Evaluation of Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism
Appendix F: CAPAR assessment components
| Evaluation Indicator | Assessment Criteria |
|---|---|
| 5.1 Extent/quality/ appropriateness of management tools (i.e., performance measurement, monitoring and reporting) and resources (human and financial) for CAPAR | CAPAR is adequately funded, taking into account the additional costs of horizontal coordination |
| The requirements for joint measuring and monitoring of performance are met and incorporate readily measurable indicators that are relevant to the activities carried out by the funded initiatives | |
| Specific performance targets are realistic, achievable and progressive | |
| The risks related to the horizontal management of CAPAR are identified and managed effectively | |
| The requirements for joint and integrated reporting are met and do not impose an undue burden on participants | |
| The initiative is well supported at the political and senior management levels and by external stakeholders | |
| CAPAR has processes in place that enable it to learn from experience and pass this knowledge on to new participants | |
5.2 Extent/quality/ appropriateness of coordination, communication and information-sharing related to CAPAR:
|
Participants have adequate opportunity to share information in a timely manner to meet their needs |
| Participants share a common perspective on the nature of the racism issue and how to address it and there is a common fact base and terminology | |
| There is a strategy to maintain the visibility of CAPAR with respect to senior management, politicians and external stakeholders (including effective two-way communication with external stakeholders) | |
| There is effective coordination in the areas of performance measurement, reporting and evaluation | |
| There is strong leadership and support from the Action Plan Unit | |
| The WG functions effectively (active participation, strong commitment, trust, credibility, frank and open dialogue) | |
| 6.1 Comparisons with other horizontal federal approaches | Rationale for managing the issue horizontally is clear and understood |
| The selection of partners and the depth of collaboration are appropriate, given the rationale and intended outcomes | |
| 6.2 Degree of alignment of CAPAR-funded initiatives to Action Plan objectives and priorities | The objectives, priorities and intended outcomes are clear and accepted by participating organizations |
| Activities of participating organizations are aligned with the objectives, priorities and outcomes | |
| 6.3 Extent / quality / degree of cohesion between CAPAR-funded initiatives | The nature and extent of the required collaboration is clearly understood and is appropriate in terms of the intended outcomes |
| The governance/management structure (including the level and composition of the coordinating body or bodies) supports the required level of collaboration, while minimizing the associated costs of horizontal coordination | |
| The roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of the lead organization, the secretariat and the participating organizations are clear, understood and accepted | |
| Terms of reference/mandate of the coordinating body or bodies are clear and their level of decision-making authority is aligned with their accountabilities | |
| The funding arrangements are appropriate, given the nature of the collaboration and associated accountabilities | |
| The governance/management structure is supported by a dedicated, stable, adequately funded and neutral secretariat | |
| CAPAR has sufficient flexibility and capacity to be able to respond to emergent opportunities, respond to unforeseen risks and adjust to changing government priorities |