Follow-up Audit of Capacity Development

5.1.1 Governance and Direction

Since 2009, AANDC's Senior Management has emphasized the need for the Department to better understand the capacity development needs of First Nation communities and to evolve the Department's approaches and programs to better meet these needs. The timeline included in Appendix C depicts the major capacity development related activities undertaken in the Department between 2009 and 2013.

In 2011, the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM), Regional Operations (RO), was assigned the role of Champion to create a focal point for the Department's capacity development activities with a view to "modernize departmental capacity programming". During 2011-12, the Department's progress in furthering capacity development initiatives was limited; however, renewed push to advance capacity development priorities was evident in 2012-13.

Capacity development has been reflected in departmental priorities in the Department's Reports on Plans and Priorities (RPP) for the years 2010-11 to 2013-14 under the broader headings of "Improving Partnerships and Relationships" and "Transforming for Improved Results". Specific plans are identified each year to "Facilitate Community Development and Capacity"; however, these are generally specific initiatives of the RO Sector and are not representative of the comprehensive suite of AANDC programming. As a result, there is no clearly articulated direction or roadmap for the capacity development investments of the Department. Where capacity development program activities and initiatives were outlined in the RPP, related plans are reflected in Sector business plans and results achieved are fairly presented in the Department's Departmental Performance Reports (DPR). As well, many departmental initiatives currently underway will contribute, over time, to the ability of the Department to more effectively plan for, implement and report on capacity development initiatives (e.g., improvements to recipient reporting requirements, better linkages with Health Canada, and realignment of the Program Alignment Architecture and Performance Measurement Framework).

Considering the importance of capacity development to the Department, we expected to find departmental policy development, and program design and approval processes that require program managers to demonstrate that capacity development has been explicitly considered in their policy and program proposals. Moreover, we expected to find established departmental capacity development principles to guide policy and program staff in developing their policy and program proposals. However, we did not find a policy framework to guide or ensure consideration of capacity development in all policy and programming proposals (e.g., opportunities to integrate with other programs, opportunities to provide options for First Nations of different sizes and capacity levels, opportunities to work with and leverage investments of other capacity other funders, etc.). In the absence of a centrally driven mandate, AANDC Sectors are responsible for developing policy and programming options for new or redesigned programs with the support of their own policy advisors and input from capacity development program staff of RO Sector and policy advisors in PSD Sector.

Even though there is no specific requirement for program managers to demonstrate consideration of capacity development needs, there is evidence that managers consider it when designing and redesigning their programs. Several programs have recently raised the prominence of capacity development in their program design and delivery approaches. Examples include:

• the Northern Communities Opportunities Fund initiative aimed at leveraging industry investments to generate economic stimulus and infrastructure investment in remote First Nations communities;
• innovative approaches to management of water and wastewater operations on reserve;
• community-based focus of economic development investments;
• increased focus on active measures in the income assistance program to increase employability of First Nations people; and,
• added focus has been placed on supporting First Nations who want to manage their reserve lands by providing them with funds to strengthen their capacity.

Recommendation

1. AANDC should strengthen the focus on capacity development in its proposed policies and program activities through the following actions:

1. The Senior ADM PSD, with the support of the Senior ADM RO, the CFO, and the ADM NAO, should work with all ADMs to establish departmental capacity development priorities and/or principles to guide the Department in making improvements to its capacity development policies and program activities. Due consideration should be given to opportunities for each program to enforce synergies with other programs and support the broader capacity development needs of First Nations communities, people, institutions and professional organizations.
2. The Senior ADM PSD, with the support of the Senior ADM RO, the CFO, and the ADM NAO, should work with all ADMs to ensure that the policy development and program design and approval functions of the Department include an appropriate process and challenge function to ensure that the Department's capacity development principles and/or priorities are considered and reflected in all policy and program proposals, and that planned capacity development activities are sufficient to achieve the Department's capacity development priorities.

5.1.2 Design and Integration of Capacity Development Programs

The Department has made progress towards developing a community-based capacity development approach for First Nations communities with its Community Development and Capacity Building Framework (CDCBF). The approach, developed jointly with Health Canada, is community-focused and instituted in partnership with First Nations communities. The CDCBF reinforces accountability relationships between First Nations governments and their constituents, and has been piloted in various First Nations communities. Thus far, the CDCBF pilot projects have focused primarily on community governance-related issues, drawing on funding made available through the Professional and Institutional Development program administered by the RO Sector. The CDCBF is not yet well integrated with other AANDC programs and the Department's plans for further integration are unclear.

As mentioned earlier in this report, many of the AANDC programs directed at First Nations have been updated in recent years with increased emphasis on capacity development. Examples include:

• the Income Assistance Program has worked with Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) to introduce Active Measures and Enhanced Service Delivery initiatives aimed at assessing individual employment readiness and overcoming barriers to employability;
• the Reserve Land and Environment Management Program has been introduced to support First Nations that wish to exercise increased responsibility over their reserve land, resources and environment. By enabling First Nations to take responsibility for Indian Act land management activities on behalf of AANDC, communities are able to build their internal capacity and more nimbly seize opportunities;
• the Community Infrastructure Branch has shifted its funding approach for the Community Infrastructure Program to promote medium-term infrastructure planning within communities. This approach builds planning skills within communities and provides them with a roadmap for development; and,
• the progress made by several institutions of First Nations government and professional associations, with AANDC support, in building their own capacity and the capacity of First Nations they serve (e.g. First Nations Lands Advisory Board, First Nations Financial Management Board, Aboriginal Financial Officers Association and National Aboriginal Lands Managers Association).

While noteworthy progress is being made within specific AANDC programs, we found few examples of programs working together to create synergies and leverage capacity development investments.

Our interviews with departmental staff also indicated that there are different interpretations of the Department's objectives and role vis-à-vis capacity development. For example, some program and regional managers see AANDC's role as that of an enabler, while others see the Department as having a more explicit role as that of a catalyst. Similarly, most headquarters-based program managers interviewed believe the Department should take a program-based approach to capacity development, while the regions tended toward a community-centric approach. This difference in perspective reinforces the need for clear capacity development principles to guide both program and regional managers.

5.1.3 Measuring Results of Capacity Development Programming

AANDC's Performance Measurement Framework (PMF) includes very little linkage to Capacity Development. This is indicative of early-stages Capacity Development programming and a lack of research and analysis to support linkages. For example, the 2011-12 AANDC RPP indicates that, for the Government Strategic Outcome, the performance indicator is the "Labour force and income components of the Community Well-Being Index (CWB)". However, targets were not set due to the lack of current CWB data and, as a result, the performance indicator does not provide any evidence as to progress on Capacity Development issues.

For the Program Activity "Governance and Institutions of Government" the program performance indicators are "Percentage of First Nations operating with a plan to develop governance capacity" and "Percentage of First Nations free of financial intervention". While the Department did report on these results in the DPR, the performance indicators are not well linked to the Government Strategic Outcome, nor are they representative of overall progress towards enhanced First Nations capacity levels.

While a comprehensive Capacity Development Performance Measurement Strategy does not currently exist, Regional Operations supported the development of model departmental performance measurement strategy and logic model for capacity development programming in 2011. These documents were developed in the context of a department-wide effort to explore a horizontal approach to delivering capacity development programming. While not implemented, this performance measurement strategy and logic model could serve as a well-developed starting point for evolving departmental capacity development objectives and principles.

During our audit, the Department was undertaking a review of its Program Alignment Architecture and its Departmental PMF; however, it remains unclear whether this review will suggest that capacity development take greater prominence in the departmental PMF.

5.1.4 Evidence-based Research to Support Policy Development and Program Design

In completing our audit, we expected to find that policy and program proposals were supported with evidence-based research, strong data analysis, and results of evaluations. Ideally, research and data-analysis would be performed by objective researchers outside of AANDC, for example, academia, research foundations, and other research-oriented organizations. In respect of capacity development for Canadian First Nations, we found that very little research on causal factors of successful communities has been completed and few researchers are focused on this topic. It is important to note that this gap is not the result of a lack of researchers focused on studying the Canadian First Nations issues; we identified over 15 Canadian Universities and institutes that have substantial programs and research focused on the study of Aboriginal issues, including First Nations University of Canada, University of Toronto, University of Western Ontario, University of Ottawa, University of Manitoba, University of Winnipeg, and University of British Columbia among many others. Further, in Budget 2013, the Government of Canada announced an investment of $5M over five years to fund the position of a Chair in Aboriginal Business Studies at Cape Breton University.

AANDC's Audit and Evaluation Sector has performed some evaluations in recent years that have evaluated the relevance and performance of capacity development approaches^{Footnote 2}; however these evaluations provide a small band of coverage of the current and possible capacity development approaches. Additional evaluations of capacity development approaches would require a strong base of performance information, research and analysis.

In the absence of Canadian centric research on the causal factors behind sustainable community capacity development, AANDC places greater reliance on data and research from the American and international development contexts. AANDC officials note that this research is applicable, but lacks consideration of the unique characteristics of the Canadian context^{Footnote 3}.

Our audit found that within AANDC, responsibility for funding and performing research rests with each program, with PSD Sector providing support to programs as required. While the Department has a three-year research plan, consolidated by PSD Sector in consultation with all Sectors, it does not include capacity development research priorities. Our interviews with departmental officials highlighted that, for research on horizontal issues such as capacity development, the decentralized approach to research is a barrier. Neither PSD Sector nor RO Sector is playing a coordinating role with other federal partners on First Nations focused research and analysis.

Similarly, in the absence of a clear home for research on First Nations capacity development outside of the Federal Government, it is unclear whether AANDC should take a more leading role by promoting topics of research with academics and/or advising companies and not-for- profits looking to invest in First Nations oriented research and programming. Our analysis of trends highlighted that Canadian universities, resource development companies and other benefactors are eager to invest in research and programming focused at First Nations. However, AANDC has not played a meaningful role in engaging with and encouraging them to focus on topics related to capacity development. We found that it was unclear whether AANDC should play a facilitation and advisory role with research organizations and interested investors to help improve chances for success (i.e. similar to how the AANDC Strategic Partnerships Initiative facilitates resource development, but serving as a centre of expertise on capacity development of First Nations communities, leaders, youth, professionals, institutions and other organizations).

Recommendation:

2. The Senior ADM PSD, with support of all AANDC senior executives, should:

1. Facilitate the establishment of research and data analysis priorities to support the Government of Canada in improving First Nations capacity development approaches and programming; and,
2. Review and clarify the department's role as a coordinator and facilitator of research and programming focused on First Nations capacity development, with other Government departments, academia and other stakeholders interested in researching and investing in First Nations capacity development.

5.2.1 Design and Use of Assessment Tools to Focus Capacity Development Investments

While AANDC has made significant progress in developing processes and tools to assess the capacity and capacity related needs of First Nations communities, greater refinement is required before the results of these assessments can meaningfully drive allocation decisions for capacity development investments. Most notably, the General Assessment (GA) tool was implemented in 2010 to introduce more formal consideration of recipient capacity into the selection of funding approaches and recipient administrative requirements. Our questionnaires of regional approaches and analysis of departmental spending (see Exhibits 1 and 2, and Appendix E) found that some regions are devoting a higher proportion of their proposal-based capacity development funds on First Nations that have high GA scores^{Footnote 4} , and thus higher capacity-related needs^{Footnote 5} (i.e. Manitoba, Quebec and Atlantic). On the contrary, other regions are attributing higher levels of proposal-based capacity development to First Nations with lower GA scores (i.e. British Columbia, Ontario, Yukon, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories and Alberta). This could be attributable to a number of factors that our audit did not study in depth (e.g. Saskatchewan Region appears to leverage Tribal Councils more than some other regions, BC Region and Manitoba Region appear to fund capacity development organizations and professional associations more than other regions).

Text alternative for Exhibit 1 Average Capacity Spending for First Nations with High GA Scores by Region

The histogram to the right summarizes how regions are devoting either formula-based or proposal-based capacity development funds to First Nations with high General Assessment (GA) scores. It demonstrates that regions are consistently devoting more spending to formula-based funding approaches than proposal-based funding approaches when it comes to high GA scoring First Nations.

• Northwest Territories
  • Formula Based: $0M
  • Proposal Based: $0M
• Atlantic
  • Formula Based: $.71M
  • Proposal Based: $.18M
• Quebec
  • Formula Based: $.79M
  • Proposal Based: $.24M
• Ontario
  • Formula Based: $.33M
  • Proposal Based: $.09M
• Manitoba
  • Formula Based: $.65M
  • Proposal Based: $.18M
• Saskatchewan
  • Formula Based: $.89M
  • Proposal Based: $.04M
• Alberta
  • Formula Based: $.7M
  • Proposal Based: $.2M
• Yukon
  • Formula Based: $.22M
  • Proposal Based: $.11M
• British Columbia
  • Formula Based: $.3M
  • Proposal Based: $.07M

Text alternative for Exhibit 2 Average Proposal Based Capacity Spending for First Nations, by GA Score

The histogram to the right summarizes the average proposal-based capacity spending for First Nations organized by region and by General Assessment (GA) score. It demonstrates that some regions are devoting a higher proportion of their proposal-based capacity development funds to First Nations that have high GA scores, and thus higher capacity-related needs (i.e. Manitoba, Quebec and Atlantic). On the contrary, other regions are attributing higher levels of proposal-based capacity development to First Nations with lower GA scores (i.e. British Columbia, Ontario, Yukon, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, and Alberta).

• Northwest Territories
  • First Nations with High GA Score: $0
  • First Nations with Medium GA Score: $47K
  • First Nations with Low GA Score: $20K
• Atlantic
  • First Nations with High GA Score: $178K
  • First Nations with Medium GA Score: $171K
  • First Nations with Low GA Score: $66K
• Quebec
  • First Nations with High GA Score: $238K
  • First Nations with Medium GA Score: $188K
  • First Nations with Low GA Score: $185K
• Ontario
  • First Nations with High GA Score: $87K
  • First Nations with Medium GA Score: $91K
  • First Nations with Low GA Score: 128K
  • First Nations with No GA Score: $42K
• Manitoba
  • First Nations with High GA Score: $184K
  • First Nations with Medium GA Score: $149K
  • First Nations with Low GA Score: $137K
• Saskatchewan
  • First Nations with High GA Score: $41K
  • First Nations with Medium GA Score: $88K
  • First Nations with Low GA Score: $95K
• Alberta
  • First Nations with High GA Score: $203K
  • First Nations with Medium GA Score: $212K
  • First Nations with Low GA Score: $296K
• Yukon
  • First Nations with High GA Score: $112K
  • First Nations with Medium GA Score: $100K
  • First Nations with Low GA Score: $204K
  • First Nations with No GA Score: $19K
• British Columbia
  • First Nations with High GA Score: $73K
  • First Nations with Medium GA Score: $37K
  • First Nations with Low GA Score: $79K
  • First Nations with No GA Score: $1K

We performed further analysis of spending giving consideration to both the relative size of a First Nation community and their GA score. Our analysis, summarized in Exhibit 3, indicates that on average, smaller First Nations with high GA scores receive considerably less proposal-based capacity development funding than larger First Nations with high GA scores. While this distribution may seem reasonable at first glance, several program and regional managers highlighted that the administrative burdens of First Nation communities is not proportionate to the size of the community (e.g. one band council, one band office, one financial controller, one fire chief, one infrastructure manager, etc.).

Interviews and questionnaires conducted with AANDC regions indicate that regions do consider GA results when setting priorities and making investment decisions for capacity development, yet our analysis indicates variation in funding decisions. This inconsistency of approach from region to region reinforces the need for clear departmental messaging on capacity development priorities and principles. It also raises questions about why GA scores are more influential in driving investments in some regions than in others.

Text alternative for Exhibit 4 Distribution of 2012 General Assessment and 2006 Community Well-Being Scores for First Nation Communities

The histogram to the right indicates that Community Well Being (CWB) scores have a very different distribution than General Assessment (GA) scores. The left panel illustrates the CWB Score and the right panel illustrates the GA score. It demonstrates that the GA score is not yet a predictor of community wellbeing.

• CWB score between:
  • 80-90: 0%
  • 70-79: 8%
  • 60-69: 26%
  • 50-59: 36%
  • 40-49: 28%
  • 30-39: 2%
• GA score between:
  • 0-4: 28%
  • 5-9: 23%
  • 10-14: 10%
  • 15-19: 10%
  • 20-14: 9%
  • 25-34: 9%
  • 35-59: 6%

Our analysis and interviews indicated that some AANDC officials believe that the GA is not yet a strong predictor of First Nations’ capacity-related needs. The graph in Exhibit 4 shows that Community Well Being scores have a very different distribution than GA scores. This raises some question about the current ability of the GA tool to predict community capacity needs. The audit did not perform correlation analysis to determine whether a subset of GA criteria would have more positive correlation with Community Well Being Scores or some other measure of community health and/or capacity.

In addition to the GA, the Governance Capacity Planning Tool (GCPT) was recently introduced to enable First Nations to self-assess their governance capacity and to develop governance development plans. Our regional interviews and questionnaires indicate that, while the tool is gaining traction and wide-spread use by First Nations, many of the existing governance development plans lack the sophistication and thoroughness intended through the completion of the GCPT. The achievement of more noteworthy advancements through the GCPT and resulting plans will likely require greater involvement of trained governance experts to support First Nations. Presently, there are few regional staff trained in governance development and, as a result, communities are receiving limited support from AANDC regional offices. In AANDC’s Ontario Region, the Governance Development Network, an organization focused on First Nation governance, is supporting First Nations in performing these assessments. Similar organizations were not identified in other AANDC regions.

Many other program specific tools and methodologies have been introduced over the last two years including economic development and lands management readiness assessments, and the Education Organization Planning Tool. These tools focus on program-specific capacity assessments and there is limited integration with community-level assessments. Interviews and questionnaires with program managers found that there are limited examples of programs working at cross-purposes with each other to leverage existing capacity development tools and methodology, and capacity-building opportunities.

5.2.2 Capacity Development Investments and Default Prevention and Management

The Default Prevention and Management Policy (DPMP) was introduced in June 2011 as a replacement for the former Intervention Policy. The DPMP reinforces the need to support community capacity development so that communities continue to increase their ability to self-manage thereby reducing the probability of default and default recurrence. While capacity development is a stated aim of the DPMP, our audit found that regions are given autonomy in devising approaches and finding funding to achieve this policy aim.

The only ear-marked funding made available to AANDC regions for funding remedial action plans of communities in default was drawn from the preexisting Professional and Institutional Development (P&ID) program. Our analysis indicates that, in 2012-13, a total of $9M of P&ID Program funds was invested in 240 First Nations community-led initiatives. Of these investments, $4.2M was directly invested in 87^{Footnote 6} initiatives with First Nations that were in one of the three levels of default. This indicates that 71 of 158 First Nations in default received no P&ID funding for implementation of management action plans. Our analysis of all proposal based capacity development spending for First Nations highlights that average annual proposal based capacity development spending for twelve First Nations under Third Party Management is $187K per year, which is considerably higher than average spending on First Nations in less severe levels of default and not in default (see Exhibit 6). Interviews with program and regional managers suggest differing perspectives about whether First Nations under Third Party Management should receive higher levels of capacity development funding than their counterparts who are not in default.

Text alternative for Exhibit 5 Average P&ID Program Spending for First Nations in Default

The first historgram illustrates the average Professional and Institutional Development (P&ID) program spending in 2012-2013; how much spending and where it goes.

• First Nations not in Default: $19K
• Recipient Managed First Nations: $26K
• Co-Managed First Nations: $24K
• Third-Party Managed First Nations: $45K

Text alternative for Exhibit 6 Average Proposal Based Capacity Spending for First Nations in Default

The histogram illustrates the average proposal-based spending capacity spending for 2012-2013; how much spending and where it goes.

• First Nations not in Default: $99K
• Recipient Managed First Nations: $121K
• Co-Managed First Nations: $123K
• Third-Party Managed First Nations: $187K

Looking more closely at spending on First Nations in default (see Appendix F), we found that regions appear to have differing approaches and philosophies. Some regions are investing considerably more in First Nations communities in default (Atlantic, Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta and Yukon) while other regions are investing less in First Nations in default (Ontario, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia). Further study of these observations is warranted to better understand why this is occurring, including whether some regions are opting to leverage Tribal Councils and other organizations to support recipients in default rather than flowing funding directly to the First Nation in question.

Despite receiving higher proposal-based capacity funding than other First Nations, we found that First Nations in default are not necessarily at an advantage. All else being equal, First Nations who are required to fund the fees of a Third Party Manager or Expert Resource^{Footnote 7} from their core Band Support Funding allocations will need to cut back on their internal administrative capacity, impairing their chances to improve community capacity. A declining approach to subsidizing the costs of a Third Party Manager, Co-manager or Expert Resource (e.g. 80% year in one, 50% in year two, 25% in year three, and 0% in year four) could allow First Nations in default to retain their administrative capacity and incent them to quickly undertake meaningful reform.

Recommendation

3. The Chief Financial Officer, with support of the Senior ADM RO and ADM NAO, should review and improve linkages between the General Assessment, Default Prevention and Management regime and capacity development program activities to ensure that First Nations with the greatest capacity development needs and potential are given appropriate focus by regions and programs.

5.2.3 Leveraging Institutions and Associations to Achieve Results

As detailed previously, AANDC is increasingly experiencing success in partnering with recognized institutions and professional associations to further its capacity development aims. While regional funding services officers have some knowledge of community and capacity development principles and provide advice to many of their clients on these subjects, they are rarely experts in the field of development and often lack time to devote personal attention to building First Nations capacity. Furthermore, some First Nations communities prefer to work with institutions and associations that are at arms-length from government.

Text alternative for Exhibit 7 Total Funding to AFOA (national organization only)

The stacked histogram to the right illustrates the amount of funding received by the national Aboriginal Financial Officers Association (AFOA). The bottom portion of the bar indicates the amount of Federal Funding for AFOA, and the top portion of the bar indicates the amount of Other Funding (i.e. academic funding, private sector funding, etc.) for the AFOA.

• 2002:
  • Federal Funding: $1.48M
  • Other Funding: $.15M
• 2003:
  • Federal Funding: $1.34M
  • Other Funding: $.28M
• 2004:
  • Federal Funding: $1.04M
  • Other Funding: $.58M
• 2005:
  • Federal Funding: $1.38M
  • Other Funding: $.6M
• 2006:
  • Federal Funding: $.91M
  • Other Funding: $.76M
• 2007:
  • Federal Funding: $1.17M
  • Other Funding: $.81M
• 2008:
  • Federal Funding: $.94M
  • Other Funding: $1M
• 2009:
  • Federal Funding: $.87M
  • Other Funding: $1.47M
• 2010:
  • Federal Funding: $1.24M
  • Other Funding: $1.75M
• 2011:
  • Federal Funding: $1.66M
  • Other Funding: $1.9M
• 2012:
  • Federal Funding: $1.38
  • Other Funding: $1.57M
• 2013:
  • Federal Funding: $1.14M
  • Other Funding: $1.54M

As an example of a partnership that has garnered success, the Aboriginal Financial Officers Association (AFOA)^{Footnote 8} has drawn on stable funding from AANDC and other federal funders for over a decade and has made sustained progress in leveraging funding from private funders and its membership (see Exhibit 7). This example proves that sustained support of partners by AANDC can lead to substantial net new gains over the longer-term.

Text alternative for Exhibit 8 Funding Provided to AFOA Regional Chapters

The histogram to the right breaks down the funding provided to the AFOA regional chapters, provinces and in years.

• Northwest Territories
  • 11/12: $5K
• Atlantic
  • 10/11: $56K
  • 12/13: $389K
• Quebec
  • 10/11: $108K
  • 11/12: $95K
• Manitoba
  • 10/11: $6K
  • 11/12: $23K
  • 11/12: $48K
• Saskatchewan
  • 10/11: $347K
  • 11/12: $101K
• Alberta
  • 10/11: $496K
  • 11/12: $389K
  • 12/13: $169K
• British Columbia
  • 10/11: $745K
  • 11/12: $850K
  • 12/13: $530K

In addition to funding provided to AFOA by the RO Sector, some AANDC regional offices fund the AFOA provincial chapters. Our analysis (see Exhibit 8) and interviews indicate that most AFOA chapters do not receive consistent funding from AANDC and that funding levels vary considerably from year to year. Some regions feel it is the role of the Department to support and enable the growth of AFOA chapters, seeing them as key to achieving the Department’s aims. Other regions place more emphasis on the current capacity of the AFOA chapter and less on its potential to further the Department’s policy objectives. These regional differences should be further explored by the Department to determine whether increased consistency would help to build upon the existing success of the Department’s partnership with AFOA.

Other examples of professional associations leveraged and supported by the Department include associations for land managers, water and wastewater system operators, and firefighters. Based on our analysis (see Exhibit 9) of spending, we determined that the total departmental spending on these associations is approximately $2.6M^{Footnote 9}. This figure includes funds provided to fire fighter associates to support member-focused services but excludes funds provided to fire fighter associations for delivery of AANDC programs. Most of these associations are regional organizations funded by AANDC regions. Many other professional disciplines that are important to the success of First Nation communities are not supported by strong professional bodies. Some examples include Aboriginal leaders and executives, band administrators^{Footnote 10}, trust administrators, economic development officers, social workers, and teachers, among others.

Text alternative for Exhibit 9 Funding to Aboriginal Professional Associations

The pie chart to the right highlights total departmental spending on Aboriginal Professional Associations. The breakdown of financial support from 2012/13 is as follows:

• Financial Officers: $2,531,000
• Land Managers: $1,985,000
• Firefighters: $302,000
• Other Professionals: $269,000

While AANDC has a program targeted at Professional and Institutional Development (P&ID), in 2012/13, only $553 K of the $12.8M annual budget was allocated to professional associations (see Exhibit 10). The current priorities of the P&ID program are to fund First Nations communities that are implementing remedial action in response to a default on an AANDC agreement, developing community development plans and funding initiatives in community development plans. While these activities are clearly very important for the success of First Nations, the Department’s choice to fund them from Professional and Institutional Development program is reducing the capacity of AANDC to build sustainable partnerships with professional bodies and institutions.

Text alternative for Exhibit 10 P&ID Funding by Category of Recipient

The pie chart to the right illustrates Professional and Institutional Development (P&ID) funding by category of recipient. The resources per recipient group from 2012/13 are as follows:

• First Nation/Band: $9,019,000
• Tribal Council: $1,454,000
• Other: $678,000
• Aboriginal Institutions of Government: $612,000
• Aboriginal Professional Association: $553,000
• Service Delivery: $461,000

Recommendation:

4. The Senior ADM RO, with support of the Chief Financial Officer, Senior ADM PSD and program ADMs, should analyze the Department’s capacity development investments across regions and programs to determine whether program and community-level approaches and funding allocations are informed by the capacity-related needs of communities, considerate of risk, and aligned with departmental priorities for capacity development.

Based on the results of analysis, and guided by AANDC’s immediate capacity development priorities, the Senior ADM RO and program ADMs, with support of the Chief Financial Officer, should act upon opportunities to strengthen capacity development activities within each AANDC program.

5.3.1 Leveraging Partnership Opportunities in the Future

AANDC and its federal partners are increasingly recognizing the importance of partnering and innovating to address capacity development challenges and leverage contributions from the private sector and non-profit sector. For illustration purposes, Appendix G highlights five examples of capacity development approaches that garnered success. It also uses a case study for each approach to explore why it has worked and what other opportunities might exist to expand the application of the approach. The five capacity development approaches analyzed include:

• Supporting and leveraging professional associations and training organizations;
• Supporting and leveraging Aboriginal institutions of government;
• Engaging with and leveraging the Non-Profit sector;
• Promoting collaboration in program delivery; and
• Supporting First Nations in seizing development opportunities.

While AANDC continues to innovate and improve how it supports capacity development with Aboriginal communities, institutions, organizations and people, our interviews and questionnaires indicate that most of these successes are driven by program and region-specific initiatives. While the culture of innovation is clearly taking hold in some areas of the department, opportunities exist to foster innovative thinking and informed risk-taking. The recommendations in this report are intended to support and promote innovation.