Placemat: Evaluation of the Emergency Management Assistance Program (EMAP) and the Indigenous Community Support Fund (ICSF)

Self-Determination

1. EMAP's approach to funding and service delivery could better align with First Nations' visions for self-determination.
   ICSF Lesson 1: Direct allocations support communities to manage their funding and address their own priorities.
2. EMAP's funding delivery and reporting requirements for reimbursement are commonly seen as misaligned with a nation-to-nation relationship.
   ICSF Lesson 2: ICSF was allocated differently across and within regions, based on ISC regional staff's decision-making structures and formulas.

Effectiveness

3. Community capacity and commitment is foundational to EMAP effectiveness.
4. First Nation Emergency Management Coordinators play an important and multifaceted role in supporting the preparedness of communities and are enhancing performance through EMAP-supported collaboration; however, not all communities benefit from the coordinator role owing to funding limitations and recruitment and retention challenges.
5. Projects funded through both FireSmart and Non-Structural Mitigation and Preparedness have improved First Nations readiness for emergencies, though more projects are needed.
6. Response and recovery funding has increased over time, and appears flexible enough to meet unique situational needs; but First Nations have varying perceptions of the level of support they receive, and additional clarity around eligible expenditures is required.
7. Evacuees were returning home or had plans to return home within the targeted time frame.
8. ISC staff and engagement funding contribute to the establishment of multilateral Emergency Management Service Agreements, but the targets set by EMAP have not been met.
9. There are facilitators and barriers to be considered when establishing multilateral agreements.

Relevance

10. EMAP can support communities' prioritization of vulnerable populations, though the impacts of EMAP on these priority groups needs to be better measured.
    ICSF Lesson 3: First Nations' positive experiences with ICSF created new expectations around existing unmet needs.
11. Supporting First Nations self-determination enables the delivery of effective and culturally relevant services.
12. Due to the eligibility criteria for NSMP funding, First Nations are not able to acquire everything they need to address their increasing preparedness and mitigation priorities.
    ICSF Lesson 4: ICSF enabled community-based solutions, but not all solutions were deemed eligible.
13. Climate-related emergencies are increasing the need for preparedness and mitigation supports to First Nations.

Efficiency

14. The reimbursement process used for response and recovery expenses puts a high administrative burden on First Nations and ISC staff and can results in delayed payments.
15. Delayed reimbursements threatened the financial well-being of First Nations and their partners, and advance payments are accompanied by administrative burden.
    ICSF Lesson 5: The reintroduction of reporting requirements partway through ICSF's implementation increased the administrative burden on First Nations.
16. Proposal-based funding may not enable every First Nation to establish the foundation of emergency management.
    ICSF Lesson 6: Proposal-based funding may not be accessible to all First Nations.
17. The roles and responsibilities within the emergency management ecosystem vary across and within regions, and are not always clearly defined.
18. ISC's regional offices face challenges fulfilling their essential role in supporting First Nations with emergency management.
    ICSF Lesson 7: ICSF's 'no wrong door' approach required an agile response from ISC, which created an additional burden for regional staff.

Recommendation #1: Explore options and make recommendations based on feedback from First Nations partners to shift NSMP and FireSmart funding from proposal-based to long-term, flexible, and multi-year preparedness and mitigation funding.

• Action 1.1: Develop options drawing on findings from existing internal research and First Nations engagement on the issue of preparedness and mitigation funding, conducted through existing channels such as the ISC-Assembly of First Nations Advisory Committee on Emergency Management, Multilateral discussion tables, as well as First Nations EM Regional mechanisms (e.g. Atlantic region Emergency Management Coordinators Network). (Q1-4, 25/26)
• Action 1.2: Share developed options within ISC and with First Nation partners for feedback resulting in recommendations for improvements. Recommendations will be integrated into the program's continuous improvement efforts around proposal based funding. (Q1-2, 26/27)

Recommendation #2: Leverage ongoing multilateral discussions to strengthen ISC's coordination with federal, provincial, and territorial partners directly involved in emergency management, in order to better support First Nations and Tribal Councils in accessing the full range of available funding and services.

• Action 2.1: Produce findings from the results of research into the available EM related supports to First Nation partners across the federal, provincial and territorial landscape and explore options for enhanced coordination. (Q1-2, 25/26)
• Action 2.2: Engage implicated federal, provincial, and territorial partners, through Multilateral tables, to examine options and recommendations to enhance coordination across the federal and territorial partners. (Q3-4, 25/26)

Recommendation #3: Support First Nations Emergency Management Coordinators to be as effective and efficient as possible by enhancing their capacity in Emergency Management in communities and tribal councils.

• Action 3.1: Work with relevant officials within ISC headquarters and regional staff to support capacity development research and strengthen the EMC program. (Q1, 25/26)
• Action 3.2: Develop options supporting the role of EMCs, based on feedback from engagements with ISC regional offices, EMCs across Canada, previous OAG work, data from existing pilot initiatives (e.g., Alberta EMCs). (Q2-4, 25/26)
• Action 3.3: Collaborate with First Nation partners, finalize implementation of new measures with First Nation partners while actively continuing to leverage multilateral discussions on emergency management agreements to expand support for EMCs. (Q1-2, 26/27)

Recommendation #4: Strengthen overall efficiency across all of EMAP's funding streams by: improving clarity and awareness around eligible and ineligible expenses; assessing and putting in place measures to streamline and simplify the reimbursement process; and build on existing progress in the use of advance payments for response and recovery funding.

• Action 4.1: Develop and finalize, with ISC Communication officials, public-facing guidelines for Advance Payments, which clearly outline criteria and process for Frist Nations in accessing advanced funding for response and recovery activities. (Q1-4, 25/26)
• Action 4.2: Develop comprehensive eligibility guidelines with First Nation partner feedback. (Q3-4, 25/26)
• Action 4.3: Disseminate developed products, leveraging ISC Communication and partner channels, to First Nation communities and partners (e.g. First Nations Advisory Committee on Emergency Management). (Q1-2, 26/27)
• Action 4.4: Review and adjust, if required, EMAP's new invoice review process in 2026 to further expedite and streamline reimbursement for Response and Recovery claims for First Nation partners. (Q1-4, 26/27)
• Action 4.5: Develop and finalize, with ISC Communication officials, public-facing eligibility guidelines, which clearly outline the eligibility criteria and processes to support First Nation partners in understanding and accessing timely response and recovery funding. (Q4, 26/27)