n=3);
    • Municipality representatives (n=4);
    • Experts in the field of festivals and community engagement (n=2); and
    • Non-applicant project representatives (n=5).
  • An administrative data review was also conducted. The BCAH Program developed its own internal database to centralize data on program applicants and the funded events’ reported outcomes. The application forms and the funding recipients’ final reports are the two main sources of information for this database. The database contains data such as the applicants’ name and contact information, event name, date, duration, location, budget, funding received from PCH/municipalities/communities, number of participating local artists, volunteers and public attendance at the event.  The Program guidelines specify that a festival must have been held at least once in the previous two years prior to recurring BCAH funding. In order to measure the impact of BCAH funding on Festivals, first time applicants are to provide specific outcome data regarding their last Festival’s edition so a baseline could be established (pre-BCAH results).  Funded applicants are then asked to provide results on the same outcomes so these can then be compared against baseline data the Program collected. A review of a sample of funding applications and final projects’ reports was undertaken to capture information the Program normally does not compile in its database but that is available in the funding applications and final reports (such as details on other funding sources and proportion of local assistance/artists participating at projects’ event funded by the Program). A Profile of BCAH Funded and Unfunded Projects can be found in table 1 and 2 of the appendix H.
  •  The Program, via a client satisfaction survey, also collects data and reports on both funded and unfunded applicants’ satisfaction toward various aspects surrounding Program delivery such as the application process, program tools, program communication, etc.  This information addresses evaluation questions linked to Program design and delivery. The data was transferred to the consultant for analysis.
  •  An on-line survey of funded and unfunded organizations was conducted as part of the evaluation.  The target populations for this on-line survey were the organizations that received funding under BCAH Program Component I (Local Festivals) and Component II (Community Anniversaries) as well as the organizations that were denied funding under BCAH Program Component I (Local Festivals).  Representatives of funded organizations that participated in key informant interviews or case studies were not invited to participate in the survey in order to avoid respondent fatigue. The survey was designed to address the following evaluation issues: Program performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) and delivery.
  •  The following table shows the response rates of the survey:
  Recipients from Festival componentRecipients from Anniversary componentUnfunded applicants (for Festivals)
Response Rate 44 % 37 % 32 %
Number of Emails Responded 404 95 27
Total Number of Emails Sent 920 258 84
  • Case studies were conducted with nine funded projects to address evaluation issues related to Program performance. The cases included seven (7) projects funded by the Local Festivals component and two (2) projects funded by both the Community Anniversaries and Legacy Fund component of the program. The key purpose of the cases was to describe examples of projects and allow a better understanding of the projects funded within the BCAH Program. Ultimately, the aim of the case studies is to provide a deeper understanding of the way in which the Program works in practice and explain in greater detail the impacts of the different Program Components.

Each case study involved a review of key project documentation as well as a series of key informant interviews of a number of people associated with each project – with either the individual(s) or organization who received the funding to undertake the project, volunteers, participating artists, artisans and historical performers involved in the event, and the representative of the municipality involved in the project. Between 3 and 5 key informant interviews were conducted per case.

The following criteria were used to select the case studies: regional representation, Program Components representation, and event scale representation. Based on these selection criteria, the following selection was achieved:

In terms of distribution, the selection included:

  • Small Festival/Small Funding (2 cases);
  • Small Festival/Large Funding (2 cases);
  • Big Festival/Small Funding (2 cases);
  • Big Festival/Large Funding (1 case);
  • Commemoration/ Legacy (2 cases).

4.2 Roles and Responsibilities

There were many groups directly involved in the evaluation. The process was led by the Evaluation Services Directorate (ESD) that designed the evaluation framework and most of the research instruments; coordinated with the program; recruited and managed the consultant; and ensured overall quality control.  ESD staff also took an active role in the field work, including the implementation of the survey. The program representatives provided feedback on the evaluation framework, provided documentation and data, and gave feedback on all deliverables (instruments, technical reports and draft reports). The consultant provided feedback on the instruments, completed the literature and document review, conducted most of the interviews, conducted the case studies, analyzed the survey and administrative data, and wrote the technical reports and the first drafts of the final report.

4.3 Constraints/Limitations

A number of challenges were encountered during the data collection phase.

Survey and administrative data review

  • Sampling issues. A key limitation is that the unfunded organizations survey mostly surveyed organizations that still exist (which are likely to bring a bias in the comparison as organizations that do not exist anymore are likely to have not held their events, or had unsuccessful events). Given the small population of organizations (both funded and unfunded) under Component III, and small population of unfunded eligible organizations under Component II, it was impossible to survey these groups. Another key challenge is the limited number of unfunded organizations under Component I deemed eligible for funding (N=84). Although 29 unfunded organizations completed the survey (32% response rate), this low number of respondents limited the evaluation team’s capacity to conduct a robust statistical comparison of funded and unfunded organizations.
  •  Administrative data gaps. A review of the Program administrative data indicates that the program experiences difficulties in obtaining representative performance data. The Program’s database has incomplete information, due to gaps in responses but also due to the fact that some data had not yet been entered into the database when the evaluation was conducted. For example, for events related to Component I, baseline data for the intermediate outcomes are available for about 35% of the projects while data on actual results linked to these same outcomes is available for 45% of the projects. As Community Anniversaries and Legacy projects are non- recurring events, there are no pre-BCAH results therefore pre and post results comparisons could not be made for these types of projects. Given that the Legacy Fund Component was launched at the end of 2009 and the first legacy projects are just wrapping up, there were no final reports data for this Program component when the evaluation was conducted. Final reports data on Municipal and Community support (cash or in-kind) for the Community Anniversaries had not been compiled yet in the Program’s database at the time the administrative data analysis was conducted. Moreover, grant recipients, who represent approximately 88% of BCAH funding recipients usually represented by small administrations, are under no contractual obligation to complete a final report. However, in order to increase final report completion rate, the Program implemented a procedure where applicants who re-apply for BCAH funding are reminded to submit any final reports they may have omitted to complete. Results reported in the performance data may over-estimate or under-estimate actual results, as they were assessed based on data provided by funding recipients. Recipients may not have the capacity to provide accurate information (event attendance for example) or may exaggerate the impact of the program in order to secure more funding from the BCAH in the years to come.

Key informant interviews

  • BCAH Program funded projects include non-recurring events, such as anniversaries and capital projects. Consequently, the evaluation team was confronted with the administrative challenge to reach several potential respondents either by phone or by email. In some cases, funded organizations targeted for an interview no longer existed. Although the evaluation team made every effort to replace projects selected for interviews by other similar projects when project representatives declined to be interviewed or the organization no longer existed, 2 out of the 19 planned interviews linked to projects could not be conducted.
  •  Many of the proposed categories of interviewees have a stake in the BCAH Program thus respondents tend to bring their own views about the projects and the program.

Case studies

  • Ten (10) respondents out of 45 declined to be interviewed, preventing the evaluation team from conducting some case studies as planned (according to a pre-determined selection grid). Substitutes were found to replace some of the initially selected cases for which no respondents could be interviewed. Consequently, although the evaluation was to include ten case studies, nine were actually completed.
  •  Respondents tend to bring their own views about the projects and the program because of their role and direct involvement in the projects (e.g., funded groups and artists). Some independent views were obtained, mostly from respondents working for municipalities.
Despite these limitations, the evaluation assessment still concluded that there was enough evidence to conduct an evaluation.

4.4 Term Definitions

When using terms such as “a few”, “some” or “most”, the following definitions were used for reporting:

Few

Few is used when less than 20% of participants have responded with similar answers.

Some

Some is used when more than 20% but fewer than 50% of participants responded with similar answers.

Many

Many is used when 50% but fewer than 75% of the participants responded with similar answers.

Most

Most is used when more than 75% of the participants responded with similar answers.
Unanimous, Almost all

Unanimous or almost all are used when all participants gave similar answers.

Finally, the relative weight of the key informant interview and case study findings is indicated between brackets (e.g., 4/10 meaning 4 respondents out of 10).

5. Findings

5.1 Relevance

5.1.1 Program Relevance and Continuing Need

The BCAH Program is relevant and is aligned with the need for greater citizen engagement in communities

BCAH’s objective is to build stronger citizen engagement in communities through the performing and visual arts and in the expression, celebration and preservation of local historical heritage. The evaluation findings confirm that there are expressed needs in these areas. Literature shows that social engagement, including participation in arts and heritage events, is associated with positive social outcomes (references used for the literature review are provided in Appendix B). These include increased pride and sense of belonging to the community, as well as social cohesion and civic participation at the community level. Moreover, there is evidence from data gathered by Statistics Canada (2007)10  that there is a need to support engagement through volunteering across Canada, as less than half of all Canadian adults are actively engaged in volunteering activities. Moreover, approximately 12% of all Canadians account for more than 75% of all volunteering hours. None of the literature reviewed tended to indicate that the BCAH Program is not relevant.

Interview results also confirm this need. The following points summarize the views expressed by the key informant interview respondents:
  • A decrease in available resources for festivals, heritage events and capital projects. Program management staff and Field experts noted that there has been a substantial decrease in financial support provided to festivals over the past years. Several federal programs were cancelled or not renewed, such as the Federal Sponsorship Program in 2004, the Voluntary Sector Initiative in 2005 and the Industry Canada Marquee Tourism Events Program in 2011. The ban on tobacco sponsorships in 2003 for cultural and sporting events also reduced the funding available to community events. These created a gap to be filled by programs such as BCAH Program. Festival and heritage projects organizers expressed the need for these funds in order to hire more artists and undertake more activities to sustain their events.

  • Few or no other programs providing support to commemorations of local anniversaries and legacy projects. Legacy and Anniversary projects representatives as well as Program staff key informants stated that the BCAH was one of the only programs that provide funding to local commemoration events and local legacy projects.
  • Decreasing number of volunteers involved in local arts and heritage events. Key informants said that the number of volunteers involved in local events is decreasing in some areas, especially in small communities where the average age of volunteers is apparently increasing. Key informants indicated that there is a need to invest in local arts and heritage projects to attract a new generation of volunteers to be involved in their community.

  • A perceived need to raise awareness of residents about their community heritage. Many representatives from festivals, anniversary and legacy projects identified the need to raise awareness of residents to their community’s heritage and history as a key priority.

  • The need to foster community development or revitalization. Many key informants linked participation in artistic and heritage events to economic and social benefits such as increased attraction of tourists, sense of pride, greater social cohesion and engagement at the community level. In some cases, local artistic and heritage events are unique opportunities for residents to meet and share around a common project.

The increasing number of applications submitted each year to BCAH Program also indicates that there is an ongoing need for support to sustain and enhance festivals and heritage events. According to evidence from the administrative data review, the number of applications across all three components increased from 140 applications in 2007-08 to 1,058 in 2008-09, 1,121 in 2009-10 and 1,248 in 2010-11 (see BCAH Program Key Outputs, Appendix L).

5.1.2 Extent To Which The BCAH Program Is Aligned With PCH Strategic Outcomes and Federal Government Priorities

The BCAH Program Supports Departmental Strategic Outcomes

Supporting arts and heritage activities and projects that will foster Canadian engagement in their communities is clearly set out as one of PCH’s priorities in the 2010-2011 Report on Plans and Priorities11 (RPP) of PCH. The Department’s raison d’être states that PCH and Canada’s major national cultural institutions “work together to promote culture, the arts, heritage, official languages, citizenship and participation”. The RPP also indicates that in order to fulfill this mandate, PCH “is responsible for formulating policies and delivering programs that help all Canadians participate in their shared cultural and civic life”.

The BCAH Program constitutes one of the programs designed to achieve PCH’s mandate, and more specifically its second Strategic Outcome presented in the Department’s Program Activity Architecture (PAA): “Canadians share, express and appreciate their Canadian identity - this supports the mandate of fostering a stronger Canadian identity through active, engaged, inclusive citizenship, and the recognition of the importance of both linguistic duality and a shared civic identity.”12 The BCAH Program corresponds to the sub activity 5.2 and falls under the activity 5 “Engagement and Community Participation”.

The RPP also defines PCH operational priorities linked to each of their strategic outcomes. One of the operational priorities for the Strategic Outcome 2 also specifies that PCH contributes to the promotion of civic engagement through arts and heritage projects. This operational priority supports ongoing efforts to engage Canadians of various backgrounds in the social, cultural and civic life of their communities and country.

Findings stemming from the evaluation also indicate that BCAH is aligned with PCH strategic outcome “Canadians share, express and appreciate their Canadian identity’’.  The act of volunteering or performing allowed people to make connections with other members of their community, according to most event organizers and municipal representatives interviewed (20 out of 23 organizers). They get to know their neighbors and once their talents are known (either as performers or volunteers), others were more likely to know how and when to approach them to participate in other community events (8/18 respondents reported this). Funded and unfunded respondents noted an increased participation of and less difficulty recruiting volunteers for future events (4 out of 23 organizers). They also report the “spread” of social engagement from volunteers to all partners and other community members.

The survey also assessed the extent to which the program reinforces the sense of belonging. According to findings, the majority (93%) of the festival representatives believe that their festival contributes an increased personal sense of belonging to Canada (Appendix G, Table 21). Anniversary representatives also supported this view (83%) about the impacts of their event to the sense of belonging, and also agreed to a moderate or great extent (85%) that their community historical anniversary event(s) contributed to and increased appreciation for Canada’s rich and diverse arts and heritage traditions (Appendix G, Table 22). About 98% of the festival representatives also shared the same opinion about their events and their influence on arts and heritage (Appendix G, Table 22). Thus there is evidence that BCAH contributes to the achievement of PCH strategic outcome “Canadians share, express and appreciate their Canadian identity”.

BCAH Program objectives are aligned with the Government of Canada Priorities

The program is in line with federal government budget statements. In the 2007 Budget Plan13, the federal government fully acknowledged the need to support local non-professional arts and heritage festivals and historic events, as a means to foster civic engagement and ultimately Canadian identity:

The Government is committed to strengthening the cultural experiences of Canadians. Events celebrating local arts and heritage often define these communities across the country. Budget 2007 provides support for activities and projects that engage Canadians in their communities through the performing and visual arts and in the expression, celebration and preservation of local culture. Eligible events will include festivals celebrating heritage, arts and culture through dance, music and drama and re-enactments of local historical events. In recognition of the importance of these activities, an investment of $30 million per year will be made.

More recently, the federal government reiterated its intent to support communities14. There is also evidence of BCAH alignment with federal priorities in the Treasury Board Descriptors of Government of Canada Outcome Areas, which provide guidance on how program activities should align to the whole-of-government framework. The Treasury Board enjoins federal departments to develop programs and activities that promote “participation of all groups in Canadian society” and that aim at supporting “Canadian culture and enhance knowledge of Canada’s history and heritage, such as military history and national heritage sites”15.

5.1.3 Legitimacy of Federal Role in This Program Area or Activity

The federal government investment in arts and heritage through BCAH is legitimate

Literature reviewed shows that most Canadians support a federal role in the area of arts and culture. A national survey and focus groups conducted in 2007 by the Department of Canadian Heritage explored issues related to the extent to which the federal government should support arts and culture. Results show that:

  • 89% of respondent reported that the federal government should place at least a moderate amount of importance on supporting the arts and culture in Canada; 37% stated that it warrants a great deal of importance;
  • Most respondents believed that the government should consider being more supportive in this area;
  • With respect to the type of support the federal government should provide to arts and heritage, 88-94% respondents believed that it should invest in helping to preserve and protect Canadian heritage, providing support for the arts and culture, promoting awareness of events and activities, ensuring that attendance is affordable, and ensuring that there are enough facilities to serve the public.

Key informants believe that it is legitimate for the federal government to invest in arts and heritage through a program such as the BCAH. Most often cited reasons include:

  • Local events rely heavily on federal funds to operate, and they would be much smaller without such financial support;
  • It is the role of the Government of Canada to promote citizen participation in communities, as it will strengthen the country as a whole;
  • There are few provincial or municipal programs that support legacy and anniversary projects;
  • The federal role is legitimate as municipalities and provinces cannot meet the demand alone; and
  • Fostering engagement in communities will translate into greater civic participation at the national level, which is why the federal government should invest at the local level.

A few respondents also emphasized that all levels of governments, and not specifically the federal government, should be concerned about arts and culture at the local level.

5.2 Performance

5.2.1 Immediate Outcomes: Local Community Organizations Plan and Organize Festivals

The BCAH Program contributed to the organization and planning of local festivals

Based on Program administrative data, a total of 2,057 festivals were funded under the BCAH between 2007-08 and 2010-11 (Appendix H, Table 1). These festivals were organized by 1,094 distinct organizations. Grants represent 88% of festival funds while 12% were contributions16. Over 55% of funded festivals had less than $100,000 in total expenses while 7% had total expenses in excess of $500,00 (Appendix H, Table 1).

On average, the BCAH program awarded funds cover 15% of the total festival expenses  and 56% of the total eligible expenses to successful applicants (n=2427).

According to literature, a community festival should be a festival for the people, by the people which entails local inclusion, involvement and support17. The evaluation has thus tried to assess the extent to which festival, anniversary and legacy organizers conducted outreach activities and the extent to which community members were involved in the planning and organization of their project.

Key informants described a range of outreach activities that were undertaken during the planning and organization phase of their festival. These include:

  • Publications, e.g. monthly bulletins, shows on community radio, local newspapers;
  • Information sessions; and
  • Visits to other community organizations.

Survey results and all key informant interview respondents indicated that festivals’ planning and organization were a success: 98% of funded festivals reported that their organization was able to engage the community in the planning and organizing phase of the event (Appendix G, Table 1). Although the sample size of the unfunded respondents is small, 64% (14 out 22) reported that they encountered challenges during the planning and organization stage of their festival (Appendix G, Table 2). Close to 86% of respondents (12 out of 14) from unfunded festivals attributed some of these challenges to the fact that they did not obtain funding from the BCAH Program (Appendix G, Table 3). The fact that many unfunded organizations were likely to report challenges, some of which they felt were due to not receiving funding indicate that BCAH funding has, at least to some extent, helped festivals organizers better plan and organize their event. Evidence from the key informant interviews conducted with three unfunded projects indicates that the absence of BCAH funding led to the cancellation of a festival and a smaller contribution from the municipality for an anniversary project. In the latter case, the anniversary project organizer reported that, without BCAH funding, they were not able to hire as many artists, artisans and heritage performers as planned. The third unfunded project organizer reported that the absence of BCAH funding did not have any impact on the planning and organization of their anniversary project.

In the survey, only 7% of funded festivals respondents and 9% of funded anniversary respondents believe that their event would have been cancelled if they had not received funding from BCAH (Appendix G, Table 4). Although 64% of unfunded festivals respondents reported having fewer activities and presentations at their festival as a result of not getting BCAH funding, only two out of the twenty nine unfunded festivals respondents surveyed indicated that their festival did not occur (Appendix G, Table 4) and only one of them believed that the festival was cancelled as a result of not receiving funding from the BCAH (Appendix G, Table 5). In most cases, without BCAH funding support, local festivals would have been organized and will continue to be held in the future, although maybe not on the same scale.

5.2.2 Immediate Outcomes: Local Community Organizations Plan and Organize Commemorative Activities and Install Community Legacies

The BCAH Program contributed to the organization and planning of local commemorative activities and to the installation of community legacies

A total of 370 anniversary projects and 27 legacy projects were funded by the BCAH between 2007-08 and   2010-11 (Appendix H, Table 1). These projects were undertaken by 379 distinct organizations (352 for anniversaries and 27 for legacy projects). Among the 370 anniversary projects funded, 57% of these anniversaries had a budget under $100,000 while 2.4% of them had a budget above $500,000. A greater proportion of legacy projects had a budget ranging from $100,000 to $499,999 (40%) (Appendix H, Table 1).

For the Anniversary projects, BCAH funding covered on average 16% of the  anniversary total project expenses and 48% of total project eligible expenses (n=370). As for Legacy projects, BCAH funding covered on average 37% of total project expenses and 50% of total project eligible expenses (n=27) (Appendix H, Table 1).

Key informant interviews revealed that some organizers made lists of key partners who should be involved in the project before starting their project (3/7 anniversary/legacy project organizers reported doing this). Organizers also reached out to local heritage experts, clubs, organizations, volunteers, etc. to brainstorm on ideas for their event (6/7). They used similar outreach methods as those used by festival organizers.

All funded anniversary projects surveyed were reportedly able to engage the community in the planning and organizing phase of the event (Appendix G, Table 6). Organizers of legacy projects reported specific challenges associated with heritage infrastructure and indicated that BCAH Program funding provided them with the flexibility necessary to get the project completed on time (2/9 funded commemorations/legacy projects and one case study). According to all key informants, Anniversaries and Legacy organizers strategically engaged in outreach to secure the involvement of community local partners and citizens in their event’s planning and organization (9/9 and 2/2 case studies).

5.2.3 Intermediate Outcome: Local Players and Citizens are Engaged at the Community Level in Festivals, Events and Activities, as well as Community Legacies that Commemorate Local Historical Anniversaries

BCAH Program funding contributed to greater engagement of volunteers and increased support from local partners

Volunteers were strongly engaged in projects, according to the various sources of evidence. BCAH internal database shows that the average number of volunteers among  festivals that received funding from the Program (n = 548) rose from 109 volunteers during the edition preceding the first edition funded by BCAH to 168 volunteers for the first edition funded by BCAH (Appendix G, Table 7). Moreover, data from the same database shows that the average number of volunteer hours (n = 574) increased from 2,150 to 4,112 (Appendix G, Table 7). Survey results confirm this trend, as 72% of funded Festival and 65% of funded Anniversary respondents reported that BCAH funding allowed them to increase the number of activities and presentations at their event hence the need to recruit more volunteers to organize and supervise the additional activities and presentations (Appendix G, Table 8). According to organizers and municipal representatives key informants, volunteers played a variety of roles, including planning, organizing, performing and implementation roles (18/18 respondents from funded events). All of them also agreed that the event could not have happened without the support of volunteers. The following illustrates how projects can mobilize many volunteers.

Carassauga, a festival of cultures

Carassauga is a multicultural festival held in Mississauga with the goal of strengthening community participation and ensuring that the diversity of Canadians and their different cultures are recognized. Mississauga has an important multi ethnic population and the festival features country-specific pavilions that showcase their culture through performances, storytelling, foods, theatre, fashion shows, music and film. Despite its size (30 pavilions, 3,000 artists and about 300,000 people attend the event), the festival is organized by local players involved in all aspects of the festival, from planning and donating, to performing and volunteering. In total, 4,400 volunteers contribute 354,960 hours to the festival. BCAH funding allows the festival to add more than 500 artists and artisans to the festival programming.

Survey results indicate that BCAH funding had a positive impact on the number of partnerships established between funded organizations and local partners. The largest proportion of funded festival respondents (40%) and anniversary respondents (26%) secured more than 20 partnerships, which is more than what unfunded respondents reported proportionally (Appendix G, Table 9). According to project organizers key informants, local partners include other volunteer groups, religious associations, local businesses, arts and heritage societies, local educational institutions and the municipality. Volunteer groups and other local groups help organize the event, provide volunteers, share knowledge and expertise and provide fundraising assistance, while local businesses provide in-kind or financial support such as infrastructure or free publicity.

All project organizers interviewed for the evaluation reported having formed a partnership with their municipality (14/14 respondents). Administrative data indicates that the average amount of municipal support has increased from $16K before BCAH to $21K after receiving BCAH funding (Appendix G, Table 10). About half (56%) of funded festival and 59% of anniversary survey respondents reported that the municipality was engaged to a “great extent” (Appendix G, Table 11). Municipalities were reportedly engaged to differing degrees depending on the need of the funding recipients and capacity. Some (4/14) organizations had an arm’s length relationship with the municipality, while other organizations (4/14) report that the municipality participated in all decisions and provided project support in addition to infrastructure and additional in-kind support.

BCAH Program likely to leverage other resources

According to survey respondents, 63% of funded Festival and Anniversary partners were either “a lot more inclined” (28%) or “more inclined” (35%) to provide a financial (cash or in-kind) contribution to their event after learning that BCAH had funded the event, which was similar for the Anniversary respondents (Appendix G, Table 12). This indicates that BCAH funding is likely to allow project organizers to leverage more funds from local partners. According to the administrative data review, the average amount of community support (in-kind and financial) for Festivals being funded by BCAH for the first time was $68K, while this average was $55K for the Festivals previous edition (Appendix G, Table 13).

Although most key informants believe BCAH funding helped festivals and heritage events leverage more funds (28/35), some funded project representatives (4 out of 18) stated that funding support from other sources was already in place when they applied for BCAH (BCAH requires that applicants secure financial or other tangible in-kind support from the municipality in order to receive funding). Survey results indicate that 85% of funded festival respondents reported that their festival was already financially supported by the municipality before BCAH Program was launched (Appendix G, Table 14).

5.2.4 Intermediate Outcome: Local Artists, Artisans and Performers of Historical Activities Have Opportunities to Engage with their Community

With the support of the BCAH program, funded community organizations were able to engage more artists, artisans and heritage performers who added value to their event

According to the administrative data review, Local Arts and Heritage Festivals Component project organizers were able to include more artists, artisans and heritage performers as a result of BCAH funding (Appendix G, Table 15). Festivals last edition preceding the edition where they received BCAH funding for the first time had an average of 48 local artists and 64 local artisans and heritage performers were involved in festivals and heritage events. After projects received financial support from BCAH for the first time, these averages increased to 71 and 118 respectively (Appendix G, Table 15). Survey results confirm this trend, as 84% of funded Festival respondents and 68% of funded Anniversary respondents reported that BCAH funding allowed them to include more local artists, artisans and heritage performers (Appendix G, Table 8). 

Survey results show that 92% of funded Festival respondents and 81% of funded Anniversary respondents indicated that local artists, artisans and heritage performers were engaged to a great extent in the event (Appendix G, Table 16). In comparison, only 53% of unfunded respondents indicated that local artists, artisans and heritage performers were engaged to a great extent in their event. These survey results may suggest that BCAH funding influenced the level of engagement of local artists, artisans and performance in funded projects. When asked, 97% of funded festivals and 95% of funded anniversary survey respondents indicated that BCAH funding had indeed influenced the level of engagement of local artists, artisans and heritage performers (Appendix G, Table 17). The performances and work of local artists, artisans and heritage performers added value to the event, according to almost all funded survey respondents (Appendix G, Table 18).  

Project representatives interviewed were also unanimous in reporting that the presence of local artists, artisans and heritage performers helped attract community participation in the events (14/14). Participating in the event was also often a way for local performers to become better known (10 out of 18 funded project representatives indicated this was the case) and in a few cases (4 out of 18), to secure additional contracts in the community. In most communities undertaking a legacy project, the work of artisans also left residents with lasting tangible representations of their heritage with which they can interact as often as they want (5 out of 7 funded anniversary/legacy projects).

5.2.5 Ultimate Outcome: Canadians are engaged in the expression, celebration and preservation of local arts and heritage

With the support of the BCAH, Festival’s attendance level increased and funded organizations and volunteers are more engaged in the community

To address this evaluation issue, the evaluation team relied on qualitative evidence from the interviews, administrative performance data and the survey of successful applicants. While this information is deemed sufficient to address the evaluation issue, it remains limited as it did not involve an analysis of data stemming from direct measures among a representative sample of volunteers and of the Canadian public.

BCAH-funded Festivals had an average attendance level of 29,482 people during the first edition being funded by BCAH while 18,573 people attended the events during the previous edition that had not been funded by BCAH. (Appendix G, Table 19). BCAH-funded Anniversaries had an average attendance level of 6,139 (Appendix G, Table 19). Given that the Legacy Fund Component was launched at the end of 2009 and the first legacy projects are just wrapping up, there were no final reports data for this Program component when the evaluation was conducted.

The evaluation assessed whether artists, volunteers, the municipal government, local partners and people in general were more involved in their community as a result of being involved in BCAH funded events. Overall, surveyed funded festival and anniversary respondents reported that participation in their event had a positive impact on their engagement in their community (Appendix G, Table 20). They also highlighted similar effects for volunteers who contributed to the organization of their festival or heritage event (Appendix G, Table 20).  Only 39% of Festival respondents and 54% of Anniversaries respondents indicated that their municipal government’s involvement in the event “greatly” increased the municipality’s engagement in the community in general.

Experts interviewed as part of the evaluation confirmed that getting people involved in their communities tends to create a positive cycle. The more involved people become, the more likely they are to stay involved (2/2 experts).

For commemorations and legacy projects, many organizers reported that their projects increased the level of awareness of heritage in their community (6 out of 7).

5.2.6 Positive or negative unexpected or unintended Program outcomes

Overall, no negative outcomes were reported by either survey participants or key informants. Positive unexpected outcomes identified included:

  • Success beyond expectations;
  • The development of new projects in the community as well as surrounding communities;
  • Local economic impact, e.g. increased sales for local businesses;
  • Building of community capacity to apply for funding, establish budgets and manage projects; and

In many cases, it is reported by project representatives that the events brought some people back to the community and attracted tourists and residents from surrounding communities, which provided an economic boost to the community (10/18). These findings are consistent with literature about the economic impacts of small festivals and events. A Hill Strategies study18 indicates that 39 small Ontarian projects with a budget equal to or lower than $75,000 generated a $12,900,000 GDP impact, including $8,500,000 in wages and salaries and created 420 jobs.

Legacy projects reportedly led to a number of unexpected impacts, such as the creation of intergenerational linkages and the creation of infrastructure that encourages physical activity.

Case studies also provide examples of unintended outcomes, such as new opportunities for local artists, artisans and heritage performers to present their work in subsequent events, as well as impacts on local economy and tourism (as illustrated below).

The 250th Anniversary Celebrations at Chester, Nova Scotia

In 2009, BCAH funding (Anniversary funding) provided funding for the 250th Anniversary Celebrations of the Founding of the Municipality of the District of Chester. Anniversary celebrations included many activities, including concerts, craft and artisans’ displays, historic photo and artifact displays, a heritage play, and a reenactment of the Turncoat Victory. About 800 volunteers were involved in the celebrations. BCAH also supported the restoration of Chester’s first municipal office. The anniversary provided new and additional opportunities for local artists, artisans and heritage performers to perform or showcase their work, and many indicated that these opportunities have continued in the community or in neighboring communities after the event.

5.3 Performance: Efficiency and Economy

5.3.1 Effectiveness and Efficiency of resources dedicated to this Program

The percentage of administrative costs for BCAH indicates that the program is efficient when compared to similar programs

As with any other Gs&Cs program, BCAH includes various costing components in addition to the Gs&Cs, including various administrative and overhead costs. Program budget for 2010-2011 was $24 million (See Table 1 in the program profile section).

Comparisons of BCAH administrative and operating costs with other similar programs at PCH indicate that BCAH operating costs are within an acceptable range. As illustrated in the table below, the percentage of administrative costs over total program costs was at 16.4%19. for 2010-11. In comparison, the percentage of administrative costs for Celebrate Canada! was 19% and 14% for the Canada Arts Presentation Fund (CAPF) (see Appendix E for detailed program profiles). These percentages reflect the program size of each of these programs, Celebrate Canada! being the smallest in terms of budget, and CAPF being the largest one of the three. The percentages also reflect the fact that fewer and larger Gs&Cs payments require less administrative work than programs with more and smaller Gs&Cs payments (such as BCAH).
 

Celebrate Canada!

BCAH

CAPF

Total Budget

$8,458,569

$ 22,569,200

$ 3, 982,194

Grants

$ 2,353,500

$ 14,355,000

$ 10,500,000

Contributions

$ 4,347,500

$3,300,00020

$ 17,727,513

Average amount awarded

$ 4,150

$ 17,700

$ 48,000

Average number of applications received per year

1 700

1 200

700

Operating Costs/Overall Budget Ratio* (direct costs only)

19,1 %

16,4 %

13,8 %

Source:  Report to Treasury Board on the operation costs, results achieved, and efficiency measures in place for BCAH Program (2010)

Larger, urban events are more cost-effective in terms of audience size whereas events in rural areas are more likely to engage more volunteer hours.

The evaluation team analyzed the relative cost-effectiveness of BCAH projects by analyzing the profile of the projects that show a high audience to BCAH dollar ratio and those that show a high number of volunteering hours to BCAH dollar ratio. These projects were compared with lower ratio projects using a number of variables, including:

  • Average number of participants per BCAH dollar;
  • Average BCAH funding amount;
  • Percentage of BCAH funding over total project budget;
  • Percentage of rural projects;
  • Recurring PCH clients;
  • Average total number of local artists, artisans and historical heritage performers;
  • Average attendance; and
  • Average number of volunteers.

Appendix F provides detailed figures resulting from the analysis.

According to results, projects with higher ratio of audience/program dollar ratio are associated with:

  • High attendance projects;
  • Larger BCAH projects in terms of dollars;
  • Lower contribution of BCAH to project budget (in percentage);
  • Fewer rural projects;
  • More recurring PCH clients; and
  • More volunteers involved.

However, projects with a higher ratio of volunteering hours /program dollar ratio are associated with:

  • Smaller BCAH projects in terms of dollars;
  • Lower contribution of BCAH to project budget (in percentage);
  • More rural projects;
  • Less recurring PCH clients; and
  • Lower audience;
Thus, in terms of cost-effectiveness, it appears that urban projects are more likely to attract larger audiences per BCAH dollar.  Highly cost-effective projects in terms of audience also involve smaller BCAH contributions/grants (with other contributors involved). However, it appears that in terms of volunteering, rural projects seem to be more cost-effective, and linked to smaller BCAH investments. Audiences tend to be smaller.

5.3.2 Potential Alternative Approaches

Alternatives exist to improve the efficiency of the Program

According to evidence stemming from the cost-effectiveness analysis performed by the evaluation team, various alternatives exist to improve the efficiency of the program. To reduce the administrative costs, the program could reduce the number of Gs&Cs awarded (and increase the average value of each grant and contribution). However, while this may reduce administrative costs for monitoring, cost-effectiveness analyses results indicated earlier that smaller BCAH Gs&Cs (smaller amounts per agreement) generate more results per dollar in terms of volunteering hours than larger Gs&Cs. Thus, although larger G&Cs are less costly to administer, they also generate less outputs per program dollar (in terms of volunteer hours generated). Other options that may provide opportunities to generate efficiency gains include the further automation of the application process. By implementing an online form, the program would reduce data entry time and potentially reduce the risk of data entry errors.

There are also opportunities to further streamline the application forms: key informant interviews and survey respondents indicate that the questions in the application forms are somewhat repetitive and are difficult to complete in the financial portions of the forms. Thus, there may be opportunities to reduce the number of questions and to simplify/clarify the questions related to the financial information. This in turn could facilitate the application process for applicants and as a result, may reduce the number of questions from applicants towards program staff, potentially leading to economies for the program. The program could also evaluate potential efficiency gains through the centralization of some administrative processes (the programs are currently delivered regionally, except for the legacy component). The centralization of programs generally leads to lower administrative costs through lower overhead costs and economies of scale.

5.3.3 Extent to which BCAH Program Duplicates or Complements Existing Programs/Initiatives

There is potential for duplication between various PCH Programs

There are some other federal programs at PCH that fund festivals, anniversaries and legacy projects. These are described in further detail in Appendix E and include the following programs at PCH:

Other program at PCH that fund festivals

  • The Canada Arts Presentation Fund (CAPF), which supports festivals featuring professional artists, organized by professional, incorporated organizations.  As indicated in the Appendix E, this program generally funds events in larger communities (approximately 60% of all events funded), although some smaller communities have benefitted from the program. Average contribution is approximately $50K, which is about three times the average amount for BCAH projects ($17K average). The annual budget is approximately $34 million.

Other program at PCH that fund community anniversaries

  • Cultural Capitals of Canada Awards are given to single municipalities or groups of municipalities that submit a proposal to celebrate and build a legacy (infrastructure) for the arts and culture. Three awards are delivered each year to support special activities that celebrate the arts and culture and build a cultural legacy for the community by integrating arts and culture into overall community planning.  Although the Program does not directly support anniversaries, in some instances, funding has coincided with a municipality’s anniversary, such as, Vancouver’s 125th anniversary, Lévis’ 375th anniversary and Trois-Rivières’ 375th anniversary. Awards of up to $2 million are provided. The annual budget is approximately $3.5 million.

Other program at PCH that fund capital projects linked to arts and heritage facilities

  • The Canada Cultural Spaces Fund supports the improvement, renovation and construction of arts and heritage facilities, and the acquisition of specialized equipment as well as conducting feasibility studies. It is designed to increase access for Canadians to performing arts, visual arts, media arts, and to museum collections and heritage displays. The annual budget is approximately $30 million.

Appendix E provides a more detailed comparison of these programs according to their eligibilities (applicants, events and costs).

As indicated in Appendix E, there is potential for duplication between BCAH Component I and CAPF Programming Component since:

  • BCAH and CAPF programs share a common goal as one of the expected outcomes set by both programs is to build citizen engagement in communities.
  • Both BCAH and CAPF programs have funded festivals for both large and smaller communities
  • BCAH is intended for local events featuring local artists (professional or not) while CAPF supports incorporated and professional presenters of festivals featuring a variety of experiences with obligations to presents out of province professional artists. However, it should be noted that BCAH funded events can also involve both non-professional and professional artists. For this reason, a small number of event organizers over the years have submitted applications to BCAH and CAPF to receive funding for the same event (although not the same year).
  • Both programs provide funding for artists recruitment and accommodation, recruitment and organization of volunteers, promotion of the event, and venue rental.

There is also potential for duplication between BCAH Component III, and the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund, as both programs fund non-profit organizations for the restoration and/or renovation of arts or heritage facilities. Both programs cover fees related to the restoration, renovation, or transformation of a building, including demolition, excavation, materials and labour, although the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund is targeted more specifically at “cultural buildings”. They also provide funding for the acquisition of land, and environmental assessments. BCAH will provide funding that will also cover project audits, design studies and costs associated with the recruitment and training of volunteers. The CCSF also considers eligible costs related to fire and security systems, administrative costs, costs associated with the acquisition and installation of specialized equipment and the preparation of feasibility studies as well as professional fees such as architectural, engineering, technical services.

Finally, the Cultural Capitals of Canada Awards Program may duplicate both component I and component II of BCAH, as it provides funding to celebrations that spotlight the arts and culture, including cultural and heritage festivals and other projects that promote the community's unique heritage as well as cultural and heritage events to celebrate significant anniversaries or special occasions in the community. Both programs provide funding to cover fees for the preparation of the events, some travel costs and administrative costs related to the project. The Cultural Capitals of Canada Awards also covers fees for consultants hired for the management of event, a project coordinator, and the design of websites related to celebratory events, art or culture. Although these costs may also be covered by the Cultural Capitals of Canada Awards, BCAH specifically funds projects for costs related to the recruitment and supervision of artists and volunteers, the promotion of the event, the venue rental, audits, insurance, equipment and supplies, environmental assessments and logistical expenses. It is possible that some projects could get funding from both programs, but it is worth noting that the eligible applicants are different in the two programs. The Cultural Capitals of Canada Awards provides funding to Canadian municipalities, while BCAH supports non-profit groups and local Aboriginal governments.

It should also be noted that PCH has implemented directives that prevent some of these programs from supporting the same events or projects at the same time. It is also worth noting that there is a stacking limit set by the federal government which limits funding to 100% of project eligible expenses. As discussed below, this has not prevented event organizers from obtaining funding from other federal sources.

There is potential for duplication with other federal programs

As mentioned above, survey results indicate that some recipients of BCAH funding have also received funding from other federal sources, such as Regional Development Agencies and other departments. According to survey evidence, about 10% of recipients have received such support (Appendix G, Table 24). Some departments have formal programs (see Appendix E for details) that support similar projects, including the following:

Festivals

  • The Canada Council for the arts supports festivals featuring professional artists and arts organizations of varied disciplines through grants that generally range from $5,000 to $40,000. The festival must feature professional artists and recipients must be non-profit organizations.
  • Inter-Action (Citizenship Immigration Canada) supports community based events that foster intercultural/interfaith understanding and/or civic memory and pride and/or respect for core democratic values. Previous iterations of this program had annual budgets of approximately $4,000,000 per year.

Anniversaries

  • Community Engagement Partnership Fund (Veterans Affairs) supports remembrance initiatives, activities, events that engage youth and/or communities. The program funds less than 10 projects a year. Average amounts awarded are approximately $5K.

Legacy projects

  • Community War Memorial Program (Veterans Affairs) funds the construction of a new cenotaph/monument, a major addition to an existing cenotaph/monument or cenotaphs/monuments on Reserves. Funding up to $50K can be provided by VAC for projects meeting the program criteria.
It should be mentioned that during the period covered by this evaluation Industry Canada also offered funding for events through the Marquee Tourism Events Program, which ended in March 201121. As mentioned above, these and other programs have also contributed to BCAH funded projects and can therefore be interpreted as duplicating the program in some instances.

5.3.4 Extent to Which Aspects/Components of the Program Could Be Transferred To Other Levels of Government or Other Organizations (Private, Public Sector)

There are no obvious components that could be transferred to other public or private organizations

The BCAH program involves a number of activities, including communication activities, calls for proposals and selection processes, payment processes and monitoring processes. There are no obvious components of these that can transferred to other organizations, according to key informant interview findings. When asked the question, respondents generally said that more government levels should be or should continue to support festivals, anniversaries and legacy projects. There are, however, other levels of governments that deliver similar programs, including:

  • Celebrate Ontario is an annual program that helps new and existing Ontario festivals and events enhance their programs and activities. This year, $20 million was made available through Celebrate Ontario 2011. The Celebrate Ontario 2011 Main Stage & Signature category provides project-based funding to help organizations develop tourism festivals and events in communities across Ontario. The objective of this component is to enhance festivals’ programming, activities and services that will lead to long-term improvements and attract more tourists. The Blockbuster component consists of two streams. The Bid stream supports bidding costs for major one-time events and the Event Hosting stream supports hosting costs for major one-time events. This component provides funding to help organizations bid for and/or host one-time Blockbuster events of the size and scope sufficient to draw visitors to Ontario’s communities, and to profile Ontario’s destinations nationally and globally.
  • Funding for Festivals and Events22 (Quebec) provides funding support to festivals and touristic events that profile Quebec’s destinations nationally and internationally showcase the province to visitors and attract more tourists from Quebec and other countries. Applicants may receive up to $1 000 000 under this program. 
  • Tourism Marketing Partnership Programs (Nova Scotia) provides cooperative marketing assistance up to $3,000 to local festival and event providers throughout Nova Scotia to help strengthen their tourism brand, showcase the province to visitors, increase attendance at events, and boost local and regional economies.
  • The BC Arts Council23 funds volunteer-run community festivals and professional, staffed festivals in every region of the province. The funding is designed to encourage the development of specific art forms as identified through each festival's mandate and mission and to support Festival programmers, managers and volunteers and to increase the availability of professional arts to a range of communities. There are two kinds of funding programs: Operating, which provides annual grants (some over $100 000) to established professional festival organizations, and Project, which is directed to the costs of a specific festival rather than the ongoing costs of the festival organization.
  • Tourism PEI – Festivals and Events Funding Program24 offers developmental assistance to well-organized and widely marketed annual festivals and events which have made a commitment to quality. These festivals and events must promote tourism by attracting visitors to the Island and encourage visitors to stay on PEI and participate in such activities. Applicants may receive up to $2,500.
  • SaskFestivals (Saskatchewan) provides grants to support and encourage eligible Saskatchewan festivals to celebrate community activity and spirit; encourage community engagement, tourism and economic activity; enhance the positive impact and benefits of festivals in the community and province; provide high quality experiences for audiences, artists, participants and volunteers throughout the province; and heighten the awareness and appreciation of the arts and artists in Saskatchewan. Festivals’ applicants may receive up to $20 000 under this program.

As indicated above, most programs are geared towards economic development objectives, and there are significant variations in levels of funding and type of funding available as well as differences in program objectives.

5.3.5 Adequacy Of Management And Administrative Practices In Place For Effective Delivery To Meet The Program Expected Outcomes

The Delivery of the program is deemed effective overall, except for the application response turnaround time, that is considered untimely

The effectiveness of the delivery of the Program was assessed based on interview findings, program data, and the results of the survey conducted as part of the evaluation of BCAH, which assessed the satisfaction of recipients and non-recipients with the program. The table below summarizes the satisfaction levels of various respondent groups with delivery. For clarity, only rates of satisfaction are presented. As indicated below, respondents are generally satisfied with the experience of the Program, with satisfaction rates above 90% among recipients. Satisfaction rates are higher for the ease of dealing with the Program, the clarity of the eligibility criteria and the reporting requirements. However, satisfaction rates are lower for the timeliness of the application response turnaround time and the level of funding compared to what was requested. Evidence from the administrative data review indicates that for the first component, the average proportion of funding received out of total eligible expenses has decreased from 69% to 52% between 2009-10 and 2010-11, although this proportion was only 38% in 2008-09. For the second component, 2007-08 was an exceptional year, as an average 93% of total expenses were covered by BCAH funding. This proportion decreased to 70% in 2009-10 and 54% in 2010-11, which may explain why survey respondents were unsatisfied with the level of funding they received compared to what was requested (BCAH Program Key Outputs, Appendix L).

Table 2: Rates of Satisfaction with Delivery of BCAH Program 25

 

Festivals (recipients)

Anniversaries (recipients)

Festivals
(non-recipients)

Overall experience with program

93 %

91 %

6 %

Timeliness of responses to their questions/issues

91 %

92 %

25 %

Ease of dealing with BCAH

88 %

92 %

44 %

Clarity of the funding eligibility criteria

88 %

87 %

30 %

Final report requirements

85 %

86 %

N/A

Level of assistance provided by BCAH regional representative

87 %

87 %

35 %

Consistency of information provided by BCAH

86 %

87 %

40 %

Funding application assessment criteria

80 %

79 %

22 %

Transparency of the funding application review process

74 %

73 %

22 %

The simplicity of the funding application process

73 %

73 %

25 %

Timeliness of the funding provided

71 %

76 %

N/A

Timeliness of the funding approval process

55 %

71 %

N/A

Level of funding compared to what was requested

59 %

67 %

N/A

Level of effort required to receive BCAH funding

71 %

73 %

N/A

Clarity of the information provided as to why their funding application was denied

N/A

N/A

20 %

Timeliness of the funding refusal notice

N/A

N/A

15 %

The above survey results are consistent with the results of the satisfaction survey conducted by the program in 2008 26. According to these:

  • About 90% of clients were satisfied or very satisfied of the BCAH Website.
  • About 90% of clients were satisfied or very satisfied with the service from the Canadian Heritage 1-800 toll free line. 
  • About 95% of clients were satisfied or very satisfied with the service from their visit to the Regional Office and with program tools. 
  • 95% of clients who received funding through the BCAH program were satisfied or very satisfied with the clarity of the response letter, the information received and of the reports (interim and/or final).
  • About 70% of clients were satisfied or very satisfied with the timeliness and deadlines of the application and payment processes.
  • Almost half of clients were somewhat satisfied or not satisfied with the response time to receive a written confirmation of the outcome of their application.

According to the same source, 40% of those who did not obtain funding were dissatisfied with the clarity of the response letter and of the reasons of why a project was not funded.

PCH current service standard is to issue official written notification of funding decisions within 26 weeks (6 months) following the Program's application deadline dates. An analysis of the admin data provides additional evidence about the response time of the program (Festivals). According to BCAH administrative data, final approval for 1,990 funded festivals was obtained 72 days in average before the event start date. Figure 1 below provides the breakdown of the percentage of applicants receiving notice according to the number of days between the day the funding request is approved and the date of their event.

Demandes de financement dans le cadre du PDCAP durant la période de 2008 à 2011 – Période de préavis pour les bénéficiaires de financement.

Figure 1

Number of days before the event

Percentage of applications

Event has already started

0.9 percent

1 to 14 days

4.0 percent

15 to 29 days

12.6 percent

30 to 59 days

26.3 percent

60 to 89days

23.9 percent

90 to 119 days

15.7 percent

120 to 149 days

13.5 percent

150 days or more

3.1 percent

Source: BCAH administrative data

As illustrated in figure 1, 44% of the projects reviewed received their final approval less than 60 days before the event start date, while 32% of the projects reviewed received their final approval at least 90 days before the event start date. Additional data in Figure 1 of Appendix J shows that while the number of applications approved for Fall/Winter events is generally lower in comparison to Spring/Summer events, the percentage of applications approved within less than 60 days of the event start date is higher for Fall/Winter events.

It should be noted that the Program lately has shown notable signs of improvement toward reducing the assessment and approval period. As illustrated in Figure 1 of Appendix J, only 3% of Spring/Summer 2010 funded festivals were approved less than 60 days before the event start date. However, the Program continues to face challenges when assessing Fall/Winter events applications  as the percentage of projects approved less than 60 days before the event start date rose to 63% for Fall 2010/Winter 2011 events. This situation could be partially attributed to the fact that funding applications received for Fall/Winter events need to be assessed over a shorter period of time (5 months instead of 6 months) and which coincides with the summer vacation period.

The funding recipients that were interviewed expressed views that are consistent with the above findings. Opinions about the service provided by program staff were positive (15/18 funded respondents). Views were more critical about the level of funding (3 respondents) and timeliness of the approval process (6 respondents). For the Legacy component, it was mentioned that more communities in the central and eastern parts of Canada have more than 100 years of history (and, as a result, more historical events to celebrate) than in the Western parts of the country (3/40 respondents). BCAH administrative data tend to corroborate the testimony of these three respondents as 217 anniversaries in the Central and Eastern part of Canada were funded while 145 anniversaries in the Western parts of the country received funding from the Program. (see Appendix K for details).

According to the evaluation survey findings, unfunded applicants are generally dissatisfied with the program (see Table 2). Many unfunded respondents reported being dissatisfied with their overall experience with the BCAH Program (50%). Few were very satisfied or satisfied with the clarity of the information provided as to why their funding application was denied (20%) and with the timeliness of the funding refusal notice (15%). It is also worth noting that 56% of unfunded festival respondents were very dissatisfied or dissatisfied with the transparency of the funding application review process.

Evidence from the key informant interviews with unfunded applicants tends to contradict the above findings. Two thirds of the unfunded festival key informants (2/3) were satisfied with the application process of the BCAH Program. They reported that their regional office was “very supportive” and that the application process was “straightforward”. One of the two respondents found that the eligibility and selection criteria were clear. The third respondent (1/3) felt that the eligibility criteria could be somewhat clearer and that the application was quite long, although “it could be worse”.

The program’s project selection system is considered effective at selecting projects based on pre-set criteria but the application processes could benefit from further revisions to be more streamlined and efficient

According to Program staff and management, program processing practices are considered effective, including the program selection processes. BCAH uses a merit base scoring system to select projects. Extensive resources are involved in the monitoring of projects, which is based on a project-level risk assessment. Overall, program representatives consider processes efficient (7/9 program respondents), although the application forms could be further automated (using Web forms) for additional program savings. Some funding recipients also mentioned that the application form was repetitive and could be streamlined (4/12 respondents). Verbatim obtained from some survey respondents who were unsatisfied with the funding application process (27% of funded applicants) also indicate that applicants find the application form questions redundant and have a hard time interpreting and completing the financial portion of the application.

5.4 Performance: Performance Measurement and Reporting

5.4.1 Sufficiency of Performance Measurement Activities To Support Results Reporting And Evaluation

The Program’s performance measurement approach is deemed comprehensive

There are several components to the performance measurement strategy of the program:

  • All projects are required to provide a final project report, except for grant recipients (who are still invited to do so).
  • The Program conducts an annual survey of all funding applicants, and a sample of projects is subject to more in-depth verifications.
  • Regional staff attends a small number of events to assess delivery of the projects first hand.
Overall, BCAH Program staff key informants who commented on this particular issue agreed that this performance measurement approach is comprehensive (8 out of 8 respondents agreed). Some mentioned a few limitations, including the fact that the final reports are self-reported – although this is not unusual for this type of program (3 out of 8 respondents). As for the legacy projects, the outcomes of the projects are often intangible and long-term, which makes them difficult to assess, according to key informants (2 out of 8).

Performance data includes noticeable gaps to s to measure the performance achieved by the BCAH Program

A review of the Program databases indicates that the program experiences difficulties in obtaining representative performance data. Response rates to post-project surveys are low and many recipients do not provide final reports (especially grant recipients, which account for 88% of BCAH recipients). While the data is still useful for management purposes, it poses challenges to measure the performance achieved by the Program. Program data is also managed using multiple databases which make data analysis and reporting complicated and labor intensive.

5.5 Official Languages

Eight percent of all projects funded by BCAH Program occurred in official language minority communities and all official language requirements were met

In accordance with the spirit and intent of the Official Languages Act, communications with and services to the general public for the BCAH program must be provided in both official languages.  Therefore, the evaluation assessed the extent to which the Program met its obligation.

While Francophones and Anglophones living in minority official-language communities in Canada represent 6.4% of the total population of Canada 27, BCAH administrative data indicates that 8% of all projects funded by BCAH were situated in official language communities in situation of minority. Since the program was implemented, no complaints were recorded in the area of official languages, according to one Program staff key informant. Almost all funded festival (95%) and funded anniversary (98%) survey respondents agreed that it was easy for them to deal with the program in their official language of choice (Appendix G, Table 25).

6. Conclusions

The key evaluation findings are summarized in the following points.

Relevance

  • The BCAH Program remains relevant as there is little funding available for small communities’ arts and heritage events across Canada, while the literature shows that investing in these events may lead to important social outcomes, such as pride and sense of belonging to the community, as well as social cohesion and civic participation at the community level. There is also a need to support engagement through volunteerism as studies show that these community events often rely on a very small number of volunteers to operate.
  • BCAH Program objectives are aligned with PCH second Strategic Outcome stating that “Canadians share, express and appreciate their Canadian identity - this supports the mandate of fostering a stronger Canadian identity through active, engaged, inclusive citizenship, and the recognition of the importance of both linguistic duality and a shared civic identity.” The Program is also in line with recent Government’s commitment to “strengthening the cultural experiences of Canadians” through events celebrating local arts and heritage across Canada.
  • Federal investments in the area of arts and culture are legitimate, according to a national survey. Canadians believe that the federal government should place at least a moderate amount of importance on supporting the arts and culture in Canada.

Performance:  Achievement of Expected Outcomes

The BCAH Program achieved planned outcomes as defined in the program logic model.

  • Overall, funded festivals, anniversary and legacy projects organizers were able to plan and organize their event successfully with the support of BCAH funding. Although it is unlikely that funded events would have been cancelled without BCAH funding, community organizations would have experienced challenges planning and organizing their events and would have had fewer presentations and activities during their event.
  • BCAH funding helped funded organizations recruit more volunteers and local artists, artisans and heritage performers and allowed them to leverage more resources from local partners.
  • Volunteers and funded organizations were deemed more engaged in their community as a result of their involvement in the funded community event. However, as indicated earlier in the evaluation constraints and limitations, we cannot conclude from these findings that BCAH funding has contributed to increased community participation at the national level (as outlined in BCAH logic model), as they are not based on an analysis of data stemming from direct measures among a representative sample of volunteers and of the Canadian public.
  • Although other factors may have influenced the level of attendance to the events, findings show that BCAH-funded festivals attracted an average of 29,482 people per event compared to 18,573 people before ever receiving BCAH funding.

Performance:  Efficiency and Economy

  • Resources allocated to the BCAH Program are used efficiently, as the percentage of administrative costs over total BCAH Program costs decreased from 51.6% 28 in 2007-08 the year it was launched down to 16.4 29% for 2010-11. However, efficiency gains could be achieved with further automation of the application and final reporting processes. The program could also evaluate potential efficiency gains through partial or complete centralization of the administrative processes (the programs is currently delivered regionally, except for the legacy component).
  • An analysis of key outcomes generated per program dollar indicates that larger, urban events are more cost-effective in terms of audience size, but that events in rural areas are more likely to engage more volunteer hours.
  • BCAH funded projects are subject to comprehensive performance monitoring, including final reports, on-site monitoring and post-project surveys. The Program should strive to continuously improve its performance measurement strategy in order to obtain representative performance data and be able to report on progress made toward the achievement of its expected outcomes.
  • Other PCH programs such as Cultural Capitals of Canada awards, Canada Cultural Spaces Fund Program, Celebration and Commemoration Program and the Canada Arts Presentation Fund may duplicate some aspects of the BCAH Program, as they fund some similar activities and, at least partially, similar expenses. Some of these programs also share communalities in terms of expected outcome and/or result achieved. Therefore efficiency gains that could result from a review of the commonalities between BCAH and other PCH programs should be assessed.  
  • There are a no obvious components of BCAH Program that could be transferred to other public or private organizations. Many provinces have programs that fund similar activities and events, although they are geared towards economic development objectives, and there are significant variations in levels of funding and type of funding available as well as differences in program objectives.

7. Recommendations

In light of the evaluation findings, the following actions are recommended.

Recommendation 1: Improve the timeliness of the response to funding applicants by reviewing current applications intake timelines and streamlining the recommendation process.

Events organizers face many constraints when planning and organizing activities. These are usually organized months in advance and one of the major determinants of the parameters of these events is funding. The 2008 Program’s annual client satisfaction survey results indicate that almost half of the survey respondents were somewhat satisfied or not satisfied with the response time to receive a written confirmation of the outcome of their application. The Program’s administrative data review revealed that funding requests for funding recipients under Component I were approved on average less than 60 days prior to the event for 44% of these recipients. Funding decisions announced to event organizers close to the start date of the event can create major problems for organizers who need to reserve facilities and performers early on to ensure a successful event. Not providing sufficient notice on funding approval decisions could also potentially lead to negative publicity for the Program, PCH and the Government of Canada.

Management response: Recommendation 1 accepted.

The program is preparing for the renewal of its authorities by March 31, 2012 and has already initiated a systematic review of its operational processes, assessment tools and timelines with the intent of further streamlining its processes. As part of this review, the program will analyze and revise its intake timelines and processes in collaboration with BCAH regional teams with the objective of improving the timeliness of the response time to funding applications. In addition, BCAH is scheduled to participate in Grants and Contributions Modernization Initiative (GCMI) in fall of 2012 which will result in further streamlining of the file processing time. 

Implementation Schedule:

2011-12: Review of existing Operational Processes, timelines to process applications
2012-13: Implementation of revised processes and timelines as of March 31, 2013 – subject to authority being granted.
2012-13: Transition to the Grants and Contributions Modernization Initiative (GCMI)

Responsibility: Director General, Citizen Participation Branch

Recommendation 2: Improve the application process by further streamlining and automating the process

While the administrative costs are deemed acceptable, there could be opportunities to further reduce these costs by further automating the application process (online applications). Key informant interviews and survey findings also indicate that there are opportunities to further streamline the application forms by eliminating redundancies and by simplifying and clarifying the questions related to the financial information. This would facilitate the application process for applicants and as a result, reduce the number of queries to program staff (which would provide additional economies to the program).

Management response: Recommendation 2 accepted.

Implementation of recommendation 1 and BCAH’s participation in GCMI in fall of 2012 will result in further streamlining of the file processing time and greater automation of the process.  The program has already undertaken a thorough review of its application forms to eliminate redundancies; this exercise is being led by HQ in close collaboration with regions and stakeholders.

Implementation Schedule:

2011-12: Review of existing operational processes and documentation
Fall 2012: Implementation of revised operational processes and documentation
2012-13: Transition to the Grants and Contributions Modernization Initiative (GCMI)

Responsibility: Director General, Citizen Participation Branch

Recommendation 3: PCH Senior Management should assess the efficiency gains that could result from a review of the commonalities between BCAH Local Festivals component and CAPF Programming component as well as between BCAH Community Historical Anniversaries and Legacy Fund components and other PCH programs such as the Cultural Capitals of Canada, Canada Cultural Spaces Fund and Celebration and Commemoration.

PCH is currently looking at the way we do our business so that the services we offer Canadians are as efficient and effective as possible. The document and literature review as well as the key informant interviews conducted as part of the evaluation have provided evidence that BCAH and other PCH programs such as Canada Arts Presentation Fund, Cultural Capitals of Canada, Canada Cultural Spaces Fund, Celebration and Commemoration share commonalities as they fund some similar events and activities and, at least partially, similar expenses. Some of these programs also share communalities in terms of expected outcome and/or result achieved. Therefore efficiency gains that could result from a review of the commonalities between BCAH and other PCH programs should be assessed.

Management response:  Recommendation 3 accepted

BCAH management will work with similar programs within the department to analyze and confirm complementarity; to identify synergies and commonalities; define potential impacts and risks in terms of current program objectives and expected results; and identify any potential efficiency. As recommendation 3 involves other programs across two PCH sectors as well as the regions, the Citizenship and Heritage Assistant Deputy Minister will be responsible for leading the implementation of recommendation 3 with the participation of the Cultural Affairs Assistant Deputy Minister and the Sport, Major Events and Regions Assistant Deputy Minister.

Implementation Schedule:
2011-12: development of terms of reference and working timelines for intra-departmental discussions.
2012-13: (first quarter) initiate a dialogue with similar programs within the department
2012-13: (last quarter), report back to Senior Management on outcomes

Responsibility: Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship and Heritage

Appendix A – List of References Used for the Document Review

Canada Council for the Arts. (2011). Website

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2011). Website.

PCH. (2010). Client Survey Draft Report. Gatineau: Department of Canadian Heritage.

PCH. (2010). Evaluation of the Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage: Evaluation Framework. Gatineau: Department of Canadian Heritage.

PCH. (2011). Master List of Applications. Gatineau: Department of Canadian Heritage.

PCH (2011). Web Site.

PCH. (2010). 2010-2011 Report on Plans and Priorities. Ottawa: Treasury Board Secretariat.

PCH. (2007-2010). Final Project Reports.

PCH. (2010). Report to Treasury Board on the Operating Costs, Results Achieved, and Efficiency Measures in Place for the Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage Program. Gatineau: Department of Canadian Heritage.

PCH. (2007 & 2009). Terms and Conditions: Contribution Program Entitled: Contributions in Support of the Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage Program Gatineau: Department of Canadian Heritage.

PCH. (2007 & 2009). Terms and Conditions: Grant Class Entitled: Grants in Support of the Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage Program. Gatineau: Department of Canadian Heritage.

PCH. (2009). Client Survey Presentation. Gatineau: Department of Canadian Heritage.

PCH. (2009). Integrated Results Based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF and Risk Based Audit Framework (RBAF)). Gatineau: Department of Canadian Heritage.

PCH. (2007). Pre-implementation Audit and Assessment Action Plan. Gatineau: Department of Canadian Heritage.

Veterans Affairs Canada. (2011). Website.

Appendix B – List of References Used for the Literature Review

Arcodia, Charles and Michelle Whitford. (2006). Festival Attendance and the Development of Social Capital. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 8(2).Retrieved February 24, 2011, from http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/547593__903288990.pdf

Arts Council of England. (2005). Arts Festivals and the Visitor Economy: Their Contribution and their Potential in the West Midlands Region. Birmingham, England: Arts Council England. Retrieved February 23, 2011, from http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/documents/publications/phprcsADv.pdf

Bowdin, Glen and Michael Williams. (2005). An investigation into the effectiveness of arts festivals evaluation. In The Impacts of Events -Proceedings of International Event Research Conference (pp.295-309). Sydney: University of Technology Sydney.

Canadian Policy Research Networks. (March 2008). Handbook on Citizen Engagement: Beyond Consultation.

Canadian Conference Board. (2008). Valuing Culture: Measuring and Understanding Canada’s Creative Economy: Report Highlights. Retrieved February 23, 2011, from http://www.conferenceboard.ca/documents.aspx?did=2671

Conners, Deborah E. (2008) Transforming 50+ Volunteering –A Literature Review and Strategy.

Coopérative de consultation en développement La Clé. (2007). La mobilisation des communautés locales : compétences requises. Victoriaville : La Clé.

Council of Europe. (2011). Canada: Cultural Policy Profile. Strasbourg: Council of Europe/ERICarts Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe.  Retrieved February, 23, 2011, from http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/canada.php?aid=52.

Creative City Network of Canada. (2005). Arts and Positive Change in Community. Retrieved February 24, 2011, from http://www.creativecity.ca/making-the-case/arts-positive-change.pdf

Creative City Network of Canada. (2005). Building Community Identify and Pride. Retrieved February 24, 2011, from http://www.creativecity.ca/making-the-case/building-comm-identity-pride.pdf

Delamere, Thomas. (2001). Development of a Scale to Measure Resident Attitudes Toward the Social Impacts of Community Festivals, Part II: Verification of the Scale. Event Management, 7, 27-38.

Department for Victorian Communities. (2006). Strengthening local communities. Arts in Community Settings: The Evaluation of Two Community Support Funded Arts Programs. Victoria: Department for Victorian Communities.

Department of Finance Canada. (2007). The Budget Plan 2007. Ottawa: Department of Finance Canada.  Retrieved February 23, 2011, from http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/pdf/bp2007e.pdf.

Department of Finance Canada. (2003). The Budget Plan 2003. Ottawa: Department of Finance Canada.  Retrieved February 23, 2011, from http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget03/PDF/bp2003e.pdf.

Department of Justice Canada. (1995). Department of Canadian Heritage Act. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada. Retrieved February 23, 2011, from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-17.3.pdf.

Derrett, Ros. (2003). Making sense of how festivals demonstrate a community sense of place. School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW

Derrett, Ros. (2008). Regional festivals: nourishing community resilience: the nature and role of cultural festivals in Northern Rivers NSW communities (PhD Thesis). Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW.

Government of Canada. (2011). Speech from the Throne on June 3rd, 2011. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Retrieved on February 23, 2011 from http://www.speech.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1390

Guetzkow, Joshua. (2002). How the Arts Impact Communities: An introduction to the literature on arts impact studies. Working Paper Series, 20. Princeton: Princeton University.

Harris, Rob. (2005). Approaches to Community Engagement by Public Events. In The Impacts of Events -Proceedings of International Event Research Conference (pp.295-309). Sydney: University of Technology Sydney.

Haydon, Jennifer. (2007). Indigenous Community Festivals – Top End: An Evaluation Using Encore Event Evaluation Kit. Queensland: Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism.

Hill Strategies Research (2011). Statistical insights on the arts, 9 (2).

Hill Strategies Research. (2010). Volunteers in Arts and Culture Organizations in Canada in 2007. Statistical insights on the arts, 8 (4).

Hill Strategies Research. (2008) Finances of Performing Arts Organizations in Canada in 2006-07. Retrieved February 24, 2011, from http://www.hillstrategies.com/resources_details.php?resUID=1000286.

Hill Strategies Research. (2008). New report reveals 10 key facts about the working lives of artists in Canada. Retrieved February 24, 2011, from http://www.hillstrategies.com/docs/Artists_Canada2006_summary.pdf.

Hill Strategies. (2003). Economic Impacts of 97 Festivals and Events Funded by the Ontario Trillium Foundation, the Ontario Arts Council and the Ontario Cultural Attractions Fund - Fact Sheet 2: Analysis by Size of Festival. Prepared for the Ontario Trillium Foundation on April 2003 by Hill Strategies. Hamilton: Hill Strategies.

Hill Strategies. (2003). Volunteers in Arts and Culture Organizations in Canada, Research series on the arts, 2 (1), 1-11.

Jazz Festivals Canada. (2006). Aggregate Stats for JFC Member Events. Retrieved February 23, 2011, from http://www.jazzfestivalscanada.ca/current/statistics.html.

Jeannotte, Sharon. (2003). Just Showing Up: Social and Cultural Capital in Everyday Life. Ottawa: PCH. Retrieved February 24, 2011, from http://www.sciencessociales.uottawa.ca/governance/eng/documents/just_showing_up.pdf

Matarasso, F. (1997).  Use or Ornament? The Social Impact of Participation in the Arts. Stroud, UK: Comedia.

Maughan, Christopher and Franco Bianchini. (2004). The Economic and Social Impact of Cultural Festivals in the East Midlands of England: Final Report. Leicester: De Monfort University.

National Endowment for the Arts. (2010). Live from Your Neighborhood: A National Study of Outdoor Arts Festivals: Executive Summary. Washington: National Endowment for the Arts. Retrieved February 23, 2011, from http://www.nea.gov/research/Festivals-Executive-Summary.pdf.

National Endowment for the Arts. (2006). The Arts and Civic Engagement: Involved in Arts, Involved in Life. Washington: National Endowment for the Arts. Retrieved February 23, 2011, from http://www.nea.gov/pub/CivicEngagement.pdf.

National Endowment for the Arts. (2000) International Data On Government Spending On The Arts

Newman, Tony, Curtis K. And Jo Stephens. (2001). Do community-based arts projects result in social gains? A review of literature. Retrieved February 24, 2011, from http://www.barnardos.org.uk/commarts.pdf

Observatoire de la culture et des communications. (2002). Rapport d’enquête sur 32 festivals et événements culturels du Québec, 2000-2001. Québec : Institut de la statistique du Québec.

PCH. (2010). Methods Used in Similar Evaluations. Gatineau: PCH.

PCH. (2009). Evaluation of Canadian Arts and Heritage Sustainability Program. Gatineau: PCH. Retrieved February 24, 2011, from http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/em-cr/evaltn/2009/2009-03/CAHSP-eng.pdf

PCH. (2008). Summative Evaluation of the Arts Presentation Canada Program. Gatineau: PCH. Retrieved February 24, 2011, from http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/em-cr/evaltn/2008/2008-11-3/apc-eng.pdf

PCH. (2007). APC/CSC User Satisfaction Survey. Gatineau: Department of Canadian Heritage.

PCH. (2007). Final Report: The Arts and Heritage in Canada: Access and Availability 2007. Gatineau: PCH. 

PCH. (2007). Summative Evaluation of the Arts Presentation Program: Methodology Report. Ottawa: Department of Canadian Heritage.

PCH. (2007). Summative Evaluation of the Celebration, Commemoration and Learning Program. Gatineau: PCH. Retrieved February 24, 2011, from http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/em-cr/evaltn/2007/2007-05/2007-05-eng.pdf

PCH. (no date). Évaluer l’impact des festivals sur l’engagement communautaire. Gatineau: Citizen Participation Branch.

Public Policy Forum. (2004). Citizen and Community Participation: Understanding and Leveraging its Potential. Ottawa: Public Policy Forum. Retrieved February 24, 2011, from http://www.ppforum.ca/sites/default/files/sccp_roundtable.pdf

Public Policy Forum. (2004). Investing in Canada: Fostering an Agenda for Citizen and Community Participation. Ottawa: Public Policy Forum. Retrieved February 24, 2011, from http://www.ppforum.ca/publications/investing-canada-fostering-agenda-citizen-and-community-participation

Quinn, B. (2005). Arts Festivals and the City, Urban Studies, 42 (5/6), 927-943.

Small, Katie, Deborah Edwards and Lynnaire Sheridan. (2005). A Flexible Framework for Evaluating the Socio-Cultural Impacts of a (Small) Festival. International Journal of Event Management Research, 1 (1), pp. 66-77.

Small, Katie. (2007). Social Dimensions of Community Festivals: an Application of Factor Analysis in the Development of the Social Impact Perception (SIP) Scale. Event Management, 11, pp. 45-55.

SMS Research & Marketing Services Inc. (2006). Major Festival Final Evaluation Report. Honolulu: Hawaii Tourism Authority.

Soldo, Edina. (2008). Le développement culturel: un outil au service de l’attractivité des territories euro-méditerranéens. Premier Dialogue Euro-Méditerranéen de Management Public, EGPA, ENA, IMPGT, Aix-en-Provence, Octobre 10-11, 2008.

Stanley, D. (2006). Introduction: The Social Effects of Culture. Canadian Journal of Communication, 31 (1), 7-15.

Statistics Canada. (2010). Ethical Consumption. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Retrieved February 23, 2011, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2011001/article/11399-eng.pdf.

Statistics Canada. (2009). Canada Year Book 2009. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Statistics Canada. (2009). Caring Canadians, Involved Canadians. Ottawa: Department of Industry.

Statistics Canada. (2007). Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Statistics Canada. (2004). Economic Contribution of Culture in Canada. Ottawa: Department of Industry. Retrieved February 23, 2011, from http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/81-595-MIE/81-595-MIE2004023.pdf.

Statistics Canada. (2003). Un fortissimo : les ventes d’enregistrement d’artistes canadiens en 1998. La culture en perspective : Bulletin trimestriel du Programme de la statistique culturelle, 14 (2).

Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Statistics Canada. (2000). Canadian culture in Perspective : A Statistical Overview. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Retrieved February 24, 2011, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/87-211-x/87-211-x2000000-eng.pdf

Treasury Board Secretariat (2010). Descriptors for Government of Canada Outcome Areas. Ottawa: Treasury Board Secretariat.

University of Wollongong. (2009). Reinventing Rural Places. Wollongong, Australia: School of Earth and Environmental Sciences. Retrieved February 23, 2011, from http://www.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@sci/@eesc/documents/doc/uow060229.pdf.

Volunteer Canada (2001) Volunteer Connections: New Strategies for Involving Older Adults.

Wood, Emma H. (2009). An Impact Evaluation Framework: Local Government Community Festivals. Event Management, 12, pp. 171-185.

Appendix C – BCAH Logic Model

Mandate

The Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage (BCAH) Program supports local arts and heritage festivals, events and activities that engage Canadians in their local communities through the performing and visual arts and in the expression, celebration and preservation of local historical heritage.

BCAH's Objective

To build stronger citizen engagement in communities through the performing and visual arts and in the expression, celebration and preservation of local historical heritage.

Activities

Développer et gérer le Programme

Concrétiser le processus de demande et d’approbation

Monitor and report on Program performance

Outputs

Program and policy implementation

Grants and contribution agreements

Regional coordination and consultation

Immediate Outcomes

Local community organizations plan and organize festivals

Local community organizations plan and organize commemorative activities and install community legacies

Intermediate outcomes

Local players and citizens are engaged at the community level in festivals, events and activities, as well as community legacies that commemorate local historical anniversaries

Local artists, artisans and performers of historical activities have opportunities to engage with their community

Ultimate outcome

Canadians are engaged in the expression, celebration and preservation of local arts and heritage.

Strategic outcome

 Canadians share, express and appreciate their Canadian identity

Appendix D – Evaluation matrix

BCAH Program Key Evaluation Questions

Indicators

Data Collection Methods

Relevance

    

1. To what extent is the BCAH Program relevant and responds to the needs of Canadians?
  • A) Evidence on the extent to which the BCAH Program is relevant and responsive to the needs of Canadians
  • Document/File/Internal data review
  • Literature review
  • B) Views of Key informants regarding whether BCAH Program’s objectives, activity areas, outputs and desired outcomes are responsive to the needs of Canadians
  • Case Studies
  • Key informant interviews
    • Funding recipients
    • Municipality representatives
    • Field experts/stakeholders
    • Program managers/staff
    • Unfunded applicants (control group)
    • Non-applicant project rep. (control group)

2. To what extent is the BCAH Program aligned with PCH strategic outcomes and federal government priorities?
  • A) The level of consistency between BCAH Program objectives, activities, outputs and desired outcomes and :
    • PCH strategic objectives
    • Federal government priorities
  • Document/File/Internal data review
  • B) Views of Key informants regarding whether BCAH Program’s objectives, activity areas, outputs and desired outcomes are consistent with:
    • PCH strategic objectives
    • Federal government priorities
  • Key informant interviews
    • Field experts/stakeholders
    • Program managers/staff

3. Is there a legitimate role (and responsibility) for the federal government in this Program area or activity?
  • A) Evidence of relevance and legitimacy of the Canadian government in this Program area or activity
  • Document/File/Internal data review
  • Literature review
  • B) Views of Key informants regarding the legitimacy and necessity of the federal government’s role in this Program area or activity
  • Case Studies
  • Key informant interviews
    • Funding recipients
    • Municipality representatives
    • Field experts/stakeholders
    •  Program managers/staff
    • Non-applicant project representatives

Performance (effectiveness)

    

4. To what extent did the BCAH Program achieve its expected immediate outcomes?

  • Local community organizations plan and organize festivals

.
  • A) Evidence of outreach activities (by the funded organizations) to secure involvement of  the community 30 in project’s planning and organisation
  • B) Extent to which funded organizations succeeded in securing involvement of the community in project’s planning and organisation
  • C) Perception and evidence of funded projects planning, organisation and implementation success (delivered as planned and reached objectives).
  • Case studies
  • Survey of funding recipients
  • Survey of unfunded organizations (control group)
  • Key Informant Interviews
    • Funding recipients
    • Municipality representatives
    • Unfunded applicants (control group)
    • Non-applicant project rep. (control group)
  • D) Number and profile of festivals organized (by type, region, size, etc.)
  • E) Number of local funded organizations (by region)
  • Document/File/Internal data review

5. To what extent did the BCAH Program achieve its expected immediate outcomes?

  • Local community organizations plan and organize commemorative activities and install community legacies.

 
  • A) Evidence of outreach activities (by the funded organizations) to secure involvement of the community in project’s planning and organisation
  • B) Extent to which funded organizations succeeded in securing involvement of the community in project’s planning and organisation
  • C) Perception and evidence of funded projects planning and organisation success (delivered as planned and reached objectives).
  • Case studies
  • Survey of funding recipients
  • Survey of unfunded organizations (control group)
  • Key Informant Interviews
    • Funding recipients
    • Municipality representatives
    • Unfunded applicants (control group)
  • D) Number and profile of commemorative activities and tangible commemorative projects supported (by type, region, size, etc.)
  • E) Number of local funded organizations (by region)
  • Document/File/Internal data review

6. To what extent did the BCAH Program achieve its expected intermediate outcome?

  • Local players 31 and citizens are engaged at the community level in festivals, events and activities, as well as community legacies that commemorate local historical anniversaries.

Local Players (Local Partners and Municipalities)

  
  • A) Number and nature of partnerships established between funding recipients and local partners
  • Key informant interviews
    • Funding recipients
    • Unfunded applicants (control group)
    • Non-applicant project rep. (control group)
  • Case studies
  • Survey of funding recipients
  • Survey of unfunded organizations (control group)
  • B) Dollar value of donations (both cash and in-kind donations)
  • Document/File/Internal data review
  • Key informant interviews
  • Unfunded applicants (control group)
  • Non-applicant project rep. (control group)
  • C) Evidence and views of key informants on the level of engagement of local partners
  •  D) Evidence and views of key informants on the level of engagement and involvement of the Municipality (in addition to their mandatory cash or in-kind contribution
  • Case studies
  • Key informant interviews
    • Funding recipients
    • Municipality representatives
    • Unfunded applicants (control group)
    • Non-applicant project rep. (control group)
  • Survey of funding recipients
  • Survey of unfunded organizations (control group)
  • E) Evidence and views of key informants on the leveraging effects resulting from BCAH Program funding (financial and in-kind).
  • Case studies
  • Key informant interviews
    • Program managers/staff
    • Field experts/stakeholders
    • Funding recipients
    • Municipality representative
    • Unfunded applicants (control group)
    • Non-applicant project rep. (control group)
  •  Survey of funding recipients
  • Survey of unfunded organizations (control group)

Citizens

  
  • F) Number of volunteers and volunteer hours
  • Document/File/Internal data review
  • Key informant interviews
  • Unfunded applicants (control group)
  • Non-applicant project rep. (control group)
  • G) Evidence and views of key informants on the level of engagement of the volunteers in funded projects
  • Case studies
  • Key informant interviews
    • Funding recipients
    • Municipality representatives
    • Unfunded applicants (control group)
    • Non-applicant project rep. (control group)
    • Survey of funding recipients
    • Survey of unfunded organizations (control group)
  • H) View of volunteers on the reasons and level of their involvement
  • Case studies

7. To what extent did the BCAH Program achieve its expected intermediate outcome?

  • Local artists, artisans and performers of historical activities have opportunities to engage with their community
  • A) Number of local artists, artisans and performers
  • B) Proportion of local content (artist, artisans and performers) in events 32
  • Document/File/Internal data review
  • Case studies
  • Survey of funding recipients
  • Survey of unfunded organizations (control group)
  • Key informant interviews
  • Unfunded applicants (control group)
  • Non-applicant project rep. (control group)
  • C) Evidence and views of key informants on the extent to which participation provides artists, artisans and historical performers immediate and future opportunities to engage in their community
  • Case studies
  • Survey of funding recipients
  • Survey of unfunded organizations (control group)
  • Key informant interviews
    • Funding recipients
    • Municipality representatives
    • Unfunded applicants (control group)
    • Non-applicant project rep. (control group)
  • D) Views of key informants on the value added to the events resulting from the engagement of local artists, artisans, historical performers
  • E) Evidence and views of key informants on the visibility of and exposure to local artists, arts and historical heritage
  • Document/File/Internal data review
  • Survey of funding recipients
  • Survey of unfunded organizations (control group)
  • Case studies
  •  Key informant interviews
    • Funding recipients
    • Municipality representatives
    • Field experts/stakeholders
    • Unfunded applicants (control group)
    • Non-applicant project rep. (control group)

8. To what extent did the BCAH Program achieve its expected ultimate outcome?

  • Canadians are engaged in the expression, celebration and preservation of local arts and heritage

 
  • A) Number of visitors/attendees to festivals, events and activities, as well as community legacies that commemorate local historical anniversaries (exposure)
  • B) National levels of participation (Total and Regional)
  • C) Number and geographic diversity of communities reached
  • Document/File/Internal data review
    • D) Views of key informants on the effects of their involvement in BCAH Program funded event(s) on their current and future engagement:
      • in the community
      • in activities that promote the expression, celebration and preservation of local arts and heritage.
  • Études de cas
  • Entrevues avec des informateurs clés
    • Représentants des municipalités
    • Experts en la matière/intervenants
    • Bénéficiaires de financement
    • Demandeurs non financés (groupe de contrôle)
    • Représentants de projets pour lesquels aucune demande n’a été présentée (groupe de contrôle)
  • Sondage auprès des bénéficiaires de financement
  • Sondage auprès des organismes non financés (groupe de contrôle)

9. Le PDCAP a-t-il eu des répercussions ou des résultats positifs ou négatifs imprévus?
  • A) Evidence and views of key informants on unexpected results, outcomes or impacts of the Program
  • Case studies
  • Literature review
  • Key informant interviews
    • Program managers/staff
    • Funding recipients
    • Municipality representatives
    • Field experts/stakeholders
  • Survey of funding recipients
  • Survey of unfunded organizations (control group)

Performance (efficiency and economy)

    

10. Are the resources dedicated to this Program being used effectively and efficiently to maximize the achievement of outcomes?
  • A) Total cost of BCAH Program
  • B) Cost breakdown by Program component
  • C) Administrative costs vs. total costs
  • D) Number of FTEs
  • E) Level of discrepancy between planned and utilized financial resources as a whole and for each of the Program components
  • F) Comparison of use/allocation of resources with comparable programs (Administrative costs vs. total costs, Total cost vs. outcomes, etc.)
  • G) Comparison of BCAH Program cost to outcomes
  • Document/File/Internal data review
  • Literature review
  • Key informant interviews
    • Program managers/staff

11. Is there a more effective approach to achieving BCAH Program objectives?
  • A) Evidence and views of key informants on alternative approaches to achieve BCAH Program outcomes
  • Document/File/Internal data review
  • Literature review
  • Case studies
  • Key informant interviews
    • Municipality representatives
    • Field experts/stakeholders
    • Program managers/staff

12. Is the BCAH Program duplicating or complementing existing programs/initiatives?
  • A) Evidence and views of key informants on the existence of other programs/initiatives that attempt to achieve the same (overlap/duplication) or complementary objectives to the BCAH Program
  •  B) Evidence and views of key informants on the existence of other diverse sources of funding for BCAH Program funded projects
  • Document/File/Internal data review
  • Literature review
  • Case studies
  • Key informant interviews
    • Funding recipients
    • Municipality representatives
    • Field experts/stakeholders
    • Program managers/staff
    • Unfunded applicants
    • Non-applicant project rep.
  • Survey of funding recipients
  • Survey of unfunded organizations

13. Could certain aspects/components of the Program be transferred to other levels of government or other organizations (private, public sector)?
  • A) Evidence and views of key informants on whether certain aspects/components of the Program could be transferred to other levels of government or other organizations (private, publics, etc.)
  • Document/File/Internal data review
  • Literature review
  • Case studies
  • Key informant interviews
    • Funding recipients
    • Municipality representatives
    • Field experts/stakeholders
    • Program managers/staff

Design and Delivery

    

14. Were adequate management and administrative practices in place for effective delivery to meet the Program expected outcomes?
  • A) Views and satisfaction of key informants on the eligibility requirements, application process, funding decisions, administrative structures, selection criteria, guidance and support, etc.
    • Potential opportunities to improve  the  operational process
  • Document/File/Internal data review
  • Survey of funding recipients
  • Survey of unfunded organizations
  • B) Evidence and views of key informants on the:
    • Effectiveness (strengths, weaknesses) of application process, funding decisions, administrative structure, selection criteria (adequacy and appropriateness), follow-up, communications, and mechanisms through which information on the Program is provided, etc.
    • Operational challenges that impinged on the ability of the Program to achieved its expected outcomes
    • Potential opportunities to improve  the  operational process
  • Document/File/Internal data review
  • Key informant interviews
    • Program managers/staff
    • Funding recipients
    • Unfunded applicants

Performance Measurement and Reporting

    

15. Were the performance monitoring and measurement activities sufficient to support results reporting and evaluation?
  • A) Evidence and views of key informants on the extent to which performance monitoring and measurement activities was sufficient and supported result reporting and evaluation.
  • Document/File/Internal data review
    • Key informant interviews
    • Program managers/staff
  • B) Evidence and views of key informants on possible improvements to the performance monitoring and measurement activities
  • Document/File/Internal data review
    • Key informant interviews
    • Program managers/staff

Official Languages

    

16. Were all official language requirements of the BCAH Program met?
  • A) Evidence and views of key informants on the extent to which that the official language requirements were met for every component of the Program.
  • Key informant interviews
    • Program managers/staff
  • Survey of funding recipients
  • Survey of unfunded organizations

Appendix E – Comparison Tables with Similar programs

Comparison Table with Similar PCH Programs 33

 

BCAH Festivals

BCAH Anniversaries

BCAH Legacies

“Celebrate Canada!”

Canada Arts Presentation Fund (CAPF)

Canada Cultural Spaces Fund Program

Canada Cultural Investment Fund -Cultural Capitals of Canada Awards

Total Budget

$ 18,124,175

  

$ 2,945,025

$ 8,458,569

$ 33,982,194

$ 30,000,000 

N/A

Subventions

$ 12,405,000

  

$ 1,950,000 

$ 2,353,500

$ 10,500,000

$ 26,949,850

N/A

Contributions

$ 1,350,000

  

$ 450,000 

$ 4,347,500

$ 17,727,513 

  

Varies year over year

Number of selection rounds per year

2

    

1

2 for Professional Arts Festivals and Performing Arts Series s

1 Une pour les organismes d’appui à la diffusion

Applications can be sent anytime throughout the year

1

Time taken to assess project proposals

Service Delivery Standards: funding decision within 26 weeks after application’s deadline date

    

Service Delivery Standards: funding decision within 13 weeks after application’s deadline date

Service Delivery Standards: funding decision within 26 weeks after application’s deadline date

Service Delivery Standards: funding decision within 12 months after application received

Service Delivery Standards: funding decision within 30 weeks after application’s deadline date

Program Objectives

To build stronger citizen engagement in communities through the performing and visual arts and in the expression, celebration and preservation of local historical heritage

    

Objectives of the Celebration, Commemoration and Learning Program :
- Improve appreciation for Canada’s rich cultural, ethnic, linguistic and geographical diversity by encouraging meetings and relationship-building among Canadians;
- Generate pride in Canada’s heritage by giving citizens an opportunity to share their experiences, background, myths and symbols; and

- Help develop a distinctive Canadian model for shared citizenship, a model where the underlying values are adaptation, respect, responsibility and diversity.

The objective of the Canada Arts Presentation Fund (CAPF) is to give Canadians access to a variety of professional artistic experiences in their communities. The CAPF recognizes that arts presenters are key partners in achieving this objective by providing financial assistance to organizations that professionally present arts festivals or performing arts series, as well as their support organizations.

The CCSF seeks to improve physical conditions for artistic creativity and innovation. It is also designed to increase access for Canadians to performing arts, visual arts, media arts, and to museum collections and heritage displays. The Fund supports the improvement, renovation and construction of arts and heritage facilities, and the acquisition of specialized equipment as well as conducting feasibility studies

Cultural Capitals of Canada recognizes and supports Canadian communities that have a record of harnessing the many benefits of arts and culture in community life. Its objective is to stimulate sustained community support for the arts and heritage. Designation as a Cultural Capital of Canada will enable your community to invest more in arts and culture, increase and improve your cultural services, strengthen connections with other communities through shared cultural experiences, enhance partnerships with local cultural and community organizations and other stakeholders, and advance cultural development by further integrating arts and culture in municipal planning

Program Objectives

to provide funding in support of festivals, events and activities that engage Canadians in their communities through recurring public presentations of local artists and/or of local historical heritage

To provide funding in support of non-recurring events and activities that engage Canadians in their communities through the commemoration of major anniversaries of significant local events and /or persons

To provide funding in support of non-recurring events and activities that engage Canadians in their communities through the commemoration of major anniversaries of significant local events and /or persons

        

Program Expected Results

  • Increased citizen participation in local festivals, anniversaries, and commemorative projects
  • Increased opportunities for local artists and artisans to engage with their communities
  • Increased exposure to local historical heritage

- Increased opportunities to celebrate and commemorate Canada and its heritage, citizens and history;
- Increased awareness of the activities, ceremonies, celebrations and commemorations among Canadians;
- Increased horizontal coordination and cooperation with federal partners and other levels of government;
- Increased availability and use of learning resources by teachers; and

- Increased opportunities for Canadians to show their pride

- Canadians in all regions of the country engage and participate in a variety of professional artistic experiences;
- Arts presenters offer a variety of professional artistic experiences to Canadians;
- Arts presenters and presenter support organizations undertake professional development opportunities to strengthen the practices of theCAPF presenting community;

- Arts presenters undertake their activities within a healthy Canadian presenting environment.

- Arts and heritage organizations have resources to build and improve facilities and infrastructure.
- A variety of arts and heritage experiences are available in a wide range of communities.

- Arts and heritage organizations can better create, present, preserve and exhibit arts and heritage experiences.

- Celebration of the designated municipalities’ cultural accomplishments and commitments, leading to more arts and culture activities within the community; greater involvement of people in that community in the arts and culture, as well as increased participation of visitors; and increased community support for the arts and culture.
- Increased recognition and promotion of professional artists from Aboriginal, culturally diverse and official-language minority communities, as well as young artists, leading to their increased participation in the cultural life of the community;

- The creation of a legacy for the arts and culture through attention to sustainable cultural planning, leading to better cultural policies and more investment in the arts and culture; and

Program Expected Results (Cont’d)

  

- Increased participation in Celebration, Commemoration and Learning activities; and
- Increased knowledge and understanding among Canadians of Canada, shared history, values and interests.

- Increased shared sense of citizenship among Canadians, increased sense of pride and belonging to Canada		    

- Stronger relationships between local cultural organizations and municipal officials based on a recognition that arts and culture play a vital role in enhancing quality of life, and that they are important factors in fostering economic competitiveness, civic identity, pride, and citizen participation.

Types of activities / projects funded

Local arts festivals and events

Local commemoration of anniversaries

Capital projects for the commemoration of a local anniversary

Community events , such as block parties, library displays, fireworks during 4 public holidays between June 21 and July 1

Professional arts festivals or performing arts series originating from more than one province or territory

Funding provided to:
- Renovation and expansion/construction of arts or heritage facilities;
- Acquisition of specialized equipment; and

- Preparation of feasibility studies for cultural infrastructure projects

Up to three communities receive a designation annually, which includes a contribution to support special projects that support the arts and culture sector and build a cultural legacy for the community by integrating arts and culture into overall community planning.

Types of activities/projects funded (Cont’d)

    

Community-initiated projects that are intended to commemorate an event or person that involve the restoration, renovation, or transformation of an existing building and/or exterior space intended for community use, such as, but not limited to:
- a community building
- a public garden or park
- a commemorative arch
- a train station
- a longhouse

- a deconsecrated church		  

Eligible activities
- Presentation of a minimum of three distinct professional shows, as part of a performing arts series, in one or several artistic disciplines and from more than one province or territory
- Presentation within a festival format of at least three distinct professional performances or events from one or several artistic disciplines and from more than one province or territory.
- Audience development/outreach activities (see glossary)
- Professional development /networking activities for the presenter
- Partnerships and collaborations

- Volunteer participation		  

Eligible activities:
Celebration, to spotlight the arts and culture, for example by:
- using cultural and heritage events to celebrate significant anniversaries or special occasions in the community;
- developing new or expanding existing cultural and heritage festivals and other projects that promote the community's unique heritage;
- developing reciprocal cultural exchanges with neighbouring or distant communities;
- incorporating the cultural diversity of the community, including Aboriginal, culturally diverse and official-language minority professional artists and their works;

- promoting the artistic achievements of young people and exposing local children and youth to the arts, culture, and the community's unique heritage.

Types of activities / projects funded (Cont’d)

    

Community-initiated projects that are intended to commemorate an event or person that involve the purchase, commissioning, restoration, and/or installation of objects that will transform an existing building and/or exterior space intended for community use, such as, but not limited to:
- a monument
- a sculpture
- a statue
- a public mural
- a fountain

- a work of art		  

 

  

Legacy-building, to integrate arts and culture into community planning, for example by:
- creating and/or expanding public art or community art programs;
-  articulating a vision for cultural development and the means to achieve it through the development and implementation of cultural policies and action plans, or projects;
- developing strategies for cultural tourism, marketing, and promotion;
- identifying and implementing strategies for attracting private sector partners to support sustainable cultural development;
- developing close partnerships between municipal cultural workers and members of the arts and heritage communities;
- developing and carrying out programs for the preservation of cultural practices and traditional knowledge among Aboriginal populations;
- incorporating the diversity of the population;

- developing and implementing strategies to highlight, promote, and strengthen the capacity of Aboriginal, culturally diverse and official-language minority cultural organizations and professional artists.

 

        

 

    

Eligible Costs

- Fees and expenses for local artists, artisans, and performers of local historical heritage activities
- Costs of recruiting, training, and supporting local volunteers (e.g., child care expenses, food, non-alcoholic beverages, distinctive clothing)
- Fees and expenses related to the exhibition of artwork by local artists and artisans
- Costs of publicity aimed at the local population
- Production expenses, including equipment rental costs (e.g., rental of costumes, lighting, sound equipment, tents)

- Logistical expenses (e.g., traffic barriers, portable toilets, garbage bins)

- Fees and expenses for local artists, artisans, and performers of local historical heritage activities
- Costs of recruiting, training, and supporting local volunteers (e.g., child care expenses, food, non-alcoholic beverages, distinctive clothing)
- Fees and expenses related to the exhibition of artwork by local artists and artisans
- Costs of publicity aimed at the local population
- Production expenses, including equipment rental costs (e.g., rental of costumes, lighting, sound equipment, tents)

- Logistical expenses (e.g., traffic barriers, portable toilets, garbage bins)

- Costs related to the restoration, renovation, or transformation of a building and/or an exterior space, including demolition, excavation, materials, labour, and specialized equipment
- Costs related to the commissioning and/or installation of statues, murals, works of art, and fountains
- Acquisition of land, buildings, or significant objects

- The commissioning of planning and design studies for the project (e.g. architectural drawings, engineering studies, environmental assessments, heritage reports)

- Promotional expenses, communications, entertainment, supplies, equipment (less than $10,000 for grants) as well as reasonable travel for entertainers and hospitality expenses inside Canada;

- For Canada Day celebrations, birthday cake is the only eligible food expense, with the exception of requests for events held in the territories (Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon), where all food expenses are eligible;

- For Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, National Aboriginal Day, Canadian Multiculturalism Day, ceremonial and traditional food (such as bannock on National Aboriginal Day) may be eligible;

- Fireworks are an eligible expense providing the application form is accompanied by a completed waiver with relevant signatures releasing the Crown from any liability; and

- Costs related to the selection of artists, artists’ fees, per diems, accommodation and travel
- Administrative and presenting salaries or fees, promotion/marketing costs
- Hall and venue rentals or equal value of operating costs
- Technical and front of house costs
- Costs related to audience development / outreach activities
- Costs incurred for organizing volunteer participation

- International artists’ travel costs are an eligible expense but cannot be reimbursed by the program.

Eligible expenses must be directly related to the project presented, including but not limited to these below.
Construction and/or Renovation projects

- Professional fees such as architectural, engineering and technical services, project management and environmental assessments
- Construction and/or renovation of cultural infrastructure, including property acquisition/transfers, project’s interest on short-term financing, demolition, excavation and materials and labour
- Fire safety and security systems
- Systems and measures to improve accessibility and mobility
- Environmental practices and sustainable construction, e.g. LEED, ecoENERGY, etc.
- Permanent seating
 -Administrative costs directly related to the project, e.g. salaries, postage, photocopies, telephone, calls for tender, services to provide materials in both official languages, etc.

Eligible expenses may include:
- fees for consultants and/or contractors for event management, research, writing, editing, or translation;
- fees/costs of preparation and production of celebratory events or cultural tourism promotion;
- fees/costs for design and construction of web sites directly related to arts, culture and celebratory events;
- reasonable costs of holding meetings directly related to the project;
- reasonable travel costs directly related to the project;
- fees for the creation of public art to recognize the designation;
- fees for a project coordinator;

- fees for consultants/contractors to perform an evaluation of the project.

Eligible Costs (Cont’d)

- Venue rental and set-up costs
- Cost of insurance for eligible activities
- Expenses related to financial audits when one is required by the Program

- Expenses related to environmental assessments when one is required by the Program

- Venue rental and set-up costs
- Cost of insurance for eligible activities
- Expenses related to financial audits when one is required by the Program

- Expenses related to environmental assessments when one is required by the Program

- Costs incurred in conducting project financial audits for requests over $200,000
- Costs of recruiting, training, and supporting local volunteers who are directly involved in the transformation of a building/space
- Project contingency of up to 10% of cash expenses directed towards planning, acquisition, construction, or material costs of the project

                                                                                                                                                                                              - HST, PST, GST: Only the portion of the applicable tax that is not reimbursable by the federal government through its tax credit program is eligible.

- Administrative costs (not exceeding 15% of the total contribution), including salaries and benefits, fees for professional services, bank charges, utilities and reasonable travel/hospitality expenses inside Canada.

  

Specialized Equipment
- Sound and lighting equipment
- Removable seating
- Stage curtains
- Staging and rigging equipment
- Multimedia equipment
- Portable dance floor
- Ticketing system
- Environmental control systems
- Storage system
- Display case
- Installation costs and initial training related to the operation of specialized equipment
Feasibility Study
- Professional fees related to assessing project viability
- Professional fees related to design, market/needs analysis, requirements to operate the new or renovated space

- Professional fees related to specialized technical services		  
               

Ineligible Costs

- Operating expenses of your group (e.g., salaries, travel, office equipment or furniture, vehicles)
- Fees and expenses for non-local artists, artisans, or performers of local historical heritage
- Commissioned or purchased artworks or crafts
- Creation, production and/or distribution of souvenirs
- Costs related to repairing or restoring artworks or crafts

- Creation costs for a performance (e.g., writing, artistic direction, rehearsals), artwork, an exhibition, multi-media work, or any activity that produces a tangible result (e.g., commemorative plaques, costumes, showcases, parade floats)

- Operating expenses of your group (e.g., salaries, travel, office equipment or furniture, vehicles)
- Fees and expenses for non-local artists, artisans, or performers of local historical heritage (except for fees and expenses related to capital projects)
- Creation costs for a performance (e.g., writing, artistic direction, rehearsals) or an exhibition
- Creation, production and/or distribution of souvenirs

- Expenses associated with creating parade floats

- Costs related to routine maintenance
- Operating expenses of your organization (e.g., salaries, travel expenses, office equipment and furniture, vehicles)
- Costs associated with the unveiling or celebratory events of the commemorative project (some expenses are eligible under the Community Anniversaries component of the Program)
- Purchase, commission, or restoration of religious art or artifacts currently used, or projected for use in the practice of religious rites or ceremonies
- Restoration of grave sites or cemeteries
•expenses related to archaeological digs

•purchase, commission, or restoration of items that are intended for sale

- Costs related to capital projects;
- Lobbying activities, advocacy;
- Activities that are not directly related to events that take place during the Celebrate Canada period;
- Prizes;
- Activities or services that take place outside Canada; and

- Fairs and festivals.

- Book fairs, galas and competitions
- Self-presentation activities (contact the Canada Council for the Arts)
- Creation or production activities (contact the Canada Council for the Arts)
- Tours within or outside Canada (contact the Canada Council for the Arts)
- Feasibility studies (see the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund)
- Purchase of specialized equipment (see the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund)

- Infrastructure projects (see the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund)

Ineligible projects
- Historic building renovations that are not directly linked to professional arts or heritage programming
- Projects related to regular or routine maintenance of a building
- Design and/or production of exhibitions or artistic works
Ineligible expenses
Construction and/or Renovation projects
- Restoration and refurbishment of artefacts/collections
- Commissioning and purchasing of works of art
- Landscaping
- Parking lots
- Gift shops
- Commercial beverage and food facilities
- Indoor and outdoor interpretative signage

- Long-term accrued interest on financing

- Capital projects (such as the construction, transformation, or renovation of permanent spaces such as performance or exhibit spaces, parks, or grounds; the restoration of artifacts, artworks, or cultural venues; and the permanent acquisition, purchase or installation of specialized equipment, such as sound systems, lighting, tents, etc.);
- The creation or growth of endowment funds or trust funds by the municipality to provide grants for cultural activities over a multi-year period;
- Libraries, amateur sport, and recreational activities;

- Hospitality, fireworks, and Goods and Services Tax.

Ineligible Costs (Cont’d)

- Creation expenses and/or commission of non-tangible works of art including theatre, music, and dance works
- Expenses related to competitions (e.g., purchase of prizes, expenses of jury members)
- Food and beverages, other than those described for volunteers
- Purchase of equipment and capital expenses (e.g., computers, stage equipment, risers, lighting, sound equipment)
- Costs related to the research, planning and production of books and exhibitions
- Security or paramedic services

- Fireworks

- Expenses related to competitions (e.g., purchase of prizes, expenses of jury members) except for capital projects
- Creation and/or commission of non-tangible works of art including theatre, music, multi-media work and dance works
- Food and beverages, other than those described for volunteers

- Purchase of equipment (e.g., computers, stage equipment, risers, lighting, sound equipment)		    

- Activities exclusively celebrating Canada Day, July 1, National Aboriginal Day, June 21, Saint-Jean- Baptiste Day, June 24 or Canadian Multiculturalism Day, June 27 (see the Celebrate Canada! program)
- Festivals and activities that receive financial support under the Building Communities through Arts and Heritage program of the Department of Canadian Heritage
- Deficit repayment
- Receptions and hospitality
- Literary reading series

- Film, Video and Media Arts series

Specialized Equipment
- Musical instruments and cases
- Office equipment, such as computers dedicated to administrative tasks or furniture
- Equipment for commercial beverage and food facilities or gift shops

Costs related to the development of the project proposal and/or applications are not eligible.		  

Ineligible Costs (Cont’d)

  

- Purchase, commission, or restoration of religious art or artifacts currently used, or projected for use, in the practice of religious rites or ceremonies
- Restoration of grave sites or cemeteries
- Expenses related to archaeological digs
- Purchase, commission, or restoration of items that are intended for sale
- Security or paramedic services

- Fireworks		          

Assessment criteria

Consider the extent to which projects build communities through arts and heritage; management and financial capacity of applicant

    

Eligible activities will be publicly identified as Canada activities and held between June 21 and July 1.

Priority is given to:
- Proposals that seek wider participation and that are inclusive of various community groups such as minority communities (Aboriginal, Official Language Minority Communities, and ethno-cultural communities) and youth; and

- Recipients who have obtained financial or in-kind support from other sources.

Consider relevance and quality of programming; impact on audiences, artists and communities; management and financial health of applicant

Assessment criteria include:
- Availability of spaces: impact on availability of cultural, artistic spaces
- Quality of spaces
- Access to and Participation in Arts and Heritage Experiences

- Financial Feasibility of Project and Future Impact on the Organization

Assessment criteria include:
- Availability and quality of spaces
- Access to professional arts and heritage experiences

- Viability of project and long-term financial impact on organization

Level of program officer’s effort required

Some event monitoring; more rigorous monitoring of large capital projects

    

Minimal level of monitoring

Monitoring of organization’s operations, governance, and finances

Unknown

Unknown

Average amount awarded

$17,700 (maximum of $200,000 for components 1 and 2; $500,000 for component 3)

    

$4,150 (rarely exceeds $25,000)

$48,000 (maximum of $1M)

Approximately $270,000 in average

Unknown

Number of projects funded per year

Approximately 900 projects

    

Approximately 1,500  projects

Approximately 600 projects

Approximately 100

3 municipalities

Average number of applications received per year

1,200

    

1,l700

700

Unknown

Unknown

Client base

To be eligible for funding through Local Festivals, your group must:
•be a local non-profit group, either incorporated or unincorporated; or
•a local band council, a local tribal council or other local Aboriginal government (First Nations, Inuit or Métis) or equivalent authority; and
•have the support of the municipal administration or equivalent authority, in the form of cash and/or in-kind support; and

•have successfully organized at least one eligible edition of the festival in the two years previous to your application		    

Eligible recipients for funding are the following:
•Canadian not-for-profit organizations: corporations, trusts, cooperatives, and unincorporated associations, etc.;
•Canadian business corporations where projects are non-commercial in nature;

•Canadian educational institutions, Canadian municipal governments and other municipal, provincial or territorial institutions;

Canadian, non-profit organizations incorporated that present, in a professional manner, artistic experiences originating from more than one province or territory; or with a core focus on strengthening arts presentation in Canada. Provincial, territorial or municipal institutions (including educational institutions that organize presentation activities for the public), as well as similar institutions or organizations of Status or Non-Status Indians, Inuit and Métis are also eligible.

Not-for-profit arts and heritage organizations

Canadian municipalities

Level of funding

Up to $200, 000 for non-recurring festivals

Up to $200, 000 for local historical events and $25, 000 for capital projects

Up to $500, 000 for capital projects

$10,000 or less

Up to $1M

Unknown – over $2,000,000

Up to $2,000,000

Profile of funded communities

Mostly small rural communities; some bigger cities

    

Small communities

Primarily medium to large-size cities; some smaller communities

Mostly bigger cities in each province and territory

Small and big cities

Cost per project*

(direct costs only)

$3,030

    

$ 897 

2010-11 $6,712 (projected to decrease to $5,283 per file by 2012-13)

Unknown

Unknown

Cost per project**

(direct and indirect costs)

$ 3,781

    

N/A Indirect costs not attached to program

$ 7,740 

Unknown

Unknown

Operating Costs/Overall Budget Ratio*

(direct costs only)

16,4 %

    

19,1 %

13,8 %

Unknown

Unknown

Operating Costs/Overall Budget Ratio**

(direct and indirect costs)

20,1 %

    

N/A Indirect costs not attached to program

15,9 %

Unknown

Unknown

* This amount was calculated using the average number of applications received per year and the total direct operating costs (i.e. salaries, EBP and O&M).  The amount for corporate costing and departmental pressures was not included in this calculation.

**This amount also includes corporate costs and departmental pressures

Comparison Table with Similar Programs (Other Departments)34

 

BCAH Festivals

BCAH Legacies

CAH Anniversaries

Community Engagement Partnership Fund (Veterans)

Community War Memorial Program

(Veterans)

Canada Council for the arts (Dance presentations: support to festivals)

Inter-Action (CIC) (previously Multiculturalism Grants and Contributions Program)

Total Budget

$ 18,124,175

$ 2,945,025 

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Grants

$ 12,405,000

$ 1,950,000 $

Yes. Amount Unknown

Unknown

Grants,but total  Unknown

Approx. $4,000,000 per year under previous name

Contributions

$ 1,350,000

$ 450,000

No

Yes. Amount Unknown

None

  

Number of selection rounds per year

2

    

Applications can be sent anytime throughout the year

4

2 (1 May and 1 October)

Inter-Action Projects: 1 call for proposal

Inter-Action Events: anytime in the year

Time taken to assess project proposals

Service Delivery Standards: funding decision within 26 weeks after application’s deadline date

    

Unknown

Unknown

Approximately four months after the application deadline

Service Delivery Standards: funding decision within 127 days after application received

Program Objectives

To build stronger citizen engagement in communities through the performing and visual arts and in the expression, celebration and preservation of local historical heritage

    

Engaging Canadians in the remembrance of the achievements and sacrifices made by those who served Canada in times of war, military conflict and peace

- To partner with communities in Canada to build cenotaphs/monuments and major additions to existing ones;
- To recognize Veterans, including modern-day Veterans, on cenotaphs/monuments; and

- To help ensure remembrance continues to be visible to Canadians in their own communities.

To support to organizations that present dance works with the aim of:
• encouraging creative risk-taking in dance programming
• creating a more dynamic environment for dance presentation in Canada
• contributing to the development and vitality of the art form, and

• enhancing audience engagement and appreciation of dance.

1. Building an integrated, socially cohesive society by fostering intercultural understanding, citizenship, civic memory, civic pride, respect for core democratic values and equal opportunity for Canadians of all origins.

2. Improving the ability of public institutions to respond to the needs of a diverse population.

3. Actively engaging in discussions of multiculturalism and diversity at the international level. (Mostly, funding for this objective will be for activities that take place in Canada.)

Program Objectives

to provide funding in support of festivals, events and activities that engage Canadians in their communities through recurring public presentations of local artists and/or of local historical heritage

to provide funding in support of capital projects that engage Canadians in their communities through the commemoration of major anniversaries of significant local events and/or persons

to provide funding in support of non-recurring events and activities that engage Canadians in their communities through the commemoration of major anniversaries of significant local events and /or persons

        

Types of activities/projects funded

Local arts festivals and events

Capital projects for the commemoration of a local anniversary

Local commemoration of anniversaries

Remembrance initiatives that engage youth and/or communities;
Remembrance initiatives that honor Veterans;
Education and information of a commemorative nature;

Development and organization of commemorative activities, events and learning initiatives.

The construction of a new cenotaph/monument, a major addition to an existing cenotaph or monument or to  cenotaphs or monuments on Reserves

The Dance Presentation Program offers support to organizations that present dance works. Program dance must be the dominant artistic activity of the festival

Project stream: Long-term, multi-year community development/engagement projects to promote integration

Event stream: community based events that foster intercultural/interfaith understanding and/or
civic memory and pride and/or
respect for core democratic values démocratiques fondamentales.

Assessment criteria

Consider the extent to which projects build communities through arts and heritage; management and financial capacity of applicant

    

Applications are assessed, recommended and approved based on a variety of criteria, including
the extent that the project meets priorities of the Canada Remembers Program; and

the extent that the project engages Canadians in remembrance at the national and regional level.

Quality design information about the cenotaph/monument; creation of partnerships in the community; importance of cenotaph/monument to its Community; construction documents such as drawings and specifications of the proposed scope of work and photographs of the new or existing site.

 • be a non-profit organization and be incorporated in Canada
• program dance as a dominant artistic activity of the festival
• have already produced at least one professional dance festival before this application deadline
• have as its mission the presentation of works by professional artists
• produce an annual or biennial festival that:
- is a minimum of four consecutive days and a maximum of three consecutive weeks
- includes at least four live performances of 45 minutes or more
- presents a minimum of two distinct programs of artists, and
- engages six or more professional dance artists or companies, some of which are from outside the festival’s home province or territory

Alignment with program objectives; project has funding partners; activities create concrete opportunities for positive interaction between different communities; stakeholders/beneficiaries are active participants in project design and implementation

 

          

 

  

Assessment criteria (Cont’d)

          

• provide the venue, plus technical and promotional support for festival presentations
• pay guaranteed fees to professional artists for festival performances
• charge an admission fee to the public for some or all festival performances
• be directed by dance professionals and (or) community leaders
• have an appropriate administrative infrastructure to support the festival
• receive support from sources other than the Canada Council, such as other levels of government and (or) private sources, and
• maintain separate, clear and exact financial accounts for the festival’s activities.

  

Level of program officer’s effort required

Some event monitoring; more rigorous monitoring of large capital projects

    

Unknown

Unknown

  

Unknown

Average amount awarded

$17,700 (maximum of $200,000 for components 1 and 2; $500,000 for component 3)

    

$ 5,225

Unknown

Grants generally range from $5,000 to $40,000

Unknown

Number of projects funded per year

Approximately 900 projects

    

6

Unknown

  

Unknown

Average number of applications received per year

1,200

    

Unknown

Unknown

  

Unknown

Client base

Incorporated groups, local volunteer-run unincorporated groups, and many first time applicants to government

    

Non-profit organizations

Non-profit groups and organizations;

provinces, territories, and municipalities

 

Project stream: NGOs; non-federal public institutions; regional and municipal governments; First Nations and Inuit governments, band councils, and Aboriginal organizations; private sector; Canadian citizens and permanent residents.

Event stream:  NGOs;  incorporated and unincorporated municipalities and townships with a population of up to 10,000;  Aboriginal organizations

Level of funding

First component: up to $200, 000 for non-recurring festivals
Second component: up to $200, 000 for local historical events and $25, 000 for capital projects

Third component: up to $500, 000 for capital projects		    

- Funding approved for community-based events or activities that occur at a local or regional level does not usually exceed $5,000 per project.

- Events or activities that are national in scope may be eligible for financial assistance greater than $5,000.

Up to $50,000

  

Project stream: Although funding for recently approved projects has ranged from $25,000 to $1.4 million per project, precise amounts will be based on such factors as value for money, project duration, planned activities, scope of project and funding from other sources.

Event stream: up to $15,000

Profile of funded communities

Mostly small rural communities; some bigger cities

    

Both small and big communities. In 2010: Victoria, Halifax, Richmond BC, Toronto, Garden Village ON, Chester Basin NS

Both small and big communities

Mostly urban communities

 Mostly urban communities

Appendix F – Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

 

 

Audience Participant per BCAH dollar

 
 

Low ratio of participant/ dollar

Medium ratio of participant/ dollar

High ratio of participant/ dollar

Average number of participants per BCAH dollar

0.09

0.33

2.73

Average BCAH funding amount

$ 15,524.55

$ 12,513.76 

$ 22,109.98 

Percentage BCAH funding over total project budget

22 %

17 %

11 %

Percentage rural (1)

30.41 %

30.87 %

22.56 %

Recurrent PCH clients

64.86 %

82.55 %

85.64 %

Average total Number of Local Artists, Artisans, HHPs (2)

81.26

106.77

183.97

Average attendance

1,467.91

4,003.92

64,737.52

Average number of volunteers

71.54

127.65

256.83

1. Rural non-metro-adjacent regions
2. Historical Heritage Performers (HHPs)

The above statistics indicate that the higher ratio of audience/program dollar ratio is associated with:

  • High attendance projects
  • Larger BCAH projects in terms of dollars
  • Lower contribution of BCAH to project budget (in percentage)
  • Less rural projects
  • More recurring PCH clients
  • More volunteers involved
 

 

Volunteering hour per BCAH Dollar

 
 

Low ratio of volunteer hour/dollar

Medium ratio of volunteer hour/dollar

High ratio of volunteer hour/dollar

Average volunteering hours per BCAH dollar

0.03

0.09

0.48

Average BCAH funding amount

$21,667 

$17,350 

$ 15,985 

Percentage BCAH funding over total project budget

18 %

19 %

14 %

Percentage rural (1)

22.73 %

20.14 %

74.55 %

Recurrent PCH clients

82.73 %

78.42 %

76.28 %

Average total Number of Local Artists, Artisans, HHPs (2)

83.07

131.99

146.06

Average attendance

30,362.77

25,859.64

25,271.60

Average number of volunteers

627.57

1,581.76

231.23

1. Rural non-metro-adjacent regions
2. Historical Heritage Performers (HHPs)

The above statistics indicate that the higher ratio of amount of volunteering/program dollar ratio is associated with:

  • Smaller BCAH projects in terms of dollars
  • Lower contribution of BCAH to project budget (in percentage)
  • More rural projects
  • Less recurring PCH clients
  • Lower audience
  • No relationship with number of volunteers

Appendix G – Tables of Survey Results

Appendix G, Table 1

In general, was your group/organization successful in securing the involvement of the community (local partners, the municipal government, individuals, artists, artisans, etc.) in planning and organizing the [event]?

 

Funded Festival  (n=416)

Unfunded Festival  (n=29)

 

n

%

n

%

Yes

348

98.0

21

95.5

No

7

2.0

1

4.5

Total

355

100.0

22

100.0

Source: PCH Survey of Festivals, Legacies and Commemorations Organizers, 2011

Appendix G, Table 2

Did your group encounter any challenges during the planning stage and organization of your festival?

 

Unfunded Festival (n=29)

 

n

%

Yes

14

63.6

No

8

36.4

Total

22

100.0

Source: PCH Survey of Festivals, Legacies and Commemorations Organizers, 2011

Appendix G, Table 3

Do you attribute some of those challenges to the fact that you did not obtain funding from the BCAHP?

 

Unfunded Festival  (n=29)

 

n

%

Yes

12

85.7

No

2

14.3

Total

14

100.0

Source: PCH Survey of Festivals, Legacies and Commemorations Organizers, 2011

Appendix G, Table 4

What [were/would have been] the impacts of not receiving funding from the BCHAP for your [event]?

 

Funded Festival  (n=416)

Funded Anniversary (n=100)

Unfunded Festival  (n=29)

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

[Went/would have gone ahead] as planned

20

4.8

8

8.0

2

6.9

[Went/would have gone ahead] but with reduced scope and/or fewer activities

317

76.2

65

65.0

16

55.2

Went ahead but did not last as long as previously planned

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

4

13.8

[Went/would have gone ahead] with reduced local programming

278

66.8

45

45.0

13

44.8

Went ahead but there was less promotion of the festival and related activities

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

15

51.7

Went ahead but the quality of our activities and presentations was reduced

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

10

34.5

[Was/would have been] deferred until other funding could be found

34

8.2

4

4.0

0

0

[Was/would have been] cancelled

30

7.2

9

9.0

2

6.9

Other impacts

41

9.9

9

9.0

2

6.9

Don’t know

3

0.7

1

1.0

0

0

Source: PCH Survey of Festivals, Legacies and Commemorations Organizers, 2011

Appendix G, Table 5

 

Unfunded Festival

 

n

%

Cancellation of Event Due to not Receiving BCAH Funding

Yes

1

50 %

No

1

50 %

Total

2

100 %

Source: PCH Survey of Festivals, Legacies and Commemorations Organizers, 2011

Appendix G, Table 6

In general, was your group/organization successful in securing the involvement of the community (local partners, the municipal government, individuals, artists, artisans, etc.) in planning and organizing the [event]?

 

Funded Anniversary  (n=73)

 

n

%

Oui

73

100

No

0

0

Total

73

100

Source: PCH Survey of Festivals, Legacies and Commemorations Organizers, 2011

Appendix G, Table 7

 

Funded Festival

 

Before BCAH

Final Report

Total Number of Volunteers

Mean

109

168

Median

50

74

n

548

548

Total Number of Volunteer Hours

Mean

2 150

4 112

Median

850

1 360

n

574

574

Source: BCAH Program Administrative Data

Appendix G, Table 8

What have been the impacts of receiving BCAHP funding on your [funded event]?

 

Funded Festival  (n=416)

Funded Anniversary (n=100)

Unfunded Festival  (n=29)

 

n

%

n

%

N/A

N/A

No impact

2

0.5

1

1.0

N/A

N/A

We were able to lengthen the duration of the [event]

80

19.2

26

26.0

N/A

N/A

We were able to increase the number of activities and presentations

301

72.4

65

65.0

N/A

N/A

We were able to improve the quality of our activities and presentation

343

82.5

69

69.0

N/A

N/A

We were able to include more local artists/artisans/heritage performers

350

84.1

68

68.0

N/A

N/A

We were able to increase the amount of promotion done for the [event]

273

65.6

60

60.0

N/A

N/A

Other impacts

44

10.6

5

5.0

N/A

N/A

Source: PCH Survey of Festivals, Legacies and Commemorations Organizers, 2011

Appendix G, Table 9

Overall, how many partnerships did your group/organization establish with local partners (local groups, businesses and/or associations) for your [event]?

 

Funded Festival  (n=416)

Funded Anniversary (n=100)

Unfunded  Festival (n=29)

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

1 to 5

49

13.5

15

20.8

10

50.0

6 to 10

81

22.3

19

26.4

1

5.0

11 to 20

89

24.5

19

26.4

4

20.0

More than 20

145

39.8

19

26.4

5

25.0

Total

364

100.0

72

100.0

20

100.0

Source: PCH Survey of Festivals, Legacies and Commemorations Organizers, 2011

Appendix G, Table 10

 

Funded Festival

 

Before BCAH

Final Report

Municipal Support – Total

Mean

$15,960 

$ 20,995

Median

$5,400

$7,755

n

490

490

Source: BCAH Program Administrative Data

Appendix G, Table 11

To what extent were the following groups engaged in the [event]? Municipal government

 

Funded Festival  (n=416)

Funded Anniversary (n=100)

Unfunded   Festival (n=29)

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

No extent at all

3

1.1

2

2.7

4

19.0

Little extent

25

9.6

6

8.2

4

19.0

Moderate extent

87

33.3

22

30.1

6

28.6

Great extent

146

55.9

43

58.9

7

33.3

Total

261

100.0

73

100.0

21

100.0

Source: PCH Survey of Festivals, Legacies and Commemorations Organizers, 2011

Appendix G, Table 12

 

To what extent would you say that other funding partners were more inclined to provide a financial (cash or in-kind) contribution to your festival after learning that BCAHP (Government of Canada) had funded your event(s)?

 

Funded Festival  (n=416)

Funded Anniversary (n=100)

 

n

%

n

%

A lot more inclined

75

30.1

13

20.6

More inclined

82

32.9

29

46.0

Somewhat more inclined

57

22.9

17

26.9

Not at all inclined

35

14.1

4

6.3

Total

249

100.0

63

100.0

Source : Données administratives du PDCAP

Appendix G, Table 13

 

Funded Festival

 

Before BCAH

Final Report

Community Support – Total

Mean

$54,555

$68,120

Median

$13,002

$17,056

n

506

506

Source: BCAH Program Administrative Data

Appendix G, Table 14

 

For festival editions preceding the edition for which your group sought funding from the BCAHP for the first time, did your group/organization receive support (financial or in-kind) from the municipal government?

 

Funded Festival

 

n

%

Yes

289

84.8

No

52

15.2

Total

341

100.0

Source: PCH Survey of Festivals, Legacies and Commemorations Organizers, 2011

Appendix G, Table 15

 

Funded Festival

 

Before BCAH

Final Report

Number of Local Artists

Mean

48

71

Median

22

32

n

375

375

Total Number of Local Artists, Artisans, HHPs

Mean

64

118

Median

32

60

n

533

533

Source : Données administratives du PDCAP

Appendix G, Table 16

To what extent were the following groups engaged in the [event]?  Local artists, artisans, or heritage performers

 

Funded Festival  (n=416)

Funded Anniversary (n=100)

Unfunded Festival  (n=29)

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

No extent at all

0

0.0

0

0.0

1

5.3

Little extent

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

10.5

Moderate extent

17

8.2

14

19.4

6

31.6

Great extent

190

91.8

58

80.6

10

52.6

Total

207

100.0

72

100.0

21

100.0

Source: PCH Survey of Festivals, Legacies and Commemorations Organizers, 2011

Appendix G, Table 17

Local artists, artisans, or heritage performers | Has BCAH funding influenced their level of engagement?

 

Funded Festival  (n=416)

Funded Anniversary (n=100)

 

n

%

n

%

Yes

334

97.1

62

95.4

No

10

2.9

3

4.6

Total

344

100.0

65

100.0

Source: PCH Survey of Festivals, Legacies and Commemorations Organizers, 2011

Appendix G, Table 18

To what extent do you believe that local artists/artisans/heritage performers’ participation added value to the [event]?

 

Funded Festival  (n=416)

Funded Anniversary (n=100)

Unfunded Festival  (n=29)

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

Little extent

1

0.3

0

0

4

19.0

Moderate extent

22

6.2

6

8.3

0

0

Great extent

330

93.5

66

91.7

17

81.0

Total

353

100.0

72

100.0

21

100.0

Source: PCH Survey of Festivals, Legacies and Commemorations Organizers, 2011

Appendix G, Table 19

 

Funded Festival

Funded Anniversary

 

Before BCAH

Final Report

Final Report

Total Attendance

Mean

18,573

29,482

6,139

Median

2,820

4,000

2,500

n

562

562

85

Source: BCAH Program Administrative Data for 2007-08 to 2010-11

Appendix G, Table 20

According to your experience, did the following groups’ involvement or participation in the [event] enhance their engagement in the community in general?

Your group/organization

 

Funded Festival  (n=416)

Funded Anniversary (n=100)

Unfunded   Festival (n=29))

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

A little/ Very little

4

1.0

2

2.8

0

0

Moderately

40

9.6

11

15.3

4

20.0

Greatly/ A lot

299

71.9

59

81.9

16

80.0

Total

343

100.0

72

100.0

20

100.0

Municipal government

 

Funded Festival  (n=416)

Funded Anniversary (n=100)

Unfunded   Festival (n=29)

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

Not at all

12

3.6

2

2.9

3

15.0

A little/ Very little

51

15.5

12

17.4

2

10.0

Moderately

139

42.1

18

26.1

7

35.0

Greatly/ A lot

128

38.8

37

53.6

8

40.0

Total

330

100.0

69

100.0

20

100.0

Local partners

 

Funded Festival  (n=416)

Funded Anniversary (n=100)

Unfunded   Festival (n=29)

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

Not at all

1

0.3

0

0

0

0

A little/ Very little

20

5.9

3

4.3

3

15.0

Moderately

123

36.1

25

36.2

9

45.0

Greatly/ A lot

197

57.8

41

59.4

8

40.0

Total

341

100.0

69

100.0

20

100.0

Volunteers

 

Funded Festival  (n=416)

Funded Anniversary (n=100)

Unfunded   Festival (n=29)

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

A little/ Very little

6

1.8

0

0

0

0

Moderately

49

14.4

17

24.3

4

20.0

Greatly/ A lot

285

83.8

53

75.7

16

80.0

Total

340

100.0

70

100.0

20

100.0

Local artist(s)/ artisan(s)/heritage performer(s)

 

Funded Festival  (n=416)

Funded Anniversary (n=100)

Unfunded  Festival (n=29)

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

A little/ Very little

3

0.9

1

1.4

4

20.0

Moderately

47

13.9

17

23.9

4

20.0

Greatly/ A lot

289

85.3

53

74.6

12

60.0

Total

339

83.2

71

100.0

20

100.0

Individuals attending the festival

 

Funded Festival  (n=416)

Funded Anniversary (n=100)

Unfunded  Festival (n=29)

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

Not at all

1

0.3

0

0

0

0

A little/ Very little

4

1.2

1

1.4

2

10.0

Moderately

68

20.5

16

22.5

8

40.0

Greatly/ A lot

258

77.9

54

76.1

10

50.0

Total

331

100.0

71

100.0

20

100.0

Source: PCH Survey of Festivals, Legacies and Commemorations Organizers, 2011

Appendix G, Table 21

In your opinion, to what extent did your [event] contribute to the following results?

Increased personal sense of belonging to Canada

 

Funded Festival  (n=416)

Funded Anniversary (n=100)

Unfunded Festival (n=29)

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

Not at all

2

0.6

1

1.4

0

0

Little extent

30

8.9

11

15.5

3

15.8

Moderate extent

113

33.6

31

43.7

6

31.6

Great extent

169

50.3

28

39.4

10

52.6

Total

336

100.0

71

100.0

19

100.0

Source: PCH Survey of Festivals, Legacies and Commemorations Organizers, 2011

Appendix G, Table 22

In your opinion, to what extent did your [event] contribute to the following results?

Increased appreciation for Canada’s rich and diverse arts and heritage traditions

 

Funded Festival  (n=416)

Funded Anniversary (n=100)

Unfunded Festival (n=29)

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

Not at all

0

0.0

0

0

1

5.0

Little extent

5

1.5

11

15.3

3

15.0

Moderate extent

76

23.2

22

30.6

3

15.0

Great extent

246

75.2

39

54.2

13

65.0

Total

327

100.0

72

100.0

20

100.0

Source: PCH Survey of Festivals, Legacies and Commemorations Organizers, 2011

Appendix G, Table 23

Thinking of your experience with the BCAHP, please rate your level of satisfaction with each of the following aspects of the Program: Clarity of the information provided as to why your funding application was denied

 

Unfunded Festival (n=29)

 

n

%

Very satisfied

2

10.0

Satisfied

2

10.0

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

4

20.0

Dissatisfied

7

35.0

Very dissatisfied

5

25.0

Total

20

100
Appendix G, Table 24

From which other sources (if any) did your group/organization receive cash or in-kind support for the festival?

 

Funded Festival  (n=416)

Funded Anniversary (n=100)

Unfunded Festival  (n=29)

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

Other federal government department

46

11.1

10

10.0

2

6.9

Provincial government

192

46.2

29

29.0

10

34.5

Municipal government

269

64.7

67

67.0

10

34.5

Para-public organizations

47

11.3

9

9.0

2

6.9

Non-profit organization

104

25.0

29

29.0

2

6.9

Foundations

53

12.7

8

8.0

6

20.7

Private donors

182

43.8

46

46.0

9

31.0

Private sector organization

166

39.9

30

30.0

11

37.9

Union/Labour

8

1.9

3

3.0

1

3.4

Volunteers

204

49.0

53

53.0

11

37.9

Other

66

15.9

15

15.0

1

3.4

Don’t know

0

0

1

1,0

0

0

Not applicable

0

0

2

2,0

0

0

Source : Sondage de PCH auprès des organisateurs de festivals, de commémorations et de projets de legs, 2011

Appendix G, Table 25

Thinking of your experience with the BCAHP, please rate your level of satisfaction with each of the following aspects of the Program: | Ease of dealing with the BCAHP in the official language of your choice

 

Funded
Festival

Funded Anniversary

 

n

%

n

%

Satisfied

307

95.0

82

97.6

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

12

3.7

2

2.5

Dissatisfied

2

0.6

0

0.0

Don`t know

2

0.6

0

0.0

Total

323

100.0

84

100.0

Source : Sondage de PCH auprès des organisateurs de festivals, de commémorations et de projets de legs, 2011

Appendix H – BCAH Program Detailed Key Outputs from 2007-08 to 2010-11

Appendix H, Table 1

 

Festival Projects

Anniversary Projects

Legacy Projects

Unfunded Festivals

Number of Projects

2 057

370

27

983

Number of Distinct Organizations

1 094

352

27

N/A

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

Total Expenses Size Class

No data

96

4.7

28

7.6

9

33.3

648

65.9

$1 – 49,999

114

30.8

114

30.8

2

7.4

99

10.1

$50,000 – 99,999

500

24.3

98

26.5

4

14.8

80

8,1

$100,000 – 499,999

689

33.5

121

32.7

8

29.6

118

12,0

$500,000 – 999,999

99

4,8

6

1.6

2

7.4

23

2.3

$1,000,000+

46

2,2

3

0.8

1

3.7

15

1.5

Total

2 057

100

370

100

27

100

983

100

Percentage of Expenses Covered by BCAH Program Funding

Percentage of Expenses Overall

15 %

16 %

37 %

N/A

N/A

Percentage of Eligible Expenses

56 %

48 %

50 %

N/A

N/A

 Source: BCAH Administrative Data

Appendix H, Table 2

 

Festival Projects

Anniversary Projects

Legacy Projects

Unfunded Festivals

Number of Projects

2 057

370

27

983

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

Project Start (FY)

2007-2008

66

3.2

22

5.9

0

3.6

52

5.3

2008-2009

576

28.0

112

30.3

0

28.0

370

37.6

2009-2010

664

32.3

128

34.6

4

32.4

308

31.3

2010-2011

751

36.5

100

27.0

23

35.6

250

25.4

2011-2012

N/A

N/A

8

2.2

0

0.3

3

0.3

Total

2 057

100

370

100

27

100

983

100

Grant or Contribution

Grants

1 572

76.4

279

75.4

2

7.4

654

66.5

Contributions

218

10.6

54

14.6

10

37.0

214

21.8

Unknown

267

13

37

10

15

55.6

115

11.7

Total

2 057

100

370

100

27

100

983

100

Region

Atlantic

494

24.0

54

14.6

6

22.2

131

13.3

Ontario

439

21.3

88

23.8

6

22.2

228

23.2

PNR

114

5.5

85

23.0

7

25.9

110

11.2

Quebec

607

29.5

77

20.8

2

7.4

341

34.7

Western

403

19.6

66

17.8

6

22.2

173

17.6

Total

2 057

100

370

100

27

100

983

100

MI Zone

No data

1

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

 

  

Rural – No MIZ

45

2.2

27

7.3

2

7.4

25

2.5

Rural – Weak MIZ

302

14.7

85

23.0

7

25.9

141

14.3

Rural – Moderate MIZ

309

15.0

92

24.9

5

18.5

137

13.9

Rural – Strong MIZ

128

6.2

44

11.9

0

0.0

71

7.2

Territories

16

0.8

0

0.0

0

0.0

8

0.8

Urban CA/CMA

1 256

61.1

122

33.0

13

48.1

601

61.1

Total

2 057

100

370

100

27

100

983

100

Total Expenses Size Class

No data

96

4.7

28

7.6

9

33.3

648

65.9

$1 – 49.999

114

30.8

114

30.8

2

7.4

99

10.1

$50,000 – 99,999

500

24.3

98

26.5

4

14.8

80

8.1

$100,000 – 499,999

689

33.5

121

32.7

8

29.6

118

12.0

$500,000 – 999,999

99

4.8

6

1.6

2

7.4

23

2.3

$1,000,000+

46

2.2

3

0.8

1

3.7

15

1.5

Total

2 057

100

370

100

27

100

983

100

Eligible Amount Requested Size Class

No data

0

0

0

0

27

100

776

78.9

$1 – 4,999

141

6.9

25

6.8

0

0.0

15

1.5

$5,000 – 9,999

324

15.8

58

15.7

0

0.0

41

4.2

$10,000 – 19,999

555

27.0

87

23.5

0

0.0

54

5.5

$20,000 – 49,999

783

38.1

127

34.3

0

0.0

54

5.5

$50,000 – 99,999

177

8.6

48

13.0

0

0

26

2.6

$100,000+

77

3.7

25

6.8

0

0.0

17

1.7

Total

2 057

100

370

10

27

100

983

100

Approved Size Class

No data

267

13.0

37

10.0

15

55.6

N/A

N/A

$1 – 4,999

387

6.9

53

6.8

0

0.0

N/A

N/A

$5,000 – 9,999

622

30.2

98

26.5

0

0.0

N/A

N/A

$10,000 – 19,999

453

22.0

79

21.4

0

0.0

N/A

N/A

$20,000 – 49,999

270

13.1

70

18.9

2

7.4

N/A

N/A

$50,000 – 99,999

30

1.5

24

6.5

7

25.9

N/A

N/A

$100,000+

28

1.4

9

2.4

2

7.4

N/A

N/A

Total

2 057

100

370

100

27

100

N/A

N/A

Source: BCAH Administrative Data

Appendix I – BCAH Program Eligibility Criteria

In order to be eligible for funding under the BCAH, organizations must comply with eligibility criteria that were defined for each of the three program components: 

For Component I – Local Arts and Heritage Festivals, eligible applicants must:

  • Be a local, non-profit organization (includes ad hoc groups and organizations without legal incorporation) that engages Canadians in their communities through the expression, celebration and preservation of local culture and historical heritage;
  • Be a local Band Council, Tribal Council, or other local Aboriginal (First Nation, Inuit, and Métis) government and equivalent organizations;
  • Have the support of the municipal administration or equivalent authority, in the form of cash and/or in-kind support; and
  • Have successfully organized at least one eligible edition of the festival in the two years previous to their application.

For Component II – Community Historical Anniversaries Programming, eligible applicants must:

  • Be a local, non-profit organization (includes ad hoc groups and organizations without legal incorporation) that engages Canadians in their communities through the expression, celebration and preservation of local culture and historical heritage;
  • Be a municipal government, including local Public Institution and/or local Public Authority, Band Council, local Tribal Council, and other local Aboriginal (First Nation, Inuit, and Métis) government and equivalent organizations; and
  • Have the support of the municipal administration or equivalent authority, in the form of cash and/or in-kind support.

Under Component III – Community Historical Anniversaries Legacy Fund, eligible applicants need to:

  • Be a local, incorporated, non-profit organizations that engage Canadians in their communities through the expression, celebration and preservation of local culture and historical heritage;
  • Be a municipal government, including local Public Institution and/or local Public Authority, Band Council, local Tribal Council, and other local Aboriginal (First Nation, Inuit, and Métis) government and equivalent organizations; and
  • Have the support of the municipal administration or equivalent authority, in the form of cash and/or in-kind support.

Eligible expenses under the Local Festivals and the Community Anniversaries components include:

  • fees and expenses for local artists, artisans, and performers of local historical heritage activities
  • costs of recruiting, training, and supporting local volunteers (e.g., child care expenses, food, non-alcoholic beverages, distinctive clothing)
  • fees and expenses related to the exhibition of artwork by local artists and artisans
  • costs of publicity aimed at the local population
  • production expenses, including equipment rental costs (e.g., rental of costumes, lighting, sound equipment, tents)
  • logistical expenses (e.g., traffic barriers, portable toilets, garbage bins)
  • venue rental and set-up costs
  • cost of insurance for eligible activities
  • expenses related to financial audits when one is required by the Program
  • expenses related to environmental assessments when one is required by the Program

Ineligible expenses, under the Local Festivals component of the program, include:

  • operating expenses of your group (e.g., salaries, travel, office equipment or furniture, vehicles)
  • fees and expenses for non-local artists, artisans, or performers of local historical heritage
  • commissioned or purchased artworks or crafts
  • creation, production and/or distribution of souvenirs
  • costs related to repairing or restoring artworks or crafts
  • creation costs for a performance (e.g., writing, artistic direction, rehearsals), artwork, an exhibition, multi-media work, or any activity that produces a tangible result (e.g., commemorative plaques, costumes, showcases, parade floats)
  • creation expenses and/or commission of non-tangible works of art including theatre, music, and dance works
  • expenses related to competitions (e.g., purchase of prizes, expenses of jury members)
  • food and beverages, other than those described for volunteers
  • purchase of equipment and capital expenses (e.g., computers, stage equipment, risers, lighting, sound equipment)
  • costs related to the research, planning and production of books and exhibitions
  • security or paramedic services
  • fireworks

Ineligible expenses under the Community Anniversaries component of the program include:

  • operating expenses of your group (e.g., salaries, travel, office equipment or furniture, vehicles)
  • fees and expenses for non-local artists, artisans, or performers of local historical heritage (except for fees and expenses related to capital projects)
  • creation costs for a performance (e.g., writing, artistic direction, rehearsals) or an exhibition
  • creation, production and/or distribution of souvenirs
  • expenses associated with creating parade floats
  • expenses related to competitions (e.g., purchase of prizes, expenses of jury members) except for capital projects
  • creation and/or commission of non-tangible works of art including theatre, music, multi-media work and dance works
  • food and beverages, other than those described for volunteers
  • purchase of equipment (e.g., computers, stage equipment, risers, lighting, sound equipment)
  • purchase, commission, or restoration of religious art or artefacts currently used, or projected for use, in the practice of religious rites or ceremonies
  • restoration of grave sites or cemeteries
  • expenses related to archaeological digs
  • purchase, commission, or restoration of items that are intended for sale
  • security or paramedic services
  • fireworks

Eligible expenses under the Legacy Fund component include the following:

  • costs related to the restoration, renovation, or transformation of a building and/or an exterior space, including demolition, excavation, materials, labour, and specialized equipment
  • costs related to the commissioning and/or installation of statues, murals, works of art, and fountains
  • acquisition of land, buildings, or significant objects
  • the commissioning of planning and design studies for the project (e.g. architectural drawings, engineering studies, environmental assessments, heritage reports)
  • costs incurred in conducting project financial audits for requests over $200,000
  • costs of recruiting, training, and supporting local volunteers who are directly involved in the transformation of a building/space
  • project contingency of up to 10% of cash expenses directed towards planning, acquisition, construction, or material costs of the project
  • HST, PST, GST: Only the portion of the applicable tax that is not reimbursable by the federal government through its tax credit program is eligible.

Ineligible expenses, in the case of Legacy projects, include:

  • costs related to routine maintenance
  • operating expenses of your organization (e.g., salaries, travel expenses, office equipment and furniture, vehicles)
  • costs associated with the unveiling or celebratory events of the commemorative project (some expenses are eligible under the Community Anniversaries component of the Program)
  • purchase, commission, or restoration of religious art or artefacts currently used, or projected for use in the practice of religious rites or ceremonies
  • restoration of grave sites or cemeteries
  • expenses related to archaeological digs
  • purchase, commission, or restoration of items that are intended for sale

Appendix J – BCAH Funding Decision Notice to Applicants Analysis

Festivals financés par le PDCAP durant la période de 2009 à 2011 – Approbation du financement avec un préavis de 60 jours et plus versus Approbation du financement avec un préavis de moins de 60 jours.

Source: BCAH administrative data

Figure 2

2009 to 2011 Building Communities through Arts and Heritage funded festivals
 - Approvals with a notice of 60 days or more versus Approvals with a notice of less than 60 days

Period of event

Number of applications

Percentage of funded festivals that received a funding approval notice less than 60 days before the event

Percentage of funded festivals that received a funding approval notice at least 60days before the event

Spring and Summer 2009

528

45 percent

55 percent

Fall 2009 and Winter 2010

210

69 percent

31 percent

Spring and Summer 2010

490

3 percent

97 percent

Fall 2010 and Winter 2011

267

63 percent

37 percent

Source: BCAH administrative data

Appendix K – BCAH Funded Projects by region

 

Festival

Anniversary

Legacy Fund

Total

Atlantic

2007-08

12

2

0

14

2008-09

112

19

0

131

2009-10

167

22

0

189

2010-11

203

11

6

220

Total

494

54

6

554

Ontario

2007-08

10

7

0

17

2008-09

107

24

0

131

2009-10

157

32

1

190

2010-11

165

23

5

193

Total

439

86

6

531

Quebec

2007-08

21

4

0

25

2008-09

204

25

0

229

2009-10

190

29

1

220

2010-11

192

19

1

212

Total

607

77

2

686

Total Eastern Provinces

1 540

217

14

1 771

RPN

2007-08

4

4

0

8

2008-09

28

18

0

46

2009-10

33

28

1

62

2010-11

49

32

6

87

Total

114

82

7

203

Western

2007-08

19

5

0

24

2008-09

125

26

0

151

2009-10

117

17

1

135

2010-11

142

15

5

162

Total

403

63

6

472

Total Western Provinces and PNR

517

145

13

675

Total All Provinces

2007-2008

66

22

0

88

2008-2009

576

112

0

688

2009-2010

664

128

4

796

2010-2011

751

100

23

874

Total

2 057

362

27

2 446

Appendix L – BCAH Program Key Outputs from 2007-08 to 2010-11

 

2007-08

2008-09

Component I

Component II

Component III

Component I

Component II

Component III

Number of applications received

108

32

N/A

882

176

N/A

Number of funded projects

Contribution

5

7

N/A

67

13

N/A

Grant

61

15

N/A

509

99

N/A

Unknown

 -

-

N/A

-

-

N/A

Total

66

22

N/A

576

112

N/A

Number of unfunded projects

42

10

N/A

306

64

N/A

Average total project expenses

$ 247,516.6

$ 115,225.3 

N/A

$169,607.0 

$ 124,848.5

N/A

Average amount funded per project

$17,313.6

$34,259.8

N/A

$8,858.2

$13,530.2 

N/A

Average percentage of amount approved out of total project expenses

14.3 %

29.1 %

N/A

10.5 %

16.6 %

N/A

Average percentage of amount approved out of total eligible expenses

65.3 %

93.0 %

N/A

38.5 %

55.5 %

N/A

% of projects with $1 – 49,999 total expenses

92.4 %

72.7 %

N/A

99.0 %

95.5 %

N/A

% of projects with $50,000 – 99,999 total expenses

4.5 %

22.7 %

N/A

0.3 %

3.6 %

N/A

% of projects with $100,000 – 499,999 total expenses

3.0 %

4.5 %

N/A

0.7 %

0.9 %

N/A

Source: BCAH Program Administrative Data

 

2009-2010

2010-2011

Total/Average from 2007-08 to 2010-11

Component I

Component
II

Component
I II

Component I

Component
II

Component
III

 

Number of applications received

934

162

25

1023

143

82

3,567

Number of funded projects

Contribution

101

25

3

45

9

7

282

Grant

563

103

1

439

62

1

1853

Unknown

 -

-

-

267

29

15

311

Total

664

128

4

751

100

23

2446

Number of unfunded projects

270

34

13

250

33

50

1,072

Average total project expenses

$189,354.7

$140,440.4

$432,390.3

$207,660.5

$139,840.1

$366,897.6

$213,378.1

Average amount funded per project

$17,577.9

$26,234.0

$159,733.3

$14,733.7

$20,496.9

$139,402.4

$45,214.0

Average percentage of amount approved out of total project expenses

15.8 %

22.5 %

39.2 %

13.3 %

21.1 %

42.9 %

22.5 %

Average percentage of amount approved out of total eligible expenses

69.2 %

70.5 %

50 % 

52.1 %

54.0 %

50 % 

62.3 %

% of projects with $1 – 49,999 total expenses

95.8 %

84.4 %

25.0 %

61.9 %

69.0 %

4.3 %

70.0 %

% of projects with $50,000 – 99,999 total expenses

2.1 %

10.9 %

25.0 %

1.5 %

1.0 %

26.1 %

9.8 %

% of projects with $100,000 – 499,999 total expenses

2.1 %

4.7 %

50.0 %

1.1 %

1.0 %

0.0 %

6.8 %

Source: BCAH Program Administrative Data

1 Includes $1.5 million re-profiled to 2010-11 from the 2009-10 budget.

2 Department of Finance Canada. (2007). The Budget Plan 2007. Ottawa: Department of Finance Canada.  Retrieved February 23, 2011, from http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/pdf/bp2007e.pdf.

3 Statistics Canada. (2007). Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

4 The high percentage of administrative costs in 2007-08 is attributed to the Program’s start-up costs.

5 Please note that the calculation of this percentage excludes $1.5 million in contributions that was re-profiled into the 2010-11 budget from the 2009-10 budget.  If one ignores the $1.5 million re-profiling, the ratio for 2010-11 is at 15.3% as indicated in table 1.

6 The high percentage of administrative costs in 2007-08 is attributed to the Program’s start-up costs.

7 Please note that the calculation of this percentage includes $1.5 million in contributions that was re-profiled into the 2010-11 budget from the 2009-10 budget. If one ignores the $1.5 million re-profiling, the ratio for 2009-10 is at 16.6% and at 16.4% for 2010-11.

10 Statistics Canada. (2007). Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

8 Includes $1.5 million re-profiled to 2010-11 from the 2009-10 budget.

9 PCH. (2010). Report to Treasury Board on the Operating Costs, Results Achieved, and Efficiency Measures in Place for the Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage Program (funding years 2007-08 to 2009-10). Gatineau: Department of Canadian Heritage.

11 PCH. (2010). 2010-2011 Report on Plans and Priorities. Ottawa: Treasury Board Secretariat.

12 PCH. (2010). 2010-2011 Report on Plans and Priorities. Ottawa: Treasury Board Secretariat.

13 Department of Finance Canada. (2007). The Budget Plan 2007. Ottawa: Department of Finance Canada.  Retrieved February 23, 2011, from http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/pdf/bp2007e.pdf.

14 Government of Canada. (2011). Speech from the Throne on June 3rd, 2011. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Retrieved on February 23rd, 2011http://www.speech.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1390.

15 Treasury Board Secretariat (2010). Descriptors for Government of Canada Outcome Areas. Ottawa: Treasury Board Secretariat.

16 PCH Grants and Contribution Information Management System Report

17 Derrett, Ros. (2003). Making sense of how festivals demonstrate a community sense of place. School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW.

18 Hill Strategies. (2003). Economic Impacts of 97 Festivals and Events Funded by the Ontario Trillium Foundation, the Ontario Arts Council and the Ontario Cultural Attractions Fund - Fact Sheet 2: Analysis by Size of Festival. Prepared for the Ontario Trillium Foundation on April 2003 by Hill Strategies. Hamilton: Hill Strategies.

19 Please note that the calculation of this percentage excludes $1.5 million in contributions that was re-profiled into the 2010-11 budget from the 2009-10 budget. If one ignores the $1.5 million re-profiling, the ratio for 2010-11 is at 15.3% as indicated in table 1.

20 Excludes $1.5 million re-profiled to 2010-11 from the 2009-10 budget.

21 The Marquee Tourism Events Program (MTEP) was launched by Industry Canada in 2009 to provide targeted, time-limited support to assist existing marquee tourism events to enhance their offering and deliver world-class programs and experiences. The program assisted significant marquee tourism events with an established international presence taking place in Canada (i.e. Festival international de jazz of Montréal, the Niagara Wine Festival) attract international audiences, which may have been impacted by the global economic downturn. The MTEP ended in 2011.
 

22 Aide financière aux festivals et aux événements touristiques

23 See BC Arts Council website : http://www.bcartscouncil.ca/organizations/festivals.htm

24 See PEI Government website : http://www.gov.pe.ca/forms/pdf/1377.pdf

25 Satisfaction refers to the percentage of respondents that were either satisfied or very satisfied (4 and 5 on 5 point scale), excluding respondents that answered ‘’don’t know’’


26 PCH. (2010). Client Survey Draft Report. Gatineau: Department of Canadian Heritage.

27 Proportion of Official-Language Minority Communities by Province/Territory, Canada, 2001 Census

28 The high percentage of administrative costs in 2007-08 is attributed to the Program’s start-up costs.

29 Please note that the calculation of this percentage excludes $1.5 million in contributions that was
re-profiled into the 2010-11 budget from the 2009-10 budget. If one ignores the $1.5 million re-profiling, the ratio for 2010-11 is at 15.3% as indicated in table 1.

30 Community includes Local Partners, Municipality and Individuals.

31 Local players include local partners and municipalities.

32 Used to establish a profile of the funded events.  It is not meant to be considered as a “performance indicator”.

33 Information sourced from PCH (2011) Website, PCH. (2010). Report to Treasury Board on the Operating Costs, Results Achieved, and Efficiency Measures in Place for the Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage Program. Gatineau: Department of Canadian Heritage.


34 Information sourced from PCH (2011) Website, PCH. (2010). Report to Treasury Board on the Operating Costs, Results Achieved, and Efficiency Measures in Place for the Building Communities Through Arts and Heritage Program. Gatineau: Department of Canadian Heritage, Veterans Affairs Canada (2011) Website, Canada Council for the Arts (2011) Website, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (2011) Website.  

Note:

To access the Portable Document Format (PDF) version you must have a PDF reader installed. If you do not already have such a reader, there are numerous PDF readers available for free download or for purchase on the Internet: 

Please note that all saveable and fillable PDF forms require Adobe Acrobat Reader version 8.1 or higher.