Evaluation of the Urban Programming for Indigenous Peoples Program

Overview

• This evaluation covers the traditional subject areas of relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency through the lens of the Awakening the Journey framework: a hybrid evaluation framework grounded in Indigenous perspectives^{Footnote 1}.
• The Awakening the Journey evaluation framework used in this evaluation includes five pillars: Spirit, Relationships, Process – organized along four temporal periods: past, present, transition and future – Governance, and Outcomes.
• The evaluation primarily covers the period from start of fiscal year 2017-18 to end of fiscal year 2021-22, and also includes COVID-19 recovery efforts and early lessons learned through to the end of 2021 (2021-22 fiscal year).
• The Urban Programming for Indigenous Peoples (UPIP) program was created in 2017 as the successor to the Urban Aboriginal Strategy and is ISC's only program specifically focused on funding organizations that provide programs and services to Indigenous Peoples living in, transitioning to, or accessing services in urban centres.
• Core findings of this evaluation are the very same issues that UPIP recipients and key partners consistently highlight to the program, namely:
  • negative operational impacts of unstable, unreliable and inflexible funding;
  • performance frameworks that do not reflect Indigenous methodologies, collection processes and indicators of success;
  • lack of meaningful and reliable data collection of Indigenous needs in urban centres; and,
  • inefficient and restrictive program policies.
• The findings and recommendations of this evaluation will guide upcoming policy, planning, and delivery efforts including: stabilization of core funding; implementation of a redesigned Indigenous-led and co-developed program performance framework; and, meaningful research and data collection to more accurately reflect the current and evolving realities of Indigenous Peoples living in urban centres.
• UPIP has six funding streams: Organizational Capacity; Programs and Services; Coalitions; Research and Innovation, Infrastructure, and Housing^{Footnote 2}. The findings and recommendations stemming from this evaluation will inform required program changes to promote flexible funding between streams, thereby supporting organizations to better respond to emerging needs of the populations they serve.
• In accordance with ISC's devolution mandate the program is committed to seeking input and guidance from Indigenous partners with the objective of co-developing Indigenous-led recommendations for program and policy changes.

Assurance

• The Action Plan presents appropriate and realistic measures to address the evaluation's recommendations, as well as timelines for initiating and completing the action.

Recommendation 1

Take concrete steps to ensure the program reflects the diverse and evolving priorities, voices, and ways of knowing of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces. Specifically, it is recommended that ISC:

1. Work with urban Indigenous partners to redesign the program logic model and performance indicators.
2. Establish a standing committee or other permanent mechanism that is representative of diverse Indigenous populations to provide advice on the ongoing strategic direction of the program.

Action 1.1: The program is in the final approval stages to implement a redesigned, Indigenous-led and co-developed performance framework, which is based in Indigenous methodologies, measures of success and performance indicators. This new performance framework is expected to take effect on April 1, 2025.

Action 1.2: Building on the success of the Indigenous-led and co-developed performance framework process, the program will establish a guidance committee in the short-medium term as it reviews necessary modifications that are within its existing program authorities. In the longer-term, the program will work, with the continued input of the guidance committee, to develop the parameters, including scope, of a permanent body that would provide strategic direction when the program seeks updated program authorities.

Recommendation 2

Prioritize the collection of meaningful and reliable data regarding Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces to support decision making related to the need for the UPIP program and understanding of its impacts. Specifically, it is recommended that program officials consult with ISC's Chief Data Officer; the Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer; and/or Chief Information Officer to:

1. Produce estimates of the current and future demand for the program to inform and justify resourcing requests. To the greatest extent possible, these estimates should take into account changing and intersecting socio-demographic factors, and well as broader contextual considerations such as the potential impacts of climate change on Indigenous migration to urban environments.
2. Develop and implement a flexible reporting approach that is grounded in urban Indigenous priorities and ways of knowing, and which includes mechanisms for communicating back to recipients on UPIP performance.
3. Assess data gaps and data quality issues that are barriers to understanding the needs of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces and the impact of UPIP, and develop a data strategy to address those gaps, including by actively participating in data planning efforts led by Statistics Canada and others.

Action 2.1: In collaboration with the Chief Data Officer (CDO), UPIP program officials will develop options for estimating current and future demand for the UPIP program by December 31, 2025. By March 31, 2026, UPIP program officials will finalize an implementation strategy based on the selected option. By March 31, 2027, estimates will be finalized.

Action 2.2: Building on the success of the Indigenous-led and co-developed performance framework process, the program will establish a guidance committee in the short-medium term as it reviews necessary modifications that are within its existing program authorities. In the longer-term, the program will work, with the continued input of the guidance committee, to develop the parameters, including scope, of a permanent body that would provide strategic direction when the program seeks updated program authorities.

Recommendation 3

Take concrete steps towards making funding stable, more sustainable, flexible, and readily accessible so that recipients can make the most of available funds. Specifically, it is recommended that ISC Produce estimates of the current and future demand for the program to inform and justify resourcing requests. To the greatest extent possible, these estimates should take into account changing and intersecting socio-demographic factors, and well as broader contextual considerations such as the potential impacts of climate change on Indigenous migration to urban environments.

1. Develop concrete options and policy recommendations to establish stable, consistent and ongoing supports for Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces.
2. Work with the Urban Indigenous Programs Interdepartmental Directors General Working Group to develop, implement, and report on a concrete action plan for fulfilling the group's mandate to "identify strategic opportunities to leverage funding" to support Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces.
3. Strike an expert panel including program recipients to assess the program Terms and Conditions and make recommendations for eliminating unnecessary complexities and inflexibilities.
4. Streamline and simplify the UPIP application process across funding streams, in collaboration with Indigenous partners and organizations, and explore opportunities to partner with other funders on a common application process to reduce recipients' need to expend limited UPIP resources pursuing other scattered funding opportunities.

Action 3.1: The program will develop concrete policy options and recommendations to establish stable and consistent funding supports that organizations can depend upon on an ongoing basis.

Action 3.2: The program will work with the Urban Indigenous Programs Interdepartmental Directors General Working Group to develop, implement, and report on a concrete action plan for fulfilling the group's mandate to "identify strategic opportunities to leverage funding" to support Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces.

Action 3.3: Building on the success of the Indigenous-led and co-developed performance framework process, the program will begin, in September 2025, the establishment of a guidance committee, including grassroots program recipients, to assess the program's Terms and Conditions and make recommendations for eliminating unnecessary complexities and inflexibilities. The results of this review will form part of the program's policy recommendations.

Action 3.4: Building on the success of the Indigenous-led and co-developed performance framework process, the program will begin, in September 2025, the establishment of a guidance committee and collaborate with Indigenous partners to explore streamlining within and outside the UPIP program.

Finding 1: Despite facing challenges related to funding and implementation, the flexibility of UPIP's delivery model empowers Indigenous service providers to integrate a diverse array of Indigenous values and ways of knowing into their service delivery.

Flexibility in the Terms and Conditions of funding agreements refers to the adaptability and latitude built into these agreements to allow Indigenous service providers to decide how funds are used. This flexibility enables service providers to tailor the use of funding according to their community-specific needs and priorities, integrating Indigenous values, cultural practices, and traditional knowledge into their service delivery. It ensures that funding is not constrained by rigid, one-size-fits-all requirements but can be adjusted to align with Indigenous ways of knowing and community-driven approaches, fostering more effective and culturally appropriate outcomes.

This flexibility is in alignment with the Department's vision for "program transfer", which refers to "support[ing] Indigenous Peoples in assuming control of the delivery of services at the pace and in the ways in which they choose"^{Footnote 12}. This process, founded upon four pillars of "planning, partnerships, operations, and people"^{Footnote 13}, aims to bring decision-making closer to the people and regions affected by those decisions, often to improve governance, enhance efficiency, and better address local needs and conditions.

In 1992, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) established an Urban Governance Working Group to explore governance for Indigenous communities within urban settings. Three approaches were recommended. The first was self-governance through Indigenous institutions in urban areas managing key services. The second was co-management, where Indigenous authorities collaborate with local and federal, provincial and territorial governments to ensure Indigenous cultures are reflected in urban planning and service delivery. The third was reforming municipal governments and local public authorities to better represent Indigenous residents. These approaches all prioritized the incorporation of Indigenous values and knowledge in the urban contexts^{Footnote 14}.

Successive cycles of the Urban Aboriginal Strategy (UAS) have highlighted the significance of local autonomy and collaboration. Since its inception in 1997, the UAS has evolved through multiple iterations, consistently prioritizing local autonomy and collaboration in addressing the needs of Indigenous peoples in urban areas. These core principles have been integral to the program's design, aiming to improve the socio-economic conditions of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces through partnerships involving federal, provincial, and municipal governments, Indigenous organizations, and the private sector.

RCAP emphasized the need for self-governing Indigenous institutions in urban areas. It proposed three approaches: outright self-government, co-management agreements, and the reform of municipal governments to include guaranteed Indigenous representation on public authorities.

The UAS was initiated in 1997 to respond to the growing population of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces and the socio-economic challenges they face. From 1997-2004, it focused on forming partnerships and supporting projects that addressed local priorities. Community Partnership Committees were established in cities like Regina, Saskatoon, and Prince Albert, involving Indigenous organizations and all levels of government. These committees facilitated dialogue and community processes to develop localized strategies for Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces. The federal government allocated $59 million to enhance existing programs through the UAS, specifically addressing Indigenous homelessness in urban centres. This period saw significant community-driven initiatives across Canada, including the development of the single-window concept in Edmonton and Calgary, which streamlined access to services for Indigenous peoples.

From 2004-2010 the UAS further expanded with a commitment to local determination and partnership. This approach aimed to address socio-economic disparities while fostering social cohesion and urban competitiveness. From 2010 onward the UAS (and then UPIP) continued to emphasize local autonomy by supporting Indigenous-led service delivery and governance models. This has encouraged the development of umbrella organizations that represent the collective interests of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces, ensuring that services are culturally appropriate and community-driven. These self-governing Indigenous organizations provide services that respect Indigenous spiritualities, ceremonies, language, and beliefs. For instance, in Nova Scotia, one organization offers a walk-in medical clinic that offers both Western and traditional medicine, merging Western medical practices with Indigenous approaches to healthcare. This emphasis on culturally relevant services was notably inherited by UPIP and has been a cornerstone of Government of Canada urban programming since the inception of the first Urban Aboriginal Strategy cycle. For example, program Terms and Conditions mandate that eligible recipients must be Indigenous, while non-Indigenous Service Provider Organizations must show demonstrated support from Indigenous organizations or community groups.

Contributors to this evaluation generally concur that UPIP's delivery model has effectively operated on the premise that funding recipients will inherently integrate Indigenous values and ways of knowing into UPIP funded initiatives and projects, respecting the diverse array of Indigenous Peoples in urban areas. Funding is project-based and operates on the assumption that funded organizations will have integrated culturally relevant services into the projects that are funded, which overwhelmingly appears to hold true. While there are significant critiques of restrictions of the delivery model (reflected in several findings below), the flexibility to reflect diverse values and ways of knowing in service delivery is something that contributors do appreciate about the program, and are important to flag as program strengths.

One organization in British Columbia, for instance, teaches youth traditional land-based hunting, gathering and conservation practices, which program clients shared enables them to connect with their culture when, living and/or growing up in urban areas rather than in their home communities, they do not always have the opportunity to learn these practices first-hand. An organization in Labrador offers monthly cultural activities such as beading and cooking nights, which serve the dual function of bringing Indigenous community members together and providing an opportunity to engage in traditional cultural practices. An organization in Saskatchewan offers health and sexual education tailored to issues prevalent within Indigenous communities and specifically among Indigenous youth, administering this programming on-reserve to bypass provincially-imposed restrictions on sexual education in provincially-run educational facilities.

One youth shared with program administrators that they had applied what they had learned from this programming to go in to a sexual health clinic to be tested for sexually transmitted illnesses after engaging in sexual activity, thanking program administrators for the knowledge they had gained about sexually transmitted illness prevalent within the community. Several clients of an Atlantic organization share that culturally relevant services have provided them with a sense of belonging, offering that "It has brought wholeness to be a part of this community" and that this organization is their "home away from home". As one client shares, "If I did not come here, I would not know where I would be right now." Another concurs: "This place is important, way more important than what I could put in a picture." In Halifax, Atelihai Inuit created wall hangings to convey their experience of belonging and what the program means to them, artistically highlighting these themes. These wall hangings appear below in Figures 1 and 2.

Text alternative for Figure 1: Wall Hangings Created by Atelihai Inuit, Halifax, NS

Figure 1 depicts a photo of two wall hangings created by Atelihai Inuit in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The Wall hanging on the left is a beige canvas hanging from a string showing a coloured pencil drawing of an Ulu with a rainbow ripple behind it and the words "Atelihai Inuit" in diagonal in the top left corner. The wall hanging on the right is a canvas hanging from a string showing a colored pencil drawing of an Inuksuk on a hill. The second stone from the top depicts a word in Inuktitut syllabics, "ᐃᓚᒋᕈᕗᒍᑦ". The middle two stones depict the words "Atelihai Inuit." The third stone from the bottom says "togetherness," while the second stone from the bottom says "home away from home".

Text alternative for Figure 2: Wall Hangings Created by Atelihai Inuit, Halifax, NS

Figure 2 is a picture of three wall hangings created by Atelihai Inuit in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The wall hanging on the left is a canvas hanging from a tree branch. In the top left in fabric is the logo for Atelihai Inuit: an Inuksuk made of fabric next to two building facades, positioned alongside one another facing outwards on both sides, with three waves at the bottom of the buildings. The words "Atelihai Inuit" are to the right of the logo. The middle of the canvas lists the words "support, friendship, joy, love, laughter, food, kindness, family." At the bottom of the canvas is a felt circle with a heart at the top and fringe at the bottom. Within the circle are three people dressed in traditional Inuit clothing, holding hands underneath a sun. The middle wall hanging is a canvas hanging from a string showing a large coloured pencil drawing of an outlined heart emanating from a Qulliq with an abstract Inuit person holding a baby on their back on the left and an abstract Inuit person in traditional Inuit clothing on the right. The third wall hanging is a canvas with a coloured pencil drawing of a bearded man wearing a shirt, holding a Qatuk with a heart on the right side of his shirt. A speech bubble to the left of the man says "Coming here has allowed me the space to understand the "face" of my identity. It was the last missing piece of who I am. I had always felt a bit lost + alone until I found my Inuit community through Atelihai." From the heart on the man's shirt a line connects to the words "…WHO AM I?" at the top of the canvas, surrounded by a swirly line.

Contributors also recognize the complexity of Indigenous culture, particularly in urban environments, where multiple cultures coexist. They note that offering culturally-specific services may not adequately address the diverse cultural needs of communities, for example, as in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside and in other large urban centres. It is often that only one organization exists to provide services to all Indigenous Peoples within an urban space or to all members of a distinction group within an urban space, and resources do not always exist to offer the diversity of programming that would be ideal. For instance, only one organization exists to provide culturally-relevant services to the Inuit community across all of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. This dearth of programming means that all community members are served by the same programming, which, if bolstered and potentially offered by multiple organizations, could grow in specificity and become even more culturally relevant. However, despite this, the programming is demonstrably benefitting community members. One program recipient offers that, "These people opened their door to me and helped me get back my identity, this is the family I never had and I always wanted," and another shares that, "Before I felt like I was not Inuk enough, but [the Program] made me feel welcome." A media collage illustrating the services provided at various service provider organizations across the country appears in Annex A.

Finding 2: Colonial values and practices persist within UPIP, emphasizing the imperative to comprehensively centre Indigenous voices, values, and knowledge.

Historically, colonial values and practices have significantly influenced the development of policies, programming, and attitudes towards Indigenous Peoples. A clear illustration of this influence is seen in the Indian Act of 1876, which imposed a system of governance on Indigenous Peoples that undermined their traditional forms of governance and authority and currently remains guiding legislation of federal departments including ISC, although the Government of Canada has recognized that it "is a colonial-era law designed to exert control over the affairs of First Nations, and as such, the Act will never be fully aligned with the UN Declaration [on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples]"^{Footnote 15} The Indian Act has approaches to Indigenous services that are often top-down and bureaucratic, and which frequently prioritize federal interests over Indigenous self-determination and community needs. This approach is evident in the design and implementation of programs like the UPIP, where decision-making authority and funding allocation predominantly rest with the federal government rather than Indigenous communities themselves (see finding 3), and in the bureaucratic processes and program reporting requirements which are burdensome and disconnected from the cultural values and priorities of Indigenous communities, further reinforcing colonial power dynamics (see finding 9).

One Indigenous contributor from the Prairie provinces shares that through UPIP funding, "the government has brought Indigenous People into their positions [at Indigenous service provider organizations]. They [these Indigenous employees] understand the Indigenous worldview, and they have a vested interest in Indigenous Peoples. So the missing piece is [for the government] to give them the autonomy to run the program." They ask, "Why hire them, and dictate that they run things from a colonial perspective?" Another contributor from the Prairies shares that she "was invited […] to meet with 14 federal Deputy Ministers. They wanted to learn, what are my struggles? They wanted to talk about reconciliation. I was not scared; they are just people. They wanted to hear about the legacy of residential schools and how to fix it. I said, 'You can't fix it; you're government.' They were frozen. I said, 'Indigenous organizations can fix it with creative ways of changing things, and you can support it financially; that is all you can do'."

Indigenous contributors credit Indigenous Services Canada for the commitment to address colonial legacies and advance Indigenous self-determination in urban settings; however, substantial challenges persist in the process of making UPIP more culturally respectful and more self-determined by Indigenous Peoples. Three main issues were highlighted by contributors, stressing the need for more meaningful engagement and collaboration to further refine UPIP to address historical injustices, to better align with their priorities, and to acknowledge their aspirations: chronic funding shortages, problematic expectations on project design, and unsuitable definitions of success.

The first issue, chronic funding shortages, is acknowledged by all contributors as particularly urgent. Funding gaps have perpetuated existing inequalities and further marginalized Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces, eroding their knowledge, cultures, and governance systems. Funding levels, their impacts, and these gaps are discussed in detail in finding 3.

The second issue revolves around the conflict between a program that relies on a flexible, community-based approach centred on local Indigenous knowledge, values and self-determination and Indigenous Services Canada's expectations on project design. For instance, UPIP prioritizes partnerships: there is an expectation embedded within UPIP funding requirements that recipients partner with other organizations. The overall UPIP Terms and Conditions describe that "funding applications may be assessed against the following criteria: […] applicant's demonstrated ability to leverage other funding", and the Terms and Conditions for the Infrastructure funding stream stipulate that "for major infrastructure projects (projects valued at more than $1M), there will be a cost sharing requirement to leverage a minimum of 25% of total funding and the identification of other sources of funding will be a mandatory criterion". While partnerships can be positive, for instance, by maximizing positive outcomes particularly in restrictive budgetary settings, the evaluation team heard that this expectation fails to recognize that Indigenous Service Provider Organizations can face challenges in aligning their values and worldviews with those of partners, especially with non-Indigenous Service Provider Organizations – and that mandatory partnershipping runs the risk of partners' needs overshadowing organizations' own needs. Moreover, within urban Indigenous service provider organizations, each has its own specific mandate and may cater to different demographics. Organizations themselves, the evaluation team heard, are confident in their ability to determine the most effective approaches to serve their community, which may or may not involve forming appropriate partnerships if necessary.

An Indigenous contributor from Saskatchewan highlights the problem of government dictating there must be partnerships and how these will be formed: "Indigenous organizations have specific mandates, and may be serving different demographics, so they are not like-minded in delivery. There should be less emphasis on 'you must have partners' and more emphasis on how best to serve the community. We will find the suitable partners to do so. We speak of the action involved—'partnershipping', the process—not the end 'partner'." This contributor urges Indigenous Services Canada to adopt the Indigenous value of "humility" by embracing diverse perspectives and trusting Indigenous Service Provider Organizations to make decisions that align with the circumstances and prioritize the interests of their clients.

The third concern centres on how success is defined, measured, and communicated, and the related expectation to adhere to Western standards of accountability and transparency, often conflicting with Indigenous governance approaches and cultural values. Indigenous contributors unanimously express dissatisfaction with the current reporting framework for UPIP, which prioritizes Western-centric metrics, such as financial expenditures and measurable outcomes like the number of clients served (reporting is discussed in more detail in finding 13). While these metrics provide some insights, they fail to fully capture the holistic impact of UPIP on the well-being of Indigenous individuals, families, children, and communities in urban spaces, or the effectiveness of culturally appropriate programs and services. It is imperative that Indigenous Peoples define how program success is measured and conveyed, as they conceptualize it, including the narrative salience of their stories in urban spaces, which is crucial to assessing program success.

Finding 3: The foremost challenge confronting urban Indigenous partners is inadequate, unstable, short-term and fragmented funding. This has hindered innovation and resulted in a shrinking network of service providers who are primarily focused on securing funding to sustain their operations and short-term survival, leaving little room for long-term planning.

Programs aiding urban Indigenous communities are profoundly impacted by inadequate, unstable, short-term, and fragmented funding. This has wide-ranging implications on the extent and variety of services and supports that can be provided to the population of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces. This was, by far, the foremost concern among Indigenous contributors, who report many negative consequences of inadequate funding:

• With limited financial resources, Indigenous Service Provider Organizations struggle to reach all individuals and communities in need, resulting in gaps in service delivery.
• Short-term and fragmented funding limits the scope of activities that Indigenous Service Provider Organizations can undertake. Certain initiatives are prioritized over others, leading to incomplete or partial coverage of urban Indigenous community needs.
• Unstable funding undermines the stability of Indigenous Service Provider Organizations, making it difficult to plan for the long-term and sustain operations over time. Organizations face uncertainty regarding their financial future, leading to staffing challenges, program disruptions, and organizational instability. Even temporary program closures lasting only a few weeks or months can have profound impact on Indigenous clients.
• Short-term funding cycles hinder innovation and adaptation. Indigenous Service Provider Organizations may lack the resources necessary to invest in new initiatives, develop innovative approaches to service delivery, or respond effectively to emerging community needs.
• Inadequate funding limits the capacity of Indigenous Service Provider Organizations to build and strengthen their infrastructure, human resources, and organizational capacity. They struggle to attract and retain skilled staff, invest in staff training and development, or upgrade technology and infrastructure.
• Inadequate funding causes unhealthy competition among Indigenous partners trying to maintain their operations. This undermines the development of a collaborative, self-sustaining network of urban Indigenous Service Provider Organizations that promotes continual improvement.
• That the UPIP program prioritizes funding for Indigenous Service Provider Organizations with an established funding history excludes smaller, emerging organizations, and stifles innovation.
• Inadequate funding exacerbates existing inequities within Indigenous communities. Programs serving Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces receive less funding compared to those on-reserve, leading to disparities in access to services and supports.

Many Indigenous Service Provider Organizations share anecdotes underscoring the gravity of their funding situation. They describe a scenario of a decline in both the physical and mental well-being of their staff. One organization reveals that due to low wages, they have had to supplement with food vouchers so their staff could afford basic necessities. The evaluation observed on multiple occasions that several organizations' employees are recipients of their own organizations' essential item distribution programs. For example, an organization in Labrador provides personal hygiene items to several staff members in addition to community members, while an organization in Manitoba has distributed food hampers to some of their employees who cannot afford to purchase food. Many contributors tell of excessive unpaid overtime (one, for instance, indicates that she works 80 hours per week, more than half of which is unpaid) and incurring uncompensated personal expenses to support Indigenous clients and staff. Indigenous contributors were concerned of a potential collapse in the support system for the Indigenous population in urban spaces due to reliance on the good will and dedication of staff.

Figure 3 illustrates the trend in Urban Aboriginal Strategy and UPIP funding (in real terms) contrasted to the population growth of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces, from 1991-2024. From 2003-04, when eight Urban Aboriginal Strategy pilot cities were initially funded, and 2012-13, Government of Canada investments paralleled population growth. Between 2012-13 and 2014-15, the Government of Canada consolidated its urban Indigenous programming. It was at this juncture that Government of Canada investments started to drop from a high of $69M in 2012-13, to $56M in 2021-22. During the same period the population of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces continued to grow, from an estimated 676,612 to 801,045 individuals.

Source: Population figures from Statistics Canada Census of Population. Budget information from Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada documents. Budget data excludes COVID-19 funding.

Text alternative for Figure 3: Trend in Urban Aboriginal Strategy and UPIP funding (blue line) and the population growth of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces (red line), 1991-92 to 2024-25

Figure 3 illustrates the trend in Urban Aboriginal Strategy and UPIP funding (in real terms) contrasted to the population growth of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces, from 1991-2024. The funding quickly increased from $0 to $69 Million from 2003-04 followed by a steady decline from $69 Million to $56 Million from 2012-13 to 2021-2022. The population of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces has steadily increased from just over 300,000 in 1990 to 801,045 in 2021-22.

Additionally, Indigenous Services Canada's approach to fund Service Provider Organizations with a proven track record under the Urban Aboriginal Strategy resulted in fewer new Service Provider Organizations being funded, contributing to a decline in the total number of funded recipients. From 2017-18 to 2020-21, the number of recipients across all funding streams decreased by 23%, with a partial recovery of 10% by 2021-22^{Footnote 16}. It was noted that there was a reduction in recipients for programs and services, with figures declining by 51% and partially recovering by 35% respectively during the same period.

In real terms, the overall UPIP funding has remained relatively consistent across all years, except for a slight increase in 2020-21 (Figure 4). However, the number of Indigenous partners receiving UPIP funding decreased from 2017-18 to 2020-21, showing increases in 2021-22. Funding for the programs and services, organizational capacity and coalitions funding streams mirrors that of the overall UPIP funding (Figure 5).

Source: UPIP program files.

Text alternative for Figure 4: Trend in total UPIP funding (blue bars) and the number of funded recipients (red line), 2017-18 to 2021-22

Figure 4 illustrates the trend in total UPIP funding compared to the number of funded recipients from 2017-18 to 2021-22. The total UPIP funding shows that funding consistently remained around $60 Million, with a slight increase to $70 Million in 2020-21 before returning to $60 Million in 2021-22. The number of funded recipients decreased from 125 in 2017-18 to 95 in 2020-21 before increasing to 110 in 2021-22.

Figure 5: Trend in UPIP funding by stream (blue bars) and the number of funded recipients (red line), 2017-18 to 2021-22

Source: UPIP program files.

Text alternative for Figure 5.1: Funding - Programs and Services

Figure 5.1 illustrates the trend in total UPIP funding for the Programs and Services stream compared to the number of funded recipients from 2017-18 to 2021-22:

• The total UPIP funding shows that funding steadily decreased from around $29 Million in 2017-18 to around $25 million in 2020-21, before marginally increasing to just over $25 Million in 2021-22.
• The number of funded recipients decreased from around 90 in 2017-18 to around 60 in 2018-19, and continued to decrease to around 53 in 2019-20 and finally just under 45 in 2020-21, before increasing to around 58 in 2021-22

Source: UPIP program files.

Text alternative for Figure 5.2: Funding - Organizational Capacity

Figure 5.2 illustrates the trend in total UPIP funding for the Organizational Capacity stream compared to the number of funded recipients from 2017-18 to 2021-22:

• The total UPIP funding shows that funding marginally increased from around $31 Million in 2017-18 to around $32 million in 2018-19, and then incrementally decreased each year to around $28 Million in 2021-22.
• The number of funded recipients increased from 28 in 2017-18 to 32 in 2018-19, then decreased to 31 in 2019-20 and 30 in 2020-21 while remaining constant at 30 in 2021-22.

Source: UPIP program files.

Text alternative for Figure 5.3: Funding - Research and Innovation

Figure 5.3 illustrates the trend in total UPIP funding for the Research and Innovation stream compared to the number of funded recipients from 2017-18 to 2021-22:

• The total UPIP funding shows that funding increased from $0 in 2017-18 to around $0.3 Million in 2018-19 and then to around $0.5 Million in 2019-20, before decreasing to around $0.35 Million in 2020-21 and increasing again to around $0.9 Million in 2021-22.
• The number of funded recipients increased from 0 in 2017-18 to 2 in 2018-19, and continued to increase to 7 in 2019-20 and 8 in 2020-21 before decreasing to 5 in 2021-22.

Source: UPIP program files.

Text alternative for Figure 5.4: Funding - Coalitions

Figure 5.4 illustrates the trend in total UPIP funding for the Coalitions stream compared to the number of funded recipients from 2017-18 to 2021-22:

• The total UPIP funding shows that funding increased from around $1.8 Million in 2017-18 to around $4 Million in 2018-19 and then remained relatively constant until 2021-22, when it decreased to around $3.6 Million.
• The number of funded recipients increased from 16 in 2017-18 to 30 in 2018-19, then decreased to 27 in 2019-20 before increasing to 28 in 2020-21, and finally decreasing to 26 in 2021-22.

Coalitions also contend with significant underfunding, receiving smaller proportions of Government of Canada support allocated compared to previous Urban Aboriginal Strategy cycles. Indigenous Service Provider Organizations and coalitions alike encounter challenges in offering salaries comparable to market rates. Organizations in Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia described facing difficulties in retaining employees since they cannot offer competitive salaries. One community leader in Manitoba told the evaluation team that, "We asked for a lot more and didn't receive an explanation for the amount rewarded. We just said 'thank you', [but the] money does not go far", stating further that there "needs to be better funding for salaries". An organization in British Columbia shared that UPIP funding could only support "3/4 of a part time co-management position" and described having to fund student positions "piecemeal via project funding", while an organization in Saskatchewan described that she had lost three employees due to more competitive salaries offered in the private sector.

Organizations describe that due to a lack of funding, the positions that they are able to fund have excessively long working hours (for instance, one staff member in Labrador whose position is funded by UPIP recounts working 80 hours per week), leading to the hiring of less experienced staff and to staff retention relying heavily on personal sacrifice and commitment to serving the urban Indigenous community. As one contributor from the Prairie provinces shares, "We don't have enough funding to pay someone to stick around in really key positions. Leads to [hiring of] either really junior staff without the skillset they require, or it is someone that is super-vested in the community, they don't prioritize remuneration over wanting to do the good work in the community, but they are needles in a haystack. To [our] Indigenous youth clients this is saying they don't matter much, [and that staff who are] less skilled, less educated and going to be here a short time…is good enough for you."

Finding 4: There is a need for the development of a cohesive national urban Indigenous strategy to bring about system-level change.

Contributors note the urgent need for the development of a cohesive national urban Indigenous strategy to bring about system-level change. This is grounded in the view that the current approach, characterized by project-based funding under UPIP, falls short of addressing the complex and multifaceted challenges facing urban Indigenous communities. Many contributors highlight how UPIP has veered away from the Government of Canada's longstanding strategic approach towards urban Indigenous issues, instead becoming primarily focused on project-based funding.

Due to the inherent complexity and interconnectedness of urban systems, achieving significant improvements in the well-being of the population of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces, as envisioned by Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Gathering Strength–Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Calls to Action, could imply changes at the systems level. While incremental changes may address immediate issues, they often fail to address underlying systemic issues, leaving root causes unaddressed.

Systems change, on the other hand, could help to reconfigure the entire urban system, addressing systemic inequalities, power dynamics, and structural barriers and bring more sustainable, inclusive, and equitable outcomes for Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces. In alignment with the UNDRIP Act (2021) and Action Plan (2023), system-level changes could include changes in governance (greater inclusion of Indigenous voices in program design is needed to better align with Indigenous values and improve cultural relevance), data collection (a lack of reliable data hinders informed decision-making; participatory, culturally-relevant data collection methods are recommended), funding (current short-term, fragmented funding limits long-term planning; stable, flexible funding is essential for innovation and sustainability) and collaboration (better coordination between federal departments is needed to streamline service delivery and improve outcomes for urban Indigenous communities).

The Urban Aboriginal Strategy, launched in 1998, aimed to improve federal policy and program development through such a systems change approach, fostering collaboration with various partners including government levels, Indigenous organizations, and the private sector. However, over time this systems change approach shifted to a project-based funding model.

The limitations of the project-based funding model become apparent where it was necessary for organizations to close effective existing programming and create brand-new programming in order to qualify for UPIP funding. As one Indigenous contributor from the Atlantic Region states when describing how existing successful programming had to be replaced with new initiatives solely to qualify for UPIP funding as new initiatives, "We have to have a sexy new program to get that funding". This illustrates how the pursuit of funding can sometimes prioritize the creation of a new initiative over the continuation of one that is effective and established.

Additionally, the project-based funding approach creates administrative silos, constraining recipients' flexibility to allocate funds across budget lines or projects. This hinders their ability to respond promptly to emerging and urgent needs within urban Indigenous communities, or even to complete projects as intended. One funding recipient in Manitoba, for example, shares that, "You can't make projections years in advance. We wanted to buy a new building to be [a] new Friendship Centre, but […] funding through UPIP would only let us buy the building [because it allowed us to offer a program], not the land – how do you buy a building without the land?" Another example of this occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, during which an organization in British Columbia shared that, "The degree of grief and change changed the distribution of funding and funding needs. [We] needed to move money across budget lines [to start] offering teachings, handicrafts, gatherings, [and] social connectivity. […] If there were authority to move funding across budget lines, we'd be able to do these things much more easily." Indigenous contributors overwhelmingly express the need for core capacity and program funding, at a level adequate to meet ongoing needs, that is not restricted to specific projects.

Finally, a cohesive national urban Indigenous strategy could help to facilitate more effective and broader discussions between Indigenous Service Provider Organizations and federal, provincial, and territorial governments, as well as municipal authorities. One contributor from the West Coast shares that, "You can't create a national voice if you don't have a process to get people's voices heard at the national level". A lack of productive dialogue with various levels of government prevents Indigenous Service Provider Organizations from being more strategic in developing a broader strategy to address barriers and challenges and better meet the diverse and multi-faceted needs of the community.

The evaluation team heard that Urban Indigenous Service Provider Organizations would like an opportunity to advocate for their inclusion in nation-to-nation conversations and would like to establish collaborative platforms, such as tri- or bi-lateral tables, to facilitate cooperation and address programmatic needs and gaps. As one contributor notes, "We want to be in the deep end, but we are at the side of the pool. A project is not a strategy. We need to find ways to freely identify and address the colonial system in play."

Establishing a national urban Indigenous governance strategy, complete with a national coordinator, dedicated staffing, and a network of affiliated organizations, could prove beneficial in giving a national voice to urban Indigenous communities. However, careful consideration would be required, especially regarding the leadership and form of such a mechanism.

Finding 5: There is a correlation between the effectiveness of UPIP and the quality of relationships between ISC, funding recipients, and Indigenous organizations.

Indigenous Services Canada has made efforts to foster strong relationships with funding recipients, including engaging Indigenous parties in a participatory manner. The transition from Urban Aboriginal Strategy to UPIP involved extensive partner engagement in 2016. Three national meetings of UPIP coalitions led to the establishment of a national coalition advisory network in 2018. Subsequent discussions with coalitions have focused on shaping the research and innovation agenda and co-developing elements for a national urban Indigenous strategy.

Indigenous Services Canada also employs other methods to strengthen relationships with Indigenous communities. Indigenous Services Canada participates in local coalition tables to strengthen partnerships with service providers in urban spaces, while maintaining regular contact with UPIP recipients either through headquarters or regional offices. Surveys are also used to gather feedback from UPIP recipients, communities, and other partners.

However, the effectiveness of UPIP largely depends on individual relationships rather than institutional practices. For instance, funding recipients who did not have a relationship with ISC regional staff described that as a result they may not know the status of their funding, may not receive funds in a timely manner, may not know what happened with reports they submitted, may not know when to apply for new funding, and may not be aware of other funding opportunities, which would otherwise be shared with them as part of ongoing discourse.

The quality of interactions between UPIP headquarters and regional staff, as well as between UPIP staff and recipients, significantly impacts program success. Contributors from the West Coast and Prairie provinces highlight that their "key to success has been relationships" and that "relationships are key in everything". Regional UPIP staff express that, "It's hard to forget an organization when you meet with them in person as opposed to reading about them on paper", and that "relationships ][…] raise visibility of the national [Indigenous] organization[s]." The importance of this face-to-face connection is not only highlighted by ISC staff, but also by national Indigenous organizations. A contributor from the Prairie Provinces, for instance, shares that it would "be a good idea for HQ to visit regions and directly experience what coalitions are going through, and see the success and where things still need to happen. [They] need to get out from the desk to get the full picture and experience hands-on." Another contributor from the West Coast points out that it is also important for non-Indigenous community members to experience organizations' work first-hand: "To find success in the work we're trying to do, we needed non-Indigenous people to feel like the space was also for them."

The staff of Indigenous service providers praise the efforts that ISC staff have made to forge deeper connections and establish meaningful relationships, and explain that these relationships contribute to feelings of sincerity, openness and care. A contributor from the Prairies applauds the support they had received from key ISC staff members, sharing that, "[Regional UPIP Official] is the contact, he has been fantastic. [We provide] info to him every three months showing the program is successful. [Official] is great at guiding and providing a challenge function for [the organization], very useful. [Official] really was supportive when the program had to evolve and change. [He] was easy to deal with, helpful, especially with reports, and now we have a long-distance relationship where he can ask for other information."

Both funding recipients and Indigenous Services Canada contributors identify areas for improvement, such as in-person site visits and post-project follow-ups, that emphasize the need for increased investment in building relationships with Indigenous organizations through purposeful and frequent engagement. One regional staff member asked, for instance, "What happens after these projects are completed? The organizations do work, but what does government do to advocate for required funding based on ongoing need?" A contributor from the Prairies shares that "if there were more flexibility and improved lines of communication – perhaps being able to put a face to the name", they would be better equipped to communicate ongoing and shifting needs with ISC staff and potentially alter funding allocations or amounts. Indigenous Services Canada recognizes the necessity to enhance outreach to support urban Indigenous needs and gain a better understanding of how to assist organizations in this regard.

While ISC staff share that staffing levels are adequate, frequent turnover in personnel, particularly in recent years, has hindered UPIP's capacity to engage and establish relationships, resulting in a notable loss of institutional knowledge. Indigenous contributors specifically recommend assigning regional offices as the primary point of contact for all UPIP streams, rather than sharing this responsibility with headquarters, which is viewed as too far removed from the regions to have a fulsome understanding of community needs.

Finding 6: ISC collaborates with other federal departments through the Urban Indigenous Programs Interdepartmental DG Working Group. However, there is significant duplication among federal departments delivering urban Indigenous programming.

Indigenous Services Canada is actively collaborating with other federal departments to establish long-term partnerships, secure additional funding, and coordinate efforts for a federal urban Indigenous strategy. The Urban Indigenous Programs Interdepartmental Directors General Working Group, facilitated by UPIP, convenes two to four times annually to strengthen relationships among departments offering programs and services to Indigenous people in urban settings. The working group aims to enhance collaboration, identify funding opportunities, provide guidance on application review and selection, discuss program renewal and longer-term objectives, and reduce program duplication. UPIP is responsible for preparing materials for these meetings. While some progress was made over the evaluation period, particularly regarding COVID-19 emergency funding, the working group has yet to address the critical issue of inadequate, unstable, short-term, and fragmented funding.

Finding 7: Although ISC has recently made progress in co-developing outcomes, indicators and targets, Indigenous recipients have limited engagement in program design and administration, and there is a strong desire for more involvement.

Initially, the targets for UPIP performance indicators (as outlined in the Performance Information Profile) lacked alignment with community needs and failed to address administrative burdens effectively. As a condition of UPIP funding in 2017 and 2019, the Treasury Board's Secretariat of Canada mandated Indigenous Services Canada to establish indicators and targets in collaboration with Indigenous partners. This process, initiated in late 2023, also involves revising outcomes to prioritize an urban Indigenous vision for success at the forefront of UPIP's logic model.

Indigenous Services Canada has since engaged with key Indigenous partners to refine parameters and methodologies for data collection and continues to redevelop indicators and outcomes, facilitating discussions through meetings and conference calls to address reporting challenges. A draft of a new program logic model, developed in partnership with these partners, was completed in summer 2024. This new logic model integrates Indigenous perspectives and is different from the previous logic model in several key ways, including non-linearity and co-developed outcomes and indicators relating to – and capable of measuring – community wellness.

While this reflects Indigenous Services Canada's commitment to future programming developed by and for urban Indigenous communities, it remains crucial to engage Indigenous partners comprehensively in determining roles and responsibilities of the main partners, program delivery methods, and appropriate funding to ensure alignment with the scale of need. ISC staff well understand the importance of this, and identify that it is particularly important to bring partners together in contexts where they are in competition for funding, in order to create a more collaborative environment. As one staff member shares, program staff have "seen competition among urban organizations. They are all fighting for the same small pots of funding. They are competing against each other and this does not create collaborative environment.

Contributors emphasized that it is imperative that future programming is developed by and for urban Indigenous communities themselves, with an urban Indigenous vision for success at the forefront. The evaluation team heard that Indigenous Peoples are the only ones who can truly define the desired outcomes and attributes of culturally appropriate programs that effectively serve Indigenous communities in urban settings, considering their intersecting needs. This entails resolving jurisdictional challenges and ensuring that Indigenous perspectives and outcomes are reflected in logic models. Contributors agree that programs that are not developed and run by Indigenous Peoples are ineffective. One contributor from the North, for instance, shares that "programs are run by non-Indigenous [people] and don't fit our ideas or vision. None of this makes sense to us." Another sums up this theme in one sentence: "Not my journey, not my story."

Contributors also highlighted that it is imperative to deepen the understanding of "co-development" as a process between the government and Indigenous communities, emphasizing shared interests to foster meaningful and equitable partnerships. Indigenous Services Canada has defined partnership as something that "can only be achieved through strong, respectful, effective and ethical relationships. In the spirit of treaties and land claims, these relationships are founded on the recognition of Indigenous rights and respect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action. They are also founded on honesty and dignity."^{Footnote 17} The evaluation team heard that this process should also be strengths-based. As one contributor from the West Coast shares, "We're no longer victims."

Finding 8: Reciprocal relationships and feedback mechanisms play pivotal roles in reconciliation efforts; however, fundamental feedback mechanisms like sharing UPIP performance data with recipients have yet to be established.

Indigenous contributors emphasize that current feedback mechanisms within UPIP and at the local level do not promote transparency, accountability, or inclusivity in decision-making affecting Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces. Specifically, they note that despite being the largest Indigenous group nationally, the urban Indigenous voice is marginalized, notably on the federal level by initiatives that focus on distinction groups where Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces are not represented. One contributor from the Prairies states that, "The historic urban voice should be viewed as distinct because urban contexts affect and shape people different than growing up or living in the reserve context, and in some distinct ways the urban context can be limiting." This concern is shared by a contributor on the West Coast who echoes that, "You can't create a national voice if you don't have a process to get people's voices heard at the national level."

Another contributor from the Prairies describes that government approaches to Indigenous programming can be top-down and fail to allow Indigenous Peoples autonomy to run their own programs. They detail that through UPIP funding, "the government has brought Indigenous People into their positions [at Indigenous service provider organizations]. They understand the Indigenous worldview, and they have a vested interest in Indigenous Peoples. So the missing piece is to give them the autonomy to run the program. Why hire them, and dictate that they run things from a colonial perspective?" A contributor from Central Canada expands that, "Our people's needs are being met in colonial spaces of service delivery. These service delivery spaces are pulling in resources to Indigenize their space instead of channeling money to Indigenous organizations to provide services that are already culturally safe and informed."

Moreover, at the local level, the extent to which urban Indigenous voices are heard depends on the composition of coalitions and the individuals involved in decision-making. Indigenous contributors also highlight that basic feedback mechanisms, such as sharing UPIP performance data with funding recipients, have not been implemented, despite the program relying solely on recipient reporting for this information. A contributor from the West Coast shares that, "The program is really just a black hole, I don't know anything about it," while a contributor from Central Canada agrees: "We write the reports but hear nothing back." Contributors made clear that the labour that goes into reporting is not showing results: as one surmises, "We're putting way too much into this." Constraints from the considerable effort that must go into reporting was a common theme, which was recognized not only by funding recipients, but also by ISC staff, who attributed this to a lack of organizational capacity. One regional staff member shares that, "There are many others [who] cannot provide responses, which is due to limited organizational capacity. It is exactly these recipients not providing feedback that are the organizations that are really most important to engage."

A related issue concerns the First Nations principles of Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession, more commonly known as OCAP®^{Footnote 18}. The OCAP principles assert that First Nations have control over data collection processes, and that they own and control how this information can be used. A lack of feedback mechanisms in UPIP to relay collected data back to recipients and communities (for instance, what trends are observed by program staff in recipient reports), as well as how collected data is used (for instance, to make decisions about funding), currently impedes the ability for Indigenous recipients to have control over their data that is collected and for what purposes it is leveraged. Instead, data collection is, as one recipient in British Columbia shares, "a black box", where recipients do not know any aggregate trends, do not know how program data collection varies or is consistent between recipients, and do not know what becomes of their data after it is submitted to the program. This was relayed to the evaluation team repeatedly in the field. The First Nations Principles of OCAP® are outlined by the First Nations Information Governance Centre^{Footnote 19}:

• Ownership refers to the relationship of First Nations to their cultural knowledge, data, and information. This principle states that a community or group owns information collectively in the same way that an individual owns his or her personal information.
• Control affirms that First Nations, their communities, and representative bodies are within their rights to seek control over all aspects of research and information management processes that impact them. First Nations control of research can include all stages of a particular research project-from start to finish. The principle extends to the control of resources and review processes, the planning process, management of the information and so on.
• Access refers to the fact that First Nations must have access to information and data about themselves and their communities regardless of where it is held. The principle of access also refers to the right of First Nations communities and organizations to manage and make decisions regarding access to their collective information. This may be achieved, in practice, through standardized, formal protocols.
• Possession: While ownership identifies the relationship between a people and their information in principle, possession or stewardship is more concrete: it refers to the physical control of data. Possession is the mechanism by which ownership can be asserted and protected. Some contributors note that reporting requirements infringe on their rights to control and own their data and narratives.

Furthermore, reporting places excessive administrative burdens on already resource-strained Indigenous Service Provider Organizations, diverting attention and resources away from service provision. Of particular concern is the underuse of performance data reported by recipients by Indigenous Services Canada for decision-making purposes (see Section 8.1). It is important to note that since legally reporting data to any federal department becomes the property of the Government of Canada and is subject to procedures such as Access to Information requests, full Indigenous possession of reported data is not currently possible. This problem is also reflected in evaluation practices, where collected data and reported findings similarly become the property of the Government of Canada.

Finding 9: Effective undertaking of service transfer requires a comprehensive and collaborative approach that prioritizes Indigenous self-determination, cultural revitalization, and community well-being.

As identified in the evaluation document review, successful transfer of services depends on several factors, including effective collaboration between all partners, clear delineation of responsibilities, adequate funding and resources, transparent governance structures, and a comprehensive understanding of the needs and aspirations of the communities affected by the transfer. Transferring services in a complex multijurisdictional urban context presents unique challenges, such as the transfer of child and family services to First Nations and the necessity to meet the needs of diverse communities, which often span distinction groups or fall outside distinction groups completely.

As also identified in the document review, when transferring a program from one government to another, it is crucial that the program being devolved is a well-designed program because it is more likely to achieve its intended outcomes and deliver services effectively, inspiring confidence and trust among partners and funding recipients. Financial sustainability is also key, as it ensures the program can maintain its operations and services over the long term. Additionally, a healthy program minimizes disruption to services during the transfer process and ensures continuity of services for the population it serves, particularly important for vulnerable, at-risk and marginalized groups.

Additional measures are necessary on the part of ISC to improve UPIP's readiness for service transfer. Drawing from the recommendations and insights shared by Indigenous contributors, alongside lessons from previous practices and innovations, several fundamental strategies could facilitate successful service transfer within urban Indigenous contexts.

Firstly, it is imperative to recognize the diverse needs and aspirations of urban Indigenous communities and prioritize their self-determination in service delivery. This entails adopting governance models that empower urban Indigenous institutions and organizations to manage key services, fostering co-management arrangements that promote collaboration between Indigenous authorities and government entities, and advocating for the reform of municipal governments to better represent Indigenous residents. These approaches should be underpinned by Indigenous values, knowledge, and perspectives.

Secondly, program delivery should primarily occur through Indigenous Service Provider Organizations, leveraging their unique expertise and community connections to effectively support Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces. This requires growing and supporting the network of Indigenous Service Provider Organizations, enhancing their capacity and optimizing innovation.

Indigenous contributors note that commitments to reconciliation, nation-to-nation relationships, and self-determination from provincial, territorial, and municipal governments can vary significantly between administrations. This leads to uncertainty about policies, programs, and funding. There is a perception that the Government of Canada is more stable in this regard and is seen as a more reliable long-term partner. Consequently, Indigenous contributors agree that while self-determination is ideal, the Government of Canada should remain involved, at the very least in terms of federal coordination, collaboration, national convening, and funding. It is similarly widely agreed that providing greater autonomy to Indigenous Services Canada's UPIP regional offices would yield benefits, including reducing centralization and enhancing regional communication and collaboration with Indigenous partners, thereby enabling more effective responses to the needs of the Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces. In addition, to address issues such as funding inequity resulting from competition for limited funds (see below), there needs to be clear distinction between those responsible for allocating funding to Indigenous organizations and those facilitating coordination among Indigenous partners in urban areas.

The Urban Aboriginal Strategy emphasized local self-determination and partnership, employing a community of interest model where self-governing sectoral Indigenous institutions delivered services to enhance outcomes and support Indigenous identity. However, with the federal Deficit Reduction Action Plan in 2012, the focus shifted towards economic participation, leading to reduced funding and administrative changes. This triggered concerns about fairness and transparency, resulting in decreased access to funding for Indigenous Service Provider Organizations and coalitions. This culminated in the launch of UPIP in 2017 in response to these challenges.

Since its launch then, UPIP has had to essentially reboot from the point of the federal Deficit Reduction Action Plan in 2012, aiming to rebuild trust and relationships, re-establish coalitions, and reconstruct the network of Indigenous Service Provider Organizations. However, there were significant new factors present that were absent in 2012, affecting both the design and delivery of UPIP, as well as partner expectations for the program. Foremost among these was the increasing momentum behind reconciliation efforts from around 2015, the endorsement of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2016 and subsequent Royal Assent of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in 2021, the growing adoption of distinctions-based funding in programs previously of general application, and the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. In light of these new factors, there is an opportunity to consider how best to emphasize self-determination, how partnership might take place in order to facilitate service transfer, and how service transfer could look within the urban Indigenous space.

Finding 10: Accurate statistical data is indispensable for understanding, supporting, and advocating for the Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces, in addition to promoting transparency and accountability, yet it remains either absent or unreliable.

Statistical data concerning Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces in Canada are essential for understanding their demographics, socio-economic status, and various needs. Despite being the fastest-growing demographic in Canada, Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces are underrepresented in official statistics. This data gap stems from historical undercounting, misclassification, and the lack of culturally appropriate methodologies for data collection.

As emphasized by contributors and literature alike, reliable statistics play a critical role for several reasons. Firstly, they facilitate the accurate identification of the needs and challenges faced by urban Indigenous communities. By understanding their demographic profiles, targeted interventions can be developed to address specific areas of concern. Secondly, accurate data is crucial for investment strategies, enabling the Government of Canada and other funders to allocate resources where they are most needed and ensure equitable distribution of funding. Thirdly, reliable statistics support advocacy efforts for the rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces. They provide evidence to support policy initiatives, funding requests, and calls for action on various issues, such as housing and healthcare. Lastly, reliable statistics promote transparency and accountability by enabling partners to monitor progress and evaluate the effectiveness of policies and programs aimed at improving the well-being of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces, such as UPIP.

Tracking indicators over time allows for assessment of whether interventions are achieving their intended outcomes and informs adjustments to strategies as needed. UPIP staff from the National Capital Region highlight some of these benefits of reliable statistics, but express frustration that reliable data are not available. Unreliable program data includes information that lacks consistency, accuracy, or completeness, making it difficult to use as a credible source for evaluation or decision-making. This can include missing data points, discrepancies between reported and actual outcomes, outdated information, or data that is collected inconsistently across different regions or time periods. Unreliable data can lead to skewed analyses, misinformed conclusions, and ineffective policy recommendations, as it prevents a clear understanding of the program's true performance and impact. Consequently, the reliability of program data is essential for producing valid and actionable findings. One staff member shares that, "There is great need and few funds. A lot of the projects do align with needs; however, there is a lack of data collection […] that would help us really understand the breadth and diversity of need, [which] has impacted UPIP's ability to advocate for more funding for research and innovation." Another offers that, "From an internal government perspective, there is a lack of raising success stories or demonstrating promising practice, and this is one area that requires greater collaboration. And data collection in general."

Contributors acknowledge the pressing needs of the Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces and the evolving nature of these needs. However, obtaining reliable and comprehensive statistical data remains a challenge. The research and innovation stream was a promising source of potential statistical data, but it has not yielded the expected results. While coalitions have the potential to conduct community-based needs assessments, they face funding and organizational capacity limitations that hinder their ability to do so effectively. As an ISC staff member highlights, "There is a lack of support for organizations to collect data. This could be done through working groups or engagements that can inform program design." Despite long-standing awareness of this issue and importance again highlighted during the pandemic, Indigenous Services Canada has not made much progress towards addressing this issue. Ensuring the availability of accurate information will facilitate the clear identification of needs within urban Indigenous communities, aid in the development of appropriate policies and programs, identify priorities, and enable realistic funding commensurate with these needs.

Finding 11: UPIP funding streams and initiatives are tailored to the needs of urban Indigenous communities. However, certain aspects of the funding model, notably distinctions-based funding, warrant reconsideration to better reflect operational realities.

As found by the 2017 evaluation of the Urban Aboriginal Strategy^{Footnote 20} (see Annex F), the evaluation team heard that the transition from the national Urban Aboriginal Strategy to UPIP has led to significant changes and impacts for urban Indigenous communities, Indigenous Service Provider Organizations, and the program as a whole.

Under the Urban Aboriginal Strategy, the National Association of Friendship Centres annually received $43 million to administer an annual call for proposals. While some saw, and continue to see, this funding model as strengthening connections between national and local Friendship Centres, it faced widespread criticism for lacking transparency, fostering divisiveness, and triggering lateral violence among Indigenous Service Provider Organizations and within urban Indigenous communities. Challenges in accessing funding due to this focus on Friendship Centres were raised by Métis, Inuit and non-aligned, non-registered Friendship Centres serving urban Indigenous communities.

To address these concerns, UPIP implemented two specific changes. First, it allocated resources specifically to Métis and Inuit distinctions groups. Second, it introduced additional funding streams, such as housing and infrastructure, alongside programs and services, organizational capacity, research and innovation, and coalitions, aiming to better meet the diverse needs of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces.

However, despite these changes, Indigenous contributors are skeptical about whether the overall situation has significantly improved. First, the transition from the UAS to UPIP resulted in service delivery gaps. A contributor from the Prairies recounts that, "The transition from UAS to UPIP was difficult; [we] nearly had to shut down as funding paused for two years." A contributor from Central Canada tells of similar transitionary challenges: "A lot of organizations shut down or employees left once UAS stopped and UPIP started. […] Some did connect with Friendship Centres which had this bridge funding available, so employees could be kept on. The other coalitions had to pretty much start again, there was a break in service, [they] had to rehire, etc. [It is] very important not to have a break in service – sometimes it takes an activity five years to get set up, established, and get going."

Distinctions groups and Friendship Centres received the majority (79%) of UPIP funding (per stream: 77% programs and services, 89% organizational capacity, 100% infrastructure), leaving all other Indigenous and non-Indigenous Service Provider Organizations competing for the remaining funds. Consequently, there are reports of intense competition among Service Provider Organizations for limited funding. A contributor from the West Coast describes this competitiveness, speaking positively about the former UAS model: "The UAS looked at the landscape in a more holistic way. When [the UAS] switched to UPIP it created hyper-competitiveness around a pot of money that hadn't grown, because new organizations qualified for the funding who hadn't previously been competing before." A UPIP staff member acknowledges this change has presented barriers: "UAS was more focused on participation in economy and on social enterprises. UPIP focuses on service delivery. But when devolved to regions, regions' focus was on-reserve and this left urban organizations behind."

An Indigenous contributor from Central Canada describes how service provider organizations are required to do the same amount of work with fewer resources since a majority of funding is being directed toward distinctions groups and Friendship Centres: "We lost funding. The biggest beneficiaries were Friendship Centres. As the money was being chipped away, everyone around the table did [their normal work] anyway, [which] keeps eroding capacity, almost intentionally grinding us down. The Federal Government is taking advantage of this." Another contributor from Central Canada agrees, sharing that, "The NAFC experiment did not work for the urban Indigenous community across the country." This situation is worsened by the fact that overall funding across all streams has remained stagnant in real terms since 2017-18, even decreasing by 13% for the programs and services stream.

Furthermore, the distinctions-based funding approach is criticized for its failure to reflect the complex reality of urban centres, which include mixed-distinction Indigenous communities served by Indigenous Service Provider Organizations regardless of cultural identity, and may lead to inequitable distribution of funding. A contributor from Ontario expresses that the federal policy of nation-to-nation and distinctions-based approaches is excluding Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces. Contributors from the West Coast concur. One expresses that, "When we get to working at the government, one of the challenges is that we experience […] a government-to-government approach […] that doesn't include Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces. We're not a government, so it doesn't fall into that government-to-government relationship building that they focus on. Another succinctly offers that, "The government doesn't know what [inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces] means. They don't know about urban people."

One key criticism is the failure of the distinctions-based funding model to adequately reflect the nuanced realities of urban centres and complexity of urban Indigenous communities. Unlike on-reserve, rural and remote communities, urban environments are characterized by a diverse mix of Indigenous peoples from various cultural backgrounds and geographical regions with varying identities, histories, and needs. Within these urban settings, Indigenous Service Provider Organizations play a vital role in delivering essential services and support to these Indigenous individuals and families, and most do so irrespective of cultural identity. This diversity challenges the applicability of a one-size-fits-all funding model, which can lead to disparities in funding allocation, with certain groups or regions receiving disproportionate support. As one contributor summarizes, "Where you reside should not dictate whether you are Indigenous or have access to Indigenous services."

Moreover, this model often overlooks mixed-distinction communities within urban settings, further exacerbating inequities in funding distribution. As one contributor shares, "Government policies around the 60s scoop and residential schools resulted in urbanization of Indigenous People. These people are not affiliated necessarily with a band. This is a huge contradiction that is not being addressed and it is colonialization all over again. Government is trying to disenfranchise the funding." Additionally, critics argue that the distinctions-based approach fails to address the unique needs of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces, such as access to housing, healthcare, and employment opportunities. Its current structure limits flexibility and responsiveness, hindering efforts to adapt to evolving challenges and priorities within urban Indigenous communities.

A contributor from the Prairie provinces shares that the "distinctions-based approach isn't working for Indigenous Peoples in urban places – it's an exclusionary policy; it isn't inclusive. It leaves out voices." A contributor from the Atlantic region highlights that distinctions-based funding for Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces can carry on historical exclusions of those who fall outside distinctions groups: "In many of our experiences with Canada, distinctions-based approaches have been used to exclude our mixed community as not cleanly falling under one of the three major distinctions of First Nations, Inuit or Métis."

As a result, some have called for the development of more inclusive funding models. One proposed solution is the inclusion of an "urban" distinction category within funding frameworks, which would acknowledge the unique challenges and opportunities faced by Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces. This designation would require a careful and comprehensive understanding of identity and indigeneity issues within urban contexts, empowering programs to tailor their services to effectively meet the diverse needs of Indigenous individuals and communities in urban spaces.

Finding 12: While UPIP's community-driven approach allows for responsiveness to local priorities and needs, there are concerns that the program and its definitions (for example, of an urban centre) do not take a gender- and diversity-sensitive approach, impacting its ability to reach certain marginalized groups.

In Canada's urban centres, the Indigenous population is incredibly diverse, representing many cultures, languages, and traditions. Indigenous people in urban areas come from diverse backgrounds, including First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities, each with its unique histories and contemporary realities. As one contributor shares, "To someone who is white presenting, it can be hard. Here it was the first time that I felt welcome.'' This diversity brings richness to urban environments but also presents challenges in addressing the distinct needs and priorities of different Indigenous people and communities. Additionally, Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces often face unique challenges stemming from the interplay of urbanization, colonization, and systemic inequalities.

Canada's Urban centres are complex, diverse, and growing rapidly. With federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments, as well as Indigenous governments and self-governing sectoral Indigenous institutions in some, governance is multi-layered and intricate. Each level of government has distinct mandates, responsibilities, policies, regulations, and programs. Additionally, a wide array of Service Provider Organizations operate independently with their own mandates. Other partners, such as businesses and advocacy groups, add to the complexity. The multijurisdictional complexity can lead to fragmentation in service delivery and service gaps and overcoming some of these jurisdictional barriers could be key to ensuring that Indigenous people receive the support they need, particularly for those that are from vulnerable, at-risk and marginalized groups.

Indigenous Services Canada employed Gender-based Analysis Plus and a distinctions-based approach to shape UPIP's funding streams, eligibility criteria, and overall funding approach. The focus was on supporting various vulnerable, marginalized and at-risk groups within the population of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces, including women; children; youth; seniors; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, and Two-Spirit individuals; former inmates; and individuals with disabilities. This strategy aimed to mitigate the heightened marginalization experienced by Indigenous individuals during their transition to urban areas, where they may lack familiar support systems, including culturally relevant assistance.

There are two notable examples of this approach. Firstly, Indigenous Services Canada expanded the eligibility criteria for the programs and services stream, allowing Indigenous Service Provider Organizations the flexibility to address locally identified needs, particularly those related to at-risk and marginalized populations. Secondly, Indigenous Services Canada designed the infrastructure stream to support the needs of Indigenous seniors and individuals with disabilities by improving the physical infrastructure of Friendship Centres and other Indigenous Service Provider Organizations. This aimed to increase accessibility and safety, reduce social isolation, and improve access to cultural and community-based supports.

Indigenous contributors, however, view the program as employing a one-size-fits-all approach that is inadequate to meet the complex and nuanced needs of urban communities, and raise concerns regarding the program's inclusivity. A contributor from Central Canada shares that differences are "completely eradicated under this one-sized fits all approach". These concerns are also described by UPIP regional staff members. One reveals, for instance, that, "Regions are rarely included, or asked for input, when HQ makes funding decisions. [There is] room to be more inclusive in this respect. Each region has its own priorities, and this needs to be considered. Some decisions HQ makes are running at odds to the priorities [of regions]." Another concurs, describing that, "Each urban area has its own unique priorities." These concerns suggest that there is room for improvement in fully implementing a gender- and diversity-sensitive approach within the program. Moreover, the program data do not reflect the specific needs of vulnerable, marginalized, and at-risk populations, posing challenges to adequately address their needs.

Some Indigenous contributors also highlight concerns about the marginalization of smaller urban centres and question the adequacy of the program's definition of urban centres. Requiring a minimum population of 1,000 people and a population density of at least 400 people per square kilometer may be problematic, especially in more sparsely populated regions like Inuit Nunangat, other northern areas, and Prince Edward Island, where areas that fall below this threshold may still be considered urban and have distinctly urban needs. This criterion also fails to accurately reflect the realities of certain contexts, particularly in areas where nomadic Peoples have been forced into less active lifestyles by government policies^{Footnote 21}. In such cases, any permanent settlement, regardless of its characteristics, can be considered urban, highlighting the need for a more nuanced approach to defining urban areas.

The lack of comprehensive program performance and demographic data hindered the evaluation team's assessment of whether Gender-based Analysis Plus and the distinctions-based approach made during UPIP's design phase yielded the anticipated results during implementation. From a planning standpoint, the absence of such data makes it challenging to employ an evidence-based approach to pinpoint service gaps and prioritize funding to areas where it is most needed. This may contribute to the sentiment among some Indigenous contributors that UPIP does not sufficiently integrate a gender- and diversity-sensitive approach.

Finding 13: While ISC has made efforts to streamline reporting, there is widespread dissatisfaction with UPIP's reporting cycle. Delayed funding disbursement worsens the reporting burden, compounded by colonial forms of reporting, capacity limitations and funding shortages.

Urban Indigenous Service Provider Organizations and coalitions play crucial roles in coordinating, planning, and implementing initiatives within their respective areas of operation. However, their primary involvement in ongoing program administration and activities typically occurs through UPIP's monitoring and reporting processes. In addition, it was noted that Indigenous Services Canada does not use non-financial data obtained from recipient reporting to inform program decisions (see finding 19).

The evaluation observed that there are capacity restraints with respect to reporting. A contributor from the Prairie provinces describes the strain that this can place on service provider organizations: "[It] seems very exploitative that we are asked to get [information] from our clients. But there is a need, we need the programming. How do you support them? […] All the clients are trying to survive. All we are doing is being a good relative to give them the space to survive. The federal government is detached. How do you reconcile this, how do you collaborate to benefit the people that really need it?"

Acknowledging the limited capacity of recipients for reporting, Indigenous Services Canada has taken steps to streamline reporting practices. These measures include conducting surveys and inclusive meetings to gather comprehensive feedback from recipients and other Indigenous partners, as well as transitioning to a UPIP-specific data collection instrument. Indigenous Services Canada contributors note a significant improvement in the quality of reporting as a result of these initiatives.

Many Indigenous contributors also acknowledge improvements in reporting processes, while offering suggestions for further enhancement, such as standardizing reporting requirements across Government of Canada programs supporting urban Indigenous communities. One contributor from the Atlantic region suggests that it "would be great if all departments […] would merge together and give funding [together] for Indigenous initiatives. That would allow the organization to report to ONE entity. Having that central point of contact would allow the organization to have a true and real relationship with one federal worker to access support and collaboration from the program." Another offers that it would be beneficial to have only one stream of funding, since all funding streams are interrelated: "One of the weaknesses of UPIP is that it tries to compartmentalize all of these programs and streams, but it would be helpful if they could simply apply to one stream since all of them are kind of inter-connected." Another suggestion is to limit financial reporting to just those activities funded by UPIP; currently, all program funding and program activities are reported.

Indigenous contributors express a strong desire to play a more active role in ongoing program administration and activities, particularly in reporting. However, they face challenges due to limited funding and reporting requirements. Many contributors prefer alternative reporting methods such as video or conversation-based reporting, which they find more meaningful and consistent with their cultural practices. One contributor from the Atlantic region states that it "would be great if the reporting structure would be more adaptable, such as making videos showing how the program had impacted [the organization]." A contributor from the West Coast shares that it would be helpful to have "the reporting be available in various different ways except the one written way," explaining that, "Other organizations allow video reporting and some Indigenous communities don't have the same reporting capacities as other communities that are more privileged." United Way is one example of an organization that allows video reporting for certain projects.

In Newfoundland, the evaluation team heard that it "would be great if the reporting structure would be more adaptable, such as making videos showing how the program had impacted it". An organization in Labrador mentions that video reporting or having funders visit the community would make the funding, and projects supported by it, far more meaningful. A British Columbian organization mentions that "other organizations allow video reporting" and points out that "some Indigenous communities don't have the same reporting capacities as other communities that are more privileged." This organization offers that while they "do the Excel reporting, […] it's better to do reporting by video [to] get the context and everything, what the money's being spent on". Another contributor from the West Coast describes that other funders offer non-conventional forms of reporting: "We […] had conversation reporting. We had to provide a small written component and a financial, but [the funder] offered to have a conversation."

Indigenous contributors also commonly express dissatisfaction with UPIP's reporting cycle. These concerns include inadequate communication from UPIP headquarters, repetitive requests for reports despite prior submissions (in some cases resulting in funding suspension, despite all reporting having been completed on time), and frustration over reporting to headquarters rather than regional offices where closer relationships exist. Additionally, contributors cite challenges with delayed funding disbursement, which exacerbates the burden of reporting, already strained by capacity limitations and funding shortages. While ISC has made efforts to streamline reporting practices to demonstrate project impact, fully implementing these suggestions is currently hindered by limited funding and rigid reporting expectations.

Finding 14. UPIP funding streams and Terms and Conditions generally align with the priorities of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces; however, their scope, particularly program eligibility criteria, could capture urban Indigenous priorities more fully.

UPIP Terms and Conditions provide eligible organizations with flexibility in using funding across various streams, including organizational capacity, programs and services, coalitions, and research and innovation. Eligible recipients include Indigenous organizations, municipal governments, education authorities, and non-Indigenous organizations, with initiatives varying by stream. In the housing and infrastructure streams, eligible recipients include not-for-profit Indigenous organizations, Inuit governments, Métis representatives, and non-Indigenous organizations. Through these streams, initiatives like Indigenous housing projects and capital projects for health, safety, and energy efficiency have been supported. These expansive criteria have enabled a wide range of recipients to receive funding for a wide range of projects which may not be eligible under narrower eligibility criteria.

Although Indigenous contributors generally appreciate the Terms and Conditions' flexibility, they do express concerns about the limitations of certain eligibility criteria, particularly related to organizational capacity. Indigenous Services Canada contributors note that compared to other programs, UPIP Terms and Conditions offer less flexibility, with a burdensome approval process for modifications, involving delays due to ADM and UPIP headquarters involvement. Additionally, the effectiveness of UPIP headquarters approval processes and centralized decision-making contrasts unfavorably with the regional offices' better understanding of local needs and organizations.

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that the Terms and Conditions and eligibility criteria can become flexible and overcome these criticisms if a strong enough impetus exists for change, with UPIP swiftly streamlining administrative processes and facilitating delivery of the Indigenous Community Support Fund through amended Terms and Conditions. This fund provided urban Indigenous organizations with the flexibility to design and implement community-based solutions to prevent, prepare and respond to the spread of COVID-19 within their communities. This effective and efficient response to the pandemic shows that it is within the Government of Canada's capacity to provide the flexibility and inclusivity that funding recipients desire; however, these improvements lasted only for the duration of the pandemic. For a more thorough discussion of the impacts of COVID-19, see finding 20.

Finding 15: The UPIP logic model is incongruent with urban Indigenous perspectives of success. Refining UPIP's indicators to better reflect Indigenous perspectives and priorities will help to address concerns about overly broad metrics.

Government of Canada program design typically involves creating a logic model, which links resources and activities to expected results, while outlining clear roles and responsibilities for the main partners. As highlighted above, Indigenous contributors view UPIP's logic model as incongruent with their understanding of success, and advocate for community-driven performance frameworks. They define success using holistic and culturally relevant measures that encompass the well-being of their communities, as well as the sustainability of their organizations, services, and supports. These measures include qualitative indicators related to self-determination, self-governance, community empowerment, cultural revitalization and preservation, connection to the land, the ability to effectively address the diverse needs of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces, and improved socio-economic outcomes.

Indigenous contributors stress the importance of aligning UPIP's outcomes, indicators, and data collection and reporting methods with urban Indigenous perspectives. Some argue that UPIP's indicators are overly broad, impeding understanding of the program's impact. Quantitative metrics are insufficient in capturing the program's full breadth and achievements. Furthermore, the lack of robust performance data, including success stories, is seen as a factor contributing to UPIP's limited visibility, posing challenges in advocating for additional funding.

It is important to note that the UPIP program is currently collaborating with Indigenous partners to redevelop UPIP's logic model and indicators; these concerns, therefore, have been acknowledged by the program and efforts are already underway to mitigate them.

Finding 16: Partners expressed the need for Indigenous approaches to program evaluation, and many were interested in undertaking their own program evaluations.

Presently, prevailing evaluation practices within the Government of Canada can overlook Indigenous perspectives and methodologies, prioritizing conventional evaluation criteria such as relevance, effectiveness and efficiency, with the current evaluation being a notable exception. Despite being often overlooked, integrating Indigenous approaches into evaluations is crucial. Indigenous Services Canada Evaluation's Five-Year Plan highlights this importance: "ISC Evaluation is increasingly emphasizing models of co-development and co-creation with Indigenous partners in all evaluation projects. In the short- to medium-term, this includes ways to integrate Indigenous evaluation expertise, knowledge, world views and/or Indigenous capacity development at key points in evaluations (planning, methodology, data collections, and development of findings and recommendations). In the long-term, the ultimate goal is to support the establishment of Indigenous evaluation functions outside of government."^{Footnote 22}

The eligibility of UPIP's research and innovation stream does include projects exploring Indigenous community-driven evaluation approaches. Some UPIP recipients, like the Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendships Centres and National Urban Indigenous Coalition Council, have shown interest in conducting their own evaluations. This would enable Indigenous communities to tell their own stories and journeys, avoiding what some Indigenous contributors view as insensitive site visits frequently requested by funders (described as "poverty tours" or "feel-good stories"). Evaluations conducted outside of government would also allow for the adherence to OCAP principles, where Indigenous contributors could maintain full ownership and control of the data they provide. This would overcome a notable limitation of Government of Canada evaluations, which by definition cannot fully adhere to these principles^{Footnote 23}.

Finding 17: UPIP aligns with federal government priorities and Indigenous Services Canada's mandate, and ISC's priority areas are well-aligned with the values and concerns of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces; however, there is still considerable room for improved alignment.

UPIP supports the Government of Canada's commitment to renew and strengthen its relationship with Indigenous Peoples. The program aligns closely with the Prime Minister's mandate letters, which emphasize collaboration, partnership-building, and the revitalization of Indigenous-Crown relations. UPIP also supports the Government of Canada's efforts to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Calls to Action and its endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Furthermore, UPIP's itself originates from Budget 2016 and Budget 2019 (infrastructure stream) commitments aimed at enhancing programming for Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces, contributing significantly to the government's overarching goal of bridging socio-economic gaps between urban Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians and promoting inclusivity within Canadian society.

Indigenous contributors report that Indigenous Services Canada's key areas of priority—women, vulnerable populations, youth, transition services, outreach programs, and community wellness—are well-aligned with their values and concerns, as well as those of Indigenous Peoples residing in urban areas more generally. These priorities reflect the visions, mandates, and program and service offerings of many Indigenous Service Provider Organizations, and their commitment to supporting Indigenous Peoples living in urban areas through tailored interventions, services and supports.

UPIP also aligns with Indigenous Services Canada's mandate to work collaboratively with partners to improve access to high quality services for First Nations, Inuit and Métis, and supports the department's vision to support and empower Indigenous Peoples to independently deliver services and address the socio-economic conditions in their communities. UPIP was incorporated into Indigenous Services Canada's "The People" pillar and the strategic outcome of "individual, family, and community well-being for First Nations and Inuit"^{Footnote 24}, which, with partnerships across various levels of government and non-governmental organizations, is anticipated to contribute to the program's long-term goals, as outlined in UPIP's Performance Information Profile, which focuses on enhancing socio-economic opportunities between urban Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. Additionally, UPIP contributes to mitigating Indigenous Services Canada's corporate risk particularly in terms of Indigenous Relationship Risk and Implementation Risk. This is achieved through the program's attention to diverse community needs, its provision of flexibility to Coalitions, and its monitoring of the implementation of program reforms.

UPIP seeks to uphold the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by striving to enhance access to programs and services for Indigenous communities, ultimately leading to improved outcomes. However, current funding practices do not explicitly recognize the distinct needs and rights of Indigenous communities in urban settings. For example, as noted in finding 3, funding distribution has favoured more established Indigenous service provider organizations with historical ties to the program, leaving others under-resourced. This reinforces inequalities within urban Indigenous communities, where access to essential services and support can already be limited. Additionally, the funding practices of UPIP may not fully align with the principles of self-determination and autonomy outlined in United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Particularly, the top-down approach to funding allocation risks overlooking the unique needs and priorities identified by Indigenous communities themselves, undermining their right to determine their own development paths.

Respecting the right to free, prior, and informed consent (articles 19 and 23 of UNDRIP) necessitates active involvement of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces in program planning and implementation, and while UPIP has made some progress, substantial work remains to be done. However, as detailed in finding 7, Indigenous Services Canada can fall short in ensuring meaningful engagement and consultation with urban Indigenous communities. Decisions related to UPIP design, funding allocation, and service delivery are frequently made without the full involvement or consent of the affected Indigenous populations. This lack of consultation undermines the agency and self-determination of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces. Notably, the UPIP program is currently taking steps towards addressing this concern by collaborating with Indigenous partners to redesign the program logic model, outcomes and indicators.

UPIP also is not well-aligned with upholding the survival, dignity, and well-being of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces (article 43 of UNDRIP). For example, as noted in finding 3, UPIP's funding levels have not kept up with the growth of the Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces and their needs, perpetuating systemic inequalities, contributing to the ongoing marginalization of this population. Their distinct needs remain only partially (?) addressed, impeding their capacity to fulfill their potential on par with other Canadians.

While UPIP supports reconciliation efforts highlighted in 2019 and 2020 Speeches from the Throne, there are challenges in translating these commitments into meaningful action, particularly concerning urban Indigenous communities. In relation to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Calls to Action, there is a widely held perception among Indigenous contributors that progress in meeting the needs of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces has been slow. This perception is compounded by the overwhelming funding allocations towards the on-reserve population.

These shortcomings are recognized by program staff, one of whom offers that, "The Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls us to do more than what UPIP is doing. You also need an agency that serves urban [Indigenous Peoples]. UPIP should be much bigger if government is serious about reconciliation." There is a consensus among contributors that more significant strides towards reconciliation are also needed at the municipal and local level to achieve equality, understanding, and acceptance of Indigenous communities.

Finding 18: Urban Indigenous organizations must expend considerable effort pursuing various and disparate funding opportunities; UPIP's organizational capacity funding supports these efforts.

Urban Indigenous organizations face significant challenges as they must expend considerable effort pursuing various and disparate funding opportunities. A substantial portion of frontline employees' time is consumed by the need to apply for funding just to keep their organizations afloat—time that could be better spent actually serving their communities. One Indigenous contributor from the Prairie Provinces highlights this challenge, stating, "The work that we do on a daily basis is a success. It's a shame that we must come here and lobby for more funding. [We] shouldn't be here begging for more money." Another Indigenous contributor from the West Coast expresses similar frustrations, describing their "number one frustration" as the fact that "UPIP only provides 40% of the $250,000 for the [project]. So time-consuming to find other pieces of funding […] cobbled together from many sources." These statements reflect the widespread frustration many organizations feel when forced to focus on survival rather than on service delivery.

Despite these challenges, UPIP's organizational capacity funding does provide crucial support, allowing these organizations to maintain basic operations and continue their services. As one Indigenous contributor from the West Coast mentions, "Without UPIP's Organizational Capacity stream funding, we wouldn't be able to lobby for other pots of funding." Another contributor from the Prairie Provinces echoes this sentiment, stating, "Without the funding, the [organization] would not be what it is today… able to secure the positions which helped the day-to-day operations, and gave them the space to find other sources of funding."

However, while the organizational capacity funding is valuable, it does not fully address the underlying issue of funding instability and there remains a clear need for more streamlined and consistent funding mechanisms to ensure that urban Indigenous organizations can focus on delivering essential services rather than on securing the funds needed to survive. An Indigenous contributor from Central Canada shares, "The little pittance UPIP received has got to be spread across the country; it is not reasonable. We are grateful for the funding, but it does not meet the needs of the people we serve." This sentiment underscores the inadequacy of current funding levels, which fail to match the scale of need within urban Indigenous communities.

While UPIP's support is essential, there is a clear need for more streamlined and consistent funding mechanisms to ensure that urban Indigenous organizations can focus on delivering essential services rather than on securing the funds needed to survive. These organizations require not just the means to operate but the stability to innovate, plan long-term, and fully meet the needs of the communities they serve.

Finding 19: Program decision-making appears not to be evidence-based and there is uncertainty surrounding how recipient-reported data and program performance data are used by ISC, if at all. Challenges such as unavailable data, unreliable data, and missing targets significantly impeded the evaluation of the program's effectiveness, although anecdotal reports indicate that UPIP funding is improving the well-being of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces.

The evaluation team encountered widespread challenges in assessing UPIP's performance against expectations described in the PIP. Issues such as unavailable data, unreliable data, and missing targets significantly impeded the assessment of the program's effectiveness. Without reliable and comprehensive data, it is challenging to ascertain the extent to which the program is meeting its objectives and delivering meaningful outcomes for Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces. For example, among the eleven indicators with both targets and data, the team lacked confidence about the reliability of ten. Presently, only four out of twenty-three PIP indicators offer insights for program decision-making. Seventeen indicators show potential but require significant improvement, while the remaining two are considered by the evaluation team to be of minimal value. Additionally, the indicators themselves generally do not accurately represent the associated outcomes.

There is uncertainty surrounding how recipient reports are used by Indigenous Services Canada for monitoring and decision-making. This raises concerns about Indigenous Services Canada's ability to make informed decisions and allocate resources effectively based on reliable evidence and data-driven insights. The lack of clarity about how information is used speaks to the potential of diverse needs not being met – in other words, since recipients are unaware of how collected information is used, there is uncertainty whether this information is being used to identify diverse needs and address them. Additionally, the absence of reliable statistical data on Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces further complicates program evaluation and decision-making.

There are also significant data stewardship issues. Delays in accessing UPIP performance data, coupled with uncertainty about calculation methods, consistency, and completeness of data, further undermine the reliability and usability of the data for decision-making purposes. Addressing these data stewardship challenges is essential to ensure that the program has access to timely and accurate information to inform its operations and decision-making processes.

• Additionally, the evaluation noted that Indigenous Services Canada may be facing risks in terms of fully meeting requirements as outlined in the Treasury Board of Canada's Secretariat Policy on Results (i.e. in theprovision of transparent, clear, and useful information on results for UPIP).

However, in the Fall of 2023, Indigenous Services Canada began a process to overhaul UPIP outcomes, indicators, and introduce baselines, targets, and detailed expenditure breakdowns across the program's four funding streams. Through its engagement approach, the department has aimed to prioritize an urban Indigenous vision for success within UPIP's Performance Information Profile.

A consequence of poor performance data for UPIP is that the evaluation could not rely on quantitative information to assess the program results. However, a robust qualitative approach was adopted and feedback provided by Indigenous contributors provided important insights on each of the UPIP outcomes. While these have been discussed above under their own respective findings, a summary of each program outcome follows:

• Immediate Outcome—Indigenous organizations have organizational capacity to serve clients: Urban Indigenous Service Provider Organizations face significant capacity challenges, impeding effective client service. Despite some program support, persistent challenges remain, and Indigenous Service Provider Organizations often face difficult choices between direct service, client advocacy, and cultural mediation for non-Indigenous groups.
• Immediate Outcome—Programs and services are delivered to Indigenous Peoples in urban centres: Urban Indigenous Service Provider Organizations encounter challenges in program delivery due to capacity limitations and UPIP's definition of "urban." Nevertheless, community organizations, including Friendship Centres, play a crucial role in supporting Indigenous people in urban areas, and there are many examples of successful initiatives.
• Immediate Outcome—Coalitions are active or established: Despite the intended goal of fostering collective action and cooperation, UPIP's funding approach inadvertently led to a competitive and non-collaborative environment for Indigenous Service Provider Organizations. There is a lack of clarity regarding the role of coalitions, with varying opinions on their purpose and effectiveness in driving change. While some advocate for locally-led coalitions tailored to specific community needs, others push for a national urban Indigenous strategy, posing challenges due to inter-organizational politics and other historical factors. Despite these challenges, coalitions have improved cooperation and understanding among previously isolated organizations, fostering new networks within the urban Indigenous community.
• Immediate Outcome—Research and innovative pilot projects are conducted: The funding for research was oversubscribed. Furthermore, there has been an issue with the research conducted by recipients not being effectively shared or used to influence program development. Most Indigenous contributors were unaware of the research outcomes stemming from this funding stream, suggesting a potential need for a knowledge translation and exchange strategy to enhance communication and dissemination of research findings.
• Immediate Outcome—Improved collaboration between federal departments delivering urban Indigenous programming: Collaboration among federal departments delivering urban Indigenous programming has seen minimal improvement and program duplication remains. Indigenous contributors report that they submit funding proposals for the same initiatives to different federal funding sources. Basket funding^{Note de bas de page 25} and horizontal Terms and Conditions should be explored by the Interdepartmental Working Group.
• Intermediate Outcome—Indigenous Peoples have increased access to programs and services: Funding recipients express gratitude for Indigenous Services Canada's recognition of urban Indigenous community needs. Indigenous Services Canada's perceived requirement to fund only new programs led to some organizations shutting down existing ones. Many Indigenous contributors also emphasized the importance of Indigenous Service Provider Organizations (vs. non-Indigenous organizations) exclusively providing urban Indigenous programs and services.
• Intermediate Outcome—Better understanding of Indigenous Peoples in urban contexts: This remains a work in progress. Challenges include a lack of understanding regarding the impact of migration patterns on urban demographics, insufficient coordination and data sharing, and generally unreliable and inconsistent data. Conducting needs assessments is deemed critical by Indigenous contributors, but limited funding is available.
• Ultimate Outcome—Improved socio-economic opportunities for Indigenous Peoples in urban centres: Contributors note that this outcome takes a considerable amount of time to achieve, and UPIP does not explicitly focus on socio-economic results.

Finding 20 (COVID-19): The pandemic amplified existing barriers in urban Indigenous communities, but COVID-19 relief funds effectively – yet temporarily – enhanced resilience. Mobilisation of relief funds provided two crucial insights. First, adequately funded organizations can effectively address the needs of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces. Secondly, the Government of Canada can demonstrate flexibility, adaptability, and responsiveness to these needs.

The COVID-19 pandemic amplified pre-existing socio-economic challenges and exacerbated vulnerability within urban Indigenous communities, limiting access to essential health and social services. For example, in Saskatchewan, the pandemic triggered a surge in food insecurity, affecting 68.4% of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces due to rising food prices and limited market access, and 41.8% struggled to obtain traditional foods,. Despite some reliance on community support and government aid, 43.6% received no government aid.^{Note de bas de page 26}

To mitigate the pandemic's impact, the Government of Canada introduced the Indigenous Community Support Fund and Emergency Food Security Fund. Both funds leveraged UPIP authorities to provide flexible funding for essential support to marginalized community members. During 2020-21 and 2021-22, Indigenous Community Support Fund and Emergency Food Security Fund funding represented 31% and 83% of UPIP expenditures respectively. Funding supported a wide range of initiatives, such as food hampers, educational assistance for children, mental wellness programs, and vaccination campaigns. However, the demand for COVID-19 funds for Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces far exceeded the available resources. Compounded by jurisdictional issues between Indigenous Services Canada and provincial and territorial authorities, delays ensued, prolonging support for marginalized communities.

During the pandemic, Indigenous Services Canada implemented several administrative changes. Processes for demonstrating Indigenous support for non-Indigenous organizations and municipal governments were streamlined. Application procedures for distinctions-based funding were modified. Funds from the programs and services and coalition streams were allowed for COVID-19-related expenses. Adjustments were made to funding disclosure timing, and advance payments were expedited for urgent needs. Additionally, the requirement for detailed budget and cash flow statements could be waived on a case-by-case basis, and reporting timelines were more flexible. Contributors point out these instances as examples of how the Government of Canada can exhibit flexibility, adaptability, and responsiveness to the needs of urban Indigenous communities.

COVID-19 relief funding provided valuable insights for shaping the future of UPIP. These include recognizing the capabilities of well-funded urban Indigenous Service Provider Organizations and the importance of robust partnerships with Indigenous communities and leadership. Additionally, lessons highlight the effectiveness of streamlined single-window approaches, direct funding allocation, and adaptable program Terms and Conditions. Virtual service delivery emerged as a valuable tool, reducing stigma and increasing accessibility to support services, and prompting more people to seek assistance. Additionally, the importance of a more thorough understanding of the urban and off-reserve service delivery landscape was underscored, with funding extended to other organizations previously that were not part of usual funding streams.

Indigenous contributors concurred that the infusion of COVID-19 relief funds played a crucial role in bolstering the resilience of urban Indigenous communities during an unprecedented crisis. However, in many cases, contributors share that the COVID-19 pandemic did not create brand new problems – rather, it laid bare significant service gaps, such as in food security, housing, and mental wellness, and provided new means to meet these gaps. In other words, COVID-19 funding provided the flexibility and additional resourcing to meet problems that existed pre-pandemic but couldn't previously be addressed. This issue of unaddressed gaps underscores the ongoing underfunding for Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces, which has further been emphasized as pandemic support has sunsetted. The needs that were met by COVID-19 relief funds have not disappeared with the end of the pandemic.

Finding 21 (climate change): Climate change presents significant challenges for urban Indigenous communities, and marginalized groups disproportionately bear the brunt of these impacts. Climate change may be prompting the migration of Indigenous Peoples to urban centres, contributing to rapid population growth of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces and placing immense pressure on the already strained network of urban Indigenous service providers.

Climate change is significantly affecting Indigenous communities across Canada. Indigenous contributors highlight that climate change-induced shifts in weather patterns are disrupting traditional hunting and gathering practices in rural and remote areas of Canada, resulting in changes to routes taken on both ice and land. Globally, there is widespread recognition that climate variability and change play a significant role in human migration and displacement. While this evaluation cannot definitively prove a direct correlation between climate change and migration to urban centres, the significant increase in the population of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces is evident. The Indigenous population residing in major urban areas—totaling 801,045 people—grew by 12.5% from 2016 to 2021, placing immense pressure on the network of urban Indigenous Service Provider Organizations. Climate change could be a factor driving Indigenous Peoples to urban areas, in conjunction with increased self-identification, the pursuit of housing, education, and economic opportunities, and access to services unavailable in their home communities.

Climate change manifests in various ways, including heightened physical and emotional stress and exacerbated structural inequities. However, there remains little research on the experiences of urban Indigenous communities with climate change, as most studies focus on rural and remote populations. Indigenous contributors tell of the impact of record-breaking heatwaves in urban areas, affecting both housed and unhoused community members. Limited access to amenities such as air conditioning, cooling shelters, public restrooms, and clean water exacerbates the challenges faced. Additionally, seniors, unhoused individuals, and evacuees displaced by community emergencies^{Note de bas de page 27}face heightened risks when government support systems fail to provide essential measures for well-being, such as cooling centres and potable water.

Climate change impacts have also been shown to be more pronounced among older adults with a strong connection to the land, illustrating that attachment to and responsibility for the environment tends to grow with age. Current feminist literature underscores the essential roles that women, including Indigenous women, can play in advocating for feminist and Indigenous worldviews and aligning them with climate action strategies, but research on specific climate change impacts on women is limited.

Paradoxically, climate change can also reinforce community cohesion and cultural ties, for example by: reliance on traditional knowledge and cultural practices to adapt and build resilience, catalysing a renewed interest in preserving and reclaiming cultural practices; community-based approaches to climate change adaptation, emphasizing collective decision-making, collaboration, and mutual support; opportunities for intergenerational knowledge transmission; and collective action and advocacy efforts to address environmental and climate injustices and protection of rights.

Beginning/Past: Project Activities being in ceremony

1. In what ways does program design (and implementation) reflect Indigenous ways of knowing and values (i.e., to what extent have Indigenous peoples been consulted to support the design/re-design of the program architecture)?

Experiences/Present: Funding arrangements and program design are flexible and reflect the intervention context

1. In what ways do the programs support the well-being of individuals, families and children, and communities?
2. Is the current funding model and suite of programs the most efficient way to achieve outcomes?
3. Is funding flowing in a predictable and timely manner?
4. How do funding recipients experience the reporting cycle?
5. In what ways are Indigenous spiritualties, ceremonies, language, beliefs and/or value systems integrated into program activities?
6. Are Indigenous spiritualities, ceremonies, language, beliefs, and/or value systems integrated into program activities in a culturally appropriate way? (sub-question to above)

Transition: Time for reflection is built into the process from a place of spirit

1. How did COVID-19 impact organizations funded by the UPIP program?
2. What role did funded organizations play in the response to COVID-19?
3. How did COVID-19 highlight the need for urban programming?
4. How was UPIP leveraged during COVID-19 to support Indigenous Peoples living in urban settings?
5. Is there adequate space and time for funding recipients and Indigenous Peoples living in urban settings to reflect upon program activities using Indigenous spiritualities, beliefs and value systems?

Future/Curent State: Future planning is done from a place of spirit first and foremost

1. How do program activities and implementation processes account for the impacts of climate change?
2. What are the expected long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., on program activities, on needs, on gaps in programming)?
3. Which practices or innovations could improve the cultural appropriateness of program activities?
4. What might (Indigenous-led?) programming supporting Indigenous Peoples living in urban settings look like if it fully reflected Indigenous spiritualities, ceremonies, language, beliefs, and value systems?

Beginning/Past: Relationships are built on Indigenous values and culture

1. Have relationships between ISC and funded recipients been rooted in Indigenous values, culture, and ways of knowing?
2. Is there collaboration between Indigenous organizations and ISC? What areas lack collaboration? In what ways can collaboration be fostered between Indigenous organization and ISC?

Experiences/Present: Relationships are conducted in a manner that reflect Indigenous ways of knowing and doing

1. What role do urban Indigenous partners and Indigenous Peoples living in urban settings play in ongoing program administration and program activities?
2. What methods have departmental staff used to construct/foster strong relationships between recipients and the department?

Transition: Relationships are supportive allowing for reflection and ethical space

1. In what ways can urban Indigenous partners and peoples provide ongoing feedback on current and future program design and activities?
2. How does ISC provide mechanisms for ongoing feedback?
3. How has the federal government ensured that partners can contribute, are aware of the mechanisms to contribute, and feel that they can contribute to program design and activities?
4. How could feedback from Indigenous partners and Indigenous Peoples living in urban settings be incorporated in meaningful ways into future program design and activities?
5. What barriers and challenges impact the formation of meaningful relationships between ISC and urban Indigenous partners and peoples?

Future/Current State: Plans are made within relationships as equals applying principles of ethical space and Indigenous position

1. How can future practices and innovations ensure that Indigenous partners and Indigenous Peoples living in urban settings are able to design and/or control program administration and program activities?

Beginning/Past: Processes reflect Indigenous practices and community strengths

1. How are the UPIP suite of programs designed to address the priorities of Indigenous peoples?
2. How does the design and delivery of the UPIP funding streams account for 'vulnerable populations'?

Experiences/Present: Processes are experienced by target audience from a place that is molded by cultural ways of being and community building

1. In what ways does the funding process support the implementation of UPIP activities in a way that aligns with community-identified needs?
2. How do the specifics of the UPIP terms and conditions provide organizations the ability to use UPIP's funding in achieving organizational objectives?
3. To what extent does current funding enable or hinder program access for Indigenous Peoples living in urban settings?
4. What additional barriers and challenges impact program access for Indigenous Peoples living in urban settings?
5. How have the current processes contributed to the growth/understanding of Indigenous communities, in urban settings?

Transition: Processes are evaluated using Indigenous values and community sovereignty

1. How does the existing program architecture meet success, as defined by Indigenous Peoples?
2. What are indicators of success, as defined by Indigenous Peoples?
3. In what ways have evaluation practices employed Indigenous approaches, and how could these be foregrounded in the future?
4. What timeframe would be best to measure movement for each indicator?

Future/Current State: Planning is made from a place of community strengths, opportunities, and sovereignty

1. What could the advancement of service transfer entail within the context of the UPIP program, and how does this respect self-determination?
2. What are the opportunities and/or best practices for service transfer?
3. What barriers must be addressed before service transfer can occur?
4. How could future planning reflect best practices and lessons learned?
5. How could future planning ensure that negative impacts or outcomes are avoided?

Beginning/Past: Processes align with GoC mandates and priority areas

1. In what ways are the programs consistent with federal priorities and mandates, including Policy on Results and UNDRIP?
2. How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected the programs (i.e., effects on planned activities)?
3. Do the terms and conditions provide adequate flexibility to deliver funding to organizations throughout the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. What are the impacts of UPIP's funding on the six key areas of priority for ISC, including women, vulnerable populations, youth, transition services, outreach programs, and community wellness?
5. How do the six key areas of priority for ISC align with the values and concerns of program partners and Indigenous Peoples living in urban spaces?

Experiences/Present: Program is ready for the eventual transfer of services (Transition)

1. How ready is the program for the eventual transfer of services, based on the needs of the program and of Indigenous Peoples living in urban spaces?
2. What performance data collected by ISC do partners currently have access to?
3. What ongoing effects does the COVID-19 pandemic have upon the programs (i.e., effects on planed activities)?

Transition: Data collection and reporting mechanisms efficiently capture data that is relevant to GoC mandates and priority areas (Present)

1. How could ISC enhance the efficiency and relevance of reporting mechanisms?
2. Do data collection mechanisms align with program architecture and their associated performance measures?
3. What are the main challenges in delivering the program efficiently?
4. What performance data collected by ISC would it be useful for partners to have access to in order to better meet GoC mandates and priority areas?

Future/Current State: Planning promotes efficiency and data collection that is relevant to GoC mandates and priority areas

1. Are there practices or innovations that could make program delivery more efficient?
2. In what ways can the program architecture be adapted to better assess the realities of the UPIP funding streams and their impacts?

Beginning/Past: Program design and logic model outcomes reflect GoC mandates

1. To what extent do program design and logic model outcomes respond to the mandate of the Policy on Results and UNDRIP?
2. To what extent have the programs contributed to the outcomes identified within the logic model?
3. To what extent has COVID-19 impacted the program's ability to meet the mandate of the Policy on Results and UNDRIP?
4. How does the flowing of Indigenous Community Support Fund funds through the UPIP terms and conditions correlate with the UPIP logic model and program architecture?

Experiences/Present: Program outcomes respond to the priorities and needs of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces

1. Are current program outcomes aligned with the current needs of program partners and Indigenous Peoples living in urban spaces?
2. During the COVID-19 pandemic, was the program design in congruence with the needs of Indigenous Peoples living in urban centres?
3. How does UPIP funding contribute to the advancement of priorities identified by Indigenous Peoples, outside from those outlined in the logic model?
4. Have there been any unexpected positive or negative outcomes?

Transition: Program outcomes facilitate service transfer

1. To what degree do program outcomes support service transfer?
2. To what degree does service transfer still need to take place?

Future/Current State: Future program outcomes reflect both GoC mandates and the priorities/needs of Indigenous Peoples in urban spaces

1. What indicators should be added or changed to better measure improved outcomes for urban Indigenous partners and peoples?
2. How can the program and the Government of Canada support developing indicators through Indigenous measures of success?
3. In what ways can program outcomes better respond to the mandate of the Policy on Results and UNDRIP?
4. In what ways can program outcomes better respond to the needs and priorities of urban Indigenous partners and peoples?