This archived Web page remains online for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. This page will not be altered or updated. Web pages that are archived on the Internet 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 of this page on the Contact Us page.
Projects recipients are generally satisfied with the five NADP objectives, which are sufficiently flexible to support a diverse and broad range of projects. Interviews revealed that applicants experience little difficulty in developing projects that address one or more of these objectives.
Interviewees within the archival community indicated that it is still important to support projects that in part address backlog reduction. This was confirmed during the file review; a large number of proposed NADP projects are aimed in part at reducing backlog. There is some resistance from the archival community to the fact that backlog reduction in itself is no longer an objective of the NADP. There is a sense that backlog reduction projects are less likely to be funded with the establishment of the five national objectives. Some interviewees commented on the large quantity of archival materials that are not described or are physically deteriorating, and therefore remain inaccessible to Canadians. However, successful NADP applicants proposing backlog reduction work were doing so in the context of the national objectives. In addition, there was considerable support for objectives not related to backlog reduction. A number of key informants endorsed Objective 2 on increasing awareness, commenting that the focus on awareness in archives prior to the NADP was minimal.
The file review showed a large diversity of projects, even within each of the objectives. For example, Objective 5, on increasing preservation capacity, included project topics ranging from the development of a frozen storage facility, to developing disaster/emergency plans for protecting documents, to repairing manuscripts, to funding a position for a Preservations Advisor. The objectives do not appear to be limiting the scope of projects that can be funded.
All approved projects address at least one of the objective categories. In some cases, the main objective of a project is changed if it is determined the fit would be better under a different objective. Adjudication and review committees can recommend such changes. In addition, the file review showed that many of the approved projects involve activities that address two or three of the national objectives. In the application form, project applicants are asked to explain the significance of their project in advancing the NADP objective they are applying under. Examining completed forms during the file review showed that applicants generally have a clear understanding of relating activities for their projects to the national objectives. The final reporting form includes a detailed section for each objective, where recipients describe progress in the objective(s) their project addressed.
The CCA and LAC meet to assess the national strategic priorities yearly, and there is support to continue doing this. These meetings help to ensure the relevance of the national priorities, and to make certain they do not limit the types of activities that can be undertaken.
There is support for the system of having provinces and territories set their own local priorities. For the fiscal year 2008-2009, ten Provincial/Territorial Councils set their own priorities, and will award additional points in adjudication for projects addressing these priorities. Interviews showed a high level of support for setting these local priorities because of the importance of institutions being able to address issues relevant in their areas.
In terms of project funding distribution per NADP objective, Objectives 2 and 3 had the fewest number of projects in both years of the program, while Objective 1 had the largest number of projects (see Table 4).
|Year||Objective 1||Objective 2||Objective 3||Objective 4||Objective 5|
|Approved but no funding
|Source: CCA, 2007|
Objectives 2 and 3 were not in place prior to the NADP, whereas Objectives 1, 4 and 5 existed with the previous Grants and Contributions program, which can help explain the lower number of projects in these categories. Interviews indicated that setting provincial/territorial priorities helped to increase the number of projects under objectives 2 and 3 in the second year of the program, as did general communication by the CCA on this issue with the archival community.
Interviews also showed that members of the archival community want to be able to pursue projects that in part address backlog reduction. The high number of projects approved under Objectives 1 and 5 reflect the continued need to fund projects that address arrangement and preservation. Projects submitted under Objective 1 had the highest number of 'rejected' applications for the fiscal year 2007-2008 (Table 4), as 27 applications under Objective 1 were approved but had no funding available.