Western Economic Diversification Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Common menu bar links

Text Descriptions for Evaluation of Community Futures Program

Figure 1: Logic Model – Community Futures Program

The inputs for the logic model are O&M, Salaries and Wages, Gs&Cs

The activities and outputs for the logic model are divided into Program Development/Maintenance and Program Delivery.

The activities for Program Development/Maintenance are Program Development, planning and program management; Monitoring and providing non-financial support to CF organizations; Measuring CF organization performance and allocating funding.

The activity for Program Delivery is providing funding to CF Organizations.

The outputs for Program Development specific to Government of Canada departments are Policies, plans, reports and program tools, and communication resources; Advice, information and support; and Funding adjustment.

The output for Program Delivery specific to Government of Canada departments is capitation and operating contributions with CF organizations to support community economic development (CED) through strategic community planning and implementation, business services and access to capital.

The outputs for Program Delivery specific to Community Futures Organizations are Business financing; Business development, Knowledge/skills; Community Strategic plans; and CED Projects and partnerships.

The immediate outcomes of the logic model are Improved access to capital and leveraged capital through loans, loan guarantees and equity investments to businesses and social enterprises; Enhanced/maintained business development services – information, counselling, referrals, training; Strengthened community strategic plans; and More effective implementation of CED through projects, partnerships and other community economic development initiatives.

The intermediate outcomes of the logic model are Improved business practices and increased entrepreneurship; Strengthened and expanded businesses; and Strengthened community capacity for socio-economic development.

The Ultimate outcomes of the logic model are Economic stability, growth and job creation; Diversified and competitive local rural economies; and Economically sustainable communities.

>> Return to the complete text (Figure 1)

 

Figure 2: Business Sector

12.4% of clients surveyed chose Retail Trade as their business sector;

7% of clients surveyed chose Accommodations and Food Services as their business sector;

6.5% of clients surveyed chose Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting as their business sector;

6.4% of clients surveyed chose Manufacturing as their business sector;

6.0% of clients surveyed chose Construction as their business sector;

4.3% of clients surveyed chose Other Services (except Public Administration) as their business sector comprise;

4.3% of clients surveyed chose Arts, Entertainment and Recreation as their business sector;

4.3% of clients surveyed chose Professional, Scientific and Technical Services as their business sector;

3.3% of clients surveyed chose Healthcare and Social Assistance as their business sector;

3.3% of clients surveyed chose Educational Services as their business sector;

3.3% of clients surveyed chose Transportation and Warehousing as their business sector;

2.1% of clients surveyed chose Mining and Oil and Gas Extraction as their business sector;

1.7% of clients surveyed chose Real Estate and Rental and Leasing as their business sector;

1.4% of clients surveyed chose Finance and Insurance as their business sector;

1.1% of clients surveyed chose Information Technology and Cultural Industries as their business sector;

1.1% of clients surveyed chose Wholesale Trade as their business sector;

0.6% of clients surveyed chose Administration and Support, Waste Management as their business sector;

0.6% of clients surveyed chose Management of Companies and Enterprises as their business sector;

0.5% of clients surveyed chose Utilities as their business sector;

0.3% of clients surveyed chose Public Administration as their business sector;

29.7% of clients surveyed chose Other as the sector for their business;

>> Return to the complete text (Figure 2)

 

Figure 3: Common Reasons CF Clients not approved for loans from other Organizations

43% indicated that their new businesses were seen as risky;

37.4% indicated that there were concerns about collateral;

19.9% indicated that there were concerns with their credit history;

13.4% indicated that there were concerns with recent financial performance of their business;

>> Return to the complete text (Figure 3)

 

Figure 4: Proportion of clients who believe the absence of CF funding would have an impact on their businesses

60.5% believed absence of CF funding would result in fewer start-up businesses;

46.8% believed absence of CF funding would result in fewer businesses growing;

46.2% believed absence of CF funding would result in fewer businesses in operation;

36.9% believed absence of CF funding would result in fewer strategic plans and development;

>> Return to the complete text (Figure 4)

 

Figure 5: Proportion of CF Partners who believes the absence of CF funding would have an impact on their businesses

78.0% believed absence of CF funding would result in fewer businesses start-up;

70.9% believed absence of CF funding would result in smaller economic development projects;

70.4% believed absence of CF funding would result in fewer economic development projects;

69.5% believed absence of CF funding would result in fewer business growing;

67.2% believed absence of CF funding would result in fewer businesses that could stay in operation;

65.6% believed absence of CF funding would result in fewer strategic plans;

>> Return to the complete text (Figure 5)

 

Figure 6: Small business financing request rates

In 2000, the small business financing request rate was 34%;

In 2001, the small business financing request rate was 30%;

In 2004, the small business financing request rate was 27%;

In 2007, the small business financing request rate was 23%;

In 2009, the small business financing request rate was 16%;

In 2010, the small business financing request rate was 21%;

The period from 2000 to 2008 is referred to as Economic Expansion;

The period from 20008 to 2009 is referred to as Crisis/Recession;

The period from 2009 to 2010 is referred to as Economic Recovery;

>> Return to the complete text (Figure 6)

 

Figure 7: Compounded annual employment growth in Western Canada for firms with less than 100 ALUs (2004–09)

Total compounded annual employment growth rate for CF-assisted firms was 8.2%;

Total compounded annual employment growth rate for non-assisted firms was 83.9%;

Compounded annual employment growth rate for Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting for CF-assisted firms was 8.7%;

Compounded annual employment growth rate for Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting for non-assisted firms was 1.7%;

Compounded annual employment growth rate for Construction for CF-assisted firms was 7.2%;

Compounded annual employment growth rate for Construction for non-assisted firms was 5.8%;

Compounded annual employment growth rate for Retail Trade for CF-assisted firms was 10.3%;

Compounded annual employment growth rate for Retail Trade for non-assisted firms was 3.7%;

Compounded annual employment growth rate for Accommodation and Food Services for CF-assisted firms was 9.6%;

Compounded annual employment growth rate for Accommodation and Food Services for non-assisted firms was 4.3%;

>> Return to the complete text (Figure 7)

 

Figure 8: Business Survival Rates by year after start-up for firms in Western Canada across all Industries with less than 100 ALU’s (2000–10)

Business survival rate in year 1 for CF-assisted firms was 86%;

Business survival rate in year 1 for non-assisted firms was 86%;

Business survival rate in year 2 for CF-assisted firms was 86%;

Business survival rate in year 2 for non-assisted firms was 75%;

Business survival rate in year 3 for CF-assisted firms was 78%;

Business survival rate in year 3 for non-assisted firms was 69%;

Business survival rate in year 4 for CF-assisted firms was 76%;

Business survival rate in year 4 for non-assisted firms was 64%;

Business survival rate in year 5 for CF-assisted firms was 76%;

Business survival rate in year 5 for non-assisted firms was 60%;

Business survival rate in year 6 for CF-assisted firms was 75%;

Business survival rate in year 6 for non-assisted firms was 57%;

Business survival rate in year 7 for CF-assisted firms was 72%;

Business survival rate in year 7 for non-assisted firms was 54%;

Business survival rate in year 8 for CF-assisted firms was 74%;

Business survival rate in year 8 for non-assisted firms was 51%;

Business survival rate in year 9 for CF-assisted firms was 60%;

Business survival rate in year 9 for non-assisted firms was 47%;

>> Return to the complete text (Figure 8)

 

Figure 9: Year-Over-Year Sales Growth for Firms Across all Industries in Western Canada with less than 100 ALUs (2005–10)

Sales Growth rate in 2006 for CF-assisted firms was 41.4%;

Sales Growth rate in 2006 for non-assisted firms was 25.6%;

Sales Growth rate in 2007 for CF-assisted firms was 26.3%;

Sales Growth rate in 2007 for non-assisted firms was 11.7%;

Sales Growth rate in 2008 for CF-assisted firms was 21.8%;

Sales Growth rate in 2008 for non-assisted firms was 17.6%;

Sales Growth rate in 2009 for CF-assisted firms was -0.3%;

Sales Growth rate in 2009 for non-assisted firms was -13.2%;

Sales Growth rate in 2010 for CF-assisted firms was 2.2%;

Sales Growth rate in 2010 for non-assisted firms was 2.6%;

>> Return to the complete text (Figure 9)

 

Figure 10: Proportion of clients who were satisfied to a great extent with CF business services

Proportion of clients satisfied with Business information services was at 84.1%;

Proportion of clients satisfied with Business counselling services was at 882.8%;

Proportion of clients satisfied with Assistance in developing a business plan was at 81.2%;

Proportion of clients satisfied Business skills training services was at 80.2%;

Proportion of clients satisfied with Referrals to other organizations was at 68.2%;

>> Return to the complete text (Figure 10)