Summary of the evaluation of Canada Community-Building Fund

Infrastructure Canada’s evaluation of the Canada Community-Building Fund (CCBF) assessed the effectiveness of the CCBF and the progress made towards recommendations from the previous evaluation, as well as reports from the Office of the Auditor General and the Parliamentary Budget Office. This evaluation also includes the government-wide commitment to include Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) in all evaluations as outlined in the Directive on Results.

Program Description

On June 29, 2021 the Gas Tax Fund was renamed the Canada Community-Building Fund (CCBF). The program provides a flexible and permanent source of federal infrastructure funding to support community infrastructure projects.

The CCBF funding is managed through agreements between INFC and 15 signatories:

12 Provinces & Territories

2 Municipal Associations

The City of Toronto

Between 2014-19, CCBF contributed to infrastructure investments through:

Transferring $10.29
billion to
signatories

Supporting
approximately
4,000 projects each
year

Flexibility to fund
projects across 18
categories

Serving roughly
3,900 communities

Collaborative efforts on performance measurement and reporting have been helpful and that reporting roles and responsibilities of signatories and ultimate recipients are generally clear.

CCBF signatories were aware of key resources provided by INFC (e.g., communication protocols, eligibility assessment guidelines, asset management guidelines, etc.) but accessibility and usefulness could be improved.

CCBF reporting has improved since the 2015 CCBF evaluation but data reliability, consistency, and uniformity remain central issues. Program signatories and ultimate recipients continue to be interested in working with INFC to refine data collection and help develop a national-level understanding of program performance.

Administrative and human resources capacity limitations were highlighted as a concern regarding CCBF reporting, as stakeholders appreciate CCBF’s flexibility and emphasized that any change to the existing reporting burden should be understandable and justified.

CCBF’s flexible funding model has supported signatories and ultimate recipients in meeting their local needs and priorities. Asset categories identified to be of the highest priority similarly received the greatest portion of CCBF funding. Survey data indicates that needs and priorities are expected to remain generally consistent for the next five years.

CCBF has provided municipalities with access to a predictable source of funding and the current program flexibility allows ultimate recipients to target funding to local needs and priorities, or to bank funding for future infrastructure projects.

CCBF funding contributed to community infrastructure projects in support of the program’s long term national objectives of productivity and economic growth, clean environment, and strong cities and communities.

CCBF has contributed to capacity building and asset management practices.

 

 

There is limited understanding in how CCBF is benefitting diverse populations and communities. Signatories and ultimate recipients have expressed interest in exploring ways in which CCBF can support diverse populations and a diverse range of community types.

Demographics identified as the most relevant for CCBF include:

• Small, rural, remote, and northern communities
• Indigenous peoples
• Persons with disabilities

Expenditure data indicates that smaller communities are less likely to spend CCBF funds, banking over multiple years to fund projects.

The smaller the community, the less likely they were to spend CCBF funding between 2014-19.

 

Text Description of image 10

Proportion of eligible communities with CCBF expenditure by community size

This figure shows the proportion of communities that are eligible for CCBF funding who are spending CCBF funds across 4 population ranges: less than 1 thousand people, 1 thousand to 29. 9 thousand people, 30 thousand to 99.9 thousand people, and greater than or equal to 100 thousand people, and unknown.

Less than 1 thousand people: 70%

1 thousand to 29.9 thousand people: 79%

30 thousand to 99.9 thousand people: 94%

Greater than or equal to 100 thousand people: 100%

 

Differences in per capita expenditure were noted between remote communities in provinces and in territories. Per capita allocation and expenditure is higher for remote communities in the territories than remote communities in the provinces.