Elections Canada logo
Site menu

Evaluation Report for the 43rd General Election

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary

Introduction

Informing electors about the electoral process is a key component of Elections Canada's (EC's) mandate. These outreach efforts happen at multiple levels–both locally and nationally. At the national level, EC's Public Education and Information Program undertakes these outreach efforts. Inspire Democracy (also known henceforth as "the program") is one pillar of this broader information program. Inspire Democracy was developed to understand why some Canadians do not exercise their democratic right to electoral participation and to identify and address informational barriers to participation in federal elections. This report is an evaluation of Inspire Democracy's activities leading up to and during the 43rd general election (GE), which took place on October 21, 2019.

Some electors face more barriers than others when participating in the electoral process. Research has shown that Indigenous electors, electors with disabilities, and new electors (including youth and new Canadians) all face more barriers to voting than the general population. The program aimed to address these barriers by engaging with key stakeholder organizations across the country, with particular attention to organizations that target those four priority groups. These stakeholder organizations then acted as intervenors, disseminating information about the electoral process among their memberships. The goal of these activities was for electors belonging to these priority groups to have access to the information they needed to participate in the electoral process and, if they chose to do so, that it was perceived as welcoming and easy to use.

Methodology

The objectives of this evaluation are threefold: to evaluate the project rationale and design, its implementation, and its impact. The evaluation is guided by a number of questions that target each of these levels. Questions are addressed using a variety of data sources, including administrative data, program documentation, web and social media metrics, and public opinion research, including the 2019 National Electors Study (NES) 1 , the 2019 Survey of Election Officers 2 , and the Survey of Outreach Stakeholders 3

.

The Survey of Outreach Stakeholders was conducted for this evaluation by email in early 2020. Of the 196 Inspire Democracy network members contacted, 44 completed the survey, a response rate of 22%. All four priority groups –Indigenous electors, electors with disabilities, new Canadians, and youth–were represented among the respondent organizations.

Key Findings

The Inspire Democracy program for the 43rd general election was a successful initiative that reached its intended audience of organizations serving Indigenous electors, electors with disabilities, new Canadians, and youth. The program greatly expanded its network of stakeholders and provided them with information and tools that filled a need for these organizations and their memberships.

This evaluation concludes that the program responded to a demonstrated need and was in alignment with agency priorities. No concerns about design are noted and the program was largely implemented as designed. Overall, the program largely met or exceeded the targets identified in its performance measurement framework (PMF) for direct, indirect, and long-term outcomes.

A notable direct outcome of the program is the high number of stakeholders that were engaged for the 43rd general election. At 196, there were nearly four times more stakeholders in the network than during the 42nd general election (50), and nearly double the PMF target of 100. Moreover, the number of formal agreements signed and informal agreements put in place both exceeded their target levels (by 50% and 24% respectively).

When it came to indirect outcomes, the vast majority of stakeholders (39 out of 44 stakeholders surveyed) agreed that Inspire Democracy resources helped them to reduce barriers faced by their community members. All 30 formal agreement holders successfully disseminated information on the electoral process among their memberships, including 850 social media posts on when, where, and the ways to register and vote. Formal agreement holders also reported hosting 330 events leading up to the election, 130 of which were held during the writ period (September 11–October 21, 2019).

Results from the 2019 National Electors Study (NES) showed that all four target groups expressed higher-than-expected levels of interest in working at an election, a notable finding among the program's long-term outcomes. This was particularly true among new Canadians, 69% of whom were interested in a paid role (44% very interested). The Survey of Election Officers confirmed that all target groups were represented among election officers during the 43rd general election; however, new Canadians were the least-well represented at 2%. It is recommended that the program continue with its recently-added focus on this topic to help the agency tap into this potential workforce and increase the representation of new Canadians among election officers. Persons with disabilities and youth were the most well-represented target groups, each making up 9% of election officers.

The program was at times inconsistent in documenting the attendance at and participant satisfaction with its events, and it is recommended that this be a focus for the program in future. However, it performed some additional activities–mainly online–that built upon and extended beyond the required activities. It is recommended that the program continue this trend of expanding its online presence and remote offerings to respond to the possibility of an election during the COVID-19 pandemic. In cases where results greatly exceeded targets, it is recommended that those targets be adjusted for future evaluations to reflect this high level of capacity.

Stakeholders expressed unanimous interest in maintaining a relationship with EC moving forward. These continued partnerships will further enable EC to reduce barriers to electoral participation by providing information for dissemination to those most in need of it.

To the top ↑

2. Introduction and Background

Inspire Democracy is Elections Canada's key program for delivery of Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement's (OSE) Stakeholder Mobilization Strategy and one of the pillars of the Public Education and Information Program. The program was developed to understand why some Canadians do not exercise their democratic right to electoral participation and to identify and address informational barriers to participation in federal elections.

In response to research following the 42nd GE (2015), Inspire Democracy's mandate was expanded from a youth-based focus to include Indigenous electors, electors with disabilities, and new electors (youth and new Canadians). The program also expanded its work to address informational barriers experienced by stakeholders and offered new tools on running as a candidate in a federal election and working at a federal election.

Inspire Democracy activities leading up to the 43rd GE were guided by three core principles: learn, act, and connect. These activities included developing resources, supporting the Voter Information Campaign, growing its network of stakeholders, and disseminating information through various communication channels. While the Inspire Democracy program exists during all phases of the election cycle, this evaluation concerns the program's activities leading up to and during the 43rd GE.

To the top ↑

3. Description of the Program

The Inspire Democracy stakeholder mobilization logic model (see Annex A, from which the figures in this section are drawn) provides an overview of the program, which fostered partnerships between EC and stakeholder groups. These stakeholders then acted as intervenors by providing information to their memberships on participating in the electoral process, particularly to those electors who face barriers to doing so. EC connected with stakeholder organizations to better understand the needs of their memberships, and provided resources and tools to ensure that electors had access to the information they needed to participate fully in the electoral process, if they chose to do so.

Inspire Democracy program activities (see Figure 1 below) fell into two categories: stakeholder management (A1) and knowledge management (A2). Stakeholder management activities included stakeholder mapping, developing and maintaining stakeholder relationships, and knowledge transfer. Activities in the knowledge management category included synthesizing research on electoral participation, developing tools, and, again, knowledge transfer. These two categories of activities worked together synergistically: first, by identifying key stakeholder partners and creating formal and informal agreements to work with them, and second, by assessing the informational needs and barriers of those partners and the groups they serve and creating tools to address them.

Figure 1: Inspire Democracy Activities

Inspire Democracy Activities

Text version of "Inspire Democracy Activities"

The figure above displays Section A of the Inspire Democracy logic model, which outlines the program's activities. (See Annex A for the full model.) Two activity categories are shown: stakeholder management and knowledge management.

Stakeholder management includes the following items:

  • Stakeholder mapping: Identify and assess priority groups of electors and advocacy and service organizations (e.g. national, influence, advocacy, non-partisan).
  • Develop and maintain stakeholder relationships: Arrange agreements with formal and informal stakeholders and identify events.
  • Knowledge transfer on electoral participation: Organize/attend outreach events and deliver modules and VIC products. (Note that this item is included in both stakeholder management and knowledge management.)

Knowledge management includes the following items:

  • Synthesize research on electoral participation: Curate and synthesize research on barriers and affected target groups.
  • Develop tools: Co-produce modules with stakeholders, create/maintain website, and create kiosk/workshop materials.
  • Knowledge transfer on electoral participation: Organize/attend outreach events and deliver modules and VIC products. (Note that this item is included in both stakeholder management and knowledge management.)

Once stakeholder partners and informational gaps were identified and tools were developed to meet those needs, the next stage of the program was bringing those tools to stakeholder partners. The tools were delivered through one of three channels (see Figure 2 below): in person, through the organization of and attendance at in-person events (B1 & C1); through digital channels, such as websites, social media, and emails to network members (B2 & C2); or through the dissemination of knowledge products, particularly the Inspire Democracy modules (also referred to in this document as toolkits) and Voter Information Campaign products (B3 & C3).

Figure 2: Inspire Democracy Outputs and Reach/Reaction

Inspire Democracy Outputs and Reach/Reaction

Text version of "Inspire Democracy Outputs and Reach/Reaction"

The figure above displays Sections B and C of the Inspire Democracy logic model, outlining the program's outputs and reach. (See Annex A for the full model.)

In section B, three categories of outputs are shown: in-person channels, digital channels, and knowledge products. In-person channels include the organization of events: workshops, presentations, and kiosks. Digital channels include the program website, social media, and network emails. Knowledge products include the program modules, stakeholder maps, VIC product bundles, and research syntheses.

In section C, three categories of reach are shown that correspond to and flow from the categories in section B: in-person channels, digital channels, and knowledge products. Arrows point from the output level to the reach level for each category; for example, there is an arrow between the output in-person channel and reach in-person channel. In-person channels include attendance at/satisfaction with workshops, presentations, and kiosks. Digital channels include use of/satisfaction with the program website, social media, and network emails. Knowledge products include the use of/satisfaction with program modules and VIC product bundles.

The logic model identified a number of desired outcomes at various stages resulting from this engagement with stakeholders as intervenors: direct, intermediate, long-term, and ultimate (see Figure 3 below). The planned direct outcomes included an enhanced network to facilitate delivery of public education and information (D1), a call to action where stakeholders agreed to assist EC in engaging their members and reducing barriers to electoral participation (D2), and knowledge transfer, such that stakeholders understood the barriers to participating in the electoral process and were aware of where, when, and the ways to register and vote (D3).

With this improved network, call to action, and knowledge base, the planned intermediate outcomes included enhancing stakeholders' capacity to reduce barriers to electoral participation (E1) and ensuring that stakeholders shared the information they received with the electors in their membership (E2).

By enhancing capacity to reduce barriers and sharing information with electors, the planned long-term outcomes of the program included: that electors in the target groups (Indigenous electors, electors with disabilities, new Canadians, and youth) had the knowledge, understanding, and skills they needed to make decisions about participating in the electoral process (F1); that electors in these groups expected that the electoral system would be easy to use (F2); and that electors felt welcome in the electoral system and shared a sense of ownership in it (F3). All of these stages are in service of the ultimate outcome that Canadians have confidence in EC and trust the administration of the electoral process (G).

Figure 3: Inspire Democracy Outcomes

Inspire Democracy Outcomes

Text version of "Inspire Democracy Outcomes"

The figure above displays Sections D, E, F and G of the Inspire Democracy logic model, which outline the program's direct, intermediate, long-term, and ultimate outcomes, respectively. All of the outcomes listed in each section support those of the section that immediately follows, so all direct outcomes support all intermediate outcomes, and so on. The figure reads from bottom to top. (See Annex A for the full model.)

Under Section D, direct outcomes, there are three categories:

  • Enhanced network: a strengthened network of stakeholders to facilitate delivery of public education and information.
  • Call to action: Stakeholders agree to assist EC to engage their members and reduce barriers.
  • Knowledge transfer: Stakeholders are aware of where, when, and the ways to register and vote, and understand the barriers to participating in an election and EC's role in addressing them.

Under Section E, intermediate outcomes, there are two categories:

  • Stakeholders have enhanced capacity to reduce barriers to electoral participation for electors.
  • Stakeholders share information with electors.

Under Section F, long-term outcomes, there are three categories:

  • Electors in target groups have the knowledge, understanding, and skills they need to make decisions about participating in the electoral process.
  • Electors in target groups perceive that the electoral process is easy to use.
  • Electors feel welcome in the electoral process and share a sense of ownership over it.

The ultimate outcome is that Canadians have confidence in Elections Canada and trust the administration of the electoral process.

To the top ↑

4. Evaluation Methodology

This program evaluation of Inspire Democracy activities related to GE 43 is based on several data sources. These include program administrative data, program documentation, web and social media metrics, and public opinion research, including the 2019 National Electors Study (NES), the 2019 Survey of Election Officers, and the Survey of Outreach Stakeholders.

Administrative data, documentation, and web and social media metrics were collected as part of the program's activities. Select findings of relevance to this program were drawn from the 2019 NES and 2019 Survey of Election Officers to assess the program's efficacy regarding higher-level outcomes.

The Survey of Outreach Stakeholders 3 was conducted for the purposes of this evaluation. The questionnaire was sent to all members of EC's Inspire Democracy stakeholder network by email in early 2020. Of the 196 network members contacted, 44 completed the survey, a response rate of 22%. Average completion time was 10 minutes. All four of the priority groups (Indigenous electors, electors with disabilities, new Canadians, and youth) were represented among the respondent organizations, as were electors experiencing homelessness, seniors, and trans or non-binary electors, among others.

The purpose of the survey was to gather quantitative and qualitative information on various aspects of the program. It asked about each organization's target populations; the extent to which they and the communities they served were well-informed about the electoral process; their level of familiarity and satisfaction with various outreach activities, products, and formats; information gaps and any resources created to address those gaps; and the extent to which their interactions with EC met their organization's needs and expectations. (See Annex C for the questionnaire.)

4.1. Evaluation Objectives

The objectives of the evaluation are threefold: to evaluate the project's rationale and design, its implementation, and its impact. The following questions guide the evaluation:

Objective 1: Program rationale and design

  • Question 1: What problem was the program intended to address, and was the program designed in a way to adequately address the problem?
  • Question 2: How does the program align with the mandate and priorities of the agency?

Objective 2: Program implementation

  • Question 3: Was the program carried out as intended? Were all program activities implemented? If not, why not?
  • Question 4: Were any unplanned activities implemented? If so, what were they?

Objective 3: Program impact

  • Question 5: Were the outcomes achieved as intended? If not, why not? Was this due to inadequate inputs, design, implementation, or external factors?
  • Question 6: Were there any unintended outcomes of the program?

Each of the evaluation questions will be explored in turn in the sections to follow.

To the top ↑

5. Findings on Program Rationale and Design

5.1. Evaluation Question 1: Program Design

What problem was the program intended to address, and was the program designed in a way to adequately address the problem?

As noted in Section 2, the Inspire Democracy program was developed to understand why some Canadians do not exercise their democratic right to electoral participation and to identify and address informational barriers to participation in federal elections.

Research following the 42nd GE 4 showed that certain groups of electors face additional barriers to electoral participation, including Indigenous electors, electors with disabilities, and new electors (both youth and new Canadians). Moreover, some of the organizations serving those electors also faced informational barriers.

To address some of these gaps, Inspire Democracy approached stakeholder organizations to act as intervenors with groups of electors facing barriers to electoral participation. Some key organizations entered into formal agreements to partner with EC, whereas others engaged with the program on an informal basis. EC provided these organizations with information on topics relevant to electoral participation, including running as a federal candidate, working at a federal election, and registering and voting.

The number of formal and informal stakeholders who engaged in the stakeholder network increased substantially between 2015 and 2019, from approximately 50 to 196 5 , and the vast majority of stakeholders shared Voter Information Campaign products with their membership 6 .

Considering the above, this evaluation did not find evidence of any design concerns that would prevent the program from meeting its goal of reducing barriers to electoral participation among the identified target groups.

5.2. Evaluation Question 2: Alignment with Elections Canada's Mandate

How does the program align with the mandate and priorities of the agency?

The Inspire Democracy program aligns well with the mission, mandate, and current strategic commitments of the agency.

EC's mission 7 is to ensure that Canadians can exercise their democratic rights to vote and be a candidate. By reducing barriers to participation in the electoral process–whether to register, vote, work at, or be a candidate in a federal election–the Inspire Democracy program aligns well with this mission.

The program also aligns closely with the following aspect of EC's mandate: Conduct public information campaigns on voter registration, voting, and becoming a candidate. Inspire Democracy works in tandem with EC's broader Voter Information Campaign, targeting those electors with known barriers to electoral participation and supplementing the information that is made available to all electors.

The agency recently published its strategic plan for 2020–2028 8 , including four commitments that EC aims to uphold over the coming years. The Inspire Democracy program aligns closely with the second of those commitments: Use and share information to enable a better understanding of the electoral process. Ensuring that informational barriers are addressed is one way to ensure that electors have a good understanding of the electoral process and can participate in it should they choose to do so.

To the top ↑

6. Findings on Program Implementation

6.1. Evaluation Question 3: Program Implementation

Was the program carried out as intended? Were all program activities implemented? If not, why not?

The Inspire Democracy program was largely carried out as intended and exceeded many of its output targets. All program activities were implemented, with one exception. Most reach targets were also met, though the program was inconsistent in collecting data when it came to attendance and participant satisfaction.

Tables 1 and 2 below summarize the results for program outputs and reach, respectively, and the extent to which the targets identified in the PMF for each indicator were met. The tables are followed by an overview discussion of key components of program implementation. Results in the tables are colour-coded using the following key:

Tables 1 and 2, performance indicators
Indicators Performances
Largely met fully met, or exceeded targets (80–100%)
Moderately successful (50–80%)
Minimally successful (<50%)
Not completed Evaluation could not be completed due to missing data
Table 1: Outputs
Target Results Actual ResultsAll output results were drawn from administrative data provided by the program staff.
B1. In-Person Channels
I. Workshops Largely met Five workshops 133 workshops
II. Presentations Largely met Five presentations 29 presentations
III. Kiosks Largely met 10 kiosks 135 kiosks
B2. Communications
I. Website Largely met Website updated quarterly Website updated weekly, with particular attention given to events
II. Social media Largely met One post per planned event on each platform (Facebook and Twitter) The original target for social media posts indicated one post per platform (Facebook and Twitter) per event. As the actual number of events greatly exceeded the target number, this item was evaluated based on the target number of events (20).
  • Facebook: 47 posts (Apr–Nov 2019)
  • Twitter: 119 posts (Apr–Nov 2019)
III. Network communiqué emails Largely met Four communiqué emails sent Emails sent on the following dates:
  • June 6,2019
  • July 12,2019
  • July 16,2019
  • September 12,2019
B3. Knowledge Products
I. Modules Largely met
  • Toolkit 1: March 20,2019
  • Toolkit 2: May 9,2019
  • Toolkit 3: May 9,2019
  • Toolkit 1: March 13,2019
  • Toolkit 2: May 6,2019
  • Toolkit 3: July 11,2019
II. Stakeholder map Largely met
  • January 15,2019
  • April 15,2019
  • July 15,2019
  • October 15,2019
Stakeholder map updated on an evergreen basis
III. Voter Information Campaign product bundles Largely met 100% of formal agreement holders distribute VIC products 29 out of 30 formal agreement holders distributed VIC products (the remaining organization distributed information online only)
Largely met 60% of informal agreement holders distribute VIC products 76 out of 93 informal stakeholders distributed VIC products
IV. Research synthesis Minimally successful Four research syntheses published on website Research syntheses not completed due to competing priorities. Instead, the research webpage on electoral participation was updated

Outputs

Overall, the program's outputs largely met or exceeded the targets outlined in the PMF, particularly when it came to the number of events. The Inspire Democracy program recorded a total of 337 events leading up to the 2019 general election. This vastly exceeded the planned number of events (20). Events were classified as belonging to one of the following categories: kiosk (135), workshop (133), presentation (29), teleconference (28), webinar (14), or town hall (3). A handful of events included elements from more than one category (e.g. workshop and presentation).

The program also met or exceeded its output targets in terms of communication by updating the website weekly and sending the four required communiqué emails to all stakeholders. Access to social media posting was limited, as all posts were coordinated with the social media team. Due to a need to balance content, not all 337 events received a corresponding social media post. Despite this, the number of posts on Facebook and Twitter both exceeded the planned number of events (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: Number of Social Media Posts, Planned Versus Actual, 2019

Number of Social Media Posts, Planned Versus Actual, 2019

Text version of "Number of Social Media Posts, Planned Versus Actual, 2019"

The horizontal bar chart above displays the number of social media posts planned versus the actual number of social media posts posted in 2019 on four platforms: Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram. The breakdown for planned posts is as follows:

  • Twitter: 20
  • Facebook: 20
  • LinkedIn: 0
  • Instagram: 0

The breakdown for actual posts is as follows:

  • Twitter: 119
  • Facebook: 47
  • LinkedIn: 17
  • Instagram: 12

In terms of knowledge product outputs, all three toolkit modules were launched as planned; two of them (Registering and Voting in a Federal Election and Working at a Federal Election) were launched ahead of schedule and one (Running in a Federal Election) was launched two months behind schedule. The stakeholder map was updated on an ongoing basis as new connections were established. Virtually all formal partners distributed VIC products (29 out of 30) as did most informal partners (76 out of 93). The one formal partner that did not distribute print products opted to share information by digital means only.

Figure 5: Inspire Democracy Partners that Distributed VIC Products, 2019

Inspire Democracy Partners that Distributed VIC Products, 2019

Text version of "Inspire Democracy Partners that Distributed VIC Products, 2019"

Two stacked horizontal bar charts above display the number of formal and informal partners who distributed or did not distribute VIC products in 2019. The breakdown for formal partners is as follows:

  • Distributed materials: 29
  • Did not distribute materials: 1

The breakdown for informal partners is as follows:

  • Distributed materials: 76
  • Did not distribute materials: 17

The program had intended to publish four research syntheses on the program website to provide additional information about the barriers faced by the four target groups. These syntheses were the only missing component of program outputs. They were not completed due to the high amount of staffing resources allocated toward event activities, which were seen as highest priority. However, the Research on Electoral Participation webpage 9 was updated during that time, including information on the four target groups.

Table 2: Reach
Target Results Actual Results
C1. In-Person Channels
I. Workshops Largely met 100 workshop participants 308 confirmed workshop participants Source: administrative data
Not completed 75% of participants were satisfied

Insufficient data available All post-event survey participants strongly agreed that the event was useful, but only eight evaluations were administered.

Source: post-event evaluations
II. Presentations Largely met 500 people attend 1,520 confirmed presentation attendees Source: administrative data
Not completed 75% of attendees find the presentation useful

Insufficient data available All post-event survey participants strongly agreed that the event was useful, but only eight evaluations were administered.

Source: post-event evaluations
III. Kiosks Set baseline 1,521 confirmed kiosk visitors Source: administrative data
IV. Events Largely met Each target group participated in 15–35% of all events
  • Indigenous: 12%
  • Accessibility: 36%
  • New voters–new Canadians: 11%
  • New voters–youth: 24%
Source: administrative data
C2. Communications
I. Website Largely met Exceed previous years–2018–2019:
  • All users: 4,717
  • New users: 3,925
  • Mobile and tablet: 1,074
2019–2020:
  • All users: 14,100
  • New users: 12,248
  • Mobile and tablet: 5,478
Source: web metrics
II. Social media Set baseline

Facebook: 36 engaged users per post, on average; reach of 1,587 per post, on average

Twitter: 5 likes per post, on average; 3 retweets per post, on average

Source: social media metrics
III. Network communiqué emails Largely met All stakeholders in map receive communiqué emails

All stakeholders received emails

Source: administrative data
C3. Knowledge Products
I. Modules Set baseline: number of page views
  • Toolkit 1: Running–1,997
  • Toolkit 2: Working–5,883
  • Toolkit 3: Registering–1,318
Source: web metrics
Largely met 75% of stakeholders are satisfied with modules’ content

Registering and Voting–37 out of 39 stakeholders were satisfied

Working at an Election–21 out of 27 stakeholders were satisfied

Running in an Election–11 out of 18 stakeholders were satisfied

Source: Survey of Outreach Stakeholders
II. Voter Information Campaign (VIC) product bundles Set baseline

315,000 print resources ordered

VIC products included with over 1,200 Vote PopUp kits

Source: administrative data

Reach

Despite the high number of events, the program was inconsistent in collecting data about attendance at events and participant satisfaction. Confirmed attendance numbers met or exceeded the modest targets set in the PMF in all three cases (workshops, presentations, and kiosks), but they included attendance information from only 12 events. So while the targets were met, it is likely that the actual attendance was considerably higher, though that cannot be corroborated with the data currently available.

Likewise, while the available post-event evaluations were positive, only one event (a presentation and workshop) with eight participants had evaluation information available. It is recommended that in future, the program put greater emphasis on the measurement and evaluation of these aspects of reach.

Data on the participation of priority groups at events were much more complete; the percentages provided are based on a breakdown of all recorded events. While the participation of Indigenous and new-Canadian-serving organizations was below the target of 15%–35% (at 12% and 11% respectively), youth-serving organizations were within the target range (24%) and accessibility-serving organizations were slightly above the target range (36%).

Figure 6: Participation of Target-Group-Serving Organizations at Inspire Democracy Events

Participation of Target-Group-Serving Organizations at Inspire Democracy Events

Text version of "Participation of Target-Group-Serving Organizations at Inspire Democracy Events"

The horizontal bar chart above displays the participation of target-group-serving organizations at Inspire Democracy events leading up to the 2019 general election. The breakdown is as follows:

  • Indigenous: 12%
  • Electors with disabilities: 36%
  • New Canadians: 11%
  • Youth: 24%

For communications reach, considerably more people visited the program website in 2019–2020 than in the previous year (see Figure 7).

Figure 7: Inspire Democracy Website Visits, by Year

Inspire Democracy Website Visits, by Year

Text version of "Inspire Democracy Website Visits, by Year"

The horizontal bar chart above displays the number of Inspire Democracy website visits in 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 for all users, new users, and mobile and tablet users. The breakdown for all users is as follows:

  • 2018–2019: 4,717
  • 2019–2020: 14,100

The breakdown for new users is as follows:

  • 2018–2019: 3,925
  • 2019–2020: 12,248

The breakdown for mobile and tablet users is as follows:

  • 2018–2019: 1,074
  • 2019–2020: 5,478

In terms of social media, a number of baselines were established, including the number of engaged users per post and reach per post for Facebook posts, and the number of likes and retweets for Twitter posts. All stakeholders in the network received the four communiqué emails, as planned.

In terms of knowledge products, it was unfortunately not possible to track the number of downloads of each of the three toolkits (Registering and Voting in a Federal Election, Working at a Federal Election, and Running in a Federal Election), so data on page views were substituted. The Working at a Federal Election toolkit was the most viewed page of the three toolkits by far, with just under 6,000 page views (see Figure 8).

Figure 8: Inspire Democracy Toolkit Page Views, 2019–2020

Inspire Democracy Toolkit Page Views, 2019–2020

Text version of "Inspire Democracy Toolkit Page Views, 2019–2020"

The horizontal bar chart above displays the number of Inspire Democracy toolkit website page views in 2019–2020 by toolkit. The breakdown is as follows:

Working at a Federal Election: 5,883 Running in a Federal Election: 1,997 Registering and Voting in a Federal Election: 1,318

When asked about their satisfaction with the toolkits, stakeholders reported in the Survey of Outreach Stakeholders that they were largely satisfied with them in all three cases (see Figure 9).

Figure 9: Level of Satisfaction with the Inspire Democracy Toolkits

Level of Satisfaction with the Inspire Democracy Toolkits

Text version of "Level of Satisfaction with the Inspire Democracy Toolkits"

Three stacked horizontal bar charts above display the levels of satisfaction with the Inspire Democracy toolkits as reported by respondents to the Survey of Outreach Stakeholders who were familiar with each of the toolkits.

The breakdown for Registering and Voting in a Federal Election is as follows (n = 39):

  • Satisfied: 37
  • Dissatisfied: 2
  • Don't know: 0

The breakdown for Working at a Federal Election is as follows (n = 27):

  • Satisfied: 21
  • Dissatisfied: 2
  • Don't know: 4

The breakdown for Running in a Federal Election is as follows (n = 18):

  • Satisfied: 11
  • Dissatisfied: 2
  • Don't know: 5

Finally, when it came to distributing VIC products, 315,000 individual print resources were ordered, and a selection of products was also added to each of the 1,200 Vote PopUp kits distributed.

6.2. Evaluation Question 4: Unplanned Activities

Were any unplanned activities implemented? If so, what were they?

The program implemented several unplanned activities. These additional activities expanded upon existing activities outlined in the PMF, but went over and above what was required.

Regarding output B1, in addition to the required in-person channels (workshops, presentations, and kiosks), the program also implemented additional types of activities including three in-person town halls and virtual events such as webinars (14) and teleconferences (28). (See Figure 1 in section 6.1 above.) In view of the current pandemic context, this pivot to include remote activities was fortuitous and will be a logical growth area for the program in future to prepare for the possibility of a pandemic election.

When it came to social media (output B2V), in addition to posting on Facebook and Twitter, the program also coordinated with the social media team to post on Instagram (12 posts, 18 likes per post on average) and LinkedIn (17 posts, 342 impressions per post on average). (See Figure 4 in section 6.1 above.) Again, this expansion of online offerings will be an asset in the current pandemic context.

For reach C1, it is worth noting that, in addition to reaching organizations serving the identified target groups, 74 events included attendees representing intersectional organizations, and 41 events included attendees from organizations representing other target audiences. Examples of these other audiences may have included groups that serve the general population (e.g. libraries), Canadians with low levels of literacy, Canadians experiencing homelessness, and trans or non-binary Canadians.

To the top ↑

7. Findings on Project Impact

7.1. Evaluation Question 5: Program Outcomes

Were the outcomes achieved as intended? If not, why not? Was this due to inadequate inputs, design, implementation, or external factors?

Direct Outcomes

The Inspire Democracy program achieved or exceeded the targets set in the PMF for its direct outcome indicators. See a summary of results in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Direct Outcome Indicators
Target Results Actual Results
D1. Enhanced Network
Stakeholder network consists of a significant number of stakeholders Largely met Double the number of stakeholders in network from ~50 to 100

Formal stakeholders: 30

Informal stakeholders: 93

Other active stakeholders: 73 See Annexes D and E for lists of formal and informal stakeholders.

Source: administrative data
The stakeholder network has a significant reach in target group communities Set baseline Confirmed online reach: 411,627 Source: administrative data
Target group communities are represented in the network Largely met

Each target group is represented by 15–30% of the stakeholder network

Results vary by source due to differences in methodology, see explanations below
  • Indigenous: 12 out of 44
  • Electors with disabilities: 19 out of 44
  • New Canadians: 16 out of 44
  • Youth: 26 out of 44
Source: Survey of Outreach Stakeholders
  • Indigenous: 11.2%
  • Electors with disabilities: 9.7%
  • New Canadians: 13.8%
  • Youth: 13.8%
  • Intersectional: 43.9%
  • Other: 7.7%
Source: administrative data
D2. Call to Action
Formal agreements are established with stakeholders Largely met 20 formal agreements signed 30 formal agreements signed Source: administrative data
Informal agreements are established with stakeholders Largely met 75 informal agreements are in place 93 active informal network members Source: administrative data
Stakeholders invite EC to set up a kiosk or give a presentation at their event Largely met 20 invitations are received in an election year, 10 invitations are received outside an election year 43 invitations received in 2019Source: administrative data
D3. Knowledge Transfer
Stakeholders feel informed about when, where, and the ways to register and vote Largely met 90% of stakeholders agree that they are informed on when, where, and the ways to register and vote 40 out of 44 stakeholders agreed they were well-informed about when, where, and the ways to register and vote Source: Survey of Outreach Stakeholders
Stakeholders know where to go to get more information on the electoral process Largely met 90% of stakeholders know where to get more information on the electoral process 39 out of 44 stakeholders agreed that their community members knew where to go to get more information on the electoral process Source: Survey of Outreach Stakeholders
Stakeholders understand the barriers faced by their communities when participating in an election Largely met 90% of stakeholders feel they understand the barriers faced by their communities in the electoral process 41 out of 44 stakeholders agreed they were well-informed about barriers faced by their communitiesSource: Survey of Outreach Stakeholders
Stakeholders know EC is the authoritative source for information on the electoral process Largely met 100% of stakeholders under a formal agreement, 90% of stakeholders with an informal agreement 37 out of 44 stakeholders named EC as the most official source of information on the electoral process. Of the seven who named another organization or did not know, one respondent represented an organization with a formal agreement and six represented other active organizationsSource: Survey of Outreach Stakeholders

The program increased the number of stakeholders from just over 50 to 196, which exceeded the target goal of 100 by nearly double. These 196 consisted of stakeholders with formal agreements (30), stakeholders with informal agreements (93), and other stakeholders who were active in some way (73), such as hosting an event or ordering VIC products. Lists of formal and informal stakeholders can be found in Annexes D and E respectively.

Figure 10: Number of Inspire Democracy Stakeholders for the 42nd and 43rd General Elections, by Type

Number of Inspire Democracy Stakeholders for the 42nd and 43rd General Elections, by Type

Text version of "Number of Inspire Democracy Stakeholders for the 42nd and 43rd General Elections, by Type"

Two stacked horizontal bar charts above display the number of Inspire Democracy stakeholders in 2015 and 2019 by type–formal, informal, and other.

The breakdown for 2015 is as follows:

  • Formal: 17
  • Informal: 35
  • Other: 0

The breakdown for 2019 is as follows:

  • Formal: 30
  • Informal: 93
  • Other: 73

Online stakeholder reach included the number of newsletter recipients and all social media followers for organizations with a formal agreement with EC, as they were required to report this information in their final reporting. Online reach for this group totaled 411,627 people.

In terms of the representation of target groups in the network, the results vary by data source due to differences in methodology. Administrative data classified each stakeholder as serving one of the four primary target groups primarily or, alternately, classified them as belonging to the separate category "intersectional" if they served more than one group. The Survey of Outreach Stakeholders, in contrast, allowed respondents to select all of the relevant target groups they served, if they served more than one.

According to administrative data, among the 196 members of the stakeholder network, each target group made up less than 15% of the total network (see Figure 11a), below the target range of 15–30%. This finding is impacted by the high number of intersectional organizations that joined the network as a result of outreach initiatives undertaken during the writ period, particularly due to the high interest in Vote PopUp kits. However, when only formal and informal stakeholders (the organizations more likely to have been intentionally recruited by EC) were considered, the proportion of each target group rose to 15% or above for three out of the four groups (all but youth).

The results from the Survey of Outreach Stakeholders, in contrast, show that all priority groups were represented by more than 15% of the stakeholder network (see Figure 11b), as many respondents identified that they served more than one of the four target groups.

Figure 11a:

todo

Text version of "Inspire Democracy Stakeholders that Primarily Represent Each Priority Group for the 43rd General Election, Administrative Data (n = 196)"

Four stacked horizontal bar charts above display the number of Inspire Democracy stakeholders that primarily represented each priority group for the 43rd general election (n = 196).

The breakdown for Indigenous electors is as follows:

  • Primary target group: 22
  • Not primary target group: 174

The breakdown for electors with disabilities is as follows:

  • Primary target group: 19
  • Not primary target group: 177

The breakdown for new Canadians is as follows:

  • Primary target group: 27
  • Not primary target group: 169

The breakdown for youth is as follows:

  • Primary target group: 27
  • Not primary target group: 179

Figure 11b: Inspire Democracy Stakeholders Serving Each Priority Group for the 43rd General Election, Survey of Outreach Stakeholders (n = 44), Multiple Response Option

Inspire Democracy Stakeholders Serving Each Priority Group for the 43rd General Election, Survey of Outreach Stakeholders (n = 44), Multiple Response Option

Text version of "Inspire Democracy Stakeholders Serving Each Priority Group for the 43rd General Election, Survey of Outreach Stakeholders (n = 44), Multiple Response Option"

Four stacked horizontal bar charts above display the number of respondents to the Survey of Outreach Stakeholders representing organizations that served each of the priority groups (n = 44). Respondents could choose multiple groups, if applicable.

The breakdown for Indigenous electors is as follows:

  • Served target group: 12
  • Did not serve target group: 32

The breakdown for electors with disabilities is as follows:

  • Served target group: 19
  • Did not serve target group: 25

The breakdown for new Canadians is as follows:

  • Served target group: 16
  • Did not serve target group: 28

The breakdown for youth is as follows:

  • Served target group: 26
  • Did not serve target group: 18

Regarding D2 (call to action), all targets were exceeded: 10 more formal agreements were signed than planned, and 18 more informal agreements were put into place than planned. The team received more than double the number of invitations to set up a kiosk or make a presentation than planned.

Figure 12: Number of Formal Agreements, Informal Agreements, and Invitations Received, 2019, Planned Versus Actual

Number of Formal Agreements, Informal Agreements, and Invitations Received, 2019, Planned Versus Actual

Text version of "Number of Formal Agreements, Informal Agreements, and Invitations Received, 2019, Planned Versus Actual"

The horizontal bar chart above displays the number of formal agreements signed, informal agreements made, and invitations received by the Inspire Democracy team in 2019, planned versus actual.

The breakdown for planned agreements and invitations is as follows:

  • Formal agreements: 20
  • Informal agreements: 75
  • Invitations received: 20

The breakdown for actual agreements and invitations is as follows:

  • Formal agreements: 30
  • Informal agreements: 93
  • Invitations received: 43

In terms of knowledge transfer, all indicators largely met or exceeded the planned target: Stakeholders felt largely well-informed on when, where, and the ways to register and vote, the barriers to electoral participation, and that their community members knew where to go for more information.

Figure 13: Inspire Democracy Stakeholders Who Agree or Disagree with Statements About Knowledge of the Electoral Process, Survey of Outreach Stakeholders (n = 44)

Inspire Democracy Stakeholders Who Agree or Disagree with Statements About Knowledge of the Electoral Process, Survey of Outreach Stakeholders (n = 44)

Text version of "Inspire Democracy Stakeholders Who Agree or Disagree with Statements About Knowledge of the Electoral Process, Survey of Outreach Stakeholders (n = 44)"

Three stacked horizontal bar charts above display the number of respondents to the Survey of Outreach Stakeholders who agreed or disagreed with three statements about knowledge of the electoral process (n = 44).

The breakdown for the statement regarding whether stakeholders were informed about barriers faced by communities is as follows:

  • Agree: 40
  • Disagree: 4

The breakdown for the statement regarding whether community members knew where to get information is as follows:

  • Agree: 39
  • Disagree: 5

The breakdown for the statement regarding whether community members were informed about when, where, and the ways to register and vote is as follows:

  • Agree: 41
  • Disagree: 3

Most stakeholders (37 out of 44) could name EC as the most official source for information about the electoral process. Formal partners outperformed other stakeholder organizations on this, as would be expected; of the seven stakeholders who named a different organization or did not know, one respondent represented an organization with a formal agreement and six represented informal or other active organizations.

Indirect Outcomes

Table 4: Intermediate Outcome Indicators
Target Results Actual Results
 
Stakeholders feel that EC/ Inspire Democracy helped them reduce barriers for their community members Largely met 90% of stakeholders agree that EC or Inspire Democracy help them to reduce barriers for their community members

39 out of 44 stakeholders agree that Inspire Democracy resources helped to reduce barriers

Source: Survey of Outreach Stakeholders
 
Stakeholders share EC/Inspire Democracy materials with their communities Largely met 75% of stakeholders share EC materials with their communities

27 out of 30 formal contractors shared VIC materials with their members

76 out of 93 active informal network members shared VIC materials with their members

Source: administrative data
Stakeholders disseminate information on the electoral process in their newsletters or in social media posts Largely met 90% of formal agreement holders disseminate information on the electoral process online

All 30 formal agreement holders disseminated information on the electoral process online

Stakeholders made over 850 posts on when, where, and ways to register and vote

Source: administrative data
Stakeholders organize events using EC’s materials Largely met 100% of formal agreement holders and 20% of informal agreement holders organize events using EC’s materials

All formal agreement holders held events; over 330 unique engagement activities in total. Data were unavailable for informal agreement holders (see text below for more information).

Source: administrative data

Results show that the intermediate outcome indicators also largely met or exceeded the planned targets. Most stakeholders (39 out of 44) felt that Inspire Democracy resources helped reduce barriers to participating in the electoral process.

The vast majority of formal partners (27 out of 30) distributed VIC products, as did most informal partners (76 out of 93). See Figure 5 in Section 6.1.

In addition to printed products, both formal and informal stakeholders chose to share EC and Inspire Democracy resources with their community members electronically. All formal agreement holders shared information online as, for most, this was a requirement of their contract. In total, stakeholders made more than 850 social media posts on when, where, and the ways to register and vote.

All stakeholders with a formal agreement held at least one event, and some hosted many events. Indeed, final reporting showed that between April 2019 and election day, 330 events were hosted by contracted stakeholder organizations, 130 of which were held during the writ period (September 11–October 21, 2019). Information about events held by informal partners was not as readily available, but more than 1,200 Vote PopUp kits were distributed, some of which would have been held by these other organizations.

Long-Term Outcomes

Table 5: Long-Term Outcome Indicators
Target Results Actual Results
 
Target group community members agree that finding information on how to register was easy Not completed n/a Data unavailable
Target group members agree that finding information on when, where, and the ways to vote was easy Set baseline Percentage of target groups who found it very easy to find information on where, when, and the ways to vote:
  • Indigenous electors: 61%
  • Electors with a severe/very severe disability: 58%
  • New Canadians: 61%
  • Electors aged 18 to 24: 58%
  • General population: 69%

Percentage of target groups feeling very well-informed on:

Where to vote:
  • Indigenous electors: 71%
  • Electors with a severe/very severe disability: 68%
  • New Canadians: 69%
  • Electors aged 18 to 24: 70%
  • General population: 78%
When to vote:
  • Indigenous electors: 81%
  • Electors with a severe/very severe disability: 77%
  • New Canadians: 77%
  • Electors aged 18 to 24: 82%
  • General population: 86%
Ways to vote:
  • Indigenous electors: 57%
  • Electors with a severe/very severe disability: 56%
  • New Canadians: 62%
  • Electors aged 18 to 24: 51%
  • General population: 65%
Source: National Electors Study, W3
Target group community members know how to register Set baseline

Percentage of target groups that know they can register in the following ways (aided):

Online:
  • Indigenous electors: 66%
  • Electors with a severe/very severe disability: 66%
  • New Canadians: 72%
  • Electors aged 18 to 24: 74%
  • General population: 68%
On polling day:
  • Indigenous electors: 76%
  • Electors with a severe/very severe disability: 70%
  • New Canadians: 67%
  • Electors aged 18 to 24: 72%
  • General population: 71%
Source: National Electors Study, W3
Target group community members know when, where, and the ways to vote Largely met At a polling station on election day:
  • Indigenous: 77%
  • Electors with a disability: 85%
  • New Canadians: set baseline
  • Youth: 85%
At an advance poll:
  • Indigenous: 44%
  • Electors with a disability: 60%
  • New Canadians: set baseline
  • Youth: 40%
Percentage of target group members who named voting at a polling station on election day as a voting method (unaided):
  • Indigenous electors: 81%
  • Electors with a severe/very severe disability: 83%
  • New Canadians: 81%
  • Electors aged 18 to 24: 90%
  • General population: 91%
Percentage of target group members who named advance polls as a voting method (unaided):
  • Indigenous electors: 52%,
  • Electors with a severe/very severe disability: 56%
  • New Canadians: 57%,
  • Electors aged 18 to 24: 56%
  • General population: 71%
Source: National Electors Study, W3
 
Target group community members expect that voting will be easy Set baseline Percentage of electors who expected it would be very easy to vote:
  • Indigenous electors: 76%
  • Electors with a severe/very severe disability: 72%
  • New Canadians: 81%
  • Electors aged 18 to 24: 75%
  • General population: 83%
Source: National Electors Study, W2
Percentage of voters who said it was very easy to vote:
  • Indigenous voters: 82%
  • Voters with a severe/very severe disability: 78%
  • New Canadians: 81%
  • Voters aged 18 to 24: 77%
  • General population: 85%
Source: National Electors Study, W3
Target group community members expect that registering will be easy Set baseline

Percentage of electors who expected it would be very easy to register: data by group unavailable (see text below for more information)

Percentage of voters who said it was very easy to register:
  • Indigenous voters: 71%
  • Voters with a severe/very severe disability: 69%
  • New Canadians: 74%
  • Voters aged 18 to 24: 68%
  • General population: 67%
Source: National Electors Study, W2 & W3
Stakeholders agree that their target group community members found the electoral system easy to use Set baseline

33 out of 44 stakeholders agreed that the groups they work with found the electoral process easy to use

Source: Survey of Outreach Stakeholders
 
Target group community members are aware that they can apply to work at an election Largely met 10% of target group members express interest in working at an election Percentage of target group members aware the general public can be hired to work at the polls:
  • Indigenous electors: 76%
  • Electors with a severe/very severe disability: 73%
  • New Canadians: 65%
  • Electors aged 18 to 24: 65%
  • General population: 82%
Percentage of target group members interested in working at an election (paid work preamble):
  • Indigenous electors: 58% (27% very)
  • Electors with a severe/very severe disability: 54% (29% very)
  • New Canadians: 69% (44% very)
  • Electors aged 18 to 24: 60% (26% very)
  • General population: 53% (26% very)
Percentage of target group members interested in working at an election (civic duty preamble):
  • Indigenous electors: 53% (22% very)
  • Electors with a severe/very severe disability: 53% (26% very)
  • New Canadians: 64% (34% very)
  • Electors aged 18 to 24: 52% (20% very)
  • General population: 50% (22% very)
Source: National Electors Study, W3
Target group community members worked as election officers during the GE Largely met Some represent-ation of each group

Indigenous workers: 3%

People with a disability: 9% While 9% of workers identified as a person with a disability, 23% indicated that they had a condition impacting their daily life. One-third of recruitment officers said that they had provided accommodations for applicants facing a mental or physical barrier.

Youth (16–24): 9%

New Canadians: 2% New Canadians included workers who became Canadian citizens in 2016 or later

Source: Survey of Election Officers
Stakeholders agree that their community members feel welcome in the electoral system Set baseline

33 out of 44 stakeholders agreed that the groups they work with felt welcome when engaging with the electoral process

Source: Survey of Outreach Stakeholders

Many of the long-term outcome targets above aimed to set baselines for the purpose of future research and evaluation. This evaluation had intended to set some long-term outcome targets in coordination with the Voter Information Campaign (VIC) as noted in the PMF; however, the targets that were ultimately set for the VIC were largely for the general population and did not include breakouts for the four target groups. As a result, for indicator F1 (target group community members know when, where and the ways to vote) targets from the agency's Performance Information Profiles (PIP) for Electoral Information and Awareness were substituted.

Generally, gaps continue to exist between target groups and the general population in terms of knowledge, expectations, and experiences of the electoral process. However, when it came to the topic of registering, target group results did better than expected in a few cases. For example, new Canadians and youth were more likely than the general population to be aware of online registration; Indigenous electors were more likely to be aware of polling-day registration; and all four target groups were more likely to report that they found it easy to register.

As noted in the table, there were two indicators about registering that were impacted by data collection challenges. For the indicator regarding expectations about ease of registering, it was not possible to break out the priority groups due to concerns about data quality. This was because the vast majority of NES survey respondents were already registered, thus the sample sizes for questions posed to unregistered electors were small. Second, due to space constraints in the NES, a question about the ease of finding information on how to register was eliminated. However, the other topics covered, such as voting and working, did not have these concerns.

Of the indicators with targets identified, those targets were largely met. When measured against the targets set in the PIP regarding awareness of two key voting methods–that is, voting at a polling station on election day and voting at an advance poll–results exceeded targets for both Indigenous electors and youth. Results for electors with a disability came in slightly under target for both voting methods, but it should be noted that there were methodological changes that may have impacted these results. Rather than asking about disability directly, the 2019 NES asked questions about conditions that may limit electors' daily activities and these results include only those electors with severe or very severe disabilities. The PIP did not set a target for new Canadians, so those results will serve as a baseline.

Results from the 2019 NES showed that more target group members than expected were aware that the general public could work the polls and were interested in doing so. New Canadians were most interested in being paid to work at the polls in their area: 69% said they would be interested in doing so, and of those 44% said they would be very interested. The Survey of Election Officers confirmed that there was some representation from all four groups among polling staff, but given the high level of interest, there may be opportunities to explore ways to tap into this pool of potential workers in future. The best-represented groups among election workers were people with disabilities and youth, each of whom who made up 9% of election officers. Indigenous workers and new Canadians were less well-represented at 3% and 2% of workers respectively (see Table 5, F3 above).

When stakeholders were asked whether they agreed that the target groups found the electoral system easy to use and if they felt welcome, in both cases 33 out of 44 stakeholders agreed.

Figure 14: Inspire Democracy Stakeholders Who Agreed that Target Groups Feel Welcome or the Electoral System Is Easy to Use, Survey of Outreach Stakeholders (n = 44)

Inspire Democracy Stakeholders Who Agreed that Target Groups Feel Welcome or the Electoral System Is Easy to Use, Survey of Outreach Stakeholders (n =– 44)

Text version of "Inspire Democracy Stakeholders Who Agreed that Target Groups Feel Welcome or the Electoral System Is Easy to Use, Survey of Outreach Stakeholders (n = 44)"

Two stacked horizontal bar charts above display the number of respondents to the Survey of Outreach Stakeholders who agreed or disagreed that target group members feel welcome or that the electoral system is easy to use (n = 44).

The breakdown for "groups feel welcome" is as follows:

  • Agree: 33
  • Disagree: 11

The breakdown for "electoral system is easy to use" is as follows:

  • Agree: 33
  • Disagree: 11

7.2. Evaluation Question 6: Unintended Outcomes

Were there any unintended outcomes of the program?

A few notable outcomes not included in the PMF were identified in the National Electors Study's (NES's) Report on the Voter Information Campaign and Elector Awareness 10 .

One such outcome observed in the NES post-election survey related to key EC communications. Three out of four priority groups were more likely to recall the "It's Our Vote" slogan:

  • Indigenous electors (47% versus 42% of non-Indigenous electors)
  • new Canadians (50% versus 42% of other Canadians)
  • electors aged 18 to 24 (64% versus 40% of those aged 25 and older)

Also of interest were the results regarding the Guide to the federal election, which EC mailed to every household in Canada. New Canadians (57%) were much more likely than other Canadians (48%) to say they remembered receiving the guide.

New Canadians were also more likely than other Canadians to agree that EC's election period ads were personally relevant (76% versus 71%), as were Canadians 18 to 24 years of age (82% versus 71%).

The post-election results also found, however, that the likelihood of being very satisfied with the information received about the voting process was still lower among the following three priority groups:

  • electors with a severe/very severe (60%) or mild/moderate disability (67%) compared to those with no disability (73%)
  • Indigenous electors (59%) compared to non-Indigenous electors (70%)
  • Canadians aged 18 to 24 (59%) compared to those 25 and older (71%)
To the top ↑

8. Conclusion

The Inspire Democracy program for the 43rd general election was a successful initiative that reached its intended audience of organizations serving Indigenous electors, electors with disabilities, new Canadians, and youth. The program greatly expanded the network of stakeholders and provided them with information and tools that filled a need for these organizations and their memberships.

The program performed well when measured against its PMF targets. In particular, the number of events hosted or attended and the number of stakeholders engaged both exceeded the target numbers considerably. With regards to direct and indirect outcomes, all indicators either largely met or exceeded targets. Data gathered here for the program's long-term indicators provide benchmarks that will be used for future research and evaluation in this area. In the cases where targets were greatly exceeded, it is recommended that those targets be adjusted for future evaluations to reflect this high level of capacity.

The program was at times inconsistent in documenting attendance at and participant satisfaction with its events, and it is recommended that this be a focus for the program in future. However, it performed some additional activities not required by the PMF that built upon and extended beyond the required activities, including hosting town halls, webinars, and teleconferences, and posting on additional social media platforms (Instagram and LinkedIn). Moving forward in the context of preparing for a possible pandemic election, it is recommended that the program continue this trend of expanding its online presence and remote offerings.

The high level of interest in working at an election–particularly among new Canadians–is a notable finding. It is recommended that the program continue with its recently-added focus on this topic to tap into this potential workforce and increase the representation of new Canadians among election officers.

Stakeholders surveyed for this evaluation expressed unanimous interest in maintaining a relationship with EC moving forward. This continued engagement, particularly with the many members of the stakeholder network that were new for the 43rd general election, will contribute to maintaining and further consolidating the extensive network of organizations that the initiative has created in its first two iterations. These continued partnerships will further enable EC to reduce barriers to electoral participation by providing information for dissemination to those most in need of it.

To the top ↑

9. Summary of Recommendations

This report includes several recommendations to benefit future iterations of the program:

  • To prepare for the possibility of a pandemic election, continue developing and expanding the program's online presence and remote offerings.
  • To respond to the high level of interest in working at an election among target groups–particularly new Canadians–continue developing and expanding the program's coverage of this topic.
  • To enhance future evaluations, address inconsistencies in data collection on attendance and participant satisfaction, and adjust PMF targets to reflect the program's increased capacity where required.
To the top ↑

Annex A: Logic Model

Figure 15: Logic Model

Logic Model

Text version of "Text version of "Annex A: Logic Model"

The figure above displays the Inspire Democracy logic model, outlining the program's activities, outputs, reach/reaction, direct outcomes, intermediate outcomes, long-term outcomes, and ultimate outcome. Text in the top right-hand corner indicates that the logic model was last updated on March 26, 2019. The figure reads from bottom to top.

On the right-hand side of the figure is a series of arrows showing that the early stages of the program (activities and outputs) happen through the efforts of Elections Canada, the middle stages (reach, direct outcomes, and intermediate outcomes) happen through the efforts of stakeholder intervenors, and the final stages (long-term outcomes and ultimate outcome) are the desired outcomes for electors who face barriers to electoral participation.

Under section A, activities, there are two activity categories: stakeholder management and knowledge management. Stakeholder management includes the following items:

  • Stakeholder mapping: Identify and assess priority groups of electors and advocacy and service organizations (e.g. national, influence, advocacy, non-partisan).
  • Develop and maintain stakeholder relationships: Arrange agreements with formal and informal stakeholders and identify events.
  • Knowledge transfer on electoral participation: Organize/attend outreach events and deliver modules and VIC products. (Note that this item is included in both stakeholder management and knowledge management.)

Knowledge management includes the following items:

  • Synthesize research on electoral participation: Curate and synthesize research on barriers and affected target groups.
  • Deliver tools: Co-produce modules with stakeholders, create/maintain website, and create kiosk/workshop materials.
  • Knowledge transfer on electoral participation: Organize/attend outreach events and deliver modules and VIC products. (Note that this item is included in both stakeholder management and knowledge management.)

Under section B, outputs, there are three categories of outputs: in-person channels, digital channels, and knowledge products. In-person channels include the organization of events: workshops, presentations, and kiosks. Digital channels include the program website, social media, and network emails. Knowledge products include the program modules, stakeholder maps, VIC product bundles, and research syntheses.

Under section C, reach/reaction, there are three categories of reach that correspond to and flow from the output categories in section B: in-person channels, digital channels, and knowledge products. Arrows point from the output level to the reach level for each category (for example, there is an arrow between output in-person channel and reach in-person channel). In-person channels include attendance at/satisfaction with workshops, presentations, and kiosks. Digital channels include use of/satisfaction with the program website, social media, and network emails. Knowledge products include the use of/satisfaction with program modules and VIC product bundles.

Under Section D, direct outcomes, there are three categories:

  • Enhanced network: a strengthened network of stakeholders to facilitate delivery of public education and information.
  • Call to action: Stakeholders agree to assist EC to engage their members and reduce barriers.
  • Knowledge transfer: Stakeholders are aware of where, when, and the ways to register and vote; and understand the barriers to participating in an election and EC's role in addressing them.

Under Section E, intermediate outcomes, there are two categories:

  • Stakeholders have enhanced capacity to reduce barriers to electoral participation for electors.
  • Stakeholders share information with electors.

Under Section F, long-term outcomes, there are three categories:

  • Electors in target groups have the knowledge, understanding, and skills they need to make decisions about participating in the electoral process.
  • Electors in target groups perceive that the electoral process is easy to use.
  • Electors feel welcome in the electoral process and share a sense of ownership over it.

Finally, the ultimate outcome is that Canadians have confidence in Elections Canada and trust the administration of the electoral process.

To the top ↑

Annex B: Performance Measurement Framework

Logic Model Element
Indicator(s) Data Source(s) Data Type Frequency of Data Collection Target Date to Achieve Target Responsible for Data Collection Responsible for Data Analysis Methodology
B. Outputs
1. In-Person Channels
I. Workshops Workshops are organized and given to stakeholders Post-event report Quantitative Quarterly 5 workshops are conducted 2020-03-31 OSE program manager OSE Data tally of the number of workshops conducted
II. Presentations Presentations are given to target group communities and stakeholders Post-event report Quantitative Quarterly 5 presentations are given 2020-03-31 OSE program manager OSE Data tally of the number of presentations given
III. Kiosks Kiosks are set up at stakeholders' events Post-event report Quantitative Quarterly 10 kiosks are set up 2020-03-31 OSE program manager OSE Data tally of the number of kiosks set up
2. Communications
IV. Website Website is updated Post-event report Qualitative Quarterly The website is updated every 3months 2020-03-31 OSE program manager working with the web team OSE Web verification and analytics
V. Social media Posts supporting Inspire Democracy events are published on Elections Canada's social media accounts Post-event report Quantitative and qualitative Quarterly One post per event on each platform (Facebook and Twitter) 2020-03-31 OSE program manager working with the social media team OSE Monitoring the number of social media posts per platform for every event
VI. Network communiqué emails Communiqué emails are sent periodically to the stakeholders in the network Communication plan Quantitative Annually 4 communiqué emails are sent per year 2020-03-31 OSE program manager OSE Monitoring the number of communiqué emails sent to the network
3. Knowledge Products
VII. Modules Modules are updated as required and kept current with legislation Playbook Qualitative Quarterly for the launch, annually for updates Launch dates:
  • Toolkit 1: 2019-03-20
  • Toolkit 2: 2019-05-09
  • Toolkit 3: 2019-05-09
2020-03-31 OSE program manager OSE Monitoring the launch of the modules Monitoring the update cycle
VIII. Stakeholder map Stakeholder map is updated as required Stakeholder map Qualitative Quarterly Update dates:
  • 15 January
  • 15 April
  • 15 July
  • 15 October
2020-03-31 OSE program manager OSE Review to confirm
IX. Voter Information Campaign product bundles Bundles are distributed to agreement holders SMS Qualitative Per election period Bundles distributed 3 months before fixed election day to:
  • 100% of formal agreement holders
  • 60% of informal agreement holders
Summer 2019 OSE program manager OSE Managers report through contract deliverables report
X. Research synthesis Research syntheses are published on the Inspire Democracy website Playbook Quantitative Annually 4 research syntheses are produced 2020-03-31 OSE program manager OSE Confirm completion
C. Reach/Reaction
1. In-Person Channels
I. Workshops Stakeholders and target group members are participating in Inspire Democracy workshops Post-event report Quantitative Ongoing 100 workshop participants 2020-03-31 OSE OSE Monitoring the number of participants in the workshops
Satisfaction level with the workshop Post-workshop survey Qualitative Ongoing 75% of participants were satisfied 2020-03-31 OSE OSE 5-point scale question in post-event survey
II. Presentations Post-event report Stakeholders and target group members are attending Inspire Democracy presentations Quantitative Ongoing 500 people attend presentations 2020-03-31 OSE OSE Number of people attending the presentations
Perceived level of usefulness of the presentation Post-presentation survey Qualitative Ongoing 75% of attendants thought the presentation was useful 2020-03-31 OSE OSE 5-point scale question in post-event survey
III. Kiosks Number of people coming to interact at the kiosk Post-event report Quantitative Ongoing 2020-03-31 OSE OSE Clicker count for kiosk interactions
All in-person channels Target groups are reached by Inspire Democracy events (workshops, presentations, kiosks) Post-event report Quantitative and qualitative Quarterly Each target group participated in 15% to 35% of all events 2020-03-31 OSE OSE Formula to be determined by OSE
2. Communications
IV. Website Non-EC employees visit the website Web report Quantitative Quarterly To be determined based on the Inspire Democracy old website number of visits in the past few years 2020-03-31 OSE program manager working with the web team OSE Web verification and analytics: number of website visits
V. Social media Level of engagement with Inspire Democracy posts on Elections Canada's social media accounts (Facebook and Twitter) Social media report Quantitative and qualitative Quarterly To be determined with the social media team; meeting pending 2020-03-31 OSE program manager working with the social media team OSE Monitoring the number of clicks, likes, shares, impressions, comments, and program mentions (hashtags)
VI. Network emails Stakeholders in the network receive the emails Stakeholder map Network mailing list Quantitative and qualitative Annually Every stakeholder in the map receives the emails 2020-03-31 OSE OSE Monitoring the number of recipients by tracking opens/reads
3. Knowledge Products
VII. Modules Modules are downloaded from the website Web report Quantitative Quarterly Set a baseline 2020-03-31 OSE program manager working with the web team OSE Web verification and analytics: monitoring the number of downloads for each modules
Stakeholder satisfaction with the content of the modules Post-GE survey of stakeholders Qualitative Once per election period 75% of stakeholders are satisfied with modules' content Post-GE Research team Research team Interview question
VIII. Voter Information Campaign product bundles Stakeholder satisfaction with the VIC product bundles Post-GE survey of stakeholders Qualitative Once per election period Post-GE Research team Research team Interview question
D. Direct Outcomes
1. Enhanced Network
Strengthened network of stakeholders to facilitate delivery of public education and information The network consists of a significant number of stakeholders Stakeholder map Quantitative Quarterly Approximately 100 stakeholders in the network 2020-03-31 OSE OSE Monitoring the number of stakeholders on the map
The stakeholder network has a significant reach in target group communities Stakeholder map Stakeholders' reports Quantitative Quarterly Set a baseline 2020-03-31 OSE OSE To be determined by OSE (to take into account cross-representation)
Target group communities are represented in the network Stakeholder map Quantitative Quarterly Each target group is represented by 15% to 30% of the stakeholders in the network 2020-03-31 OSE OSE To be determined by OSE (to take into account cross-representation)
2. Call to Action
Stakeholders agree to assist EC in engaging their members and reducing barriers Formal agreements are established with stakeholders Budget tracker Quantitative Quarterly 20 formal agreements are signed 2020-03-31 OSE program manager OSE Monitor the number of formal agreements
Informal agreements are established with stakeholders Informal agreement tracking sheet Quantitative Quarterly 75 informal agreements are in place 2020-03-31 OSE program manager OSE Monitor the number of informal agreements
Stakeholders invite EC to set up a kiosk or give a presentation at their event EC Connex Inspire Democracy emails Quantitative Quarterly 20 invitations are received in an election year 10 invitations are received outside an election year 2020-03-31 OSE program manager OSE Monitor the number of invitations received to set up a kiosk or give a presentation within the Inspire Democracy program
3. Knowledge Transfer
I. Stakeholders are aware of where, when, and the ways to register and vote Stakeholders feel informed about where, when, and the ways to register and vote Post-GE survey of stakeholders Qualitative Post-GE 90% of stakeholders agree that they are informed on where, when, and ways to register and vote Post-GE Research team Research team Interview question
Stakeholders know where to go to get more information on the electoral process Post-GE survey of stakeholders Qualitative Once per election period 90% of stakeholders know where to get more information on the electoral process Post-GE Research team Research team Interview question
II. Stakeholders understand the barriers to participating in an election and EC's role in addressing them Stakeholders understand the barriers faced by their communities when participating in an election Post-workshop survey Post-GE survey of stakeholders Quantitative and qualitative Quarterly Once per election period 90% of stakeholders feel they understand the barriers faced by their communities in the electoral process 2020-03-31 OSE Research team OSE Research team 5-point scale question in post-event survey Interview question
Stakeholders know Elections Canada is the authoritative source for information on the electoral process Post-workshop survey Post-GE survey of stakeholders Quantitative and qualitative Quarterly Once per election period 100% of stakeholders under a formal agreement; 90% of stakeholders with an informal agreement 2020-03-31 and Post-GE OSE Research team OSE Research team 5-point scale question in post-event survey Interview question
E. Intermediate Outcomes
1. Stakeholders have enhanced capacity to reduce barriers to electoral participation for electors Stakeholders feel that EC/Inspire Democracy's program/activity/ material helps them reduce barriers for their community members Post-GE survey of stakeholders Quantitative and qualitative Once per election period 90% of stakeholders agree that EC or Inspire Democracy help them reduce barriers for their community members Post-GE Research team Research team Interview question
2. Stakeholders share information with electors Stakeholders share EC/Inspire Democracy material with their communities Stakeholders' reports
  • Distribution list
  • Social media post monitoring
  • Post-GE survey of stakeholders
Quantitative and qualitative Annually Once per election period 75% of stakeholders share EC material with their communities 2020-03-31 OSE working with the social media team Research team OSE Research team Weekly reports on social media activities of partner organizations Interview question
Stakeholders disseminate information on the electoral process in their newsletters or social media posts Stakeholders' reports
  • Social media post monitoring
  • Post-GE Survey of stakeholders
Quantitative and qualitative Quarterly Once per election period 90% of formal agreement holders disseminated information on the electoral process online 2020-03-31 OSE working with the social media team Research team OSE Research team Weekly reports on social media activities of partner organizations Interview question
Intervenors/stakeholders organize events using EC's materials Stakeholders' reports Quantitative Annually 100% of formal agreement holders; 20% of informal agreement holders 2020-03-31 OSE OSE Number of intervenors who report organizing events using EC's materials
F. Long-Term Outcomes
1. Electors in target groups have the knowledge, understanding, and skills they need to make decisions on participating in the electoral process Target group community members agree that finding information on how to register was easy National Electors Study 2019 Quantitative Once per election period To be set according to the Voter Information Campaign's targets Post-GE Research team Research team 5-point scale question in post-GE survey
Target group community members agree that finding information on when to vote was easy National Electors Study 2019 Quantitative Once per election period To be set according to the Voter Information Campaign's targets Post-GE Research team Research team 5-point scale question in post-GE survey
Target group community members agree that finding information on where to vote was easy National Electors Study 2019 Quantitative Once per election period To be set according to the Voter Information Campaign's targets Post-GE Research team Research team 5-point scale question in post-GE survey
Target group community members agree that finding information on ways to vote was easy National Electors Study 2019 Quantitative Once per election period To be set according to the Voter Information Campaign's targets Research team Research team 5-point scale question in post-GE survey
Target group community members know how to register National Electors Study 2019 Quantitative Once per election period To be set according to the Voter Information Campaign's targets Post-GE Research team Research team 5-point scale question in post-GE survey
Target group community members know when, where, and ways to vote National Electors Study 2019 Quantitative Once per election period To be set according to the Voter Information Campaign's targets Post-GE Research team Research team 5-point scale question in post-GE survey
2. Electors in target groups expect that the electoral system will be easy to use Target group community members expect that voting will be easy National Electors Study 2019 Quantitative Once per election period To be set according to the Voter Information Campaign's targets Post-GE Research team Research team 5-point scale question in post-GE survey
Target group community members expect that registering will be easy National Electors Study 2019 Quantitative Once per election period To be set according to the Voter Information Campaign's targets Post-GE Research team Research team 5-point scale question in post-GE survey
Stakeholders agree that their community members (from target groups) found the electoral system easy to use Post-GE survey of stakeholders Stakeholders' reports Quantitative Once per election period Annually Set baseline Post-GE 2020-03-31 Research team Research team Interview question Section of the report
3. Electors feel welcome in the electoral system and share a sense of ownership over it Target group community members are aware that they can apply to work at an election Post-workshop survey Quantitative Annually 10% of target group community members express interest in working at an election 2020-03-31 OSE OSE 5-point scale question in post-event survey
Target group community members worked as election officers during the GE Survey of election officers/election officers list Qualitative Once per election period1 Some representation of each target group among election officers Post-GE Research team Research team Socio-demographic analysis of election officers list or of survey respondents
Stakeholders agree that their community members feel welcome in the electoral system Post-GE survey of stakeholders Quantitative Once per election period Set baseline Post-GE Research team Research team Interview question

1The recruitment team does not have any targets in terms of diversity of election officers, although they encourage it.

To the top ↑

Annex C: Questionnaire

Survey of Outreach Stakeholders

Welcome!

Elections Canada's Inspire Democracy team is interested in your opinion!

Your feedback as an Inspire Democracy stakeholder is important and will help us better serve the members of your community. This survey should take about five to 10 minutes to complete. It is voluntary and completely confidential.

Elections Canada is required by the Privacy Act to protect your personal information and will not use your responses to identify you. None of your opinions will be attributed to you personally in any way.

  • 1. What group(s) were you aiming to reach with your activities? (Check all that apply.)
    • First Nations
    • Métis
    • Inuit
    • Canadians with disabilities
    • New voters–youth
    • New voters–new Canadians
    • Seniors
    • Canadians experiencing homelessness
    • Canadians who are transgender or non-binary
    • Other [please specify]
  • 2. Was there a particular group or region that was difficult to reach? If so, which one? [Open-Ended]
  • 3. What made it difficult? [Open-Ended]
  • 4. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
    • (Indicator D3i) "As of election day, the group(s) we work with were well-informed about when, where, and the ways to register and vote."
    • Strongly agree
    • Somewhat agree
    • Somewhat disagree
    • Strongly disagree
    • Don't know
  • 5. (Indicator D3i) "As of election day, the group(s) we work with knew where to go for information on the electoral process."
    • Strongly agree
    • Somewhat agree
    • Somewhat disagree
    • Strongly disagree
    • Don't know
  • 6. (Indicator D3ii) "As of election day, my organization was well-informed about the barriers the group(s) we work with may face when participating in the electoral process."
    • Strongly agree
    • Somewhat agree
    • Somewhat disagree
    • Strongly disagree
    • Don't know
  • 7. (Indicator D3ii) What organization is the most official source of information about the electoral process? [Open-Ended]
  • 8. Are you familiar with the following Inspire Democracy election toolkits? Check all that apply:
    • Registering and Voting in a Federal Election
    • Working in a Federal Election
    • Running as a Candidate in a Federal Election
    • No, I am not familiar with them
    • Don't know
  • 9. (Indicator C3i) [If Registering and Voting is checked] How satisfied were you with the Registering and Voting in a Federal Election toolkit?
    • Very satisfied
    • Somewhat satisfied
    • Somewhat dissatisfied
    • Very dissatisfied
    • Don't know
  • 10. [If Q9 = somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied] Why were you dissatisfied with the Registering and Voting in a Federal Election toolkit? [Open-Ended]
  • 11. (Indicator C3i) [If Working is checked] How satisfied were you with the Working in a Federal Election toolkit?
    • Very satisfied
    • Somewhat satisfied
    • Somewhat dissatisfied
    • Very dissatisfied
    • Don't know
  • 12. [If Q11 = somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied] Why were you dissatisfied with the Working in a Federal Election toolkit? [Open-Ended]
  • 13. (Indicator C3i) [If Running is checked] How satisfied were you with the Running as a Candidate in a Federal Election toolkit?
    • Very satisfied
    • Somewhat satisfied
    • Somewhat dissatisfied
    • Very dissatisfied
    • Don't know
  • 14. [If Q13 = somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied] Why were you dissatisfied with the Running as a Candidate in a Federal Election toolkit? [Open-Ended]
  • 15. Many of Elections Canada's materials are available in multiple formats and many different languages. Were you aware that there are different formats and languages other than English and French available?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Don't know
  • 16. [If Q15 = yes] Did your organization use any materials in any of these alternative formats and/or in any language other than English and French?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Don't know
  • 17. [If Q16 = yes] Which ones did you use? [Open-Ended]
  • 18. (Indicator E1) How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
    • "Inspire Democracy resources helped us reduce barriers to participating in the electoral process for the group(s) we work with."
    • Strongly agree
    • Somewhat agree
    • Somewhat disagree
    • Strongly disagree
    • Don't know
  • 19. "Inspire Democracy resources helped the group(s) we work with to be better informed on when, where, and the various ways to register and vote."
    • Strongly agree
    • Somewhat agree
    • Somewhat disagree
    • Strongly disagree
    • Don't know
  • 20. (Indicator E2) Did you share any information on the electoral process in your newsletters or in your social media posts?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Don't know
  • 21. [If Q20 = yes] (Indicator E2) Did any of the information you shared come from Inspire Democracy resources?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Don't know
  • 22. [If Q21 = yes] How often did you share information provided by Inspire Democracy materials in your newsletters or in your social media posts?
    • Daily
    • Weekly
    • Monthly
    • Once or twice
    • Never
    • Don't know
  • 23. Did you request an Inspire Democracy kiosk, workshop, or presentation?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Don't know
  • 24. [If Q23 = yes] How satisfied were you with that kiosk, workshop, or presentation?
    • Very satisfied
    • Somewhat satisfied
    • Somewhat dissatisfied
    • Very dissatisfied
    • Don't know
  • 24.i [IF 23 = yes] Why were you dissatisfied with that kiosk, workshop, or presentation? [Open-Ended]
  • 25. As of election day, was there any information about the electoral process that the group(s) you work with needed and did not have?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Don't know
  • 26. [If Q25 = yes] What was the information they needed? [Open-Ended]
  • 27. Did you create any of your own resources to share with the group(s) you work with?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Don't know
  • 28. [If Q27 = yes] What sort of resources did you create? [Open-Ended]
  • 29. The Inspire Democracy website included a section with products that were developed and shared by other partner organizations. Did you use any of these shared resources (for example, Vote PopUp)?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Don't know
  • 30. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
    • (Indicator F1) "The group(s) we work with found the electoral system easy to use."
    • Strongly agree
    • Somewhat agree
    • Somewhat disagree
    • Strongly disagree
    • Don't know
  • 31. (Indicator F1) "The group(s) we work with felt welcome when engaging with the electoral process."
    • Strongly agree
    • Somewhat agree
    • Somewhat disagree
    • Strongly disagree
    • Don't know
  • 32. [If Q31 = somewhat or strongly disagree] Why do you think the group(s) you work with did not feel welcome? [Open-Ended]
  • 33. Was the 2019 federal election your organization's first time working with Elections Canada?
    • Yes, 2019 was our first election working with Elections Canada
    • No, we worked with Elections Canada before or at the 2015 election
    • Don't know
  • 34. How did you hear about the opportunity to work with Elections Canada in the 2019 federal election? [Open-Ended]
  • 35. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
    • "My organization's interactions with Elections Canada and Inspire Democracy have met our needs and expectations."
    • Strongly agree
    • Somewhat agree
    • Somewhat disagree
    • Strongly disagree
    • Don't know
  • 36. "Elections Canada did a good job of explaining the non-partisanship requirement for its partner organizations."
    • Strongly agree
    • Somewhat agree
    • Somewhat disagree
    • Strongly disagree
    • Don't know
  • 37. "My organization would like to maintain a relationship with Elections Canada in between elections."
    • Strongly agree
    • Somewhat agree
    • Somewhat disagree
    • Strongly disagree
    • Don't know
  • 38. We are always trying to improve our service. Is there anything Elections Canada and Inspire Democracy could do differently that would work better for you? [Open-Ended]

That concludes the survey. Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback. It is much appreciated.

If you have any reason to believe that your personal information is not being handled in accordance with the Privacy Act, you have a right to complain to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada:

Toll-free: 1-800-282-1376
TTY: (819) 994-6591
Web: Go to www.priv.gc.ca and click "Report a concern"

To the top ↑

Annex D: Contracted Stakeholders

  • ABC Life Literacy
  • Advanced Business Match
  • Apathy is Boring
  • Assembly of First Nations
  • Brain Injury Canada
  • Canadian Alliance of Student Associations
  • Canadian Association of the Deaf
  • Canadian Hard of Hearing Association
  • Canadian National Institute for the Blind
  • Citizen Empowerment Project
  • Citoyenneté Jeunesse
  • Civic Action Leadership Foundation
  • Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec
  • Council of Canadians with Disabilities
  • Democratic Engagement Exchange
  • Embers Eastside Works
  • Eviance
  • Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne française
  • Frontier College
  • Grand Council Treaty 3
  • ilinniapaa Skills Development
  • Institut du Nouveau Monde
  • Manitoba League of Persons with Disabilities
  • National Assembly of Friendship Centres
  • Native Women's Association of Canada
  • Neil Squire Society
  • People First of Canada
  • Ryerson Leadership Lab
  • Special Olympics Ontario
  • The Canadian Muslim Vote
To the top ↑

Annex E: Informal Stakeholders

  • 42 Voices
  • Abilities Manitoba
  • Amica Somerset House
  • Association francophone du Nunavut
  • Autism Awareness Centre
  • BeSuperior
  • Big Brothers, Big Sisters of Canada
  • Bonnechere Union Public Library
  • Boys and Girls Club of Canada
  • Bradford West Gwillimbury Public Library
  • Brantford Public Library
  • Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion
  • Canadian Civil Liberties Association
  • Canadian Federation of Medical Students
  • Centennial College
  • Central Neighbourhood House (The Neighbourhood Group)
  • Centre Amal Pour Femmes
  • Centre for Community Engaged Learning
  • Community Health Centres of Northumberland
  • Confédération des organismes de personnes handicapées du Québec (COPHAN)
  • (AGDI Organization)
  • Congress for Aboriginal Peoples
  • Coquitlam Public Library
  • Cowichan Branch Library (VIRL)
  • Disability Justice Network of Ontario (DJNO)
  • Eastern Ottawa Resource Centre
  • Edmonton Public Library
  • Englehart Public Library
  • Equay-Wuk
  • Femmes Autochtones du Québec
  • Gordon Neighbourhood House
  • Grey Highlands Public Library
  • Halifax Public Libraries
  • Humber College
  • Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada
  • Independent Living
  • Innisfil Idealab and Library
  • Institute for Canadian Citizenship (ICC)
  • International Association for Public Participation
  • IRCC Mississauga
  • IRCC Ottawa
  • IRCC Winnipeg
  • IRCC: Citizenship Program Delivery
  • IRCC: Settlement and Integration Policy
  • Kawartha Lakes Public Library
  • Kenora Library
  • Lambton County Libraries
  • Lincoln Public Library
  • March of Dimes
  • Nanaimo Harbourfront Library (VIRL)
  • Ne-Chee Friendship Centre
  • Neighbourhood Link (The Neighbourhood Group)
  • North Point Douglas Women's Centre
  • North York Community House
  • North York Harvest Food Bank
  • Northwest Metis Council
  • Oakville Public Library
  • Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres
  • Operation Black Vote Canada
  • Operation Come Home
  • Ottawa Public Library–Sunnyside Branch
  • Participation and Advancement of Youth Civic Engagement (PAYCE)
  • Port Hope Public Library
  • Quest Community Health Centre
  • Ralph Thornton Community Centre
  • Regina Open Door Society
  • Scarborough Centre for Healthy Communities
  • Siksika First Nation Membership
  • Somerset West Community Health Centre
  • South East Ottawa Community Health Centre
  • Southeast Collegiate
  • Southern Alberta Individualized Planning Association (SAIPA)
  • Success Tri-Cities
  • Sunrise Community Link Resource Centre
  • SWITCH
  • Table de Quartier Concert Action Lachine
  • Table de Quartier Sud de l'Ouest-de-l'Ile
  • The 519
  • The Kenora District Services Board
  • The STOP Community Food Centre
  • Toronto Council Fire Native Cultural Centre
  • Toronto Public Library
  • University Settlement
  • Valley Community Learning Association
  • Vancouver Island Regional Library (VIRL)
  • Wabano Centre for Aboriginal Health
  • Warden Woods
  • West Central Women's Resource Centre
  • Whitchurch-Stouffville Public Library
  • Working Women Community Centre
  • YMCA of Greater Toronto
  • YMCA of Northern Alberta
  • Youth Empowerment and Support Services
  • YWCA Halifax
To the top ↑