Previous Page

Table of Contents

Endnotes

1. The monies allocated for "Evaluation" are for all the Evaluations that pertain to the VSI including SIDPD.
2. Treasury Board Secretariat, Results for Canadians: A Management Framework for the Government of Canada, 2000, Ottawa
3. Treasury Board Secretariat, 2002, Companion Guide: The Development of Results Based Management and Accountability Frameworks for Horizontal Initiatives, Ottawa
4. Treasury Board Secretariat, 2001 Results-based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF)
5. Canadian Center for Management Development (CCMD) Roundtable on the Management of Horizontal Initiatives. 2001 Horizontal Management: Moving from the Heroic to the Everyday: Lessons learned from Leading Horizontal Projects. Ottawa: CCMD.
6. Treasury Board Secretariat, 1996. Managing Horizontal Policy Issues. Ottawa: Treasury Board Secretariat
7. For example: Taylor, Marilyn. 2002. "Strength in Numbers? Alliances as a Strategy for Policy Influence" A Paper presented at the 31st ARNOVA Conference, Montreal Canada, Glendinning, Caroline. 2002. "Partnerships between Health and Social Services: Developing a Framework for Evaluation" Policy and Politics Phillips, Susan D. and Katherine A. Graham. 2000. "When Accountability Meets Collaboration in the Voluntary Sector" In Keith Banting (ed.), The Not-for-Profit Sector in Canada: Roles and Relationships. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.
8. Susan D. Phillips, "How Ottawa Blends: Shifting Government Relationships with Interest Groups," in Frances Abele (ed.), How Ottawa Spends, 1992-93: The politics of competitiveness (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1992), 183-228.
9. Sectoral Involvement in Departmental Policy Development (SIDPD), Round 2 Facilitators Report, Brian Bell, The Alder Group, February 28, 2002.
10. For a list of the Departments and their title see Appendix 2
11. The projects of the RCMP are counted under the Solicitor Generals Office
12. Report of the Joint Tables; Government of Canada, August 1999,found at http://www.vsr-trsb.net/publications/pco-e.pdf
13. Conceptually, program delivery was seen as part of the policy process but SIDPD projects could not be utilized to deliver programs.
14. Report to the Joint Coordinating Committee (JCC), VSI on a revised Proposal Development, Assessment and Selection Process, Sectoral involvement in Departmental Policy Development (SIDPD), Round 2, January 2000; The Alder Group
15. As part of the rollout of the Codes of Good Practice that began in the Fall 2003,some of the SIDPD projects have been highlighted in presentations to departmental and voluntary sector staff.
16. The VSI was managed through six Joint Tables including one on Capacity, IM/IT, The Accord, Regulatory Framework, Awareness, and the National Volunteerism Initiative.
17. File review document entitled involving the Voluntary Sector in the Development of Departmental Polices and Programs—Key Learnings.
18. An exception is the SIDPD Evaluation, which was developed and managed by representatives from both the voluntary sector and the federal government.
19. That process has begun to some extent through the three discussion /focus groups held in the context of this evaluation.
20. The issue of provincial involvement came up several times during this Evaluation. Interviews suggest that the provinces were not thoroughly informed as to the objectives of the VSI until sometime after Round 1 of SIDPD was launched. Consideration of the provincial aspect in policy development was not explicitly stated in background documents for SIDPD.
21. It is important to note that insufficient resources and support at departmental levels was not the case in all departments. At least two departments made SIDPD a priority and re-gigged resources accordingly.
22. Health Canada has produced a common accountability and evaluation tool for all their SIDPD projects that could be used by Round 2 projects not yet completed.
23. Most Round 2 projects are not fully completed.
24. Lack of federal involvement was particularly troublesome for those projects with a large federal/provincial dimension. Several respondents indicated the federal government should have made more effort to bring the provinces into SIDPD earlier on in the process or to have limited projects to addressing policy issues that were solely within the purview of the federal government.
25. The issue of replicability is also linked to the issue of SIDPD cost effectiveness and accountability, and the need for departments to demonstrate that lessons learned from projects are to some extent transferable to other organizations, jurisdictions and governments.

Previous Page

Table of Contents