Economic Development and Capacity Readiness Evaluation (EDCR)

Program Design and Process

The EDCR program was found to be strongly aligned with federal priorities such as economic reconciliation, Indigenous self-determination, and the advancement of community prosperity. The program supported communities to pursue their self-defined economic goals, indirectly supporting broader government commitments related to reconciliation, sustainable development, and clean energy transitions. However, program design and administration often had limited effectiveness. Eligibility requirements were rigid, assessment criteria prioritized quantifiable financial returns over holistic benefits, and EDOs reported that they frequently had to "fit" their needs into program structures rather than having programming evolve with them. Application and reporting processes were seen as burdensome and inaccessible, particularly for smaller projects, while delayed funding and single-year fiscal timelines led to missed opportunities. EDOs consistently identified a need for more flexible, transparent, and user-friendly processes, as well as streamlined coordination across federal programs to reduce inefficiencies created by siloed funding structures.

Program Impacts

EDCR had significant positive impacts on communities across holistic factors. The program supported financial wealth, including the development of own-source revenue, job creation, and a reduction in economic leakage. In addition to financial outcomes, economic development projects created pride, motivation, and enhanced quality of life. Reinvestment of revenues into additional community priorities, including health, education, and housing, demonstrated holistic impacts of economic development. EDCR was found to fill a unique niche among federal programs by supporting preparatory and capacity-building activities—such as feasibility studies, training, and project design—that other programs would not typically fund.

Equitability of Program Access

Access to the EDCR program was found to vary across communities. The LEDSP-Core stream, intended to provide predictable baseline funding, was considered insufficient for most communities, with allocations varying widely from $3,000 to over $1 million. This disparity left many communities unable to hire or retain EDOs undermining the program’s core goal of building local capacity. A pattern emerged in which communities with greater capacity and stronger past performance were more successful in securing proposal-based funding, further entrenching inequities. Inuit communities in particular were underrepresented, with barriers such as lack of awareness of programs, insufficient staffing, geographic challenges, and limited infrastructure. Remote and northern communities faced additional constraints due to high costs, transportation barriers, and shortened work seasons, none of which were adequately accounted for in current funding formulas.

Performance Measurement

The evaluation found that limitations in data collection and reporting, including missing data and rationales for performance targets, impeded ISC’s ability to fully assess whether EDCR was meeting its objectives. Performance metrics did not fully reflect indicators of success as defined by First Nation and Inuit communities. The short-term focus of reporting requirements also failed to capture the deeper, long-term impacts.

Relationships

Relationships were identified as a critical factor in the program’s accessibility and effectiveness. Strong, consistent relationships between communities and regional ISC staff often facilitated smoother navigation of application processes and provided essential guidance to EDOs. However, high turnover among ISC staff without seamless transition services was identified as a barrier.

2.2.1 Program History and Transformation

The thematic areas included in EDCR emerged from the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy, which launched in 1989 (Government of Canada 1989). In 2009, the Government of Canada released the Federal Framework for Aboriginal Economic Development to better support Indigenous Peoples’ participation in the economy (Government of Canada 2009). This Framework was built on the assumption that "significant gains can be achieved [for Indigenous Peoples] through a whole-of-government approach that is responsive to new and changing economic conditions and emerging opportunities and seeks to leverage partnerships to achieve sustainable economic development" (Government of Canada 2009:7).

As partial implementation of the Framework, existing authorities were consolidated to better align service offerings with the Framework’s objectives. The program areas listed below were created through this consolidation in 2014 and made up the service offerings under the EDCR program during the evaluated period.

• Lands and Economic Development Services Program (LEDSP)-Core (economic development)
• LEDSP-Targeted
• Community Opportunity Readiness Program (CORP)

The Strategic Partnerships Initiative (SPI) was created in 2010 and is also part of EDCR (e.g., see the 2018 Departmental Results Framework from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada). However, SPI operated distinctly from EDCR and therefore was evaluated separately. ^{Footnote 4}

In addition, with the dissolution of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, "Community Development", which housed LEDSP and CORP, moved to the newly formed Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) for reporting purposes. EDCR became a CIRNAC program in its 2018-19 Departmental Results Framework, which saw the differentiation of lands and environment funding from economic development funding. The EDCR program was moved to ISC in 2020-21.

2.2.2 EDCR Program Streams

Apart from SPI, the three program streams under EDCR are intended to support First Nations and Inuit communities in the regions across a continuum of capacity and readiness. In theory, the program streams are intended to function in a sequenced manner to progressively support economic development opportunities as they develop and crystallize: LEDSP-Core provides annual funding to support foundational economic capacity, which can lead to the development of projects that are then viable for funding through the proposal-based programs. LEDSP-Targeted provides proposal-based funding to support land management, environmental management, and preparation by First Nation and Inuit communities to further advance their economic capacity and identify economic opportunities. CORP provides First Nations and Inuit communities with proposal-based in support of particular economic opportunities including pre-development and implementation of large-scale, revenue-generating economic projects. As these streams are intended to work in a complementary fashion, many eligible expenditures overlap across the three streams, while others are unique. For example, LEDSP includes human resource capacity building, such as training, attendance at conferences, and administration of conferences as eligible, and CORP does not. Details on each of the program streams are provided below, as articulated in the program’s formal Terms and Conditions entitled Contributions to support land management and economic development: terms and conditions (Government of Canada 2023).

LEDSP-Core provides annual, formula-based funding to First Nation and Inuit communities ^{Footnote 5} located in the provinces and their governments, including tribal councils. Funding seeks to provide a baseline level of economic development capacity for communities and is typically used to staff an economic development position and develop economic development plans.

LEDSP-Targeted offers proposal-based funding to First Nations and Inuit communities to support specific economic development activities that are supplemental to the base funding provided through LEDSP-Core.

CORP provides project-based funding to support First Nations and Inuit communities in their pursuit of revenue-generating economic opportunities. Contributions work in tandem with the community’s own investment and financing arrangements to cover a portion of the costs of economic development opportunities, primarily focused on creating and expanding community-owned businesses that lead to jobs for community members and own-source revenue (OSR). It is important to note that while proposals seeking under $250,000^{Footnote 6} from ISC are assessed by regional offices, proposals exceeding $250,000 are submitted by regional offices to the CORP-Prioritization Framework (CORP-PF) ranking review, a national process developed to systematically identify optimal economic opportunities and maximize economic impacts. The selection process prioritizes funding for shovel-ready, high-impact economic or business development projects. Where quantitative community economic benefits can be determined, CORP proposals must demonstrate that projected community economic benefits exceed the requested contribution from ISC by a 5:1 ratio for Equity Gap and Economic Infrastructure projects. A greater amount of funding secured through traditional debt financing or private sector contributions will increase the proponent’s score, and ultimately the chance of receiving funding.

2.3.1 Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Business Development Program – Access to Capital

The Access to Capital program, funded through ISC and delivered through the National Aboriginal Capital Corporations Association and the network of 50+ Indigenous Financial Institutions, provides funding to "establish, expand and diversify the network of Indigenous Financial Institutions and Métis Capital Corporations providing developmental capital to Indigenous entrepreneurs, thereby enhancing access to capital for Indigenous entrepreneurs across Canada" (ISC 2023b:1). One sub-program is the Aboriginal Business Financing Program which offers loans to eligible Indigenous entrepreneurs and community-owned businesses for expenses related to business start-up and expansion. The recipient may also qualify for a non-repayable contribution to supplement the loan. Some eligible activities under LEDSP and CORP overlap with those eligible for the Access to Capital program, including minor machinery and equipment, attendance at or participation in training and professional development programs, and feasibility studies; however, LEDSP and CORP are distinct in that they are fully non-repayable contribution and focused on supporting communities and their economic development corporations rather than individual entrepreneurs.

2.3.2 Northern Indigenous Economic Opportunities Program

The Northern Indigenous Economic Opportunities Program offered through the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency supports northern Inuit, First Nations and Métis communities and businesses in pursuing opportunities for employment, income, and wealth creation. The program includes similar objectives as EDCR, such as enhancing capacity to undertake economic development activities and generating community government revenue; however, this program specifically operates in the three territories while EDCR covers the provinces.

2.3.3 SPI

As mentioned above, SPI is technically part of ECDR, but is operationally distinct. Led by ISC, SPI includes 23 federal signatory departments. The program supports a wide range of Indigenous economic development priorities, from large-scale resource development projects to locally based supports for independent businesses. SPI is intended to offer a one-window approach, allowing departments to contribute under their respective mandates while aiming to reduce administrative burden. Although SPI shares some commonalities with other EDCR program streams, it is distinguished by its ability to leverage funds from multiple federal departments due to its horizontal program authorities, and by its focus on multi-project initiatives that benefit multiple communities, in contrast to the individual project support that is more typically provided through EDCR.

3.3.1 Evaluation Planning and Opening Ceremony

The EDCR evaluation framework was developed through three phases of collaborative work:

• Phase 1: Literature Review and Background Documentation
• Phase 2: Development of the Theory of Living
• Phase 3: Prototype Development

The development and approval of the evaluation’s Terms of Reference occurred simultaneously with the framework planning phases and included considerable dialogue surrounding the language employed in typical federal evaluations, balancing the requirements of the Policy on Results (TBS 2016) while transforming evaluation practice focused on Indigenous worldviews, and broadening definitions of wealth and wellbeing. To honour the investments of time, effort, and consideration by various parties in developing the evaluation framework, an Opening Ceremony was hosted by ISC Evaluation and led by a First Nations Elder. The Opening Ceremony provided the opportunity to honour and commemorate the individual gifts that each contributor had made to the project development, and the relationships built across teams that enabled this work to take place.

3.3.2 Theory of Living

The Indigenomics Institute’s Theory of Living offered a transformational vision for ISC Evaluation to support Indigenous Peoples’ pursuit of self-determination. Rather than approaching evaluation with a theory of change^{Footnote 11} , the Indigenomics Institute proposed that ISC ground its evaluation process in a Theory of Living, or way of life, in order to center Indigenous perspectives within the evaluation’s process and relationships (see Figure 5; Hilton 2023).The Theory of Living did not prescribe a formulaic path forward; instead, it acted as a "compass for wayfinding and sensemaking" (Indigenomics 2021c). The Theory of Living for Indigenous communities’ economic development called for the evaluation process to be collaborative, inclusive, community-defined, and culturally relevant. The Theory of Living’s lens shifted evaluation away from a deficits-based approach to a relational-based approach that fostered holistic and intergenerational well-being, including Indigenous worldviews and community-defined visions of good living and wealth. In this way, development activities were expected to better support Indigenous self-determination.

Text alternative for: Figure 5: Theory of Living Model

Center piece

• Ultimate goal: Good living, community, determined well-being, and wealth

North direction, from the outside inwards:

• Outcome: Accelerating self-determination
• Teaching and values: Basic for evolution

East direction, from the outside inwards:

• Outcome: Incorporation of Indigenous values & teachings in economic dev pursuits
• Assumption: Community values make work more relevant & beneficial

South direction, from the outside inwards:

• Outcome: Sustainability of efforts with a view to support seven generations ahead
• Assumption: Interconnection/ecosystem/living

West direction, from the outside inwards:

• Principles: Guide the process
• Outcome: Improved Nation-to-Nation relationships

3.3.3 Bringing the Theory of Living to Life

The Theory of Living orients evaluation processes towards the goal of Indigenous self-determination, which the Evaluation Team embraced within this evaluation by working with communities to bring the Theory of Living to life within the evaluation process. In response to the Theory of Living, the ISC Evaluation team committed to the actions illustrated in the following panel.

3.5.1 Methods

Finding 1: There was alignment between First Nations and Inuit communities and the Government of Canada in terms of their respective visions for self-determination, economic advancement, and the holistic nature of economic development; but realizing those visions was limited by program restrictions and silos.

Across both literature and interviews, Indigenous Peoples consistently described economic development as holistic, relational, and grounded in self-determination. Rather than being viewed solely through the lens of financial gain or material wealth, Indigenous economic development was seen as deeply interconnected with broader aspects of wellbeing—including physical health, food security, language, ceremony, and cultural identity. Indigenous authors emphasized that this holistic approach is supported by key enablers such as land control, infrastructure, environmental stewardship, and investments in social development (Sxwpielemaát Siyám [Chief Leanne Joe] & Raphael, 2022). For example, a case study on Indigenous economic development in Atlantic Canada found that communities that achieved economic stability had intentionally prioritized social development as a foundational part of their economic planning (Atlantic Aboriginal Economic Development Integrated Research Program 2011). These themes were strongly echoed in interviews conducted for this evaluation. One EDO explained: "CORP won’t fund market residential, and should look at funding this as an eligible expense. We are in a national housing crisis… Nations could be at the forefront. They often have land that is undeveloped because they don’t have access to development funds and could create meaningful employment in construction, property management, project management, etc., and have a really sustainable income."

Alongside this holistic vision, the principle of self-determination emerged as essential to meaningful economic development. Seminal documents developed under Indigenous leadership including the National Indigenous Economic Strategy (2022), the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (2019) Calls for Justice, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (2015) Calls to Action, as well as other literature spanning the evaluation period emphasized that full jurisdiction and control over economic activities is critical for maximizing impact, including the ability to ground economic decision-making by community values, vision, and goals (e.g., Group ATN Consulting 2023; First Nations Financial Management Board 2022; National Indigenous Economic Development Board 2013; Nelson 2019). LEDSP and CORP were designed to support First Nation and Inuit communities’ self-determined economic priorities, particularly through LEDSP-Core. One ISC staff member specified that "the Core funding is incredibly important to enable communities to mobilize towards their own identified priorities". Interview participants reinforced this point. One EDO stated: "It should be [the] Nation’s money to make their own decisions and what they need… That is self-determination."

Supporting First Nation and Inuit economic development is core to ISC’s mandate as expressed in its enabling legislation (Government of Canada 2019), and both ISC and the broader Government of Canada have consistently acknowledged the inherent link and mutually reinforcing nature of self-determination and economic development. Examples can be found in the Minister’s 2021 mandate letter (Prime Minister of Canada 2021), the 2023 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan (Government of Canada 2023d), ISC’s Annual Report to Parliament (2023c), as well as numerous recent Budget announcements, including Budget 2023, which stated: "Indigenous governments must be able to set and implement priorities respecting their communities, lands, and resources. Indigenous Peoples, businesses, and communities must have the opportunity to fully participate in the economy and build opportunities for themselves and future generations in the ways they see fit, consistent with their constitutionally protected rights" (Government of Canada 2023a:125).

Various Government of Canada reports also acknowledged the importance of holistic, community-driven economic development in achieving sustainable impacts. For example, the Indigenous Community Development National Strategy highlighted that efficient and enduring development must be community-driven and nation-based (ISC 2021). Similarly, CIRNAC’s (2019) Audit of Economic Development Programs called for a shift away from a program-centric approach toward one centered on community priorities. Government publications also identified the interconnected nature of economic development with infrastructure, housing, training, and education. For example, the House of Commons (2022) emphasized that infrastructure is a precondition for a well-functioning economy, whereas CIRNAC’s (2019) Audit reported that flexibility across departmental programs could better support integrated, community-driven goals. These acknowledgements reinforced the need for ISC to ensure that programming enables communities to drive their own definitions of economic success, with adequate authority, flexibility, and support to address needs that might fall outside of a narrow conventional definition of "economic development."

The role of OSR in economic development – whether as a support or a result – holds a complex place in this shared drive toward self-determined economic development. On one hand, there is a clear sense that OSR is an important element of Indigenous self-determination. To illustrate, one ISC staff member noted that "in order for communities to be less reliant on government…they have to be able to have their own source of revenue, they have to be able to make decisions outside of the fences that government puts around funding for social programs and education and all of those other things," a sentiment echoed in interviews with some EDOs. On the other hand, a few EDOs, as well as reports (Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and Assembly of First Nations 2017; Lees & McCulloch 2017) published during the evaluated period highlighted First Nations^{Footnote 12} concerns that an overemphasis on OSR by ISC could be used to justify reducing federal transfers, shifting fiscal responsibilities away from the Crown, or creating unintended pressure for communities to pursue revenue generation over other priorities.

The overarching design of the EDCR program aligns, in principle, with the convergent views of the Government of Canada and First Nations and Inuit on economic development, aiming to support them in designing and pursuing opportunities that reflect their needs and priorities while developing partnerships and OSR to strengthen independence from federal support and oversight. Despite this broad alignment, ISC’s siloed program structure restricted communities’ ability to realize their holistic and self-determined economic goals. The lack of streamlining within departmental programs was described during almost half of external interviews to be burdensome to program users, with the onus being on communities to navigate different programs and requirements. One EDO noted that "the siloing of programs and strict regulations on programming means that we are leaving opportunities on the table." Another EDO described the consequence of siloing as a "huge inefficiency...We have to chop the project into five pieces and apply for five funding programs for each piece [of the project]." Yet another EDO shared that "there may not be enough flexibility in the programs to fit the reality of the community. Cookie cutter programs won’t fit ... We need to find the programs where we fit and our needs are met, rather than trying to fit our needs into the program 'designed’ to fit us... it needs to evolve with us." This notion was supported in a report commissioned by ISC in 2020, which found that rather than applying for funding for projects that reflected the communities’ needs, the current application criteria, process, and structure for the proposal-based programs meant that project ideas were being molded to fit the application (Two Worlds Consulting 2020). Conversations with the Community-Level Working Group supported the notion that time and money were wasted when teasing out project components to fit with disparate funding programs, which did not meet community needs nor the principles of self-determination, and ultimately reduced the return on the Government of Canada’s investment.

Priorities of First Nation and Inuit individuals, communities, and organizations were not consistently reflected in eligibility criteria for the proposal-based program streams, which resulted in misalignment between program design and community realities. For example, community infrastructure unrelated to business development or expansion was ineligible under the program; however, the evaluation heard that public spaces, such as community centers, which are eligible for funding from another ISC sector only as non-revenue generating structures, allowed communities to generate revenue in rent that contributed to OSR. Similarly, the operation, repair, and maintenance of existing or municipal infrastructure was ineligible; however, a few EDOs (interviews and survey participants) mentioned that already-existing buildings in the community could be used for economic development purposes if they could be renovated or repaired. When asked how they would design the program to best suit their community’s needs, one EDO shared "if it’s from a blank slate, it should be designed with project eligibility [determined] by First Nations," with communities able to define how to prioritize opportunities, which they suggested would provide communities greater autonomy.

Additionally, proposal assessment criteria was not designed to account for First Nation- and Inuit-defined factors of success, such as the value that many communities and organizations placed on sustainable resource development and management. One ISC staff member noted that the program did not prioritize or show preference for projects that had a positive environmental impact, which was seen to put sustainability-focused projects at a disadvantage. Another ISC staff member similarly shared that because project success was defined in economic terms alone, projects whose value lied in contributions to sustainability or adaptation to climate change were supported less often due to higher costs that minimized the financial return on investment. The prioritization of quantitative economic benefits in the assessment of CORP proposals was raised as problematic in a few interviews, given the lack of qualitative assessment of holistic aspects of success. An ISC staff member gave the example of developing a grocery store, which among other benefits would support food security for the community; however, given that the benefit of food security is not readily quantifiable in economic terms, it would not necessarily be reflected in the proposal score. One EDO shared that "some of these projects don’t have a killer return – if they did, we wouldn’t need subsidies. Most of these communities are small and remote, and it can be tough to have projects that break even in terms of these funding requirements, but these are essential services to the community. Not providing profit doesn’t mean it doesn’t provide a benefit." The focus on quantitative economic benefits when assessing proposals disregarded holistic benefits that could be achieved by various projects beyond financial gain.

It is important to note that other programs within ISC’s inventory address some of the gaps left by EDCR, and that EDCR was not designed with the intention to unilaterally meet the broad range of holistic factors related to economic development; however, without meeting communities’ holistic needs, investments in economic development priorities may not succeed. In fact, around half of ISC staff raised the importance of collaborating across teams within the department to support holistic projects, particularly given the complement between service areas such as economic development, housing, and infrastructure. For example, the recent evaluation of SPI highlighted the Ring of Fire initiative, which was designed to meet economic development priorities, but required adjustments to address health and social needs to ensure community readiness to benefit from mining projects. Models to support Indigenous economic development in a holistic manner already exist within ISC and SPI provides a promising example. As highlighted in its recent evaluation, SPI offers a single-window approach with a single application, reporting process, and designated federal liaison for Indigenous partners (ISC 2025). This model was credited with streamlining access, strengthening relationships, and reducing administrative burden, especially compared to other federal programs. However, it is important to note that the SPI evaluation also highlighted the inherent tension between providing the flexibility needed to address broader community needs and maintaining the program’s intended scope and mandate.

Similarly, given the vast number of programs that may be relevant to advancing an economic project, the National Indigenous Economic Development Board recommended creating Navigator positions to help Indigenous communities and businesses access the full range of federal economic development supports (2022). An Indigenous Business Navigator Service was launched by ISC in 2022 to support Indigenous individuals, businesses, organizations, and communities in their search for economic development supports and services, and future evaluations should address its efficacy. Although this new service was beyond the scope of this evaluation, it represents another mechanism with potential to address the coordination challenges identified by ISC staff and First Nations and Inuit partners.

Finding 2: EDOs identified a need to simplify program administration to more closely reflect their realities and values.

Almost half of the external interviews reflected that the application processes for the proposal-based programs were burdensome, describing difficulties in accessing information on how to complete the application, understanding eligible expenses, and knowing who to contact about the program offerings. Some interviews also highlighted technical challenges with the application forms not being digitally fillable.

A few external interviews indicated a perception that there is an onerous application process for CORP, which deterred communities from applying, especially for smaller projects, which some EDOs described as not providing sufficient return on investment given the level of effort involved An ISC staff member noted that while CORP’s process for soft costs was relatively easier than other funders, its process for capitalization was more challenging. Some EDOs recommended that ISC could support communities that have limited experience with proposal-based programs by encouraging and facilitating collaboration across communities and sharing examples of successful proposals. One EDO shared that "perhaps there is a role for ISC at a regional level to share highlights of how the funding could be used to support communities and share what the projects have been. Seeing project highlights from all the other communities gives a bit of permission for thinking outside the box."

The requirement to include three quotes for services (e.g., professional, consulting) in CORP applications was raised as a barrier in a few interviews. An ISC staff member pointed out that the requirement created challenges and delays for communities to undertake the public tendering process. A lack of cultural relevance in this process was noted in one external interview: "When operating with the value of relationships, which is common in many Nations’ value systems, you may see communities that don’t want to seek out three quotes. When they have a trusted relationship with a service provider and can trust the quality of work, they want to move forward with their selected choice. Some communities have problematic histories or experiences with consultants who have over-charged and under-delivered—and the Nations are tired of this. They want to work with people who they have long running, trusted histories of performance with. When the procurement policy requires going for the lowest-cost bid, sometimes the community is then being forced to work with consultants that they don’t have relationships with, and whose performance may not be at the standard they are looking for." Finally, depending on the geographic location of the community, sourcing three competing bids could be difficult or impossible for various services given the lack of contractors or consultants that serviced the area, particularly for northern and/or remote communities.

Almost half of the interviews pointed to challenges with timelines in the proposal-based programs. Some EDOs reported delays in funding that caused missed opportunities, especially where the short construction season in remote areas made timing critical. Single-year funding cycles compounded challenges for communities dependent on air or sea transit, resulting in delays transporting materials, inflated budgets, and shortened work seasons, which were intensified by climate change (e.g., fluctuations in the freeze and thaw timeline). It was raised in one external interview that "sometimes you have to scale projects to what is feasible to complete in one season... with deadlines that the government has, there’s no way that a northern community, particularly on the coast, can spend the money on time."

Some interviews also noted a lack of standard turnaround times from application submission to fund approval and release for the proposal-based programs. One EDO said, "Look at what happens to the cost of concrete over three months. It’s difficult to get shovels in the ground because by the time you get the answer from the funder, all the costs have changed …Even though we give…costings with built-in contingencies, these contingencies are not sufficient, particularly after COVID." The lack of transparency on timing was seen to exacerbate such challenges; one representative of a funded organization shared, "I’ll hear back months later that [ISC] wants more information before submitting the application, whereas I thought the application was submitted and we were waiting to hear if it was approved."

The delayed receipt of funding also had reputational consequences. An EDO stated, "Sometimes you get money late in the year, like January, and expected to spend it by March, and then the Nation is blamed for not adequately spending the money." An ISC staff member echoed this concern and suggested that enabling carry-over of funding could mitigate this issue. Fixed and Flex agreements, which do allow carry-over under certain circumstances^{Footnote 13}, had replaced Set funding by 2018-19 (see Figures 3 and 4), for carry-over, interview findings suggest that these flexibilities may not have been sufficient or were not always being leveraged.

Reporting requirements were also described as arduous, with limited understanding of how reported information was used. One EDO recommended that "reporting needs to be a lot less, making the process more simplified [and] reporting what is necessary for the government". Another noted that while reporting is reasonable in principle, "the reports themselves need to be sensical, efficient, and then used." An ISC staff member argued that "reconciliation, and economic reconciliation in particular, is about reducing administrative burden so that [community] staff are actually building business opportunities and not doing their paperwork." Similarly, a User Experience Study commissioned by ISC found that both ISC staff and representatives of First Nation and Inuit communities and organizations were often unclear about what data was required by ISC’s economic development programs and why, and that communities lacked sufficient human resources to meet reporting demands—especially when juggling multiple funders’ requirements (Two Worlds Consulting 2021). Within the Study, representatives of First Nations and Inuit communities unanimously agreed that there were insufficient human resources for communities to effectively participate in ISC’s reporting processes, which was exacerbated by the need to juggle reporting requirements across funders.

CIRNAC’s (2019) Audit of Economic Development Programs recommended that ISC streamline performance data collection, limiting it to what is required for the program’s Performance Information Profile, to reduce the burden on First Nation and Inuit communities and regional staff. One EDO said that ISC should "look at these [requirements] as someone who maybe does this form once a year, English could be a second language, and they perhaps have no post-secondary" when adjusting the requirements to be more user-friendly.

Finding 3: The program filled unique gaps in supporting communities to advance economic development activities.

Some interviews, including with EDOs, organization representatives, and ISC staff emphasized that, despite the program restrictions highlighted in Finding 1, EDCR was nonetheless supporting a spectrum of capacity-building and preparation activities and therefore meeting unique needs. While some thematic overlap with other programs was mentioned in interviews (e.g., Indigenous Financial Institutions, SPI), key differences were outlined. For example, an ISC staff member highlighted the risk aversion demonstrated by economic development programs offered by other federal departments, which required demonstrated capacity and past performance of the applicant and could therefore exclude many First Nation and Inuit communities who are still building their economies. Another ISC staff member noted that by supporting pre-cursors and soft costs for projects that mitigate risks before entering into an economic opportunity, LEDSP and CORP supported aspects of projects that are not typically eligible to be funded by mainstream funding institutions or programs, and supported First Nation and Inuit communities in building those projects towards capitalization, acquisition, or expansion, which qualify for a greater variety of funds. The ability to fund economic infrastructure costs was described as unique by one ISC staff member, who shared that "the way the other [program] authorities are worded or structured, economic development and [commercial] infrastructure are not eligible."

The support for pre-development costs, such as business plans, feasibility studies, project design, and training as opposed to just major projects was highlighted in interviews as a unique niche that was filled by EDCR. An EDO noted that "[The programs] act as a kickstart to a project before you invest community dollars into it." A few interviews and survey responses specifically described that they would not have been able to advance their economic development goals without the support provided through CORP and LEDSP. One EDO reflected on their experience applying for CORP to support pre-development studies, specifically citing the necessity of the funding to "do the studies that we need prior to undertaking a project... If I didn’t have the ability to get these studies done, I wouldn’t have gotten all these projects done."

The benefit of being able to hire and retain a consistent, skilled EDO with the support of LEDSP-Core was made clear by external interviews for the evaluation. For example, one representative of a funded organization described that "Without core foundational funding, you cannot move things ahead in a real way. If everything is project-based, you cannot secure the right staff, you will have a hard time hiring and retaining staff to do the work". As capacity and skills were built over time, communities were able to learn from and build on their past experiences to better support success within the community. For example, an EDO reflected on the experience they gained in negotiating Impact Benefit Agreements with mining companies, sharing that with the initial Agreements, they observed that community members were being employed, but were primarily stagnant in entry-level positions, as employee progression wasn’t considered in the Agreement. The community negotiated specialized training programs to support community members in developing skills to advance within the company, and when negotiating new Impact Benefit Agreements, the community now considers how they can ensure that the benefits to community members grow as the mine grows. The notion that the success of community economic development hinges on communities’ ability to build, maintain, and retain capacity in terms of financial and human resources, training and skill-development was supported by the literature review (National Indigenous Economic Development Board 2013; Tarbell & Manuel 2008; Williams 2011).

Finding 4: Economic development projects supported holistic well-being within communities.

Although EDCR’s design did not support the full range of holistic precursors needed to advance economic development (as discussed in Finding 1), the evaluation found that funded projects nonetheless generated broad, holistic impacts for individuals, families, and communities across multiple dimensions of wellbeing. EDOs described various economic impacts resulting from development projects, including building financial wealth, creating jobs for community members, and reducing "leakage" from the local economy^{Footnote 14}. Through CORP-PF, ISC supported 118 projects from 2018-19 to 2022-23 (see Figure 6).^{Footnote 15}

Text alternative for: Figure 6: CORP-PF Projects by Type

• Economic Opportunity Projects: 4%
• Equity Gap Projects: 64%
• Infrastructure Projects: 32%

Source: Program Documentation – CORP & LEDSP Dashboard

Estimated community economic benefits from those CORP-PF projects included 2,949 Indigenous jobs created over 8 years, $95.9M in salaries over 8 years, and a community economic benefits-cost ratio of 13.34^{Footnote 16}. When discussing the creation of a commercial building within the community, one EDO explained that "there’s hundreds of people in that building every day, folks that are going to our gas station and our restaurants. Some of these are community members but a lot are not...that enhances the audience that’s coming to the community with the hope that they spend their dollars, time, and energy in the community." The financial gains of such projects directly supported community members in terms of equity, job creation, and the services available to them within the bound of their own community.

In addition to economic achievements resulting from economic development projects, interviews described holistic impacts that were observed within their communities, including a sense of pride, ownership, and motivation; improved quality of life, mental health, and wellbeing; and improved social conditions (e.g., education, housing, and healthcare; and self-sufficiency). A sense of pride and purpose resulting from economic success clearly emerged during interviews with EDOs. One EDO reflected on the impacts of economic success, noting the most significant impact as "Pride! It’s bigger than a Pow Wow, it’s bigger than a wedding… it’s a rebirth of the energy in the community." Another EDO shared, "You’ll hear things like 'we’ve been talking about this for 30 years’ and now it’s finally done, and this feels really good. There’s an uplift in mental health from this sense of pride and it really lasts...it creates momentum and buy-in for the next project." The First Nations Financial Management Board reported similar sentiments, in which Indigenous economic reconciliation not only has significant potential for contributing to the Canadian GDP, but also creates pride in Indigenous ownership, nation-building, and individuals’ self-actualization (2021). One EDO specifically contextualized the importance of this sense of pride and motivation in light of the history of colonial trauma, including the forced relocation of the community. The EDO explained that "there are still people alive in the community who had to leave their homes, who watched their homes get bulldozed, and now they’ve seen this growth... all of the economic development goals are to honor the people of this community."

In the 2024 Indigenous Economic Progress Report, income and wealth were described as contributing positively to feelings of well-being and development amongst individuals for various reasons, including higher standards of living and improved social services (National Indigenous Economic Development Board 2024). When asked about the most important impacts of economic development projects, one EDO reflected that the "biggest impact is the improved quality of life for community members – when you don’t have to drive down to the nearest town to get your car serviced, and can get that done in community instead – it creates a huge impact for community members." Several EDOs described the impact of economic development on social issues within the community, both indirectly and by investing revenue in social services. One survey participant noted that "economic development is the foundation for a healthy community. It provides funding gaps for services, reinvestment into the community and economy, [and] supports local." An EDO observed that by offering employment to 'youth-at-risk' within the community, the proportion of youth aspiring to attend post-secondary education had increased. Similar sentiments were presented in the Step Into the River Framework for Economic Reconciliation, in which the ability to distribute monetary wealth across community members and community development initiatives (e.g., housing, health, cultural preservation) had an important impact on community-defined wealth and wellbeing (Sxwpielemaát Siyám [Chief Leanne Joe] & Raphael, 2022).

In addition to the direct social and economic benefits of development, the evaluation found that these investments in community-defined economic priorities also contributed to advancing wider federal commitments. By supporting First Nation and Inuit participation across diverse economic sectors, the program advanced federal commitments such as the transition to a net-zero electricity sector. The First Nations Major Projects Coalition (2022) emphasized that Indigenous participation is essential to achieving this goal, given the proximity of many projects to Indigenous lands. This proximity creates opportunities to advance economic reconciliation through Indigenous ownership, partnerships, job creation, and engagement on climate priorities. EDCR investments strengthened communities’ capacity to lead in the national net-zero transition. Several EDOs identified sustainable development, eco-tourism, and becoming net-zero communities as priorities—findings reflected in survey results, where 63.6% cited "advancing clean and sustainable resources" and 54.5% cited "protecting lands and waters" as economic priorities. In 2022–23, one LEDSP-Targeted recipient used funding to support 24 sustainable resource management projects. Revenues from these initiatives enabled communities to pursue self-determined priorities such as housing development and food security, aligning with federal policy commitments and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (Government of Canada 2005).

Finding 5: Outdated funding formulas, unclear allocation approaches for LEDSP-Core, as well as limited funding envelopes across the program, constrained EDCR’s impact.

LEDSP-Core was the only aspect of the EDCR program that provided predictable annual funding to communities, as a core program. Previously published reports from ISC and its predecessors, including the Summative Evaluation of Economic Development Programs (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 2009) Evaluation of Lands and Economic Development Services (Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada 2015) and the Audit of Economic Development Programs (CIRNAC 2019) repeatedly found that the formula which governed the delivery of funds caused wide disparities in allocations across communities^{Footnote 17}. Small and medium-sized remote communities were reported to be particularly disadvantaged and unable to meet their needs with the allocation (Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada 2015). Although the 2015 evaluation of LEDSP included a recommendation to review the LEDSP-Core funding formulas, a revised formula was not implemented, and ISC staff members indicated that Core funding amounts have not been adjusted since the 1980s, aside for communities that have transitioned to Block funding^{Footnote 18} or the NFR Grant, which both receive an annual escalator. One ISC staff member explained that the "program formulas/amounts are not responsive to inflation, remoteness, raising cost of living, population growth, [or the] proportion of community members living in community VS out of community." This is consistent with the evaluation’s finding that the formula was not consistently re-calculated each year by each Region to account for adjustments in formula factors (i.e., population)^{Footnote 19}.

An analysis of the impacts of inflation on LEDSP-Core funding is illustrative^{Footnote 20}. Funding at the beginning of the evaluated period (2014) was $ 51,135,045. To retain that value over time, funding would have needed to increase to $62,069,327 in 2022 – more than the $53,963,756 that was nominally allocated in 2022-23.

Although not directly comparable to the role of a community EDO (given the inclusion of numerous titles within the category), the evaluators located comparable national wages in Canada using the National Occupation Classification system (Government of Canada 2025). According to the 2024 database, the national annual average wage for "Business development officers and market researchers and analysts", which incorporates example titles as "economic development officer" and "community economic analyst", ranged from $24.8 per hour to $71.79 per hour, with an average of $45.03 per hour. Based on a standard 37.5-hour work week and 52 weeks per year, the gross annual salary for this position was estimated by the evaluators to range from $48,360 to $139,990.50, with an average gross salary of $87,808.50. Comparatively, annual LEDSP-Core allocations range from $3,000 to over $1 million, with a median allocation of $58,000 (ISC n.d.a). Using the National Occupation Classification System as a comparable benchmark, fewer than half of First Nations and Inuit communities receiving LEDSP-Core received a sufficient allocation to hire an EDO with the annual average salary.

Several EDOs (interviews and survey participants) noted challenges in employing and retaining an EDO with the current annual funding contributions, highlighting how this can limit a community’s foundational economic capacity. While LEDSP-Core funding can support multiple aspects of capacity, such as governance, foundational planning, and human resources, it was emphasized that having an EDO in place is an essential step to enable progress in these areas. One EDO suggested that "there should be funding for staffing at a professional rate – this investment in a staff person rather than having someone work on [economic development] at the side of their desk under a poor salary would make a huge difference." Similar sentiments were expressed by ISC staff members. One ISC staff member explained that "a community will get funded for 0.15 or 0.2 of an economic development officer position, so the capacity will never be built with that." Another stated that "communities can’t offer competitive rates to EDOs, and it can also be challenging to invest in the capacity of an employee who you anticipate is going to leave."

Concerns were raised in some interviews that funds under the proposal-based programs were being used to hire an external consultant to administer projects, rather than staffing positions in the community. As was described by one ISC staff member, the limited budget for long-term funding under LEDSP-Core "means CORP dollars are being spent on consultants to do the jobs that [the program] is refusing to fund in the community, even though it would build capacity – whereas the funding of consultants doesn’t build any capacity [within the community] but is eligible." While CORP funding can be used to support community-based positions, some interviews highlighted when communities lack the foundational resources to fund an EDO or put in place other long-term economic capacity, this leads to reliance on consultants for proposal-based projects. For example, one ISC staff member emphasized that this "inadvertent dependency on the consultants means that the return on investment will be repeatedly lesser", due to the lack of knowledge transfer and the proportion of funding flowing to the consultant rather than to communities. This pattern in which the use of consultants can fill urgent gaps but minimize opportunities to build lasting expertise within communities, has been reported in various other ISC evaluations (e.g., ISC 2024; ISC 2021; ISC 2024; ISC 2023), suggesting a systemic challenge that limits the long-term effectiveness of program investments.

Although the analysis above focused on LEDSP-Core funding, the evaluation found that concerns over funding limitations extended to the program as a whole. The over-subscription of the funding envelope across all three program streams of EDCR was raised as a concern in most interviews. The size of the funding envelope was described as particularly concerning given the vast interconnections between economic development and other factors of community wellbeing, such as infrastructure, health, and housing (as described in Finding 1). One ISC staff member shared that they were "concerned about the relative lack of scale of the program compared to other programs." While they described that the government’s investment in areas such as drinking water and housing are "fundamental", they also pointed out that by investing in economic development, communities are supported to build revenue streams to invest in these areas on their own.

In the 2023-24 fiscal year, spending on Community Economic Development, which encompassed six of ISC’s service areas including EDCR, made up only 0.73% of ISC’s total funding ($337.6M of $46.5B; Government of Canada 2023c). A 2023 study described the federal funding model for community economic development as "'chronically underfunded’ and 'inadequate,’" particularly citing the reliance on per capita assessments of need as the basis for funding calculations as problematic (Group ATN Consulting 2023). Participants in the study described "chronic underfunding for economic development and lack of resources to manage emergencies as they arise" as the most prominent challenges in enacting greater autonomy over economic development (Group ATN Consulting 2023:33-34).

Drastic cost changes since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated budget limitations, as one ISC staff member described: "COVID forced the department to look at cost increases – costs increased on construction projects really quickly, and communities were raising how $250,000 no longer goes as far as it used to. Now prices haven’t come down, they keep going up – it puts pressure on the government and on communities to stretch that dollar further." Similarly, the high costs of living, labour, and materials in remote areas exacerbated challenges, as was noted in one external interview: "It costs more to live, to bring potential employees, services, products, etc., when you are remote, and that’s not reflected in the distribution of funds." A 2022 House of Commons report recommended that federal programs account for remoteness and isolation in both funding mechanisms and amounts; however, evaluation evidence did not suggest that remoteness of communities was considered in the assessment of LEDSP-Targeted or CORP proposals.

Finding 6: A pattern was identified in which the same communities repeatedly succeeded in proposal-based programs.

The equitable distribution of proposal-based funding was raised as a concern throughout the evaluation. CIRNAC’s 2019 Audit of Economic Development Programs reported that the proposal-based programs relied on communities to have sufficient "skills and experience to identify desired economic development projects, develop proposals, and implement the projects." However, many communities lacked such foundational resources, particularly given the varied levels of funding allotted to communities through LEDSP-Core and the reduction in LEDSP-Targeted funding from 2018-19 to 2020-21.

Almost half of ISC staff interviews described a pattern in which communities with stronger past performance repeatedly succeeded in the proposal-based programs. One ISC staff member contextualized this pattern as being a result of gained experience over time: "Typically, if you’ve been successful with economic development projects, you have built capacity over time. What ends up happening is the more successful you’ve been in these, the more successful you’ll be in the future." This sentiment was echoed by a few EDOs, one of whom shared that "some of the most underprivileged who would benefit the most have a hard time accessing the programs, and I think a lot of that is because they don’t have the professionals who can help them surpass that first step of putting together the applications."

This challenge was exacerbated by the program’s risk-assessment process. The Project Assessment and Summary Report for LEDSP and CORP-Targeted proposals included an assessment of risk, including factors such as project management capacity, applicant’s contribution amount, and the likelihood of results to be achieved. This risk score impacted the overall proposal score for CORP-PF projects, with recipients able to receive up to 5 additional points on their proposal if it was deemed as low-risk; proposals deemed as high-risk received 1 point. An ISC staff member indicated that the Government of Canada’s General Assessment score further disadvantaged communities with less experience. The staff member noted that "Every community that has less experience and less capacity, of course is riskier based on the way the [General Assessment] is set up. [The Government] has created this [risk assessment] that automatically will disadvantage the communities that show those characteristics..." Although the results of the General Assessment Score itself did not impact a proposal’s likelihood of approval, it did determine the type of funding arrangement that can be used, with "riskier" recipients eligible for less flexible agreement types.

This dynamic, where capacity and past success fed into future success, was not only identified by evaluation participants but also observed in other program reviews. For example, CIRNAC’s 2019 audit of economic development programs found that most of ISC’s proposal-based economic development funding was provided to communities with low-risk General Assessment scores, who had experience successfully meeting the requirements of past funding agreements with the Government. The audit suggested that potential funding recipients with less experience or resources to manage funding agreements received less funding and recommended that targeted support be provided to communities with less economic development activity (CIRNAC 2019).

The 2019 Management Control Framework for CORP introduced changes to the project assessment scoresheet, in which communities with less experience received extra points. Proposals, which were scored out of 100, could receive 1 to 7.5 points based on the amount of funding the recipient had received from CORP-PF in the past 5 years. The evaluation team attempted to use program data to assess whether this new approach was having the intended equalizing effect. Based on the 68 project score sheets assessed, 56% of CORP-PF recipients received the maximum number of additional points, meaning they had received less than $250,000 from CORP-PF in the past 5 years. In contrast, only six recipients received the minimum number of experience points. However, given that unsuccessful proposals were not tracked, the evaluation could not compare approval rates for communities with more versus less experience; without knowing how many total proposals in each category were submitted, it is not possible to determine whether the additional points actually improved the likelihood of approval for less-experienced communities.

While ongoing monitoring of unsuccessful proposals would be useful for statistical purposes as discussed above, it could also support knowledge sharing to communities. For example, one EDO indicated that "we need to know what mistakes the communities have made so we can learn from them. The inspiration and motivation from success stories is great, but we need to learn how these communities achieved success so we can also advance." Interviews suggested that, in addition to knowledge sharing, such networking had the potential to lead to working partnerships to collectively advance CORP projects and build on the strengths of each community. For example, an EDO of a First Nation that had previously succeeded in CORP shared that they have since supported the capacity of other First Nations by applying to CORP in partnership. The EDO explained that these kinds of partnerships enabled the community to support other First Nations where it was needed, whether by investing capital, providing in-house expertise that supports the application (e.g., architects, engineers), or by taking lead on the CORP application itself, while advancing a mutually beneficial economic project. Another EDO shared that "where one First Nation is focusing on different sectors of industry, it can create opportunities for other communities. Communities can work together to support different goals, to learn from one another."

Based on an analysis of funding recipients, Inuit communities and organizations rarely accessed either of the proposal-based programs. According to the 2021 Census, the total population of First Nations peoples and Inuit was 1,118,950, of which Inuit comprised 6.3% (Statistics Canada 2022). It therefore could be expected that Inuit would receive approximately 6% of proposal-based funding if access across First Nations and Inuit communities and organizations was proportional^{Footnote 21}. However, Inuit organizations and communities received 0.32% of all proposal-based funding during the fiscal years covered by this evaluation^{Footnote 22}. The disproportionately limited funding allocated to Inuit communities and organizations was also described in a research report commissioned by ISC (Two Worlds Consulting 2019), which reported that recipients in Nunatsiavut and Nunavik received substantially less funding through the proposal-based programs than those within any other eligible region.

Although Inuit were under-represented in this evaluation, conversations with representatives of Inuit communities and organizations suggested that Inuit communities faced challenges to accessing these programs similar to small, remote First Nations, in terms of capacity and staffing limitations, and geographical limitations. Interviews indicated that in many remote Inuit communities, development was hindered by factors such as shortened construction seasons, transportation schedules amongst fly-in and/or water-access communities, lack of infrastructure, and inflated costs of living and doing business, such as shipping costs. As noted above, funding for foundational economic development within Nunatsiavut and Nunavik was allocated to Inuit Treaty Organizations as determined in Land Claims Agreements, rather than at the community-level. This lack of stable, multi-year core funding at a community level was described in interviews, and in a report commissioned by ISC (Two Worlds Consulting 2019), as a barrier to Inuit communities in advancing economic development activities, as it meant that many communities did not have EDOs, or that these positions were seasonal or temporary while funding was available. Internal capacity of communities was identified as an area of need, which was exacerbated by both physical and digital infrastructure, as well as social issues faced by communities (Two Worlds Consulting 2019). For example, retaining staff and building capacity was further challenged by limited housing availability (Two Worlds Consulting 2019).

Finding 7: Significant data limitations impeded the ability to assess whether EDCR was meeting performance targets as determined by the logic model.

Performance metrics that were in place during the evaluation timeframe can be found in Annex E. Of these indicators, four were actively tracked by the program. The three indicators with established targets were generally meeting them:

• CORP’s leverage ratio target (whereby every $1 invested by ISC should be accompanied by $3.00 invested by sources outside the department) was largely met, fluctuating between $3.24:1 in 2018-19 and $3.04:1 in 2022-23.
• The program’s target of 68% of First Nation communities having non-government revenue representing 25% or more of total revenue was likewise largely met, fluctuating between 67.4% in 2018-19 and 71.8% in 2022-23.
• Finally, the target of 30 investments in capacity development initiatives and institutions under LEDSP-Targeted was consistently exceeded, averaging 112 per year.

However, some indicators did not have associated targets, and targets did not consistently include a rationale. For example, the target of 30 investments in capacity development was surpassed even when the LEDSP-Targeted funding was reduced in 2018-19 to 2021-22. It was unclear to evaluators what was the rationale for the target of 30, which seemed very low compared to the program’s actual apparent operating capacity.

Data related to the two additional indicators^{Footnote 23}, while technically collected, were nonetheless unavailable owing to issues with the reporting process. Specifically, the program did not typically extract the data into an analysable format; and the evaluation team was only able to extract values from recipients who used the "fillable PDF" version of the program’s data collection instrument. The team was not able to extract values for recipients who completed the form manually and submitted scans. These technical barriers align with the 2019 Audit of Economic Development Programs (CIRNAC) and a User Experience Survey commissioned by ISC (Two Worlds Consulting 2021), which similarly reported that information on communities’ economic development goals was not being collected consistently or being regularly leveraged from LEDSP-Core reports, and therefore, reports to senior management and decision-making were not being informed by the data.

Additionally, several ISC staff members spoke of challenges in collecting data related to GBA Plus, primarily due to the program’s focus at the community-level as opposed to the individual-level. One ISC staff member shared that the program could disaggregate data based on distinction group; however, other intersectional factors such as employment created for Indigenous women were not tracked within the application or reporting requirements of the program.

Finding 8: Indigenous definitions of economic success represented multi-faceted aspects of community wellbeing that were not fully reflected in the program’s logic model and performance indicators.

As discussed in Finding 5, the direct impacts of economic development in First Nations and Inuit communities extended beyond monetary value, encompassing holistic quality of life for community members. This notion of the holistic nature of economic development extended to the associated metrics of success for economic development projects. The 2014 Audit of Economic Development Programs reported that performance metrics focused on the number of projects approved and value of funding provided did not adequately demonstrate the impact of the programs on communities (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada 2014). Previous reports with Indigenous entrepreneurs have highlighted the importance of community, cultural alignment, and personal fulfillment in both defining and measuring economic success. For example, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada (2021) found that Inuit women business owners valued success metrics linked to community, culture, or personal fulfillment, over metrics related to profits and growth. Similarly, ISC’s (2023b) evaluation of the Indigenous Entrepreneurship and Business Development Program reported that Indigenous entrepreneurs experienced benefits beyond personal wealth, including improved wellbeing for themselves and their families, opportunities to serve as role models, and enhanced community economic and social outcomes. The literature and document review illustrated that many communities maintain similar views regarding the holistic role of economic development. For example, Miawpukek First Nation’s emphasis on social development was described as both the main community priority, and the primary measure of community economic development (The Atlantic Aboriginal Economic Development Integrated Research Program, 2011). Tsawwassen First Nation linked economic growth to cultural, educational, and community values (Dishart 2018). Likewise, in the Indigenous Community Development National Strategy, ISC (2019) noted that the best metrics of community development were real-world, socio-economic indicators selected by Indigenous communities that were relevant to local priorities. The strategy described the need for adjustments to program reporting requirements to increase local relevancy, and ensure that funding is effectively achieving community’s goals (ISC 2019).

EDOs who chose to complete the evaluation survey were asked to rate how well the EDCR program’s indicators reflected success in their community (does not meaningfully reflect success; somewhat reflects success; fully reflects success; see Figure 7). For example, 90% of participating survey respondents rated the 'percentage of First Nation communities where non-government revenues represent 25% or more total revenue’ as somewhat or fully reflecting success. In qualitative responses to the survey, as well as interviews with EDOs, it was reported that rather than economic wealth itself qualifying success, economic wealth is a priority because it enables the community to achieve economic and social prosperity on their own terms. One organization representative specified that the independence that comes from OSR is important to capture as a metric of success, as this independence is crucial to sovereignty.

Text alternative for: Figure 7: Relevance of Program Indicators to Survey Participants

	Does not meaningfully reflect success	Somewhat reflects success	Fully reflects success
Value of investments from sources outside of the Government of Canada.	1	14	7
# communities that have implemented strategic economic development plans.	2	6	10
Income per capita as compared to neighbouring non-Indigenous communities.	0	11	8
% First Nation communities where non-government revenues represent 25% or more total revenue.	2	8	11
% First Nation and Inuit communities providing economic development public services to their members.	1	9	11

Source: Evaluation Survey

EDOs were asked to describe alternative aspects of success that were meaningful to their community; responses reflected the holistic breadth of impact created by economic development. For example, while sustainable, long-term employment, business growth, and skill-building opportunities were listed as metrics of success, so was increased quality of life. EDOs shared the importance of building confidence, self-esteem, self-efficacy, pride, and a sense of purpose in community members, particularly, youth, as aspects of success. The ability to reduce economic leakage by providing services and income to community members, by community members, and within the community was an important aspect of success.

Beyond the need for holistic metrics of success, some interviews expressed concern regarding the short-term nature of performance assessment. Similarly, an ISC staff member shared that the program’s outcomes were difficult to measure based on the reporting collected. The data required to determine whether a LEDSP or CORP investment led to the expected quantifiable impacts was not collected over the long-term, and therefore could not illustrate the extent to which community membership benefitted from the investments. An ISC staff member explained: "we can’t illustrate whether membership actually benefitted from the investments, particularly over time – we don’t look at outcomes over a number of years following project completion. [We]used to in Aboriginal Business Canada days^{Footnote 25}, but it was incredibly onerous for communities to submit." The 2015 evaluations of CORP and LEDSP reported that a new performance measurement strategy launched in 2014, which, amongst other things, sought to improve results-based reporting by measuring longer-term results (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada 2015; Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada 2015). The 2015 evaluation of LEDSP found that the revised data collection instruments that resulted from this new strategy continued to be ineffective and time consuming and recommended that ISC refine the Data Collection Instruments (Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada 2015). Despite work undertaken to revise the performance measurement strategy, the lack of long-term measurement of benefits and outcomes from these programs was reported to be an ongoing challenge in the User Experience study commissioned by ISC (Two Worlds Consulting 2021).

Finding 9: Strong relationships between ISC regional staff and communities were identified as critical to success in proposal-based programs, but a lack of reciprocal accountability on ISC’s part was a noted barrier.

Almost half of all interviews emphasized that a positive relationship between communities and the ISC regional office was critical to success in the proposal-based program streams. One EDO shared that having the "human element and agent on their side, if they are good, qualified and helpful, makes a world of difference," and that the benefits of this support then followed into the next proposal. Similarly, another EDO explained that "relationships can get you down the road when it comes to funding applications. If you don’t have a relationship with the funding program manager, you will not understand exactly what you need to put into a proposal." An ISC staff member specified that "our first priority is the relationship and getting to know the community and building the trust first, because we really feel like in order to utilize our program to best support the communities we need to understand all the things they're thinking and how they intertwine." The strength of the relationship between ISC staff and communities was also identified as a main factor of success in the 2015 evaluation of CORP activities (Aboriginal Affairs and Northen Development Canada 2015), as well as an ISC-commissioned report with Inuit community representatives (Two Worlds Consulting 2020).

CIRNAC’s 2019 Audit of Economic Development Programs found that the department’s regional officers were in a unique position to offer applicants insight on factors of success from previous projects, and this knowledge sharing was seen to benefit communities looking to pursue new opportunities. An ISC staff member shared their perspective that the "strength of applications and projects depended on the strength of the region – if you have someone who is dynamic in the [ISC] regional office, you can get a lot of great projects in the application process with higher value. If you have a weaker regional office, there are less applications, and the applications are less descriptive. If there is an area to improve, it is to ensure that regions have good staff – the staff who could put together the most competitive packages." However, interviews conducted for this evaluation suggested that regional staff had limited time to build and nurture strong relationships due to the significant administrative workload associated with managing proposal-based programs like CORP and LEDSP-Targeted.

Most EDOs who spoke about their current relationship with the regional office described it positively. However, those who raised challenges with the relationship identified ISC staff turnover and a lack of transition services for the new regional officer as a point of frustration. One EDO shared that their community "went through a slew of regional officers, and that was difficult because as soon as someone understands what you are doing, they’re gone…Trying to get the new person up to speed is part of our role, so that they understand the community and the Chief’s background. EDOs want to help make those transitions and relationships healthier." Similarly, another EDO explained that "in the last few years, there has been extremely high turnover, and we had a new person every 6 months. By the time we trained them, they were gone^{Footnote 26}."

Aspects of the relationship between communities and ISC were mentioned as an area for improvement, particularly in a perceived imbalance of trust and accountability across parties. The extent of information required to be submitted by communities to ISC was not reciprocated. For example, the requirement of First Nations to report a change in Chief and Counsellors was raised as imbalanced, given that ISC does not have a similar requirement to share a change in regional office staff. Similarly, an ISC staff member shared that within the program proposal processes, ISC is "asking information on those [Data Collection Instruments] that is inappropriate...we are asking for education of the economic development officers in communities, but they don’t get to ask our educational backgrounds in return. So why are we asking them?" Conversations with the Community-Level Working Group corroborated the notion that accountability within the relationship is unbalanced, including in upholding timelines, determining what data is collected, how it is used, who has access to it, and the lack of a feedback loop for communities to share what is and isn’t working in the relationship. Building a mutually accountable Nation-to-Nation relationship was described as crucial to advancing self-determination and autonomy within these programs.