ARCHIVED - About Us

Formative Evaluation of the National Archival Development Program
Final Report

5.1 Program implementation

Evaluation question: Is the program being implemented as designed?

The NADP is being implemented as designed. NADP funding was determined to be essential for the institutions receiving funds if progress is to be made towards national priorities and standards. For many organizations involved in archival activities, the NADP is their only source of outside funding to undertake such activities and for significant progress to be accomplished in the foreseeable future.

There is a general approval of the national objectives by the CCA, LAC, P/T Councils and Project Recipients. Continuing to maintain flexibility and revisiting the priorities yearly will help to prevent limitations that could result from defining the priorities. There is also support for setting priorities at the provincial/territorial level to allow for flexibility locally. Although the newer objectives (2 and 3) are the least popular, projects approved for those objectives have increased in the second year of the program. The support for Objective 2, as expressed in key informant interviews, supports a continued emphasis on increasing awareness in archives. In addition, there is still a perception from the archival community that continuing to fund projects that address backlog reduction is important. Projects aimed at reducing backlog need to be proposed in the context of one of the five national objectives.

The application process is one of the main issues applicants face. Continual revisions to simplify the application form, and potentially reducing the length of applications for smaller projects could help streamline this process. The budget section appears to be especially difficult to complete.

There is no need to work on clarifying roles and responsibilities of the CCA and LAC as was the case in the 2004 evaluation; this has been addressed. In addition, the two-tier review system appears to be appropriate for this program. This is contrary to findings of the 2004 evaluation, which concluded that there was support for streamlining the adjudication process by removing the necessity of the Board to review all projects. This evaluation found reviewing applications at the national level to be essential but time-consuming, largely because of the number of clarifications needed with the applications. The need for so much clarifying means that mistakes are not being filtered at the Provincial/Territorial Council level. The newness of the program and the lack of time/resources available for completing applications likely contribute to these mistakes. The length and complexity of the application form also increases the likelihood of mistakes. Allowing more time for applying (which is planned), and simplifying the forms as much as possible will help to address this issue.

Based on the findings, we generated the following conclusions:

Evaluation question: Is the program being implemented as designed?

• There is a general approval of the five national objectives by all stakeholders within the NADP. The system of setting local priorities at the provincial and territorial levels is working well and should continue.
• There is a continued need for the NADP, as it is either the only source or a major source of funding for many groups.
• The application form, which was considered to be onerous by applicants, should be simplified to the extent possible, in collaboration with LAC, to ensure that all the information currently being requested is necessary.
• Given the large number of small-sized projects, and the fact that many applicants are volunteers, the program could consider providing grants, instead of contributions, for small-sized projects, when the program is renewed.

Previous | Table of Contents | Next