Library and Archives Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Institutional links


Archived Content

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.

Summative Evaluation of the National Archival Development Program

5.4 Recommendations

1 - The findings of this Summative evaluation support the findings and recommendations of previous evaluation reports and confirm the need to continue the National Archival Development Program (NADP). It is the recommendation of this evaluation report that the funds of the program be increased in order to cover the expected inflation rate and in order to support initiatives in coping with the digital environment. The NADP continues to be the main source of finance, sometimes the only program of formal funding, while provincial, regional and municipal governments as well as universities and other varied sources make contributions to match the funds, as required by LAC and CCA.

2 - Following the 2008 Summative evaluation report, LAC and CCA have taken the necessary actions to implement fully the performance measurement plan. For the first time in 2009-2010, almost all data were collected. The recommendation that NADP results to date be used as baseline data and that program-level performance targets under each objective be used to improve performance measurement and identify changes and trends in the future, is still valid.

3 - Program recipients repeatedly request a lighter process for the application, adjudication, and monitoring of the NADP. Even though the current system in place is effective and despite that some adjustments were made, the smaller size recipients are still disadvantaged by the program processes. Therefore using grants funding instead of contributions would be the preferred option to address this issue. Another option would be that LAC continues to use the contributions formula, and consider two types of contributions: one for projects funded at the $10K level or more and one for less than $10K.

- The projects funded at the $10K level or more would continue to use the existing application, adjudication and monitoring process since the majority of these projects are granted to Provincial/Territorial Archival Councils.
- The projects funded at the less than $10K level would use a simplified process under the Provincial/Territorial Council's authority, while CCA would be responsible for the financial administration of these projects. This approach would enable the Provincial/Territorial Councils to create an application, adjudication and monitoring processes that are commensurate to the projects approved. The performance measurement and reporting system would also be greatly simplified by eliminating the necessity to provide detailed information linked to performance measurement plan.

4 - Interactions between CCA and LAC are continuous, year after year. LAC's management role concerning the NADP needs to be defined more precisely. In this respect it is recommended that the program adopt a single window management approach in order to improve communications and provide a rationale-based framework for interaction with CCA.

Previous | Table of Contents | Next