Evaluation of the Green Infrastructure Fund
- About the Evaluation

About the Evaluation

3.1 Evaluation Objective and Scope

The objective of the evaluation is to report on the relevance and performance of the GIF with a focus on the design and delivery of the program.

The evaluation covers the GIF program design and delivery, all projects undertaken and all federal contributions disbursed from January 2009 to December 2015.

The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Policy on Evaluation and the Directive on the Evaluation Function and was carried out between August 2015 and May 2016.

3.2 Methodology

Qualitative and quantitative information were collected and analyzed to provide multiple lines of evidence to support the conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation. The following lines of evidence were used:

1. Document and Literature Review

   INFC consulted a broad range of documents including federal, departmental documents and program specific documents, such as project proposals, records of decision and contribution agreements. The review also included Canadian articles, laws and regulations, and infrastructure project websites. The document review was used to establish the relevance of the GIF and to identify and assess program design and delivery elements, including the establishment and use of assessment criteria. External documents were also reviewed and used to provide context, such as current laws and regulations that may have had an impact on the GIF.

2. Internal Program Data Analysis

   An analysis of the internal data base systems (PIMS and SIMSI) was conducted to report on the program's outputs, outcomes and federal contributions.

3. Key Informant Interviews

   A total of 29 key informant interviews were conducted with INFC senior management, program management, and funding recipients. The distribution of interviews resulting from the sampling is as follows:

   Table 2: Distribution of interviewees by position

   Interviewee Position	Planned Number of Interviewees	Actual Number of Interviewees
   Assistant Deputy Ministers and Directors General (INFC)	5	4
   Directors and Managers (INFC)	8	7
   Advisors and Analysts (INFC)	7	7
   Funding recipients (provinces, municipalities, crown corporations)	10	11
   Total	30	29

   
   
4. Comparative Analysis

   A comparative analysis with other similar INFC programs was conducted to establish the relative performance and efficiency of the GIF. A comparison of green project funding between the GIF and all other INFC programs was also used to determine the extent to which the program contributed to an increase in green infrastructure funding and projects.

3.3 Limitations and Mitigation Plans

There were some limitations with the evaluation.

Potential interview bias: There is a risk when conducting interviews that the interviewees' responses will be subjective and contain biases.

Mitigation: To reduce this risk, the information collected through interviews was balanced with data from the other lines of evidence. Unsuccessful applicants were not interviewed as part of this evaluation. It was determined that the information gained from these interviews could be obtained through a review of the project applications.

Quality of program delivery cost Information: The program does not have accurate and reliable information on program delivery costs. Therefore, the assessment the program's efficiency and cost-effectiveness was limited.

Mitigation: To reduce the risk of inaccurate reporting, administrative costs were not used as part of the efficiency analysis.

Absence of performance data:
Performance data was also limited as only two projects were complete at the time of the evaluation.

Mitigation: The limited performance data that was available at the time of the evaluation was assessed and used to provide a preliminary assessment of the programs achievement of outcomes.

3.4 Engagement

To support the conduct of the evaluation, the Evaluation Directorate worked closely with the Environmental Initiatives group in the P&C Branch. The P&C Branch was consulted throughout the evaluation process and presented with the preliminary findings in March, 2016. This provided them with an opportunity to provide feedback or supplementary information.