1. Introduction

This chapter briefly describes the Katimavik program, outlines the context in which the evaluation was carried out, states the objectives of the evaluation and the main issues it addressed, and presents the structure of the report.

1.1 Program description

Katimavik is a learning program for young Canadians between the ages of 17 and 21. Participants are given a unique opportunity to spend several months living and working in different regions of Canada. They spend their time in the program in communities outside their home province, living in small groups in “Katimavik houses” and working as volunteers with local organisations. The program enables the young participants to form lasting ties with communities throughout Canada while developing personal, social and professional competencies intended to help improve their employability. The program is based on learning up to eight competencies, namely the ability: to interact with others in a variety of situations; to adopt an open attitude toward the diversity of social and multicultural realities; to communicate in both official languages; to engage in diverse work experiences; to apply habits that favour a healthy lifestyle; to develop an integrated vision of environmental protection and sustainable development; to engage as a citizen; and to prepare to integrate, as a citizen, into the job market, school or other life event.

Youth wishing to enrol in Katimavik have two options: a nine-month “long” program that has been in existence for many years, and a six-month “short” program that was introduced in September 2009. The two programs are based on the same model (learning through community service) and feature the same components (volunteer work, community integration and group living). However, participants in the short program do not learn all the competencies covered by the long program. They also have to choose one of three theme programs: Cultural Discovery and Civic Engagement; Second Language and Cultural Diversity; or Eco-citizenship and Active Living.

The federal government is by far the primary source of funding for Katimavik, as it provides a substantial financial contribution through the Department of Canadian Heritage (PCH). The contribution is managed by the Department’s Youth Participation Directorate (YPD), which in turn reports to the Citizen Participation Branch, accountable to the Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship and Heritage. Appendix 1 presents the most recent logic model for Katimavik, dated June 2009, which outlines the expected short-, medium- and long-term results of the program. Through those results, Katimavik endeavours to contribute to achieving one of PCH’s three current strategic outcomes, namely for Canadians to share, express and appreciate their Canadian identity.¹ The program is delivered by Katimavik-OPCAN Corporation (Katimavik-OPCAN), a not‑for-profit organisation whose mission is to foster personal, social and professional development of youth through volunteer community work, training and group interaction; to promote community service; and to provide a diverse experience that instils a better understanding of Canadian reality.

Katimavik-OPCAN receives 98% of its funding from the federal government through a contribution agreement managed by YPD. The agreement sets out the expected results and the government’s accountability and reporting requirements. Under the agreement, Katimavik-OPCAN oversees the conduct of all activities needed to run the program successfully, including recruitment and selection of young participants, recruitment of community partner organisations to take in participants, recruitment and training of contract employees who supervise the participants during their placements (or “rotations”), and organisation and day-to-day management of those placements throughout Canada.

Led by a Board of Directors with 17 members from various sectors (business, academia, provincial governments, non-governmental organisations), Katimavik-OPCAN had a core staff in 2008-09 representing 42 full time equivalents (FTEs) plus contract employees responsible for supervising participants during their placements.² Staff are split among the head office in Montreal and five offices in as many regions of Canada: British Columbia and Yukon (Vancouver); Prairies, Northwest Territories and Nunavut (Calgary); Ontario (Ottawa); Quebec (Montreal); and Atlantic (Halifax). It should be noted, however, that to implement the new budget envelope announced by the Minister in October 2009, Katimavik-OPCAN unveiled in March 2010 a series of measures³ aimed at controlling program costs, one of which was to reduce the number of regional offices from five to three by merging the Quebec and Atlantic offices and the British Columbia/Yukon and Prairies/Northwest Territories/Nunavut offices. Katimavik-OPCAN also changed its structure to base the relationship between head office and the regions on a line hierarchy rather than a matrix model. Under the matrix model that used to be in place, each regional manager reported both to his/her regional director (on administrative aspects of the job) and his/her national director at the head office (on functional aspects of the job). Adopting a line model improved the work dynamic in the regional offices, gave recognition to the role played by regional directors, and enabled regional directors to take on more responsibility. Management of the federal government’s contribution requires approximately 1.4 FTE in YPD, although resourcing varies slightly from year to year depending on need.

Of all the national community service programs for youth in Canada, Katimavik is the oldest and the one with the largest budget. Over the years, more than 30,000 youth have taken part in the program. During the four program years⁴ between 2005-06 and 2008-09, nearly 4,200 youth enrolled in Katimavik, and of those, 2,800 completed all their placements.⁵ In that same four-year period, Katimavik had a yearly average of 810 community partner organisations (see Appendix 2 for the method used to calculate these statistics).

1.2 Context

Appendix 3 lists some key milestones in the evolution of the program since its creation in 1977. The overview is important, because Katimavik has followed a unique path over the past three decades, and the challenges it faces today are in part a product of that legacy. The program experienced strong growth in the early years and peaked in 1986. In a period of fiscal restraint, the federal government provided no funding from 1986 to 1994, which made it necessary to scale back the program dramatically. At that time, a foundation was created to provide minimal support to Katimavik, and the scope of the program was drastically reduced. At the lowest point of this period, Katimavik was little more than an outdoor sports centre and training centre located in L’Île-Perrot, Quebec. The reinstatement of federal funding in 1994 marked the beginning of a new period of growth that reached a high point in the mid 2000s.

From 2005-06 to 2008-09, funding for Katimavik remained fairly stable, as shown in Table 1. Nevertheless, this was also a time of great financial uncertainty caused by the federal government’s 2006 decision to suspend the automatic renewal of program funding and to reconsider annually whether or not it would make a contribution. That uncertainty was allayed in fall 2009 when the government announced multi-year funding for the period from 2010-11 to 2012-13. In early 2010, however, Katimavik-OPCAN was disrupted by changes that became necessary when it was decided to modernise the program and when the government decided to cut back federal spending in its effort to counter the financial crisis and recession that occurred from 2007 to 2009. The situation led to the announcement in spring 2010 that strong measures would be taken to reorganise administration, seek new sources of funding and cut back costs, resulting in: reduction in the number and length of placements throughout the country; gradual abolishment of positions in the organisation; restructuring of field operations; introduction of registration fees for the very first time; and other administrative changes.

Table 1: Program financial data, 2005-06 to 2008-09
(All figures in C$)

Federal government fiscal year (April to March)	PCH contribution under agreement with Katimavik-OPCAN (Note 1)		Contributions for activities of Katimavik-OPCAN (Note 2)		Other revenues of Katimavik-OPCAN (Note 3)		Total revenues of Katimavik-OPCAN (Note 4)
2005-06	16,687,568		19,377,885		12,494,857		31,872,742
2006-07	17,472,411		17,702,464		12,194,397		29,896,861
2007-08	18,028,683		18,095,508		11,550,475		29,645,983
2008-09	18,992,154		19,897,421		13,107,286		33,004,707

Notes:
1. Data provided by the program finance team at PCH.
2. Item and results from financial statements (summary statements of operations) attached to annual reports from Katimavik-OPCAN for fiscal years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09.
3. Total revenues from rendered services, amortization of deferred contributions related to capital assets, contributed supplies and services, and other revenues. All these items appear in the financial statements (summary statements of operations) attached to annual reports from Katimavik-OPCAN for fiscal years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09.
4. Total of columns 3 and 4. Katimavik-OPCAN revenues match annual expenses, making excess of revenues over expenses nil.

1.3 Objectives of evaluation and key issues

The summative evaluation presented in this report had two main objectives: to meet Treasury Board requirements for the renewal and continuation of funding for Katimavik; and to provide the government with information on the relevance, implementation, performance and achievements of the program in the fiscal years from 2005-06 to 2008-09. The evaluation was also to provide as much information and data as possible for fiscal year 2009-10, during which measures taken as a result of a summative evaluation carried out in 2006 were implemented. In more general terms, the study was intended to give stakeholders an opportunity to take stock of the implementation and follow-up of the recommendations made in the 2006 evaluation.

In keeping with these objectives, the evaluation focused on three main issues: relevance of the Katimavik program; program design and delivery; and performance (effectiveness, efficiency, economy). The team from Groupe-conseil baastel, the consulting firm hired by PCH to conduct the evaluation, examined the following points:

• Relevance – Extent to which: (a) the objectives of Katimavik-OPCAN ties in with government-wide priorities and PCH’s strategic objectives; (b) the program continues to meet a demonstrable need for civic engagement among youth; (c) the demonstrable need for young volunteers among community partner organisations is still demonstrable; and (d) the program continues to meet a demonstrable need for Canadians.
  
  
• Design and delivery – Extent to which: (a) the program’s structure and delivery mechanisms are appropriate and effective; and (b) suggested changes to new program design could potentially improve Katimavik’s ability to achieve the expected immediate and intermediate results.
  
  
• Performance – Extent to which: (a) the applicant matching and placement process is successful at achieving the expected immediate results; (b) community service learning and leadership development activities are successful in achieving the expected immediate results; (c) the program meets the needs of participating youth and community partner organisations; (d) the program achieves the expected intermediate results and the long-term results set out in the logic model; (e) the efficiency of the program is sufficient to produce the desired impact on Canadians and meet its objectives without exceeding its budget or producing any undesirable effects; (f) the program meets the established performance objectives; and (g) the program uses the most appropriate, efficient and cost-effective means to meet its objectives, as opposed to other youth participation models that could lead to the same results.

1.4 Structure of report

The remainder of this report consists of: a brief description of the methodology used to carry out the evaluation; the primary findings on the three main evaluation issues (relevance, design and delivery, performance); and the conclusions and recommendations of the study. The recommendations are followed by comments from Katimavik officials. At the end are appendices containing more detailed information to support findings discussed in the report.

[ Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page ]