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.
In the first year of the program, there were 94 funded, approved applications and 46 additional applications approved but without funding. In the second year of the program, there were 118 funded, approved applications and 41 additional applications that were approved without funding available (see Table 4 for a breakdown by objective). Data for approved, but non-funded projects were not collected before the inception of the NADP.
The overall number of projects funded each year has decreased with the implementation of the NADP (Table 5). However, 22 more projects were funded in the second year of the NADP than in the first. The fact that over 40 applicants had approved projects, but no available funding (in both years), along with key informant opinions, indicate that there is a demand for project funding from the NADP.
|Fiscal year||Number of projects funded||Total allocation|
|2006/2007 (NADP Year 1)||93||$1,095,806|
|2007/2008 (NADP Year 2)||115||$1,119,115|
Roles and responsibilities with respect to program delivery appear to be clearly defined for members of the LAC, CCA, and Provincial/Territorial Councils representatives. Regular applicants also appear generally familiar with distinguishing the roles of the different groups. Interviews revealed that project applicants have some difficulty distinguishing the roles of the CCA and LAC, but this is normal for programs involving a third-party delivery agent. An organizational chart outlining roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders on the NADP section of the CCA website could help clarify this.
Relationships between all stakeholder groups appear to be effective. LAC and the CCA are holding meetings biannually to address national strategic priorities. Provincial/Territorial Councils appear to be satisfied with the support they receive from the CCA; the CCA is available and helpful in this regard. In turn, archival institutions appear to be satisfied with the help they receive from the CCA, and their respective councils for issues/questions related to the NADP.
There were delays for some institutions/organizations in receiving payments from the NADP. The file reviewed showed that contracts for many of the projects were being finalized with the applicants in the months of July and August, when intended start dates can be as early as April. Sometimes, delays in receiving payments caused projects to begin later than planned, or resulted in organizations "fronting the funds" if possible. However, interviews revealed that many organizations do not have sufficient cash flow to do this.
Potential factors contributing to these delays include high administrative pressure on the CCA Secretariat, errors in project applications that need further clarification, and delays in reporting. The newness of the program is likely the main factor causing payment delays. There has been progress observed recently and efforts are being made to prevent delays in the future.