Family Violence Initiative

Lessons Learned from Projects Funded Through the Family Violence Initiative 1998/99 to 2002/03

• [ Previous page |
• Table of Contents |
• Next page ]

5. PROJECT RESOURCES

5.1. Overview of Project Funding

According to our project file review, the DOJ FVI provided a total of $397,108 in project funding for the sixteen (16) projects examined in this study.[7] In thirteen (13) of these cases, project funding was provided during one fiscal year. In three cases, the project funding was provided over two fiscal years.

Approximately 57 percent of the total funding amount of $397,108 was provided to twelve (12) projects in the under $25,000 funding category. In two of these cases, project funding was provided over two fiscal years. The lowest funding amount in the under $25,000 category was $5,499. The highest funding amount in the under $25,000 category was $23,637.

Approximately 43 percent of the total funding amount of $397,108 was for project funding over $25,000 ($35,000; $36,926; $45,000 and $108,479). In the case of the highest funding amount, the project funding was provided over two years.

At least half of the projects also received funding from other sources. Typically, project co-funders were public, non-profit and private sector entities that provided financial support for the project but did not play an active role in the project implementation, although they may be categorized as partners in PCS.

In eight (8) of the sixteen (16) cases, we were able to identify other funding that was contributed to the specific project, representing an estimated total of $577,300 in co‑funding resources, bringing the total value of these eight projects to $974,408. Approximately 57 percent of this funding ($331,300) was provided to seven of the projects. The remaining 43 percent ($246,000) was provided for a national conference. The percentage of DOJ FVI funding in relation to the total value of these eight projects varied from a low of 7.5 percent to a high of 68 percent of the project budget.

Projects obtained most of their financial support from other federal and provincial/territorial sources, and to a lesser extent from philanthropic organizations and the private sector. At the federal level, sources identified included: the Correctional Service of Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage, Health Canada, Industry Canada, National Crime Prevention Centre,[8] the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and Status of Women Canada. At the provincial/territorial level, various ministries (including community services, health, social services, justice, and solicitor general) were identified. Charitable/philanthropic foundations also contributed resources. Examples of foundations contributing to family violence projects include: Vancouver Police Union Charitable Foundation, United Way, Winnipeg Foundation, Sill Foundation, J.W. McConnell Family Foundation, Laidlaw Foundation, Atkinson Foundation, Anglian Houses, Minerva Foundation, Ontario Trillium Foundation. Some projects also received support from the private sector or local businesses.

In five (5) of the remaining eight cases, DOJ FVI was the only project funder. In three (3) cases, it appears that there were other funders for other aspects of the project, but it was not possible to clarify funding amounts provided.

5.2. In-kind Support

All of the projects appear to have obtained in-kind support from the Project Sponsor, and/or other community agencies or organizations. Although it was not possible to quantify information about the specific level or amount of in-kind support, key informants indicated that the most common types of in-kind resources provided were human resources and physical space. This included staff time that was "freed up" which allowed organizations to participate in, or contribute to project activities (such as the provision of clerical and administration assistance). In some cases, in-kind support came from individual volunteers. In-kind support was also provided in the form of physical space for conducting meetings. While it was difficult for key informants to provide much further detail on the nature and level of in-kind support that was received, all expressed the view that the project would not have been successfully implemented without the in-kind investments.

• [ Previous page |
• Table of Contents |
• Next page ]