Summary of the evaluation of the Municipal Asset Management Program (MAMP) and the Municipalities for Climate Innovation Program (MCIP)

Infrastructure Canada’s evaluation of the Municipal Asset Management Program (MAMP) and the Municipalities for Climate Innovation Program (MCIP) looked at the extent to which the programs addressed municipal capacity building needs; progress towards meeting program objectives; and the efficiency of the programs’ third-party design and delivery.

  • MAMP is an eight-year (2016-17 to 2023-24), $110-million contribution program designed to support municipal asset management capacity building.
  • MCIP is a five-year (2016-17 to 2021-22), $75- million contribution program that focuses on integrating climate change considerations into asset management and reducing GHG emissions.

The evaluation found that

Both financial and human capacity continue to present challenges in small municipalities. MAMP and MCIP activities were appropriate in addressing diverse municipal needs based on the size of municipalities*.

Figure 1

As seen in Figures 1 and 2, the majority of approved applications were for funding for small municipalities in multiple categories. This aligns with the findings that MAMP addressed small communities’ multiple needs in terms of building asset management capacity

  • Small Municipalities: Population less than 10,000
  • Medium Municipalities: Population greater than or equal to 10,000 and less than 100,000
  • Large Municipalities: Population greater than or equal to 100,000.
Figure 1 - Text description of image 1

The figure 1 illustrates the percentage of MAMP’s applications approved by size of municipalities.

  • Small municipalities: 76%
  • Medium municipalities : 20%
  • Large municipalities: 4%

Figure 2

Figure 2 - Text description of image 2

The figure 2 shows the number of MAMP direct funding by sub-category and by size of municipalities. The number of applications approved to receive municipal grant funding for:

Data collection and reporting

  • Small municipalities: 60
  • Medium municipalities: 22
  • Large municipalities: 4

Asset Management Plans, Policy and Strategy

  • Small municipalities: 36
  • Medium municipalities: 14
  • Large municipalities: 0

Asset Management system Assessments

  • Small municipalities: 14
  • Medium municipalities: 2
  • Large municipalities: 0

Training and Organizational Development

  • Small municipalities: 3
  • Medium municipalities: 2
  • Large municipalities: 0

Sub-category Multiple (which includes asset management, data collection and others)

  • Small municipalities: 315
  • Medium municipalities: 77
  • Large municipalities: 15

Figure 3

As seen in Figures 3 and 4, the majority of approved applications were for small communities in the funding categories of climate change staff grants, plans and feasibility studies. This aligns with the finding that MCIP addressed small municipalities’ need for financial and human capacity.

Figure 3 - Text description of image 1=3

The figure 3 illustrates the percentage of MCIP’s applications approved by size of municipalities.

  • Small municipalities: 45%
  • Medium municipalities : 29%
  • Large municipalities: 26%

Figure 4

Figure 4 - Text description of image 4

The figure 4 shows the number of MCIP direct funding by sub-category and by size of municipalities.

Plan

  • Small municipalities: 36
  • Medium municipalities: 24
  • Large municipalities: 25

Climate Change Staff Grants

  • Small municipalities: 45
  • Medium municipalities: 19
  • Large municipalities 5

Feasibility Study

  • Small municipalities: 21
  • Medium municipalities: 18
  • Large municipalities: 24

Capital Project

  • Small municipalities: 16
  • Medium municipalities: 18
  • Large municipalities: 10

Operational Study

  • Small municipalities: 6
  • Medium municipalities: 4
  • Large municipalities: 9
  • Overall, MAMP and MCIP are making progress towards their immediate outcomes. The evaluation found that although MCIP has separate performance indicators for GHG reduction and for climate change resiliency, data is not being collected for GHG indicators. As such, it is not possible to report on progress towards GHG indicators.
  • MAMP and MCIP are making progress towards their intermediate outcomes and contributing to INFC’s expected results.
  • MAMP and MCIP are aligned with internationally recognized best practices related to asset management and capacity building to prepare for climate resiliency. The third party design and delivery approach of MAMP and MCIP has been effective.
  • When MAMP and MCIP were introduced in 2016, the government’s gender-based analysis requirements at that time were met. Gender-based Analysis Plus was also included as part of MAMP’s 2019 renewal. While there were no requirements to do so resulting from the analyses, FCM took inclusion of a diverse range of communities into account in their program delivery.

No recommendations were made as a result of this evaluation. Overall the findings were positive and no further action was required.