Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
Symbol of the Government of Canada

ARCHIVED - Evaluation of Foundations


Warning This page has been archived.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.


V. Effectiveness

This chapter reviews the effectiveness of foundations from a number of perspectives. The first is the extent to which they are making progress in achieving the objectives set in their funding agreements, drawing on the findings from independent evaluations of various foundations and information in their annual reports. We then look at the extent to which they complement or overlap with existing government programs, mechanisms used to maintain alignment with government policy goals, and the functioning of accountability mechanisms.

A. Evidence of progress against objectives

In order to gain a sense of the progress foundations have made against their formal objectives we reviewed reports on evaluations of foundation activities conducted by independent evaluators as well as the information on results included in foundations' annual reports. Almost all foundations have requirements in their funding agreements to conduct independent evaluations of performance on a regular basis and to include information on activities, outputs and outcomes in their annual reports, which are submitted to their responsible ministers and may be tabled in Parliament. Ministers also have the option, in some instances, to conduct their own evaluations of the extent to which government policy goals are achieved as a result of the activities of foundations. Others do not have all these requirements in their funding agreements, depending on when the agreements were established, but do voluntarily publish information on their results. We also supplemented the review of evaluation reports with questions in our key informant interviewing program.

Key informants – representing foundations, funding departments, and other agencies, such as Granting Councils – almost uniformly felt that the foundations they were familiar with were achieving intended results and were a good choice as policy instruments. These views are supported by information contained in foundations' annual reports that point to a significant degree of success in ramping up operations and disbursing funding for supported projects. Projects supported by most foundations have long life cycles so information on outcomes and impacts is only now starting to become available, but initial results appear encouraging. Some key informants also noted that a number of the foundations have also added considerably to the understanding of the goals and issues they are addressing through the conduct of in-depth research programs, such as the Aboriginal Healing Foundation and the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation.

Exhibit V-1 summarizes the key conclusions from a subset of the independent evaluations and reviews of foundations' activities conducted in recent years as well as the Auditor General's performance audit of Sustainable Development Technology Canada. Common themes in the findings of these and other foundation evaluations suggest that foundations:

  • Are responsive, flexible organizations.
  • Have introduced innovative business models and approaches to the selection and monitoring of projects.
  • Are results oriented and many have implemented performance measurement systems that provide detailed information on project implementation, progress and results. In this regard, we observed that the single purpose nature of foundations facilitates the implementation of performance measurement systems that are superior to the systems in place for many departmental programs.
  • Have established effective working relationships with their partners and stakeholders.
  • Have made good progress against their objectives set in their funding agreements.
  • Are contributing to the achievement of related government policy goals, based on the initial evidence of impacts, and recognizing that it will be some years before significant impacts accrue due to the long term nature of most foundation activities.

The conduct of independent evaluation studies is not treated as a matter of commissioning an assessment to show compliance with the requirements of legislation or funding agreements but is viewed by foundation boards and management as a means of identifying needs for improvement. Foundations have made the reports from their evaluations publicly available through their web sites and responded to recommendations and findings regarding opportunities to improve the design and delivery of their activities.

Perhaps the best example of this is the response to the mid-term evaluation conducted for the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation (CMSF), conducted by the Institute of Intergovernmental Affairs at Queen's University in 2002. After reviewing the findings the Board directed the CMSF management to undertake a broadly based consultation with the wide range of stakeholders in the post secondary education system. A series of 18 consultation sessions involving approximately 500 participants across Canada plus an online consultation that resulted in about 250 submissions were conducted in 2004 and a synthesis report prepared for consideration by the CMSF Board. A series of changes and modifications were made in response to the findings. These included changes related to the timing of bursaries for students in the first year of their studies (in courses of at least two years duration) and the introduction of new need-based bursaries designed to improve the access of under-represented student groups, such as students from low-income households and Aboriginal students to post-secondary education. The findings also contributed to the design of the foundation's pilot projects testing alternative means of fostering entry to post secondary study.

Exhibit V-1

Key findings and conclusions from independent evaluation studies

ObjectivesSet in Foundations' Funding Agreements

Findings From Independent Evaluation And Review Studies

Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation 

1. To grant scholarships in a fair and equitable manner to students who are in financial need and who demonstrate merit, in order to improve access to post-secondary education;

2. To reduce financial barriers that impede access to education of qualified Canadians of all ages; and

3. To help Canadians acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to fully participate in a changing economy and society.

Mid-Term Evaluation - May, 2003

"Overall, we believe that the CMSF is an effective, innovative organization that, within its mandate, has accomplished much. It managed to come quickly to agreements with all the provinces and territories, agreements that allowed its bursary programs to start earlier than had been expected. It recognized the issue of displacement early on and came to side agreements with the provinces on the reinvestment of displaced funds. Nonetheless, these agreements are quite vague, in some cases, and thus may not lead to reinvestments that directly help students. The leverage of the Foundation in negotiating more specific reinvestment agreements was limited, however, by an announcement by the Government of Canada that implied that provinces were free to spend displaced funds in whatever way they chose. The partnerships between the Foundation, and the provinces and territories, are functional, if not always without tension. Indeed, the Foundation considers itself to be "province-friendly" but the majority of the provinces either believe that (the) Foundation is not "province-friendly" or are neutral on the question. The Foundation has clearly met the accountability requirements imposed by Parliament; the existence of "Members", however, does not seem to be working as a way of holding the Foundation accountable for improving post-secondary access."

(p.9)

Cessation of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Fund: Provincial/Territorial Perspectives on Issues and Implications - 2006

"In many respects, the CMSF allows for a more outcomes-focused framework than that offered by the CSLP (Canada Student Loans Program) alone, which, in many respects is more geared to the ‘hows' of delivery within a homogeneous one-size-fits-all framework, rather than toward the achievement of policy outcomes. Unlike CSLP funding, Millennium bursaries are distributed through individual agreements with all ten provinces and three territories, which allows funding to be allocated in different ways to meet diverse challenges and goals."

(Executive Summary)

Genome Canada 

1. The development and establishment of a co-coordinated strategy for Genomics research to enable Canada to become a world leader in areas such as health, agricultures, environment, forestry and fisheries

2. The provision of leading edge technology to researchers in all Genomics related fields through regional Genome Centres across Canada, of which there are currently five, on each in BC, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic.

3. The support of large scale projects of strategic importance to Canada which are beyond current capacities by bringing together industry, government, universities, research hospitals and the public.

4. The assumption of leadership in the area of ethical, environmental, economic, legal, social, (GE3LS) and other issues related to Genomics research and the communication of the relative risks, rewards and successes of Genomics to the Canadian public.

5. And the encouragement of investment by other persons in the field of Genomics research.

Interim Evaluation – March, 2004

"Genome Canada's Overall Objective is to initiate and effectively manage a major nationwide program in genomics research. The hope was that, starting from a position of lagging behind many other countries in genomics research (e.g., the United States, the United Kingdom), Genome Canada would enable Canada to catch up with these countries, at least in selected sectors. The indications from this study are that this is happening and that Canada is now recognized as a potential world leader in certain areas (i.e., GE3LS (ethical, environmental, economic, legal, and social issues), agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, proteomics.

In order to accomplish this in a relatively short period of time (three to five years), Genome Canada introduced an innovative, business-oriented program model. This model is based on the funding of considerably larger research projects than are generally funded by other Canadian research programs, the identification and funding of the required scientific support infrastructure, and a major emphasis on the management of the research."

(p.i)

Pacific Salmon Endowment Fund Society / Pacific Salmon Foundation

1. Receiving and managing donations to support projects to conserve, restore and protect pacific salmon and their habitat and to stewardship of the resource including increasing public knowledge and awareness;

2. Coordinating projects with other partners that contribute to healthy and sustainable Canadian Pacific salmon stocks;

3. Obtaining and maintaining charitable organization status;

4. Undertaking to increase the capital and the revenue returns of the PSEF through such measures as contributions, partnerships and charitable donations;

5. Encouraging and facilitating citizen engagement and cooperating with relevant stakeholders in order to achieve the purposes of the Society;

6. Abiding by strict principles of due diligence, transparency and accountability.

Five Year Program Evaluation – August, 2005

"The SSRP (Strategic Salmon Recovery Program) is funded by PSEF, with the PSF serving as Program Manager, and by funding and professional assistance from watershed stakeholders. Partners include Fisheries and Oceans Canada; provincial, municipal, regional and First Nations governments; forestry and other industries; and community, stewardship and conservation stakeholders. The recovery plans are coordinated and collaborative watershed-based plans for high priority streams. ...

The SSRP programs were run according to clearly defined, scientifically based recovery plans with prioritized project lists and schedules. Decisions about projects and direction are made in a collaborative way, which ensures good communication, partnership and transparent decision-making. This approach has brought together most watershed stakeholders so that the "tools of salmon recovery (i.e., habitat, harvest, enhancement, volunteers and land use practices)" work toward the goal of salmon recovery. ...

The projects, plans and PSF as an organization scored well in the evaluation. Habitat and salmon status trends are improving in watersheds where there is recovery planning."

Executive Summary)

Canada Foundation for Innovation 

1. To support economic growth and job creation; as well as health and environmental quality through innovation;

2. To increase Canada's capability to carry out important world-class scientific research and technology development;

3. To expand research and job opportunities for young Canadians; and

4. To promote productive networks and collaboration among Canadian post-secondary educational institutions, research hospitals and the private sector.

Evaluation of CFI Innovation Fund (IF), University Research Development Fund (URDF), and the College Research Development Fund (CRDF) – May, 2003

"Overall, the programs have had marked positive impacts. There is every indication that these programs are meeting their objectives of building Canada's capacity for innovation, and thus improving Canada's economic and social well-being. The IF, URDF, and CRDF programs have first transformed the quality of infrastructure. Where more than half of the infrastructure in the case studies was poor or fair prior to the awards (and none was world-class), 90% of case study respondents now rate it as excellent or world-class in the disciplines affected by the awards. The projects enabled by the CFI have contributed significantly to the creation of national and (especially) regional "knowledge clusters", and have had an exceptionally strong positive impact on the nature of research that is carried out: more cutting-edge research, conducted faster, with more multidisciplinarity, and with substantially more collaboration (nearly twice as much as before). Smaller institutions in particular reported increased visibility and credibility both nationally and internationally as a result."

(p.ii)

 

Council of Canadian Academies, "The State of Science and Technology in Canada", Ottawa, 2006

 "CFI has allowed Canadian researchers to acquire internationally competitive capital equipment infrastructure. Despite some recent limited operation funds to support this, there seems to be a great discrepancy between the sum invested in capital equipment and in money invested in operation, in particular manpower. This will, if not fixed, in a few years lead to an exodus of top researchers and the recognition that billions of tax dollars were invested without significant benefit to Canadian society."

(Fellow, RSC Academy of Sciences, quoted on p.99)

Green Municipal Fund 

FCM shall disburse funds from the Fund Assets in the form of grants, loans and/or loan guarantees to Eligible Recipients carrying out Eligible Projects which, in the opinion of the Board, have the potential to result in significant environmental improvement on air, water and soil quality, including greenhouse gas emissions reduction, in one or more of the following categories of activity:

(a) Energy
(b) Water
(c) Waste
(d) Sustainable transportation
(e) Brownfields
(f) Integrated community projects

The Board shall consider in addition to potential environmental benefits from Eligible Projects, the potential for economic and /or social benefits, ...

Marbek Resource Consultants, "Environmental Impacts of Canada's Green Municipal Fund (GMF) Implementation Projects – 2006 Update", Ottawa, 2006

Analysis in this report includes estimates of the potential environmental impacts of all 93 GMF implementation projects, focusing on impacts on greenhouse gases (GHG) and air contaminants that affect local air quality. Key estimates:

  • The projects funded to date will result in estimated net annual GHG emission reductions of 1,210 kt CO2e (kilotonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent), including 820 kt CO2e from direct emissions (fossil fuel or fugitive reductions) and 390 kt CO2e from indirect emissions (electricity). The largest contribution to annual GHG emission reductions is expected from 9 landfill gas (LFG) projects that have an estimated 570 kt CO2e reduction (47% of the total). This is followed by 22 building/facility energy efficiency projects at 410 kt CO2e (36%), and 21 renewable/clean energy supply projects at 190 kt CO2e (16%).

(p.16)

  • Anticipated annual reductions of air contaminants include:

Nitrogen oxides (NOx)

    641 tonnes

Sulphur dioxides (SOx)

65 tonnes

Fine particulate matter (PM10)

512 tonnes

Volatile organic compounds (VOC)

12 tonnes

 

 (p.17)

Sustainable Development Technology Canada 

1. Act as the primary catalyst in building a sustainable development technology infrastructure in Canada.

2. Fund the development and demonstration of new Sustainable Development technologies related to GHG reduction, clean air, clean water, and clean soil in order to make progress towards Sustainable Development.

3. Foster and encourage innovative collaboration and partnering amongst diverse Persons in the private sector and in academic and not-for-profit organizations to channel and strengthen the Canadian capacity to develop and demonstrate Sustainable Development technologies with respect to GHG reduction, clean air, clean water, and clean soil.

4. Ensure timely diffusion by funded recipients of new Sustainable Development technologies in relevant market sectors throughout Canada.

Interim Evaluation Report – June, 2006

"The evaluation found general agreement that SDTC occupies 'a clearly defined niche' among government funding programs. Any overlap with other programs is minimal and well-managed with hand-offs or referrals in both directions. "

(p.5)

"The evaluation found strong evidence of a continuing need for SDTC's funding support. The funding gap remains a major barrier to emerging technologies. While SDTC's initiatives may be strengthening the Canadian infrastructure for new technologies, without SDTC, the existing infrastructure is unlikely to access the financial resources required to bring these technologies through the development and demonstration phase."

(p.6)

"Based on the results from the demonstrations completed by the first seven projects, the environmental audits of those results and proponents' market projections, the projected benefits are substantial relative to the SDTC contributions. While the projects must survive significant market and business risks before the projected impacts can be achieved, based on the results to date, SDTC investments are on track to return positive benefits for Canadians."

(p.8)

Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, "Managing the Federal Approach to Climate Change", Office of the Auditor General, Ottawa, 2006

"1.123 We found that the federal government's relationship with STDC is reasonable given the distinctive nature of this relationship. In our view, the federal government has taken reasonable steps to ensure that SDTC's climate change activities are effectively aligned with other federal climate change programs and that SDTC is operating in a specific niche area.

1.124 We determined that SDTC's strategic decisions related to its climate change activities are consistent with its mandate and its applicable funding agreements. We found that SDTC has taken reasonable steps toward fulfilling its climate change mandate. We concluded that SDTC's processes for selecting and managing climate change projects are satisfactory."

(p.45)

B. Coordination and integration with related government programs

Foundations have been created with specific mandates and narrow spans of operations intended to address gaps and unmet needs in the existing mixes of government support programs. This means that foundations should have programs that do not duplicate or overlap with the activities of government programs. At the same time, most foundations operate in fields where their activities link to or complement the activities of related government programs. This is particularly true with regard to support for public research and development, where foundations supporting research projects and infrastructure development have to position themselves amongst the programs of the federal granting councils, various departmental programs and provincial research councils and programs. For example, the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF) and Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) have specialised niches that link to the broader mandates of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), respectively. Similarly, the overall effectiveness of federal support for publicly funded research depends on the extent to which infrastructure projects supported by the Canadian Foundation for Innovation are integrated into institutions' own research strategies and the various project funding programs of the granting councils.

The boards and management of foundations are aware of the need to avoid duplication or overlap of activities and consequently take steps to ensure that areas of potential overlap and opportunities for cooperation with government programs are identified and factored into their business plans. What appears to result is that foundations operate with "points of intersection" with other programs where two or more organizations with distinct mandates may target the similar areas or interest or activity but the majority of their resources are allocated to meet separate objectives. In these instances, in the words of one granting council president, there's coherent and integrated planning, and there's a strong will and interest in working together. Key informants from departments, granting councils and foundations noted that the need for information sharing and coordination between complementary programs was recognized and generally effective but the success of such activities depended on sustained effort and communications by all affected organizations.

We would expect that some degree of coordination or integration would be necessary if foundations are responding to very specific needs within a broader mix of initiatives and activities each addressing distinct elements of a set of public policy goals. However, in the event that a significant share of a foundation's activities needed to be coordinated with other organizations' programs it suggests that the need being addressed by the foundation may not be as specific nor separable as was anticipated at the time the foundation approach was chosen.

We are aware of one instance where it has been suggested that an existing foundation – the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF) – be merged with the more recent, and larger, Institute for Health Services and Policy Research (created with support from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research). An international review panel considered this question as part of their evaluation of CHSRF in 2001 and recommended that CHSRF should be maintained separate from CIHR for the immediate future. The question of whether it should be merged with IHSPR and brought under the umbrella of CIHR should be re-examined, however, in 5 years or thereabouts.[20]

C. Alignment with government policy goals

The 2005 report of the Auditor General on the accountability of foundations concluded: Inadequate provision has been made for the government to adjust foundations' mandates or policy directions where circumstances have changed considerably.[21] As part of our research we asked key informants if they were aware of any instances where foundation mandates were out of alignment with government policy goals, how foundations kept informed about government policies and adjusted their priorities to match shifts in related policies.

Many of the key informants prefaced their remarks with statements to the effect that foundations are working in areas where it would be difficult to foresee government policy goals changing so much that the foundations' directions would markedly diverge from new policy directions. They consistently argued that the Auditor General's concern was valid but largely hypothetical in reality. For example, the major areas of expenditure by foundations are linked to policies on innovation, the establishment or updating of critical infrastructure, the development of a skilled and knowledgeable population, and responses to community and environmental issues; areas where overall policy outcomes and circumstances are unlikely to change within the terms of most foundations. However, this does not mean that such considerations can be ignored, and any future proposals to create new foundations should consider the potential long-term development and evolution of the policy goals addressed by these proposals.

Within the overall mix of foundations, those with perpetual endowments have the greatest degree of independence, in that the government has more limited opportunity to intervene to renegotiate their objectives to maintain alignment with policy goals compared to foundations with fixed term funding. This is not to say that any of the foundations with perpetual endowments have objectives that are out of alignment with current policy goals; only that they have more freedom to set and maintain independent courses over the long-term.

Our analysis of foundation-related documents and interviews did not find any instances where foundation mandates were out of alignment with government policy goals. In a number of cases the government has intervened to extend or refine the strategic directions of foundations by providing additional funds tied to the achievement of more targeted objectives and shifts in the mix of projects supported. Examples of such actions include the addition of a brownfield initiative for the Green Municipal Fund, provision of funding earmarked for health research infrastructure for the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the expansion of Sustainable Development Technology Canada's mandate to support clean water and soil technologies in addition to climate change and clean air technologies.

In addition to this formal means of modifying mandates and objectives, foundations also take policy developments and evolution into account in their corporate planning and resource allocation processes. Foundation boards obtain input on government policies and programs in a number of ways. In some cases, government officials are appointed as ex-officio members of the Boards of foundations and these members are able to provide guidance on relevant policy matters to their Board colleagues as part of their participation in board activities.[22] In other cases, departmental representatives attend board meetings as observers and may be called upon to provide information to the boards on these foundations regarding government policies.[23]

At a slightly more informal level, the senior managers and key board members of foundations often have regular contacts with departmental managers as well as Ministers and their offices. They also have contact with key partners at other levels of government. Information gained through these contacts provides intelligence on policy directions and facilitates the fine tuning of project selection criteria and resource allocations.

Funding departments use their participation in board activities and regular contacts with foundation managers to monitor the performance of "their" foundations against the objectives in the foundations' funding agreements. In this regard, some departments and foundations have established methods for regular meetings and information exchange, such as Natural Resources and Environment Canada with Sustainable Development Technology Canada and, separately, the Green Municipal Fund. Others have less systematic approaches and it appeared to us that there would be benefits to the government if funding departments maintained systematic methods of information sharing and liaison with foundations.

D. Functioning of governance and accountability mechanisms

A final aspect of the effectiveness of foundations is the extent to which they meet commonly accepted standards for external accountability, such as those presented in the Auditor General's 2005 and 2002 reports on foundations as well as guidelines and standards for public agencies and other forms of delegated authority in other jurisdictions.[24] In essence, these frameworks define the outcomes to be achieved; the means by which plans and results will be reported; to whom, and when; means by which the Minister may verify the accuracy and reliability of performance information; and, the circumstances under which the Minister may intervene in the event on non-compliance with funding agreements and, as applicable, legislation.

In 2003, in response to the recommendations in the Auditor General's 1999 and 2002 reports on foundations and the accumulated experience in establishing funding agreements with newly created foundations since 1997 and monitoring their performance, the government introduced a set of accountability provisions for foundations. These provisions were intended to put all foundations on a common footing, and related to:

  • Preparation of annual corporate plans, their submission to the responsible Ministers and provision of summaries to Parliament and the public.
  • Preparation of annual reports containing audited financial information, information on results achieved, and findings of any evaluation studies. These reports are to be submitted to the responsible Minister and made available to the public. Annual reports of some foundations, including those created by legislation, are also to be tabled in Parliament.
  • Appointment of independent financial auditors by foundations' members.
  • Inclusion of provisions in funding agreements for the:
    • Conduct of independent evaluations to measure performance against the objectives set in funding agreements at regular intervals and the submission of such reports to the responsible Minister.
    • Responsible Minister to carry out independent evaluations of the extent to which achievement of foundation objectives contributes to the attainment of policy goals, and audits of compliance with funding agreements, at their discretion.
    • Intervention by the responsible Minister in the event of significant deviations from the terms of funding agreements.
    • Recovery of unspent funds in the event that the foundation is wound up.

These requirements were to apply to funding agreements with any new foundations and to funding agreements with existing foundations (for example, for new funding). These provisions could not be applied retroactively to existing agreements unless the applicable foundations agreed to negotiate the inclusion of suitable amendments. Departments are also required to include information on planned and actual results of applicable foundations in their departmental performance and planning reports to Parliament.

Our review of foundation documents found that many funding agreements have been updated or renegotiated to incorporate many of these provisions. Exhibit V-2 summarizes the current accountability requirements for the foundations examined during this evaluation.

We also asked key informants for their views on the suitability of the accountability requirements applied to foundations. In general, the key informants felt that the 2003 reporting requirements added a layer of public transparency and accountability to practises that were already in place to support internal management and board oversight and control of foundation activities.

Revisions to the accountability requirements for foundations introduced in Budget Plan 2003 mean that new and renegotiated funding agreements contain a requirement for foundations to conduct periodic independent evaluations and provide the responsible Ministers with the discretion to commission their own evaluations of the performance of foundations as instruments of policy. These provisions may potentially mean that a Minister could commission an evaluation at the same time as a foundation is conducting a mandated evaluation. Such a situation could conceivably arise towards the end of a foundation's funding term if questions are raised about the continued use of a foundation to achieve policy goals. Both studies would require input from the funding department, foundation, partners in foundation activities and beneficiaries, possibly giving rise to overlapping study parameters and data collection activities. We note, and endorse, the inclusion in the pro forma content of new and revised funding agreements a phrase requiring the responsible Ministers to consult with foundations prior to the commissioning of such studies.

Accountability mechanisms:

The independent review we did this summer confirmed what the (foundation's) evaluation told us. ... Requirement for business plans put the (foundation) on the hook, in terms of requiring them to specify what they want to achieve. It took a while for them to get their business plans up to speed; they are now very concrete, show how each individual program is complementing the objectives. ...

Having solid business plans with good (performance) measures is key. If you don't have that you are in trouble. We (department) don't have a business plan like (foundation); we are tougher on them than we are on ourselves.(Department representative)

Exhibit V-2

Current accountability requirements for foundations

Foundation

Audited Financial Statements

Annual Report1

Corporate Plan

Independent Evaluation Reports2

Reports Tabled In Parliament

Discretionary Ministerial Powers

Return of Funds

Compliance Audits

Evaluations

Intervention Mechanism

1. Canada Foundation for Innovation

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Default Provision and Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Yes

2. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Default Provision and Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Yes

3. Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation

Yes

Yes

No

Yes3

Yes

No

No

Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Yes

4. Aboriginal Healing Foundation

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Dispute Resolution Mechanism

No

5. Genome Canada

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Default Provision and Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Yes

6. Green Municipal Fund

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Default Provision and Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Yes

7. Canadian Foundation for Climate Change and Atmospheric Sciences

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Default Provision and Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Yes

8. Clayoquot Biosphere Trust Society

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Yes

9. Canada Health Infoway

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Default Provision and Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Yes

10. Sustainable Development Technology Canada

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Default Provision and Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Yes

11. Pacific Salmon Endowment Fund

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

None

No

12. Frontier College

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

None

No

13. Forum of Federations

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Default Provision and Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Yes

14. Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Default Provision and Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Yes

15. CIRLM

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Default Provision and Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Yes

16.Asia-Pacific Foundation

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Default Provision and Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Yes

1. Not all funding agreements specify that the annual report should contain audited financial information, information on results achieved, summary details of planned future actions, and findings of any evaluation studies. 
2. Some agreements specify a "program audit" or "review" rather than specifically requiring an "evaluation".
3. A single five-year review of CMSF's activities and organization.