Centre for Social Innovation & Impact Investing | GTS Five ...€¦ · three to six months, whereas...

Centre for Social Innovation & Impact Investing | GTS Five-Year Review | Janet Porter | 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 5!INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 9!1.0! GWAII TRUST SOCIETY ................................................................................................................. 10!

1.1! Mission ............................................................................................................................... 10!1.2! Programs ........................................................................................................................... 10!1.3! Organizational Structure .................................................................................................... 11!

2.0! EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................................... 12!2.1! Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 12!2.2! Review Process ................................................................................................................. 12!2.3! Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 12!2.4! Limitations in Methodology and Data Collection ................................................................ 14!

3.0! HAIDA GWAII SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BASELINE ................................................................... 14!4.0! COMMUNITY FEEDBACK FINDINGS ............................................................................................. 15!

4.1! Gwaii Trust Mandate .......................................................................................................... 16!4.2! Gwaii Trust Impacts ........................................................................................................... 16!4.3! Challenges, Recommendations and Unmet Needs ........................................................... 17!4.4! Communication .................................................................................................................. 21!4.5! Operations and Processes ................................................................................................ 22!4.6! Board and Staff .................................................................................................................. 23!4.7! Strategic Needs and Gaps ................................................................................................ 24!4.8! Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust ................................................................................................... 25!

5.0! COMMUNITY SURVEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................. 26!5.1! Overall Satisfaction ............................................................................................................ 26!5.2! Key Objectives ................................................................................................................... 27!5.3! Largest Impacts ................................................................................................................. 27!5.4! GTS Project Importance .................................................................................................... 27!5.5! Meeting of GTS Objectives ................................................................................................ 28!

6.0! 2009-2014 GTS INVESTMENTS FINDINGS .................................................................................... 29!6.1! Projects - Allocations ......................................................................................................... 29!6.2! Projects - Lengths .............................................................................................................. 30!6.3! Projects - Meeting of GTS Objectives ................................................................................ 30!6.4! Projects - Reported Socio-Economic Outcomes ............................................................... 32!6.5! Projects - Jobs Created ..................................................................................................... 34!


6.6! Projects – Community Participation ................................................................................... 36!6.7! Projects – On Time, Within Budget ................................................................................... 36!6.8! Education and Travel Grants ............................................................................................. 36!

7.0! RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................... 39!7.1! Board Politics and Ethics ................................................................................................... 39!

7.1.1! Recommendation - Technical Accountability in Decision-Making ................................ 40!7.1.2! Recommendation – Decision-Making Guidelines and Criteria ..................................... 41!

7.2! Internal Capacity and Governance .................................................................................... 41!7.2.1! Recommendation – Criteria for Board of Directors ...................................................... 42!7.2.2! Recommendation – Scheduled Board Meetings .......................................................... 42!7.2.3! Recommendation – Capacity and Operational Gaps ................................................... 43!

7.3! Public and Stakeholder Communication ............................................................................ 43!7.3.1! Recommendation – Community Engagement and Information ................................... 44!7.3.2! Recommendation – Communication of Processes and Requirements ........................ 45!7.3.3! Recommendation – Project Transparency ................................................................... 45!

7.4! Application Process and Requirements ............................................................................. 45!7.4.1! Recommendation – Project Application Process ......................................................... 46!7.4.2! Recommendation – Applicant Support ......................................................................... 46!7.4.3! Recommendation – Application Deadlines .................................................................. 47!

7.5! Capturing Social and Economic Outcomes ....................................................................... 47!7.5.1! Recommendation – Social and Economic Conditions and Trends .............................. 48!7.5.2! Recommendation – Outcome-Based Reporting .......................................................... 48!7.5.3! Recommendation – Integrated Data Management System ......................................... 48!7.5.4! Recommendation – Scheduled Impact Assessments .................................................. 49!

7.6! Regulatory Mechanisms .................................................................................................... 49!7.6.1! Recommendation – Monitoring System ....................................................................... 49!7.6.2! Recommendation – Evaluation Process ...................................................................... 50!7.6.3! Recommendation – Recipient Reporting Support ........................................................ 50!

7.7! Reoccuring Issues ............................................................................................................. 50!7.7.1! Recommendation – Further Exploration ...................................................................... 51!

7.8! Recommendations Summary ............................................................................................ 52!8.0! APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 54!

A.! Five-Year Review Advertisements ...................................................................................... 54!B.! Socio-Economic Baseline Information ................................................................................ 55!

B.1 Demographics .................................................................................................................... 55!B.2 Education ........................................................................................................................... 58!B.3 Economic Hardship ............................................................................................................ 58!


B.4 Crime ................................................................................................................................. 59!B.5 Health ................................................................................................................................. 60!B.6 Children and Youth ............................................................................................................ 63!B.7 Labour Market .................................................................................................................... 63!

C.! Interview Guideline .............................................................................................................. 64!D.! List of Interview Participants ............................................................................................... 65!E.! Community Survey Form ..................................................................................................... 66!F.! Community Survey Online Publication Sites ....................................................................... 68!G.! Community Survey Results ................................................................................................. 69!H.! 2009-2014 Project Document Review Results ................................................................... 73!I.! GTS Application and Evaluation Forms ................................................................................ 81!


LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Gwaii Trust Society Programs, 2009-2014 ................................................................................. 10!Figure 2. Interviewed Stakeholders & Service Providers ........................................................................... 15!Figure 3. GTS Program Impacts, ................................................................................................................ 17!Figure 4. GTS Programs: Challenges, Recommendations and Unmet Needs, ......................................... 18!Figure 5. Sectors: Challenges, Recommendations and Unmet Needs ...................................................... 20!Figure 6. Public Satisfaction with GTS ....................................................................................................... 26!Figure 7. GTS Project Importance .............................................................................................................. 28!Figure 8. Meeting of GTS Objectives ......................................................................................................... 28!Figure 9. Project Funding Allocations, 2009-2014 ..................................................................................... 29!Figure 10. GTS Project Lengths, 2009 to 2014 .......................................................................................... 30!Figure 11. Projects Meeting GTS Objectives ............................................................................................. 31!Figure 12. Reported Project Outcomes, 2009-2014 ................................................................................... 32!Figure 13. Jobs Created (during and after project) .................................................................................... 35!Figure 14. Total Jobs Created, 2009 to 2014 ............................................................................................. 35!Figure 15. GTS 2009-2014 Projects reported On-time and Within Budget ................................................ 36!Figure 16. Education and Travel Grants, 2009-2014 Allocations ............................................................... 37!Figure 17. Education and Travel Grants, Annual Distribution and Total Dollars Spent, ............................. 37!Figure 18. Education and Travel Grants, 2009-2014 Numbers and Dollars Distributed ............................ 38!Figure 19. Summary of Proposed Action or Change to respond to the Recommendations ...................... 52!Figure 20. Haida Gwaii Population, 1986-2014 .......................................................................................... 55!Figure 21. Haida Gwaii Population by Community, 2009 and 2011 ........................................................... 55!Figure 22. Haida Gwaii Female and Male Population Changes, 2009 to 2014 ......................................... 56!Figure 23. Haida Gwaii Population Grouped by Age, 2000 to 2010 .......................................................... 56!Figure 24. Population of Haida living on and off-reserve in 2013 .............................................................. 57!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report is the result of the Gwaii Trust Society review completed by the Centre for Social Innovation & Impact

Investing, Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia. Janet Porter prepared the report with

support from Chris Kantowicz, the Centre’s Director of Strategy. It was prepared for and in consultation with the

Gwaii Trust Society. The contributions of all those involved, including Gwaii Trust Society’s Executive Director,

board of directors and staff, as well as Emma Gaiger, Carolyn Beaumont and Rahul Shah, are also

acknowledged.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Every five years, the Gwaii Trust Society is mandated to conduct a performance review by a recognized

independent third party. The Centre for Social Innovation & Impact Investing at the Sauder School of Business

completed this review from October 2014 to February 2015. The purpose of the review is to make an impartial

analysis of the Gwaii Trust Society (GTS), explore its adherence to its mandate, and identify areas in need of

attention to ensure future investments align with community values. The review covers the period of 2009 through

October 2014 and does not include an assessment of financials, therefore does not constitute a financial or other

formal audit of GTS. This review offers an opportunity for GTS board and staff to hear community feedback,

celebrate GTS successes and examine areas and processes in need of improvement as they enter their next five

years.

METHODOLOGY

The review teams’ overall approach was undertaken in three broad phases including data gathering, identification

of feedback and findings, and documentation of recommendations going forward. The five-year review was

performed through online research; a review of GTS documents; face-to-face and phone interviews with

stakeholders and service providers; group discussions with councils and communities; public input sessions;

written and online questionnaires; and a review of 2009-2014 project applications and evaluations documents

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Findings are based on 38 stakeholder interviews, 18 residents feedback from public input sessions, 106 public

survey responses, as well as 221 completed projects, 699 education and 978 travel grants over this time period.

The overwhelming majority of people, 81% in the case of the survey respondents, report being satisfied or very

satisfied with the Gwaii Trust Society services. Twenty years after the inception of GTS, there remains a strong

understanding within the community of the GTS mandate. When asked of its purpose, the majority of

stakeholders reference one or more key GTS objectives including improving the well being of the community,

stimulating the economy, supporting environmental, cultural and economic health, and improving all island

infrastructure.

LOOKING BACK 2009 to 2014

Over the 2009 to 2014 time period, the majority of the GTS projects were short in duration and requested smaller

funding amounts. On average, 52% of projects were planned for less than three months, and 55% of projects

were allocated $10,000 or less of GTS funding. Of the projects reviewed, recipients reported 90% to be within

budget, and 76% to be on time.


In total 699 education and 978 travel grants were included in the review over the 2009 to 2014 time period. The

majority of travel grants are small, with 72% under $500, whereas the majority of education grants (61%) are

between $1,000 and $2,000. In 2014, GTS passed a motion to increase the education grant maximum from

$1,500 to $3,000. However, on average from 2009 to 2014, approximately 160 travel grants are administered

each year averaging $620 each, and 115 education grants are administered per year of $1300 each.

Impacts – Community Perspective: The largest impacts of GTS investments recognized by the community

members are (1) major contributions (including infrastructure), (2) education and (3) youth initiatives. Appreciation

for these programs and support were evident in the feedback, followed by travel, arts and community events.

Outcomes: Upon review of the self-reported applications and evaluations of the 2009-2014 GTS-funded projects,

recipients indicate social, economic and health and safety outcomes as the most prominent. 71% of projects

reported social outcomes, such as increasing Island collaboration and togetherness of the communities; 61%

indicated economic outcomes, such as stimulating job opportunities and employment; and 61% reported health

and safety outcomes, such as promoting and increasing safe physical activity and recreation opportunities.

Job Creation: Recipients reported a total of 590 jobs created over the 2009-2014 period. This includes a mix of

full-time, seasonal full-time and part-time jobs. Forty of these jobs involved support or creation of full-time,

seasonal full-time or part-time jobs after project completion while the majority involved jobs during the funded

projects.

Achievement of GTS Objectives – Community Perspective: Between 77% and 80% of the community agree that

GTS successfully promotes the well being of the community, its education, artistic expression and cultural and

economic health. However, only 55% of the community agrees that GTS successfully promotes the concept of the

Islands as ‘one’ community.

Achievement of GTS Objectives – Intentions of Projects: Project recipients are asked in applications to indicate

how they meet or address GTS objectives. Of the twelve objectives, responses indicate that three GTS objectives

stand out above the others between 2009 and 2014:

• Making the Community a better place to live through improvement of the Islands infrastructure and

thereby making the Islands a more desirable place to visit and to do business

• Assisting in promoting the cultural and economic health of the Community

• Providing for conserving & sustaining the land and marine ecosystems and archaeological sites of the

Islands


LOOKING FORWARD

There is overall recognition and need for GTS to continue supporting the well being of Haida Gwaii residents and

communities. When asked to identify priority needs in the community and areas for GTS support going forward,

(1) economic development (including small business support), (2) education and (2) artistic support were

identified as top priorities followed by youth, food security and infrastructure needs. Additional sector-based

challenges were identified in areas of transport, energy and technology, and health and community services.

Throughout public and stakeholder engagement, other concerns were brought up in discussion centering around

five main themes:

• Communication: GTS communication was one of the most prevalent issues and concerns brought up by

participants, including the need for GTS to improve public engagement and transparency, methods of

communication, messaging of programs and news, clarity of processes, access to GTS documents and

public awareness of funded projects.

• Operations and Processes: The project application process is the most discussed process recommended

for improvement; with many participants feeling it is confusing, complicated and cumbersome.

Community concern regarding GTS decision-making process is also prevalent, with requests for more

professional criteria and removal of subjectivity to provide fairness and transparency.

• Board and Staff: The community recognized board challenges including the short 2-year board term as

well as the balancing of both community expectations and transparency. Concerns over board politics

and leadership were frequently raised followed by recommendations to build in board eligibility criterion

and the need for additional board training. Contrasting viewpoints were shared regarding GTS

management and staff; however a general appreciation was expressed with recognition of capacity

challenges.

• Strategic Needs and Gaps: Throughout the review process, participants brought up recurring themes for

GTS to explore supporting (1) community allocations, (2) on-island investments (3) sustainable long-term

funding, and (4) core operational funding.

• Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust: Some participants raised the issue of the Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust, expressing

different viewpoints. Some are concerned with it losing its environmental focus, while others believe it

should have a different mandate or become an economic driver.

Additional detail on the community feedback and findings are provided in Section 5 and 6 of this report. It should

be noted that anonymous public feedback provided by further comments in the questionnaire are also to be

reviewed and considered by communication consultants while drafting GTS strategies going forward.


REVIEWER RECOMMENDATIONS

The authors of this report recognize the evolving role of the Gwaii Trust Society from its earlier days. Today, GTS

is responsible for an expanded fund of over $125m (including the Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust), which requires

annual spending of approximately $10m on a diverse line of grants and services. A much larger responsibility now

falls on the GTS board’s shoulders. Given the increasing complexity of managing the GTS, the board should

consider requiring greater experience in its board members, a shift of responsibilities and judicial duties as well as

more formal and defined processes.

The five-year review recommendations cover seven areas critical to GTS success. The review team’s

recommendations and follow-up actions are detailed in Section 7 of this report but include:

Board Politics and Ethics: Bring stronger accountability and technical expertise to the project analysis and

decision-making process and create clear guiding principles and program criteria.

Internal Capacity and Governance: Create and advocate for eligibility criteria for the board of directors, for both

elected and appointed positions. Improve board attendance and deliver support and professional development for

both board members and staff.

Public and Stakeholders Communication: Strengthen the means for the public to access GTS information and

provide feedback. Move towards full transparency by posting applications, evaluations and final reports on the

GTS website.

Application Process and Requirements: Review and revise the project application process, considering different

application levels and standardized forms and strengthen the applicant support provided by GTS.

Capturing Social & Economic Outcomes: Advocate to pool island-wide resources and create a comprehensive

database of Haida Gwaii socio-economic baseline conditions and trends. Clearly incorporate goals, indicators and

socio-economic outcomes in GTS applications, evaluations and reports and introduce formal Impact

Assessment(s) to selected GTS projects 1-5 years after completion. Create an integrated data management

system for GTS to track applicants, projects, etc. and auto-generate collective reports.

Regulatory Mechanisms: Review and streamline the project evaluation process which might include more detailed

requirements only for large, complex projects and better alignment of reporting standards with other major co-

funders.

Reoccurring Issues: Explore, discuss and formulate a position on community allocations, on-island investments,

multi-year and sustainable funding, as well as the possibility of core and operational funding.


INTRODUCTION The Gwaii Trust Society (GTS) was established to enhance environmentally sustainable social and economic

benefits to Haida Gwaii. The Gwaii Trust Fund is intended to support the development and maintenance of a

sustainable “Island Community” that plans and manages its own development in ways that reflect its cultural and

environmental uniqueness. In the interest of transparency and fairness across the communities, it is of great

importance to the GTS to have a strong understanding of their communities to ensure (1) they are living up to

their mandate and (2) their investments and impacts can be measured and aligned with the community.

The Gwaii Trust by-laws mandate that every five years they undertake a performance review using a recognized

independent consultant.1 In 2014, the Centre for Social Innovation & Impact Investing at the Sauder School of

Business was selected to develop and carry out the review, which includes a socio-economic impact assessment

of investments over the past five years. Although numerous studies have been done in the past, the GTS board

also expressed the need to get a current picture of social and economic factors in their communities, thereby

creating a baseline for use in future reviews. The review was completed through (1) data collection to identify the

community social and economic baseline, (2) community feedback and recommendations on the mandate,

impacts and relevance of GTS through interviews and community sessions, and (3) a review and assessment of

the past five years of investments. Collectively, these efforts were designed to inform GTS of ways to improve its

role as a funder over time and help guide strategic and investment decisions going forward. This document is the

result of the review completed by the Centre for Social Innovation & Impact Investing.

The report is organized into seven sections. Section 1 presents the background of the Gwaii Trust Society;

Section 2 presents the data collection process, methodologies used and limitations; Section 3 provides social and

economic baseline information on Haida Gwaii; Sections 4, 5 and 6 present the findings; and Section 7 presents

the overall recommendations going forward. This report also includes supplementary appendices, which are cited

throughout.

1 Gwaii Trust Society (2015). Society Act, By-Laws of Gwaii Trust Society. Part 18[81]: Performance Review. Retrieved from the Gwaii Trust Society website: http://www.gwaiitrust.com/business_plan/constitution_bylaws.htm#Part%2018%20-%20Performance%20Review


1.0 GWAII TRUST SOCIETY The Gwaii Trust Society was formed in 1994 and endowed with an original fund of $38.2 million. After the creation

of the Gwaii Hanaas National Park in southern Haida Gwaii, the Trust was introduced to offset the loss of forestry

jobs and foster new economic opportunities and sustainable development in the islands. As a not-for-profit

company, it governs the locally controlled, interest-bearing fund and distributes grants at a rate of 3 to 4% of the

total endowments each year.2 Through the use of the Fund, GTS envisions a sustainable ‘Island Community’ that

plans and manages its own development in ways that reflect its cultural and environmental uniqueness. The Fund

has grown to $81 million as of 2014.

1.1 MISSION Gwaii Trust’s mission is to enhance environmentally sustainable social and economic benefits to Haida Gwaii

through the use of the Fund. Its vision is to support an Island Community characterized by respect for cultural

diversity, the environment, and a sustainable and increasingly self-sufficient economy.

1.2 PROGRAMS Over the past five years, the Gwaii Trust has supported funding for various programs. Some programs have come

to a close over this period, and others have been created. Currently GTS provides funding for twelve programs.

Figure 1. Gwaii Trust Society Programs, 2009-2014

FORMER PROGRAMS (DATE CLOSED) CURRENT 2014 PROGRAMS (YEAR OPENED) 1. Culture as it relates to Truism (Dec 2011) 1. Arts (includes Art Workshops – 2013) 2. Healthy Humans (Dec 2011) 2. Christmas Allocations 3. Legacy (Dec 2011) 3. Community Events3 4. Food Security4 (2013) 4. Community Innovation (2014) 5. Mature Student Bursary* (Sept 2013) 5. Continuing Education (2014) 6. Post Secondary Education* (Sept 2013) 6. Economic Development - pilot (2014)

7. Special Initiatives in Education** (Dec 2013) 7. Education: School Food (2013), Post Secondary Tours, High School Bursary

8. Haida Language – pilot (2014) 9. Haida Parity 10. Major Contributions 11. Travel Assistance 12. Youth (2012)

* These two programs were combined into the 2014 Continuing Education Program. ** The Special Initiatives in Education Program evolved into the Community Innovation Program and focuses mainly on creative education solutions emphasizing the trades, with additional support for micro infrastructure projects.

2 The GTS Executive Committee establishes an annual community spending allocation for board approval. The December 2012 Gwaii Trust Society Statement of Investment Policies and Procedures, states that a “4% spending rate is sustainable as long as investment returns and inflation do not vary greatly from what is expected.” This was based on a periodic study last completed in 2009. 3 Each community distributes an annual Christmas allocation of $10,000, with most delivering hampers or turkeys to the community. 4 The food security program was active for two years, from 2012 to 2013.


In January 2009, a new schedule for receiving program applications was developed. Depending on the program,

proposals are received two weeks before the bi-annual or annual deadlines or on a rolling basis, whereby

applications are received two weeks prior to travel or program start date. GTS program deadlines can be found on

the GTS website.

1.3 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The Gwaii Trust Society is a “board driven” organization with five staff members, eight volunteer directors, eight

alternates (who are appointed by the directors), and one non-voting board chair from the Council of Haida Nation

(CHN). Staff includes an executive director, a project manager/senior executive assistant, a travel and education

program coordinator, a finance/administration manager, and a receptionist. Staff are situated in two GTS offices

that are approximately 100km apart to best meet the needs of Haida Gwaii. One office is based in Old Massett

Village in the north and the other is based in Skidegate in the south.

The Gwaii Trust Board has representation from all communities on Haida Gwaii to ensure that the allocation of

positions is both strategic and geographic. They include two members from the Council of Haida Nation (CHN

Skidegate, CHN Old Massett), and one member from each of the following communities: Skidegate Band Council,

Old Massett Village Council, Graham Island North (Masset), Graham Island Central (Port Clements including

Tlell), Graham Island South (Queen Charlotte), and Area 'E' (Sandspit, including South Moresby).

Management is responsible for the day-to-day operation of GTS and for supplying the directors with as much

relevant and factual information as possible. In contrast, the board is responsible for strategic direction and

funding decisions. Board decision-making is based on a consensus model, which means that all board members

must agree to and support all decisions. The consensus process contains a provision whereby if one board

member does not agree, then a motion can be approved with consensus less one; this is a rarely used procedure.

The board meetings are scheduled to occur once a month as well as following the program deadlines.


2.0 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this five-year review is to explore whether Gwaii Trust Society has been fulfilling its mandate and

to help ensure that future investments align with community values.

2.2 REVIEW PROCESS The review spanned a five-month period from September 2014 to February 2015 and included the following

components:

1. Social and Economic Baseline: A review and collation of existing, relevant and current social and

economic baseline data for the ‘Island Community’.

2. Community Feedback on the Gwaii Trust Society: Feedback and recommendations collected from

various key stakeholders, service providers and community members about the GTS mandate, its

impacts and relevance.

3. Impact Assessment of Gwaii Trust Investments (2009 to 2014): A review and analysis of the

application and evaluation documents detailing investments made over the past five years.

4. Recommendations for Future Strategies for Investment: Creation of a jumping off point for GTS to

help guide strategic decisions and program initiatives going forward.

2.3 METHODOLOGY The review was conducted using the following methods and approaches:

Baseline Information: Data from various online sources, as well as government and agency documents were

used to compile the social and economic baseline information of Haida Gwaii.

Community Feedback: Feedback from the community was obtained through (1) interviews, (2) community input

sessions and (3) paper and online surveys. Participants included key stakeholders and service providers in the

community as well as the community at large.

a. Interviews: GTS executive director, board directors and alternates in each of the communities initially

identified organizations and/or participants recommended to be interviewed by the reviewers. The list

was then expanded through online research and from further recommendations through discussions.

The aim was to get a representative selection of stakeholders and services from the community across

all sectors relevant to Gwaii Trust’s mandate. Face-to-face interviews were conducted November 3 to 6,

2014 in Haida Gwaii, while phone interviews were completed in the weeks that followed. Interviews

ranged from 30 minutes to two hours and focused on Gwaii Trust’s mandate, impacts and relevance to

the community needs while allowing for open discussion. A total of 72 key informants were invited for an


interview via emails or phone messages. Overall, 33 in-person and 5 telephone interviews were

completed (this includes small group discussions with councils in Queen Charlotte and Masset).

b. Community Input Sessions: Four community sessions were held in South Moresby (Sandspit), South

Graham Island (Skidegate), Central Graham Island (Port Clements) and North Graham Island (Old

Massett). Sessions were held each evening at community halls and GTS offices from 7:00-9:00pm on

November 3rd to 6th, 2014 and advertised on the GTS website, via posters in the communities and in the

Observer on October 24th and 31st (see Appendix A for advertisements of the Five-Year Review).

Themes discussed mirrored that of the interviews and allowed for open discussion. A total of 18

community members participated in the input sessions (12 Sandspit, three Skidegate/Queen Charlotte,

two Port Clements/Tlell, and one Masset/Old Massett).

c. Surveys: A two-page (paper) survey was distributed throughout Haida Gwaii at community input

sessions and through councils, and posted online on accessible Facebook pages. Councils and various

organizations also assisted with handing out the surveys and advocating them on Facebook and their

websites. A total of 15 questions were included, focusing on the Gwaii Trust’s objectives and impacts,

community satisfaction with their services as well as areas for improvement. Additional objectives to the

survey included (1) to build GTS project awareness, (2) to measure the level of importance communities

place on GTS areas of focus and (3) to measure beliefs on whether GTS has been fulfilling its mandate.

A total of 106 completed surveys were returned, representing all communities on Haida Gwaii.

Gwaii Trust Investment Review: This review included 2009 to 2014 projects that received GTS funding as well

as education and travel grants. The review involved analysis of project applications, evaluation forms and final

reports to assess the projects and reported outcomes made by recipients. As some projects had missing files,

only projects where GTS provided complete applications and evaluation forms (or final reports if deemed

sufficient) were reviewed. GTS provided an initial list of 369 projects to the review team, whereby 221 projects

were included in the review.5 A number of projects were not possible to evaluate, including 23 currently open

projects, 24 projects where evaluations are not required (e.g., Xmas funds, School Food), and 26 projects that did

not have sufficient documents to review.6 Additionally, 30 projects were partially or fully decommissioned, 16

projects were not approved,7 and 17 projects were repeat entrees or connected to existing entrees. Complete sets

of files for the remaining 12 projects were located after the review was completed, and therefore could not be

included. In addition, data was examined for 699 education grants and 978 travel grants. Due to the large

volumes of education and travel grants, an analysis of grant documents was not included in the review.

5 To complete the document review of the 221 projects, three additional Associate Fellows were brought onboard by the Centre for Social Innovation & Impact Investing. 6 In September 2009, GTS made modifications of their reporting requirements and introduced an evaluation form, which took time to establish. Prior to this, project completions were reported through variations of email exchanges, photos, videos, etc. As a result, twelve 2009 and 2010 projects were difficult to include in the review. Additionally, three Haida Parity initiatives that supported debt repayments did not have standard applications and evaluations completed, therefore outcomes could not be measured and these initiatives could not be included in the review. 7 The 16 projects indicated as not approved does not represent the total number declined over the time period. The total number of declined projects was not covered in this review.


2.4 LIMITATIONS IN METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION Social and Economic Baseline Data: As findings were derived from a range of sources produced over various

time periods, it is noted that there are constraints to the analysis and comparison of the data. Constraints include

missing data, ageing of the data, collection from different time periods, arbitrary boundaries and catchment areas,

problems of weighted indicators, and categorizing and grouping of the data. These all pose limitations on the use

of the information, however the overall purpose of the collection is to provide a general picture using the most

current available information possible.

Community Feedback: Efforts were made to include participants as best as possible to be representative of

Haida Gwaii’s diverse communities, stakeholders and services provided. Constraints experienced included

unavailable or uninterested invitees as well as challenges with the distribution of the survey (i.e., limitations and

access to Facebook and webpages and adequate resources to distribute posters in the communities). Therefore,

the results do not claim to be a complete view of the Island Community, but rather present a selection of views to

assist Gwaii Trust as they go forward. Additional factors that likely contributed to the low turnout to community

input sessions include competing with a popular Band Council event in Skidegate, a power outage in Port

Clements, and limited use of online advertisement (i.e., Facebook or Council websites).

Impact Assessment of GTS Investments: Although changes were made in the application and evaluation forms

over the 2009 to 2014 time period, best efforts were made to extract common information shared across all

documents. As data collected was only from applications, evaluations and final reports, it is restricted to the self-

reported information by the project recipients.

3.0 HAIDA GWAII SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BASELINE As part of the five-year-review, the GTS board stressed the importance of understanding the current social and

economic conditions in Haida Gwaii and the communities it supports. Socio-economic baseline information is

provided in Appendix B to help GTS continually monitor the external environment, and be better prepared to plan

and assess impacts for the future. It includes information on demographics, education, economic hardships,

crime, health, children and youth, and the labour market.

The main sources of information for the baseline include (but are not limited to):

• BC Stats including Haida Gwaii’s Socio-Economic Profile

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/SocialStatistics/SocioEconomicProfilesIndices.aspx

• Census 2006 and 2011: Statistics Canada

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E

• BC Ministry of Education, BC Ministry of Health, Ministry of Social Development, and Ministry of Child &

Family Development


4.0 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK FINDINGS As part of the community feedback, 38 participants engaged in face-to-face and phone interviews, representing

27 key stakeholder and service providers in Haida Gwaii (Figure 2). Seventy-two invitations to participate were

sent through email or phone messages, however not all invitees were available or willing to participate, and

results only reflect those interviewed. The format of the interview process was an open dialogue with the aim to

collect feedback and recommendations on three key issues: participants’ understanding of Gwaii Trust’s mandate,

impacts being made in the communities, and whether the impacts align with the community needs (relevance).

Although questions focused on these three topics, other themes emerged during open-ended dialogue and are

included in the summary below. A copy of the interview guideline is included in Appendix C, with a list of

participants in Appendix D.

Figure 2. Interviewed Stakeholders & Service Providers

PARTICIPATING STAKEHOLDERS & SERVICE PROVIDERS 1. Board of Education District 50 15. Haida Gwaii Art Council 2. Community Futures 16. Haida Gwaii Regional Rec Commission 3. Council of Haida Nation (CHN) 17. Haida Heritage Centre & Museum 4. Council & Mayor: Village of Masset* 18. Hecate Straight Employment Society 5. Council & Mayor: Village of Queen Charlotte* 19. Hecate Energy Institute 6. Council: Old Masset Village Council 20. Literacy Haida Gwaii 7. Council: Port Clements 21. Masset Business Owner 8. Government: Fisheries & Oceans Canada (DFO) 22. Port Clements Fire Department 9. Government: Islands Wellness Society: Resources for Families 23. Regional District Area D 10. Graham Island East Coast Farmers Institute 24. Sandspit Business Owner 11. GTS Arts Committee 25. Sandspit Former Regional Director 12. Gwaalagaa Naay Corporation 26. Sandspit School District (former) 13. Haida Child & Family Services 27. Tlell Edge of the World Music Festival 14. Haida Enterprise Corporation (HaiCo)

* Interviews were held as a group meeting with each of the two councils.

The four community-input sessions were poorly attended. Only 18 community members from across Haida Gwaii

participated. As a result, discussions became similar to the face-to-face interviews and mirrored the interview

guideline. Due to the small-group nature of the sessions, the views shared are included in this summary. Findings

are presented as a summary of key perspectives shared, and should not be considered conclusions. The

feedback shared was considered and incorporated into subsequent recommendations in the report.

Interview feedback has been grouped into the following Gwaii Trust Society topics:

1. Gwaii Trust Mandate 2. Gwaii Trust Impacts 3. Program and Sector Challenges, Recommendations and Unmet Needs 4. Communication 5. Operations and Processes 6. Board and Staff 7. Strategic Needs and Gaps 8. Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust


4.1 GWAII TRUST MANDATE Participants were asked to share their understanding of the GTS’s current vision and mandate, for the purpose of

getting a sense of the stakeholder’s awareness of their ‘raison d'être.’ Results show that the overall perception of

the Gwaii Trust’s role is generally balanced and mirrored qualities of GTS’s actual mandate. Over twenty-five

percent of participants referenced the origins of the Trust in relation to the economic offset from the creation of

Gwaii Haanas Park. The majority of stakeholders made reference to one or more key GTS objectives including

improving the well-being of the community, stimulating the economy, supporting environmental, cultural and

economic health, and improving all island infrastructure.

In looking ahead, the community recommends that GTS be a leader and agent of change, identifying and

addressing gaps and helping the community design solutions. Stakeholders state that GTS could also play an

advocacy and lobbying role (i.e., to the province and federal governments in supporting services gaps).

Regarding their role in economic development, the general consensus from stakeholders is that GTS should

support economic development and stimulate economy, but not necessarily be solely an economic development

agent. Participants recognize the importance of balancing economic and social sustainability.

4.2 GWAII TRUST IMPACTS To get a sense of whether GTS has been living up to its intended mandate, participants were asked to identify

impacts and changes seen in the Island Community resulting from GTS investments over the past five years.

In response to the question “Have they seen community or systemic changes

as a result of the Trust?” overall participant indicated that they recognize the

Gwaii Trust in increasing island-wide initiatives, resulting in the islands and

communities being more integrated and less polarized. The GTS is seen as a

model of islands governance, including its representative Haida Nation and

Civil consensus board.

Although some outcomes were identified, the most frequent response to the

question about impacts is a comment acknowledging appreciation for a

specifically identified set of GTS-funded projects and programs. A summary of

responses grouped into GTS programs is found in Figure 3. Programs are organized in order of the number of

times they were mentioned and emphasized during open-ended dialogue.

“TWENTY YEARS AGO

THE COMMUNITIES

BARELY SPOKE, BUT

NOW IT HAS COME A

LONG WAY; THE TRUST

IS A LARGE PART OF

THIS.”

- Interview Participant


Figure 3. GTS Program Impacts8,9

GTS PROGRAM IMPACTS

Major Contribution (includes Infrastructure): GTS support for community infrastructure was mentioned the most in response to questions about impacts made on the islands. Participants recognize that GTS does this well and it hugely benefits the islands. Examples provided from communities include benefits to fire departments, water treatment, buildings (community halls, church, fire hall, visitor centre, Haida Centre Museum), community spaces (tennis courts, playgrounds, farmers market) and large infrastructure projects (barge facility, airport terminal, water and sewer mains, and Gwaii Tel). (89%)

Education: Participant feedback showed this as one of the most appreciated programs of the GTS. People recognize it is making a difference to the community, be it through high school bursaries, secondary education or continuing education support. GTS support for local schools allows the communities to operate extracurricular activities (e.g., sporting events, outdoor education camps) and travel (e.g., visit universities, sport team travel); exposure to these opportunities would not happen without the Trust’s support. A positive spin off is the number of students who have chosen to return to Haida Gwaii after completing their scholarship-funded education (e.g., 5 nurses at QCC Hospital and a local massage therapist). (84%)

Youth: Participants show great recognition and appreciation of the GTS initiative in supporting youth. The community acknowledges there is an increase of youth-focused activities and collaboration between youth on the islands due to GTS support (e.g., Haida Gwaii Youth Symposium). The community sees the Gwaii Trust Youth Board as a significant achievement for its role helping youth understand governance, engaging in the community, and supporting those wanting to go into politics or administration. One respondent noted, “This is the only time I’ve seen 13-18 year olds come together on the islands!” (39%)

Arts: The Arts Committee is well recognized by participants for its balance of board, staff and community involvement and is viewed as successful, committed and passionate. The committee is seen as effective in seeding the community for proposals as well as working through processes with applicants. Recognized art-based outcomes include the value of music and art contributed in the community, and the real and immediate impacts on local artists’ ability to have meaningful work and pursue their passions as well as its impact on a personal level. (39%)

Community Events / Xmas: Participants recognize GTS’s contributions to various events including Logger Sport Days, community hall events, senior’s dinners, Xmas funds, Fall Fair and Edge of the World Music Festival. One participant noted that the community would not be doing these events if it weren’t for the support of GTS. (29%)

Travel Assistance: Participants express the need for the travel subsidy (due to increased travel costs and inability to afford to travel) and recognize the impacts the travel grants have in the community. Participants also express appreciation for the straight forward accounting and reporting of the travel grants. (18%)

4.3 CHALLENGES, RECOMMENDATIONS AND UNMET NEEDS Participants were asked whether they felt that the GTS mandate and impacts are relevant to the Island

Community and whether they are aligned with community needs. Additionally they were asked to identify any

unmet needs in the community that GTS should consider supporting. Participants agreed that GTS’s overall

initiatives are relevant to community needs, and expressed overall appreciation. Participants did not mention any

programs or projects that do not align with community needs. However, participants were very open to discussing

the many community challenges and unmet needs that remain, and made recommendations for GTS to consider.

A summary of responses is found in Figures 4 and 5, grouped by GTS programs and industry sectors. It is

important to note that feedback received is from the perspective of the community and stakeholders. Their

comments may not be reflective of GTS’s actual events or practices. These misconstrued events and practices

8 The percentages indicated in Figure 3 represent the estimated percentage of participants who brought up the program in discussion without prompting. This by no means indicates that the remaining percentage of participants do not share the views; only that it was not discussed. 9 The Haida Language, Food Security, Special Initiatives and Healthy Humans programs were all given general recognition and appreciation. Due to only a 3-5% representation, they are not included in the table.


offer valuable insight for GTS to consider as they develop their strategic plans going forward. Footnotes have

been included to provide some clarity provided by the GTS Executive Director of possible misconceptions.

The island-wide recommendations made by stakeholders for GTS to consider include (1) building financial and

human capacity on islands (rather then relying on imported capacity), (2) introducing a request for proposal

process to address the holes that have been identified, (3) coordinating a social development forum (island-wide),

and (4) focusing on attracting families with children.

Figure 4. GTS Programs: Challenges, Recommendations and Unmet Needs10,11

GTS PROGRAM CHALLENGES, RECOMMENDATIONS AND UNMET NEEDS

Arts: (45%) Challenges:

• Funds from other groups are being reduced in the arts (i.e., BC Arts Council, Canada Council) • The Haida Heritage Centre and Museum is currently challenged to operate (other museums are subsidized) ! The core funding of the museum by GTS ($20k/year) has been removed12

Arts Committee Recommendations: ! Improve the announcement of the Arts AGM13 • Provide grant-writing workshops for Artists to help them write bios and market themselves in communities

Unmet needs: ! Local artist support and not just off-islanders (e.g., local musicians are also currently not covered by other

funders)14 ! Artists year-round support (including off-season/winter)15 • On-island art workshops and visiting artists support (continued support) • Museum operating support (Haida Heritage Centre & Museum, and Port Clements and Masset Museums) • Public art (continued support) • Village of Queen Charlotte totem pole for the hospital

Education: (34%) Challenge: The timing of GTS payments after the course is completed can be problematic for some. Unmet needs:

• Literacy funding support (continued support and need)16 • Business administration skills development support • Development and operational training support ! Non-accredited programs support17 • Full programs or practicums support (e.g., 2-year pharmaceutical practicums, or if I was a welder who wanted to

take a course and come back to Haida Gwaii to work, I am unable to get funding) • Fully funded student loans support (To address the challenges of students not returning to Haida Gwaii, the

recommendation is to include requirement to come back and contribute for 5 years; this is a successful model used in the North, where if students complete the 5 years, the loan is forgiven)

10 A response with an explanation mark (!) indicates a possible misinterpretation of actual events or GTS practices. 11 The percentages indicated in Figure 4 represent the estimated percentage of participants who brought up a challenge, recommendation or unmet need in that program without prompting. This by no means indicates that the remaining percentage of participants do not share the views; only that it was not discussed. 12 The GTS Executive Director explained GTS has never provided core-funding for the museum, however it has supported construction, programming and refurbishing over a number of years. 13 The Arts Committee is a GTS committee that provides recommendations to the Board for their consideration; the committee does not host it’s own AGM. There is one AGM per year held by the GTS board on the first Saturday in April. 14 GTS does not support off-island artists, however a request to bring in an off island individual to instruct a group of artists is considered. GTS support musicians if and when they apply based on the merit and need of the application. 15 The Arts Committee has recently moved to “Open” allocation calls, which means artists can apply at any time during the year. 16 GTS granted the literacy agency on the island start up core funding for five years. 17 GTS currently supports non-accredited programs.


GTS PROGRAM CHALLENGES, RECOMMENDATIONS AND UNMET NEEDS

Youth: (29%) Youth Board Recommendations:

• Ensure youth are trained around budgeting and financial literacy • Create initiative to bring old youth leaders back to mentor young new leaders • Include former youth board members in upcoming reviews (how have they been impacted?) • Increase mentorship/directorship for the youth board (involve leadership from other GTS directors or other people

experienced with funding bodies; include one in the North and one in South; mentor about GTS history, GTS mandate and on-island applications)

Unmet needs: • Out-of-school and suspended youth support • 18-19 year olds out of foster care support (Most programs are for women, and youth support is only for up to 17

years old. Additionally, there is no group home or place where kids could go while in transition, they are automatically homeless)

• Camp programs support (continued support and need)18 ! Teen Centre support19 ! Sandspit youth programs and support for participation in Island-wide basketball and sports20

Food Security (former program): (29%) Challenges:

• This program was not utilized as there were few greenhouses and the remaining food was sent to the food bank. • A number of farmers would have applied, however they were restricted because they farm as a business.

Unmet needs: • Food bank support (the food bank is inundated with people, and need for infrastructure support is growing)21 • Local food production support (building capacity, skills development, training in preserving) • Long-term food production (food production is a slow process to build, there is need for long term support)

Major Contribution (including Infrastructure): (21%) Challenges:

• The challenge of moving away from 100% funding for infrastructure really impacts rural areas (50/50 difficult). • Area D (with 5 different representatives) is unincorporated and difficult to split into infrastructure allocations.

Recommendation: • Support is better utilized in existing buildings (renovations, add-ons) rather than creation of new buildings, as

additional infrastructure is hard to maintain.22 Unmet needs:

• An island-wide community pool (this will bring social impact to the islands, with families more likely to come/stay; a solution for the needed tax base for pool maintenance is to host regional tournaments)

• Village of Queen Charlotte sewage and water treatment system • Sandspit tennis court repair and school reconstruction (recognizing there are concerns if it is forced to close)

Community Events / X-mas: (8%) Challenge:

• Loss of industry support in this area brings greater appreciation to GTS support (i.e., MacMillan Bloedel used to give grants and fishing lodges used to provide support. This funding is no longer forthcoming as lodges are smaller and regular small business that used to donate $200 per year have tighter budgets)

18 Camp programs have been supported since GTS inception. Through advocating collaboration, a collective application from all (3) camps is has been received in each of the last five years. 19 GTS supported the build and refurbishing of both island youth centres, and has funded the directors operating salary when needed. 20 Youth and sporting team initiatives are strongly supported by GTS, with funding up to $4,000 per sport team per trip for an unlimited amount of trips per year, both on and off island. 21 The GTS food security program was closed out due to lack of participation. In the past, GTS was required to decommission some previous food project applications, and they were advised after searching out applicants that that everything was covered and all was fine. 22 Haida Gwaii’s extreme weather conditions also deteriorate buildings at a faster rate than other climates, and the cost to build, renovate and maintain buildings are higher. In supporting existing infrastructure, expert and technical views must also be taken into consideration.


Figure 5. Sectors: Challenges, Recommendations and Unmet Needs23

SECTOR CHALLENGES, RECOMMENDATIONS AND UNMET NEEDS

Small Business: (61%) Challenges:

• There are challenges with paying back Community Futures with high interest rates, upwards of 9%. Some people have negative experiences with their service and feel the process is overly complicated.

• The credit union is not so supportive these days. Recommendations:

• Use Community Futures as technical expertise from community perspectives to help evaluate GTS projects from an economic perspective (i.e., is it reasonable? Are proper social indicators used? Can the project bring cash return? Are there accountability features?)

• Provide entrepreneurial drivers (encouragement for self-employment) Unmet needs:

• Small business and entrepreneur support (e.g., loans and micro financing, not grants OR make a small business incubator with some of the funds)

• Island wide economic development initiatives support (e.g., through groups like ‘Love Haida Gwaii’ tradeshows, websites/marketing for islands business, support to buy local)

Transport (47%) Challenges:

• Sandspit is cut-off from the rest of the islands due to reliance on the ferry service • Island-wide challenges with cut ferry services and increased costs • Flight challenges with reduced schedule (1 flight a day at 2pm) and timing not supportive of working hours • Difficulty in finding accommodation open in Sandspit if the plane is late • The size of Masset’s runway is too small

Unmet needs: • Transportation Investments (e.g., take ownership in transportation companies like the Air North investments that

helped create linkages). This could bring huge economic benefits. • Local transportation service support (e.g., buses including across to Rupert, local run ferry & water taxi service) • Transportation negotiations and feasibility study support • Transportation subsides (e.g., subsidize planes to Rupert)

Energy & Technology: (37%) Challenges:

• Reliance on BC Hydro to subsidize cost of fuel is a hindrance. • There is no cell coverage in Port Clements; this has a large impact on businesses, as it’s difficult to do business

long distance without reliable islands-wide Internet. Unmet needs:

• Fiber Optic Cable Initiative (Increases remote job opportunities and is a Gwaii Tel ‘on-islands’ investment).24 • Cell system infrastructure improvements (If telecommunications were better, this would increase long distance job

opportunities and have an island-wide impact). • Windmill Technology

Health & Community Services: (32%) Challenges:

• There is a gap between what the government provides and the needs. There are not enough mental health workers for the islands’ need (resulting in a huge waitlist).

• Youth & men’s mental health does not fall into current mandates of social services for funding. • There is a challenge with people lacking life skills.

Unmet needs: • Mental health & addictions support (i.e., Youth & Men) • Support for professional development and stages for wellness (i.e., for those lacking life skills) • Health and Wellness initiatives (addressing suffering due to residential schools) • Social services / Social justice funding (for employees to tap into) • Bring in workshop trainings in Mental Health

23 The percentages indicated in Figure 5 represent the estimated percentage of participants who brought up a challenge, recommendation or unmet need in that sector without prompting. This by no means indicates that the remaining percentage of participant do not share the views; only that it was not discussed. 24 GTS has recently commissioned a study to explore the cost of providing a “Vancouver” Internet experience to Haida Gwaii.


SECTOR CHALLENGES, RECOMMENDATIONS AND UNMET NEEDS

Tourism: (24%) Challenges:

• The tourism window is shrinking (now 2nd week July to September; only 17 weeks) • Tourism isn’t as big a driver as it was anticipated (not a big money maker). • The tourism industry is reliant on ferries and flights to bring the tourists (re: transport challenges) • Sandspit’s population rises in the summer by about 100 people (with guides and fishing lodges), however it’s hard

to extend the season because of the expense of visiting and the weather. Unmet needs:

• Islands wide Cultural & Tourism Strategy • Tourism marketing initiatives support (e.g., similar to advertisement going to the Yukon in February that are

supported by the territorial government). • Accommodation initiatives

Fish & Marine Economy: (18%) Challenges:

• There are only 2-3 fish plants on the island. • Industry is mostly aimed at sport fishers but the season is very short. • There are very few people who own boats now (the percentage of residents who make an income is very minimal

now) Unmet needs:

• Island wide Fishing Licenses to support smaller fishermen • Sandspit regeneration of fish (hatcheries)

Forestry: (16%) Challenges:

• About 55% of the islands is protected (not much control) • Most of forestry workers are gone now (transition started ~12 years ago) • The helicopter land was inoperable since it had been creamed off and now cedar cuts are limited • Secondary processing on the island difficult (not enough energy or infrastructure) • The movement away from true TFL’s and taking the schedule B lands out of the formula is an impact that is still

going to be felt. Unmet needs:

• Island wide Forestry Licenses to support smaller foresters • Training support (recognizing if there are no companies, you’ll lose them)

Government & Management: (5%) Challenge:

• The federal cut backs on postal service is a challenge to the communities. Recommendation:

• Could lobby the government to help build the tax base to support business (i.e., lodges pay more for water than private houses)

4.4 COMMUNICATION Gwaii Trust Society’s communication was one of the most prevalent issues and concerns brought up by

participants. Key issues and perspectives expressed are summarized below.

Community Engagement and Transparency: The need for GTS improvement in this area is one of the top

communication issues discussed with stakeholders. Two ideas shared include GTS hosting open meetings for

transparency and involving public input and a collaborative process in GTS strategic planning. Participants also

recognize that community support is difficult to track, as often the same faces come out to public meetings. (29%)


Communication Methods: Participants recognize the current methods of GTS communication to be the website,

messages in the Observer newspaper, hardcopies of newsletters, the AGM as well as word of mouth.

Participants’ express there is room for improvement in this area and provide the following examples: (29%)

• Improve GTS website: keep up-to date information and include email list for key GTS news

• Use social media: e.g., Facebook or Twitter (to reach out to the younger generation)

• Increase of community presence: e.g., have a GTS booth at the Fall Fair

• Use of others communication methods: Radio, Haida Gwaii Buy Trader, and pamphlets showcasing

projects

GTS Role and Program Messaging: The need for GTS to improve in messaging also was strongly shared with

respondents. Councils in particular voice concern that messages are not being delivered by the GTS board or the

youth board. They are not kept up-to-date on GTS key news, and information they receive is often based on their

community board member’s personality rather than GTS formal communication channels. Some participants felt

the public is disconnected and unaware of what GTS is currently doing, and need more support to understand

their current programs. (24%)

Communicating GTS Processes: Stakeholders and the community request more clarity with GTS processes.

Specific processes mentioned include: (24%)

• Project decision-making process (include ranking/criteria for decisions as well as levels of flexibility)

• Program changes (include when, why and how programs and program eligibility are changed)

• Board Processes (include how and when the alternate directors are to be used, and the process of how

directors and alternates are selected and appointed, i.e., is there any criteria?)25

Sharing of Documents: There is a desire by participants for GTS to improve on document sharing and access.

Example files to share include GTS Strategic Plans, online newsletters, a complete list of GTS meeting minutes

and financial accounting information for the public to understand how GTS invests and spends their funds. (11%)

Funded Project Awareness: It was noted that recognition of GTS-projects is a challenge, particularly as smaller

projects have little public visibility. Interview participants recommend creating more awareness, i.e., by publishing

projects, which could build recognition and reduce false assumptions or rumors. (8%)

4.5 OPERATIONS AND PROCESSES Application Process: The application process was the most discussed process recommended for improvement;

with a large number of participants stating they felt the process was confusing, complicated, and cumbersome.

(37%) Concerns expressed include: 25 Note that some information regarding board processes can be found within GTS documents (i.e., the GTS bylaws), however participant feedback demonstrates the desire to know or understand the process.


• Lobbying of GTS representatives: the view is this must be done to get buy-in for a successful proposal; it

is seen as unorthodox and political, and a disadvantage for some (32%)

• Application deadlines: these are viewed as too close to the board meeting date. Participants request

greater encouragement and support, and to have a soft deadline a week before the hard deadline.

Another idea expressed was to have a ‘submission of interest’ in advance to notify GTS and allow

preparation time. (24%)

• Capacity to write proposals: there are challenges with education and writing skill levels in the

communities. More formal support is needed, including regular grant writing workshops. Concerns were

also expressed with the shift to online applications and the system’s inability to save an application mid-

way through its completion. (23%)

• Letters of support: these are seen as repetitive and losing meaning and importance, albeit it is

recognized that letters can also bring groups together. (21%)

Decision-Making Process: Concerns with the decision-making process were apparent in the interviews and

were nearly as prevalent as concerns with the application process. Of particular note was the lack of direct

feedback from GTS on why projects are not funded. Participants expressed a desire to have GTS share feedback

on negative applications so that applicants can learn how to improve since the current lack of feedback deters

some from applying again. There were requests for more professional criteria and removal of subjectivity from the

decision-making process in order to provide fairness and transparency. (39%)

Financial/Tracking Process: A few participants noted the challenges with receipt requirements, stating the

process is often difficult and onerous. Others, particularly non-profits, expressed the need for liquidity and getting

reimbursed after costs are incurred is difficult. Tracking in-kind hours was also shared as a laborious task. (13%)

Internal Operations: A small number of participants expressed concern that GTS has difficulties following

through on ideas and decisions, such as the last five-year business plan. They would like to see more steps and

structures created and adhered to. Use of external reports (e.g., Labour Market) would also be advised. (13%)

4.6 BOARD AND STAFF Recognized Challenges: Participants recognized a number of internal board challenges, including:

• Board Structure: With a 2-year board term, it often takes at least a year to become familiar with the role.

This also builds challenges with retaining institutional memory. (11%)

• Community entitlement impression: Balancing expectations from the communities - once GTS starts to

provide funding, it’s difficult to stop (e.g., Xmas fund). (11%)

• Transparency: Balancing communities’ expectations of transparency with board confidentiality. (3%)


Board Politics and Responsibilities: Concerns over politics, power and leadership were raised the most when

discussing the board. Views shared expressed concerns over the board playing games, lacking focus, showing

difficulties in organizing face-to-face meetings, being ill prepared for meetings (not reading proposals in advance),

and some representatives being disconnected to their communities. Two participants stated that the board is

focusing on understanding investment decisions and managing the money, and question whether this is the

board’s role. The perspective that GTS is eating up the fund with administration costs was also expressed. (45%)

Board Selection: The recommendation was made to have a board eligibility criterion, and base the positions on

skills and qualifications, thereby removing the politics. A strong individual, who has the commitment and time,

should fill the chair, which may give rise to seeking a professional chair. Regarding Graham Island Central seat,

opposing views were expressed with some believing Port Clements and Tlell should alternate (adhering to the

original intension), whereas others believe the best person should represent. (24%)

Board Term and Budgeting: Participants recognize that GTS board terms are aligned with the Haida Nation

electoral timelines, however they present a challenge to civic council members who are elected in November

(who then must wait until April to first sit on the board).26 Councils also face difficulties, as the GTS year-end and

budgeting process timelines do not line up with municipal planning. (8%)

Board Training: Participants expressed the need for additional board training and support, acknowledging the

usefulness of previous board training workshops (including the budgeting and finance components). The intent for

training and board orientation is apparent (i.e., availability of a board manual), however it is important to ensure

board capacity is maintained, particularly with the 2-year term of board members. (16%)

Management and Staff: There are various viewpoints regarding the current leadership and Executive Director.

Opinions expressed ranged from confusion around the ED’s role, issues with a perceived ‘off-islander’ leading

GTS, to concerns of the lack of proactive follow-ups with the board. The alternate viewpoints recognize the

current ED is the right fit for the marketplace on the investment side, is approachable and supportive, and often

forced to make decisions beyond his responsibility. Regarding GTS staff, although capacity challenges are noted,

the level of responsiveness to questions is appreciated by the community. (21%)

4.7 STRATEGIC NEEDS AND GAPS Allocations to Communities:27 This was a reoccurring topic throughout the interviews, brought up in community

input sessions, stakeholder interviews and council discussions. Councils believe they are the best suited to target

their community’s needs and investments decisions from them would be more strategic and more visible. With

community allocations councils can remove some GTS funding decisions from the consensus board (e.g., fire 26 For the past 17 years civic leadership dates were given priority, which also risked the possibility of Haida representatives being on the GTS board that were not selected by their community. In 2013, GTS amended the year-end to accord Haida communities. With the new dates, civic elected official wait a few months to take their seats, which provides them opportunity to work with the current director before taking their seat. 27 GTS has committed four years of $250,000 to each community, for a total of $7m. Guidelines are currently being developed and the first funding tranche will be released in 2015.


departments, totem poles, emergency preparations), properly plan and leverage opportunities for the future, and

also could choose to pool funds and invest in island-wide initiatives. Councils also indicate the funds could match

GTS criteria and results be reported back. One challenge indicated with this would be how the funding would be

allocated and who will manage it in unincorporated communities like Sandspit. (34%)

On-Island Investment:28 Participants recommend that GTS invest on-island (in apprenticeships, local businesses

and industries), and consider both social and financial return in the investments. Methodologies to show social

return can also be developed. (29%)

Five-Year and Sustainable Program Funding: Participants recommend GTS support multi-year funding for

larger projects and youth programs, and require annual reporting and evaluations. This would allow organizations

to plan long-term and possibly leverage funds. (16%)

Technical support or peer-review in project decision-making: Participants recommend involving technical

experts in project decision-making who have education and experience in the field. Two approaches discussed

include (1) a process similar to the current GTS Arts Committee where a specific amount is allocated to the

committee to make decisions, and (2) with larger projects, have technical representatives work with applicants

and advise the board on project decisions. Participants anticipated benefits to be a reduction of political fighting

over the funding, an increase in the board’s focus on strategic directions, and opportunities for peer review of

projects. (16%)

Core and Operational Funding: Non-profits and other participants shared challenges they face with personnel

and internal capacity to deliver new projects, as well as difficulties attracting staff and management of the needed

caliber to make the leap forward to grow. Recommendations in this area beyond supporting core and operational

funding are for GTS to support island-wide coordinator positions and to consider a Foundation arm. (13%)

4.8 ATHLII GWAII LEGACY TRUST Although the Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust was not in the scope of this review, a few participants raised this in

discussion. Participants expressed that what was originally implemented did not align with the fund’s mandate to

support land-based environmentally sustainable projects. There is uncertainty in what the Athlii Gwaii Legacy

Trust will support in the future, however some participants are concerned it will lose its environmental focus. One

participant recommended the Trust should have a different mandate with different committee(s), whereas another

participant stated an economic driver would make sense for the fund. Additionally, it was requested for GTS to

bring back access to the digital data that was once provided by the Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust, as it was deemed a

great resource.29 (16%)

28 GTS Executive Director explains on-Island investment opportunities (up to 10% of GTS capital) have been publically available for at least 5 years. Stakeholder feedback indicates there may not be awareness or recognition of this in the community. 29 The digital data belonged to the South Moresby Forest Replacement Account (SMFRA) and then later held by Gwaii Forest Society (GFS), which was disbanded in 2012. GTS has some of the data, and is using resources to restore as much as possible.


5.0 COMMUNITY SURVEY FINDINGS As another component to community feedback, 106 community members completed a two-page opinion survey

with 88 online submissions and 18 in paper form. The survey was open to all communities and consisted of fifteen

questions focusing on the Gwaii Trust’s objectives and impacts, community satisfaction with services and areas

for GTS improvement. The survey form and list of online websites where it was posted are found in Appendices E

and F. Below is a summary of the compiled responses, with detailed survey results found in Appendix G.

Surveys were collected from all communities, with the greatest representation from Skidegate (26%) and Queen

Charlotte (21%). Masset had (17%) of the overall responses, followed by Port Clements (14%), Sandspit (8%),

Old Massett (6%), Tlell (4%) and Tow Hill (1%). Although survey respondents were from all age groups,

approximately 55% were between 45 and 64 years of age, 27% between 25 and 44 years, and 9-10% were below

24 and above 65 years. The majority of respondents (72%) were female.

5.1 OVERALL SATISFACTION Of the 106 total survey respondents, 81%

reported being satisfied or very satisfied with

GTS services.

Figure 6. Public Satisfaction with GTS

14%

67%

13%

6% Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Unsatisfied

Very Unsatisfied

Public satisfaction with GTS services

“I am very satisfied with the Gwaii Trust but yes it could be even better.”

“I am not unsatisfied but believe there is a lot of room for more innovative <initiatives>. The Trust needs to think more, take some risks and experiment. We are not going to climb out of this local economic climate with the same old thinking. I expect GTS to be a leader not a follower.”

“I am very happy to have the Gwaii Trust Society provide these services, but I am not always happy with the way that the office staff disburses the monies.”

“Thank you all for your service. The Gwaii Trust is a model for other communities to emulate. Keep up the good work!”

“We are very lucky to have the Gwaii Trust. It's hard to imagine where Haida Gwaii would be without it, I am very grateful to all those who have contributed to its success.”

- Various stakeholder participants


5.2 KEY OBJECTIVES Respondents were asked to identify what they thought is the most important objective of the GTS. As this was an

open-ended question, some of the respondents shared more than one objective. The top most important

objectives are identified below, along with the corresponding percentage of the 92 respondents who identified the

objectives in their comments. As shown, the community identified Islands well-being, economic development and

education as the top three priorities.

1. Well-being: To support and improve the well-being of Haida Gwaii’s residents and communities. (25%)

2. Economic Development: To provide economic support, promotion and stimulation. (27%)

3. Education: To support education needs for current students, post-secondary, adults and schools. (19%)

4. Business: To support small businesses and entrepreneurial development. (9%)

5. Culture: To support the development, activities and preservation of culture. (8%)

6. Youth: Support the development of youth. (5%)

7. Transport (support/subsidies), infrastructure, arts, and environmental initiatives. (4% each)

5.3 LARGEST IMPACTS The survey asked respondents to identify the largest impact they have seen as a result of support from GTS. As

this was also an open-ended question, some respondents shared more than one impact. Results below identify

the top impacts identified (including any specific examples given). The percentage of people who identified the

impact is given, out of the 89 people who provided responses.

1. Youth: Examples include teen centres, youth assemblies, the youth board, basketball and sport team

support, outdoors education, as well as kids and youth exchange programs. (26%)

2. Infrastructure: Examples include the Haida Heritage Centre, Port Clements multipurpose building, Tlell

fire hall, Sandspit water system, CHN Government building, playgrounds as well as council and band

infrastructure support. (17%)

3. Travel Assistance: Examples include travel for school and sport teams, university tours and dancing

groups. (14%)

4. Arts, business support (including small business), community events (including Christmas support) and

social programing. (6% each)

5.4 GTS PROJECT IMPORTANCE All 106 respondents were asked to identify the level of importance previous GTS-funded projects have had in the

Islands Community. A selection of projects was given representing various programs and implementing groups

and communities. Results show education, school-food, travel and youth-focused projects are viewed as the most

important.


Figure 7. GTS Project Importance30

5.5 MEETING OF GTS OBJECTIVES Respondents were asked to select how strongly they agree or disagree with how GTS is meeting some of their

key objectives. Results are shown in the table below. Between 77% and 80% of the community agree that GTS

successfully promotes the well being of the community, its education, artistic expression and cultural and

economic health. However, only 55% of questionnaire respondents agree that GTS successfully promotes the

concept of the Islands as ‘one’ community.31

Figure 8. Meeting of GTS Objectives

30 This list of GTS-funded projects is re-ordered to show the most important at the top. The original order can be found in Appendix G. 31 There was greater support of this objective shown during open interviews, with an overall recognition that increasing GTS island-wide initiatives are resulting in more integrated and less polarized islands and communities (Section 4.2). Although the level of recognition differs between the two methods of collecting feedback, both demonstrate the majority agree.

3

5

17

9

18

9

19

16

33

23

39

42

45

57

48

63

72

74

22

33

27

36

34

45

35

41

28

42

39

37

37

26

37

26

24

23

44

40

49

36

35

35

40

36

28

25

19

20

19

17

15

14

8

8

25

17

7

21

14

11

9

9

1

10

4

5

2

5

3

1

2

0

10

8

5

1

4

4

2

2

14

3

2

2

2

0

4

1

0

0

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Skidegate Felt Making Workshop Haida Gwaii Film Festival

Port Clements Barge Facility Masset Airport Parking Lot

Edge of the World Music Festival Tlell Farmers Market

Sandspit Tot Park Masset Northwest Drive Road & Sewer Extension

Haida Salmon Restoration Project Fitness Center Expansion

High School Job Readiness Project Village of Queen Charlotte Teen Centre

Skidegate Youth Center Travel Assistance

Haida Gwaii Youth Assembly School Food Program

Post Secondary Education Grants Continuing Education Grants

Public measure of importance regarding previous GTS-funded projects

Very Important Important No Opinion Somewhat Unimportant Not Important At All

* 106 total responses

22

17

29

25

33

32

46

48

54

47

30

28

18

16

19

17

10

10

8

4

4

4

0

2

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

The concept of the Islands as ‘one’ Community

The Island’s spirit of cooperation, cultural

Well-being of the Community

Cultural and economic health of the Community

Education and artistic expression in the Community

Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree

The Gwaii Trust Society successfully promotes:27 * 106 total responses


6.0 2009-2014 GTS INVESTMENTS FINDINGS As part of the review, GTS expressed the desire to get a better understanding of the impact from previously

funded projects and whether the projects have been fulfilling the Trust’s mandate. This phase focused on a

document review and analysis of 2009 to 2014 regular program projects, as well as an analysis of education and

travel grant data provided. A total of 221 GTS-funded projects, 699 education grants, and 978 travel grants were

included in the review. Below is a summary of the findings from the regular program project reviews (the 221

projects), followed by the education and travel grant summary. Additional results of the documentation review can

be found in Appendix H.

GTS has formal project application and evaluation forms that are required to be completed in order to receive full

project funds; sample templates of these can be found in Appendix I. Final reports are provided by recipients on a

voluntary basis and do not follow any formal format. It is important to note that data included in this review is not a

full summary of all projects completed, but only includes projects that GTS could provide completed application

and evaluation forms (or final reports if considered satisfactory). Although the review does not cover all projects, it

is likely the majority of projects are included and it is considered a representative selection.

6.1 PROJECTS - ALLOCATIONS Over the 2009 to 2014 time period, documents of 221 projects revealed a substantial portion of the projects had

smaller allocation amounts, with 55% (181) of all projects allocated $10,000 or less, and 74% under $20,000.32

Only 8% or (25) projects were above $100,000.

Figure 9. Project Funding Allocations, 2009-2014

32 The GTS Executive Director estimates GTS accords at least 90% of their time to projects less than 10K (and likely to projects less than 5K).

181

63

22 9 6 7 8 4 6 1

25

0

50

100

150

200

<10 10-<20 20-<30 30-<40 40-<50 50-<60 60-<70 70-<80 80-<90 90-<100 >100

Num

ber o

f Pro

ject

s

Allocated Funding (thousands of dollars)

Initial GTS Project Funding Allocations, 2009-2014


6.2 PROJECTS - LENGTHS Over the 2009 to 2014 time period, the majority of the projects planned to be less than 3 months in duration.33 A

total of 52% (114 projects) were planned for less than three months, 20% (44 projects) were planned between

three to six months, whereas only 8% (17 projects) were planned for longer than one year.

Figure 10. GTS Project Lengths, 2009 to 2014

6.3 PROJECTS - MEETING OF GTS OBJECTIVES For each project, applicants are asked to explain how they meet or address the constitutional goals and

objectives of the Gwaii Trust. As an open-ended question, responses vary, however the majority make reference

to one or more of the twelve GTS objectives and give a narrative as to how they intend to address them. Figure

11 indicates the percentage of projects during the 2009 to 2014 time period that intended to meet the specific

objectives. Note that some projects identified meeting more then one objective, therefore the total of all objectives

exceed one hundred percent. As evaluations do not require recipients to confirm whether the objectives were met

after project completion, this information only indicates the project intention of meeting GTS objectives.

33 The project duration was calculated as the difference between planned start and end dates indicated on the application form. The actual project duration was difficult to decipher due to various extensions and the dates not included on the evaluation forms.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

Num

ber o

f Pro

ject

s

<3m

3-<6m

6-<9m

9-<12m

>12m

Length of GTS Projects in Months (reported in applications)

*Ongoing projects are not included in the review, therefore there is a reduction of numbers in 2014

44% 51%

43% 53% 55%

68%

23% 20%

30% 19% 14%

12% 14% 17% 16%

6% 14% 4%

7% 6% 3%

16% 10% 8%

12% 6% 8% 6% 6% 8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Perc

enta

ge o

f Ann

ual P

roje

cts

<3m 3-<6m 6-<9m 9-<12m >12m

Lengths of GTS Projects in Months (reported in applications)


Figure 11. Projects Meeting GTS Objectives

1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9! 10! 11! 12!0%!

10%!

20%!

30%!

40%!

50%!

60%!

Gwaii Trust Objectives

Perc

enta

ge o

f Pro

ject

s

Rep

orte

d to

Mee

t Obj

ectiv

es

(wei

ghte

d by

pro

ject

allo

cate

d fu

nds)

Projects Meeting Gwaii Trust's Objectives (reported in applications)

GTS Goal & Objectives: To carry out activities beneficial to the Communities (collectively, the Community") of the archipelago of Haida Gwaii through:

1. Accepting funds from any donor, grantor or contributor

2. Assisting in promoting the cultural and economic health of the Community

3. Assisting in promoting the making of decisions by the community that affect the economy and culture of the Community

4. Assisting in developing strategies to promote the well-being of the Community

5. Fostering the spirit of cooperation, cultural understanding and trust by promoting the concept of the Islands as the Community

6. Stimulating employment in the Community through improvements in Islands infrastructure

7. Making the Community a better place to live through improvement of the Islands infrastructure and thereby making the Islands a more desirable place to visit and to do business

8. Assisting in the promotion of education and artistic expression in the Community

9. Providing for research into the land and marine ecosystems and archaeology of the Islands

10. Providing for conserving & sustaining the land and marine ecosystems and archaeological sites of the Islands

11. Providing for research into planning and implementation of strategies for a long- term sustainable economy for the Community

12. Providing, where appropriate, local municipal services in lieu of a municipality doing so


6.4 PROJECTS - REPORTED SOCIO-ECONOMIC OUTCOMES The diversity of GTS programs and projects affect islanders’ lives in multiple ways that go far beyond what can be

measured by the labour market and jobs created. As important as jobs are, there are other outcomes, such as the

impact of health, that are currently not well-understood or easy to measure. Figure 12 below identifies the more

prominent community outcomes that project recipients reported in their documents, weighted by project allocated

funds.

It is important to note that outcomes collected were extracted from applications, evaluation forms and any final

reports submitted by project recipients. This is self-reported information from the recipients that has not been

edited by GTS staff or board. Outcome reporting is currently not well integrated into the GTS application and

evaluation process, therefore the summary below includes both anticipated outcomes from predicted benefits to

the community (indicated in the applications) and reported outcomes extracted from end reports submitted. The

figure below illustrates the 2009 to 2014 project outcomes grouped into categories, with social, economic and

health and safety outcomes identified as the most prominent. This is followed by a list showing examples of the

most frequent outcomes reported in each of the categories.

Figure 12. Reported Project Outcomes, 2009-2014

SO

CIA

L

EC

ON

OM

IC

HE

ALT

H &

SA

FETY

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NTA

L

CU

LTU

RA

L

& A

RT

TOU

RIS

M

EDUC

ATIO

N

& CA

PACI

TY

BUIL

DING

OFF

-ISLA

ND

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Perc

enta

ge o

f Pro

ject

s

Project Reported Outcomes

Reported Project Outcomes of GTS Projects, 2009-2014

(wei

ghte

d by

pro

ject

allo

cate

d fu

nds)


GTS TOP-REPORTED OUTCOMES: Social (71% of projects)

• Increased Island collaboration and togetherness of communities (connections)

• Encouraged cooperation and teamwork between individuals, organizations, groups (fostering friendships

& relationships)

• Enhanced individuals self-esteem and self-confidence (purpose/sense of identity)

• Increased subsidized opportunities (for youth, disadvantaged, low income families, communities, etc)

Economic (61% of projects)

• Stimulated job opportunities & employment (recruitment & retention of staff)

• Increased support of local businesses

• Ensured services are up to date and in-line with industry standards

• Enhanced professional partnerships & collaboration (between communities, organizations, etc)

• Increased sharing of equipment & services with other organizations to enhance all-island capacity

• Increased opportunity of new products to the marketplace

!

Health and Safety (61% of projects)

• Promoted and increased safe physical activity and recreation opportunities

• Promoted and increased sense of mental and spiritual health and wellbeing

• Increased physical & emotional safety of individuals

• Reduced rates of chronic diseases (obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, etc)

Environmental (40% of projects)

• Increased knowledge and interest in land & marine ecosystems and archaeological sites

• Increased protection & conservation of the environment (environmental stewardship)

• Increased exposure and connection to land & marine ecosystems and archaeological sites

Cultural (32% of projects)

• Increased awareness and understanding of Haida Gwaii culture and traditional knowledge (general)

• Increased awareness and understanding of Haida Gwaii culture and traditional knowledge34 through:

− Artistic expression (e.g., basketry, music, art & dance) − Traditional customs & stories (e.g., canoeing, totem pole raising, cultural stories & values) − Expanded involvement of elders in the teaching of traditional knowledge. − Traditional food (e.g., harvesting, fishing & cooking)

• Increased exposure to other off-island cultures/communities & sharing of Haida Gwaii customs &

traditions

34 The vast majority of outcomes referenced Haida Nation specific culture and traditional knowledge, however this grouping also includes other island cultures and knowledge shared in the documents.


Tourism (28% of projects)

• Enhanced tourism experiences & attraction for locals and visitors

• Increased tourism facilities and infrastructure

Education and Capacity Building (25% of projects)

• Enhancement of education programs & curriculum

• Increased artistic skills

• Increased mentorship opportunities

• Increased physical & outdoor stewardship skills

• Increased problem-solving, decision-making & life skills

• Increased leadership & management skills (including work ethics, budgeting, etc)

• Increased technology skills (including IT)

External - Off-Island (3% of projects)

• Increased national and international exposure to traditional Haida culture, language and stories

• Strengthened off-island exposure to Haida Gwaii art and artists

• Built off-island tourism partnerships and increased off-islanders access to Haida Gwaii tourism

information

• Increased external exposure to Haida Gwaii news and issues (through various media)

6.5 PROJECTS - JOBS CREATED In the application, candidates were asked to report if jobs would be created in the construction and/or completion

of the project. In the evaluation form, recipients were required to report how many jobs were created in relation to

the project, as well as how many full and part-time jobs were created as a result of the completed project. As the

questions are ambiguous and were often misinterpreted, and various other types of jobs could be possible, the

review team broke the information further down as best as possible into full-time, seasonal full-time and part-time

jobs for both the duration of the project (e.g., youth hired to manage summer camps) as well as for jobs created or

supported after the project was completed.


Figure 13. Jobs Created (during and after project)

Figure 14. Total Jobs Created, 2009 to 2014

26 17 11 3

17 1

11 14

94

38

77

34

46 78

13

38

26

6

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Num

ber o

f Rep

orte

d Jo

bs C

reat

ed

Full-time Seasonal Full-time Part-time

Reported Jobs Created (for duration of project)

2 0

8

2 1

11

8

3 0

5

10

15

20

25

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Num

ber o

f Rep

orte

d Jo

bs C

reat

ed


Reported Jobs Created or Supported (after project completion)

85

110

131

87

128

49

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

Num

ber o

f Rep

orte

d Jo

bs

Total Number of Reported Jobs Created


List of all full-time and seasonal full-time jobs created after project completion:

• One full-time janitor position after 2011 renovation of the Skidegate Regional Administration Office (CHN)

• One apartment manager position after 2011 construction of a 12-unit apartment complex (OMVC)

• Seven temporary full-time youth positions stemming from the original 18 project-based positions for the 2013 Native Alive Youth Program (Old Massett Youth Program)

• One summer youth job at Haida Mapping after the 2013 Haida Gwaii Youth Assembly


6.6 PROJECTS – COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION After project completion, recipients were requested to report levels of participants use, on average, per month or

quarterly, with categories including recreation/fitness facilities, youth/teens, seniors, learning centres, regional

library, and other. As the question was ambiguous, there were various interpretations and responses, which made

it very difficult to decipher concrete results. The review team broke responses into two categories; participants

extracted on a per month basis (e.g., use of archery equipment) verses participants in trainings, camps or one-

time events. The results showed from the 221 2009-2014 reviewed projects, a total of 7,900 people (youth, teens,

students, teachers, artist, etc.) were reported to have participated in the projects themselves, and an additional

average of 2,100 participants per month use facilities supported by the Trust over these years.

6.7 PROJECTS – ON TIME, WITHIN BUDGET After completion, evaluations forms requested recipients report if the project was kept within prospective budgets

and timelines. Responses indicated 90% of projects were within budget, and 76% were completed on time. The

responses are self-reported by project recipients at project completion and this data has not been verified by GTS

staff. Some of the 221 project recipients also chose not to respond to this question.

Figure 15. GTS 2009-2014 Projects reported On-time and Within Budget Reported Within Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2009-14 %

Yes 30 24 28 17 34 13 146 90% No 1 4 3 1 3 4 16 10%

Total Reported: 31 28 31 18 37 17 162 Reported on Time 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2009-14 %

Yes 23 20 22 15 31 14 125 76% No 9 8 9 4 6 3 39 24%

Total Reported: 32 28 31 19 37 17 164

6.8 EDUCATION AND TRAVEL GRANTS GTS provided an original list to the review team of 2009-2014 education and travel grants distributed up until

October 2nd 2014. The list contained a small number of grant reimbursements (i.e., for cancelled travel or courses

not taken) and internal program adjustments, which were removed from calculations by the review team as best

as possible. In total 1,677 grants were included in the review (699 education, 978 travel), and assumed by the

review team to be distributed over the 2009 to 2014 time period. Education grants consisted of 330 mature

student bursaries (MCB), 211 post secondary education (PSE) grants and 158 continuing education grants.35

GTS has not verified the list of 1,677 grants as the complete list; therefore numbers and dollars distributed may

vary to some extent from GTS reported figures. Figures below provide an overall summary of the grants.

35 The Continuing Education program was introduced in 2014 and combined the previous MSB and PSE grants.


Figure 16. Education and Travel Grants, 2009-2014 Allocations

The majority of travel grants are small, with 72% under $500, whereas the majority of education grants (61%) are

between $1,000 and $2,000.

Figure 17. Education and Travel Grants, Annual Distribution and Total Dollars Spent36,37

Over the 2009 to 2014 time period, GTS administered an average of approximately 115 education grants per year

at $1300, and 160 travel grants per year averaging $620 each. 36 Data includes education and travel grants dispersed up to October 2nd 2014. Two shifts occurred in 2014, whereby GTS (1) passed a motion to increase education grant maximums from $1,500 to $3,000 per year per individual, and (2) increased the travel budget twice to accommodate a special All Native Basketball Tournament in Prince Rupert where the Haida had been awarded the opening ceremonies. The event held great importance to the community and the increase allowed for a greater uptake and participation. 37 GTS shifted their year-end in 2012; therefore graphed data represents a four-month period for that year.

49

158

425

27 40 0

709

59 93 97

8 12

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

<500 500-<1,000 1,000-<2,000 2,000-<3,000 3,000-<4,000 4,000+

Num

ber o

f Gra

nts

Allocated Dollars

Education and Travel Grants, 2009-2014 Allocations

Education

Travel

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Num

ber o

f Gra

nts

Dis

tribu

ted

Education and Travel Grants Number of Grants Distributed

Education

Travel

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Education and Travel Grants Total Dollars Spent

Education

Travel


Figure 18. Education and Travel Grants, 2009-2014 Numbers and Dollars Distributed

Mature Student Bursary 330 20%

Post Secondary Education

211 13%

Continuing Education Grant 158 9%

Travel Assistance 978 58%

Education & Travel Grants, 2009-2014 (number of grants)

Mature Student Bursary

$340,498 23%

Post Secondary Education $319,250

21% Continuing Education

Grant $248,152

16%

Travel Assistance $607,934

40%

Education & Travel Grants, 2009-2014 (dollars spent)


7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The GTS board and staff have asked for recommendations by the independent review team as they prepare for

their next five-year strategic plan. This section contains these recommendations that are the result of research,

analysis and identified best practices from other similar organizations. Such a task is necessarily subjective

however all attempts have been made to explain the rationale behind each recommendation.

Recommendation topics are grouped into the following seven areas:

1. Board Politics and Ethics

2. Internal Capacity and Governance

3. Public and Stakeholder Communication

4. Application Process and Requirements

5. Capturing Social and Economic Outcomes

6. Regulatory Mechanisms

7. Reoccurring Issues

Following this is a recommendations summary with a table (Figure 19), which for each recommendation,

highlights of proposed bodies that could take action, as well as the type of action or change likely required. It is up

to the GTS board and management to decide on appropriate leads, but these recommendations by the reviewers

can serve as a guideline.

7.1 BOARD POLITICS AND ETHICS

The GTS board of directors has the difficult task of working with competing

interests and expectations, and struggles with balancing transparency with

confidentiality38 and truthfulness with equitability and fair treatment. Politics

within the GTS board is currently obstructing the board’s abilities to view

potential projects objectively and be accountable to the islands as a whole. As

shared by current and past board members, there is pressure to fight for one’s

own communities creating a loyalty struggle between the GTS island-wide

mandate and individual community interests. With no clear decision-making

process or criteria, nor the involvement of technical advisors, this can result in

decisions made to appease individual communities at the expense of quality

projects and transparency, and feed further into the culture of separation.

38 See Section 4.6: Recognized Challenges.

“GWAII TRUST MUST

STOP BEING A

SOMEWHAT POLITICAL

ORGANIZATION AND

TAKE ON PROJECTS

THAT ENHANCE ISLAND

LIFE ACROSS THE

BOARD.”

- Survey Respondent


In community interviews, concerns over politics, power and leadership were raised the most when discussing the

board.39 Additionally, the public’s perception is that funding decisions are connected to how well applicants lobby

board members, rather than on the quality and merit of the projects themselves.40 The risk of these politics or

perceived politics is a loss of community confidence in the GTS board as well as a fair and equitable granting

system true to its mandate.

7.1.1 RECOMMENDATION - TECHNICAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN DECISION-MAKING Bring stronger accountability and technical expertise to the project analysis and decision-making process. This is

particularly relevant for large complex projects, and would create well-informed decisions, increase public’s

perception of fairness and reduce politics in the decision-making process. The review team recommends that

the GTS board, with guidance from an external party, work through and identify the most appropriate approach

considering size, length, type and complexity of projects, followed by the creation of a plan of action to implement.

There are many approaches to add this accountability;41 examples to consider are shared below.

• Mandate technical advisors into large complex projects: Advisors can support applicants and staff in

ensuring applications meet GTS criteria and be available to the board to advise and field any questions

when reviewing the project. Helpful experts could include (but not be limited to): business development

specialists, engineers, and industry experts. Consider sourcing advisors from the community, universities,

off-island organizations and consultancies, and/or volunteer-matching providers. Although liability would

need to be considered, this would help reduce the perceived community politics in the decision-making.

• Introduce Advisory or Grant Committee(s) made up of qualified, objective members to remove community

politics from the decision-making process, as well as enable the board to spend more time on strategic

initiatives. Committee(s) could be a mix of on island members (peer-reviewed) and external technical

expertise to assess quality and impacts of project applications. A successful example of this, with support

from the community, is the GTS Arts Committee that combines GTS board members with art specialists in

the community.42

• Formalize and implement the use of practitioners from the GTS 2010 Business Plan.43 The GTS board

has shown initiative to include experts of various fields as advisors to the board; however there is no

indication this has been mainstreamed in the analysis and decision-making process.

39 See Section 4.6: Board Politics and Responsibilities. 40 See Section 4.5: Application Process; Comments were also shared in the public survey’s written feedback. 41 See Section 4.7: Technical support. 42 See Section 4.2: Figure 3. GTS Program Impacts. 43 GTS 2010 Business Plan, Section 2.6 Outside Resources states, “Over the course of the next several years the Trust hopes to expand the diversity of expertise and opinion it receives through the placement of honorary Directorship. This concept places well-known practitioners within a particular field of endeavor as advisors to the Board. These advisors would have no voting authority but would bring an added dimension of expertise when needed to the Board.”


7.1.2 RECOMMENDATION – DECISION-MAKING GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA Create clear guiding principles and program criteria for project decision-making, including a project scoring

system. For every application deadline, there are likely more projects and funding requests than funds available.

Inevitably projects compete for funding, decisions must be made, and projects will be declined and disappoint

applicants. Currently there is a lot of frustration within the community and stakeholders with unclear criteria, the

perceived decision-making process and the lack of clarity on why projects are declined.44 No changes will avoid

disappointment from declined applicants, however with a clearer review process and well-defined guidelines and

criteria (for decision-makers and the public), it will build a stronger structure for decision-makers, reduce politics in

the process and build clarity and transparency in the publics’ eye. The review team recommends the GTS

board, with guidance from external parties, develop and clearly structure their decision-making process. This

should include defining who will be providing technical accountability to the team,45 as well as developing

overarching guidelines and project criteria used to assess the quality and viability of projects and help guide

decision-making discussions. The weighting of each criterion should also be considered. A review of other Trust

and Foundations approaches to guidelines and criteria,46 including scoring systems, is recommended in the

creation of these stronger guidelines and criteria. The review team recommends GTS introduce a scoring

system, which can still provide flexibility in the decision-making whilst delivering transparency and feedback to

unsuccessful project applicants in areas of improvement and ranking position to other projects. Example project

criteria to consider could be demonstration of impact and significance (i.e., economic, social, cultural, educational,

environmental, etc.), geography and outreach, regional cooperation, managerial and fiscal competence, technical

vigilance, application completeness, and/or funding availability (nature and extent of public and private funds

available to support the project).

7.2 INTERNAL CAPACITY AND GOVERNANCE An engaged, committed board, skilled in governance and guided by a unified vision, is perhaps the greatest asset

of a non-profit organization. The GTS barriers with internal capacity and commitment are currently impeding the

board’s ability for good governance, strategic decision-making as well as action and continuity of decisions. With

a two-year board term embedded in GTS by-laws, challenges of continuity, retention of institutional memory, as

well as honouring previous commitments are prevalent.47 Past and present board members explain it often takes

over a year to become familiar with the role, and even today some feel there are members who don’t fully

understand their role.48 The GTS 2010 Business Plan highlights that board members can be overwhelmed with

the volumes of learning materials. The amounts of electronic communications and projects in need of their

44 See Section 4.5: Decision-Making Process; Comments were also shared in the public survey’s written feedback. 45 See Recommendation 7.1.1: Technical Accountability in Decision-Making. 46 Sample guidelines and criteria recommended to review include the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust’s application guidelines (http://www.sidit-bc.ca/documents/GrantApplicationGuidelines.pdf) and the Coast Sustainability Trust’s guiding principles (http://coast sustainabilitytrust.com/Forms/CST_Community_Matching_Fund_Guidelines.pdf). 47 GTS 2010 Business Plan identified multiple action items that have yet to be implemented. 48 See Section 4.6: Recognized Challenges; Comments were also received in informal discussions with current and past board members.


attention can also challenge those unfamiliar with corporate office equipment and procedures.49 With the GTS

recent initiative towards online project application and tracking, this will soon be a much larger challenge for

some. Regular board meetings and attendance is also critical to the success of an organization. The GTS board’s

inability to hold regular or monthly board meetings impedes the society’s capacity to be productive, and reflects

poor levels of commitment.

Professional development and operational support are important in strengthening efficiency and effectiveness of

organizations that face frequent change. GTS faces challenges in board and staff capacity, as well as operation

limitations with only five staff (if one staff falls ill or is on vacation, it can cause one office to close).50 Although

GTS reiterates the importance of lifelong learning and progressive business and educational growth,51 it often

faces challenges to schedule and implement trainings.

7.2.1 RECOMMENDATION – CRITERIA FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS Create eligibility criteria for the board of directors, for both elected and appointed positions. The attraction,

development and retention of appropriate board members poses a challenge for the board. The creation of criteria

is the first step, and GTS should be commended for taking strides towards incorporating criteria and guidelines

into leadership positions, such as the board chair. The review team recommends GTS adopt this approach for

all board members and create and advocate for a board eligibility criterion based on applicable qualifications and

skills. The GTS board will need to identify the key qualities desired for board members and specific skills required

to be an effective board member, and incorporate this into future elected and appointed board representatives.

Recognizing communities elect and appoint members using various methods, this will require community

consultation and buy-in, whereby GTS can also play a large advocacy role. With support shown from

stakeholders and the public,52 this will enhance the capacity of the board, reduce perception of board politics, and

aid in attracting and retaining capable members to ensure strong leadership.

7.2.2 RECOMMENDATION – SCHEDULED BOARD MEETINGS Schedule and commit to all board meeting dates for the year, engage alternates and formally publish board

attendance online. Scheduling GTS board meetings can be challenging, especially for volunteer members that

have full-time job commitments. As a result, GTS meetings are often pushed back to later dates or not convened

at all, risking a slowdown of decision-making and operations. The review team recommends for the GTS board

to schedule all annual board meeting dates for the year, whereby it’s the responsibility of directors to attend. With

a pre-defined schedule, members are able to plan in advance and make arrangements for alternates to attend if

they are absent. This will also increase the board’s face time allowing for greater board guidance and direction, as 49 Gwaii Trust Society (2015). 1-3-5 Business Plan 2010, Section 3.6 Challenges. Retrieved from http://www.gwaiitrust.com/AGM_2010.2011/ GT_Business_2010.2011/April_16.11/GT.Business.Plan.04.15.2011.pdf 50 The review team experienced two closures of a GTS office during the review process, due to both illness and vacation of a staff member. 51 Support for professional development is indicated in the Board Education Training section of the GTS Orientation Manual 2014, as well as the Training and Seminars section of the GTS 1-3-5 Business Plan 2010. 52 See Section 4.6: Board Selection; Comments were also shared in the public survey’s written feedback.


well as encourage greater engagement of the board’s alternates. It is better to have a scheduled meeting with an

option to cancel if it is not needed, than to have urgent issues to address and not be able to schedule for weeks

because of board member availability. The review team also recommends GTS board increase their

transparency and build accountability towards their community by formally publishing board meeting attendance

on their website and developing a means for regular GTS communications to be brought to their councils or

communities (e.g., a monthly or bi-monthly report). This ensures representatives are held accountable to their

constituency.53

7.2.3 RECOMMENDATION – CAPACITY AND OPERATIONAL GAPS Deliver support and professional development for both board members and staff. The review team recommends

that the GTS board identify and mandate annual board trainings and the Executive Director increase efforts to

encourage staff professional development relevant to their professional and personal growth. The reviewers

identified the following areas and operational gaps recommended for educational expansion:

• Board Role and Governance: Board members express the usefulness of board training, and stakeholders

support board trainings to ensure capacity.54 The review team recommends mandating an annual board-

training workshop for new and current board members, with the consideration of time and the handover to

new members. GTS must build commitment into its Roles and Responsibilities of the Board that state,

“board development and training will be scheduled annually”.55

• Socio-Economic Impact Training: Ensure GTS staff and grant decision-makers are knowledgeable on

techniques and principles of socio-economic outcome reporting and impact assessments. This will ensure

stronger support is provided to applicants and decision-makers are better equipped to review proposals.

• Technology, Data Management and Computer skills: As GTS moves towards an online system for

applications and data management, it is imperative that staff members are comfortable with computers

and familiar with the system. This also is relevant to board members and decision-makers if the project

information is electronic and files are accessed through the system. Education on online reporting and

filing is also essential for GTS staff and management.56

7.3 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATION Communication problems currently undermine the ability of the GTS to attract valuable projects, build community

trust and confidence, and engage the population in governance and decision-making. The public and GTS

stakeholders are misinterpreting and receiving unclear messages, which result in demanding conversations with

GTS staff and board, as well as incomplete or non-qualifying project requests. Public feedback indicates that

53 The Northern Development Initiative Trust is an example of a Trust that advocates transparency by publishing board attendance records and expense remuneration (http://www.northerndevelopment.bc.ca/about/strategic-plan-and-board-governance/). 54 See Section 4.6: Board Training. 55 Gwaii Trust Society (2015). Gwaii Trust Society Annual Report 2013. Retrieved from http://www.gwaiitrust.com/doc-uploads/gwaiitrust-annualreport2013-WEBfile.pdf. Accessed 15, February 2015. 56 See Recommendation 7.5.3: Integrated GTS Data Management System.


information is difficult to find and/or comprehend on the GTS website,57 while more clarity is needed on the GTS

processes and programs.58 The stakeholder and public appreciation for being asked for input during the review

process also highlights the community’s challenge to provide feedback to GTS, with no formal mechanisms in

place. With the upcoming GTS Communications Plan created by external consultants,59 GTS has a great

opportunity to engage Haida Gwaii residents as well as the GTS staff, board and possibly reactivate the media

committee.60 Greater focus on communication will strengthen outreach to all demographics, build credibility,

respect and understanding for GTS (including processes and programs), as well as strengthen relationships with

the business community, education partners, government, key stakeholders and the public.

7.3.1 RECOMMENDATION – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND INFORMATION Strengthen the means for the public to access GTS information and provide feedback. The GTS 2010 Business

Plan states, “the Trust has maintained a very low media profile within the community preferring instead to allow

the recipients projects successes to speak for themselves”.61 Although initiatives were discussed to enhance

media and public relations, the public feedback confirms communication remains limited.62 The review team

recommends GTS staff and board, with guidance from external communication experts, build and strengthen

messaging and information available to the public, and create a formal avenue for public feedback. In the

development of the currently being created communication plan, the review team also recommends the use of

the feedback provided in this review, as well additional public input. As there are limits to GTS staff’s time and

abilities, internal capacity must be considered to ensure the new plan can be implemented and sustained using

existing resources.

Currently GTS communication methods include the GTS website, Observer newspaper advertisements, hard-

copy quarterly newsletters, an AGM and informal outreach by staff & board members. The review team

recommends particular focus on GTS website improvements (including information and functionality), use of

appropriate and common social media services, and greater physical presence in communities.63 Although there

are increased efforts by GTS to include documents on their webpage, shareholders also expressed the need to

ensure all relevant documents, including strategic plans, are available and up-to-date.64

57 This was experienced by the reviewers as well as shared in the public survey’s written feedback. 58 See Section 4.4: Communicating GTS Processes. 59 Smith, S. (2015). Gwaii Trust Society / Athlii Gwaii Legacy Trust 2015 Communications Plan (DRAFT). Unpublished. 60 The Media Committee and responsibilities were identified in the GTS 1-3-5 Business Plan 2010; however internal GTS capacity challenges have prevented the committee in being active. 61 Gwaii Trust Society (2015). 1-3-5 Business Plan 2010, Section 5.4 Media & Public Relations. Retrieved from http://www.gwaiitrust.com/ AGM_2010.2011/GT_Business_2010.2011/April_16.11/GT.Business.Plan.04.15.2011.pdf 62 See Section 4.4: Community Engagement and Transparency. 63 See Section 4.4: Communication Methods. 64 See Section 4.4: Sharing of Documents.


7.3.2 RECOMMENDATION – COMMUNICATION OF PROCESSES AND REQUIREMENTS Ensure communication and online transparency of GTS internal processes and requirements. The publics’

misinterpretation and unclear understanding of GTS processes and requirements are common themes reflected

throughout the review. Challenges lie within GTS internally (e.g., structuring the decision-making process,

explored in recommendation 7.1.2), but also with the two-way communication between GTS and Haida Gwaii

residents. As a result, there is public uncertainty regarding issues such as general eligibility, application needs,

decision-making guidelines and criteria, and proper reporting requirements. In regards to GTS programs,

stakeholders also felt changes and decisions to remove programs between 2009 and 2014 were not articulated,

and explanations are not available.65 The review team recommends the GTS board and staff, with guidance

from external communications experts, review, revise and clearly articulate communication of key GTS processes

and requirements, including application, decision-making and reporting processes. This must include both

communication on the GTS website as well as communication through the GTS board and staff.

7.3.3 RECOMMENDATION – PROJECT TRANSPARENCY Embrace full transparency and post applications, evaluations and final reports on the GTS website. Currently,

only a select number of GTS projects are highlighted on the webpage, including the amount awarded, actual

project date, a brief description and supporting photos. The review team recommends the GTS board embrace

full transparency with the posting of all successful applications with subsequent evaluations and final reports

(minus personal and financial details), regardless of their quality.66 The communities support increasing

awareness of funded projects and believe this would build stronger GTS recognition as well as reduce the publics’

incorrect assumptions or rumours.67 The recommendation is for GTS to build this into the upcoming

communications plan to build better transparency, showcase every project, provide a reference and tool for future

applicants, and increase future applicants incentive to submit quality applications, reports and photos.

7.4 APPLICATION PROCESS AND REQUIREMENTS As a result of the economic recession in 2008, GTS was required to tighten regulations and process in order to

ensure fund sustainability. Project application requirements changed and adapted over the 2009 to 2014 period,

resulting in more rigorous requirements as felt by the community. During the review, the application process was

the most discussed process recommended for improvement, with stakeholders describing it as confusing,

complicated, and cumbersome.68 GTS has the difficult task of creating applications detailed enough to distinguish

project viability and impacts (and ensure sufficient quality and quantity of applications are submitted), but also

flexible enough to ensure applicants can understand and complete them.

65 See Section 4.4: Communication Methods; Comments were also shared in the public survey’s written feedback. 66 The Island Coastal Economic Trust is an example of a Trust that advocates transparency and publishes project details and full final reports on their webpage (http://www.islandcoastaltrust.ca/). 67 See Section 4.4: Funded Project Awareness. 68 See Section 4.5: Application Process; Comments were also shared in the public survey’s written feedback.


In community interviews, concerns were expressed over education levels, writing capacity and computer skills

within the community.69 This can result not only in the incomplete or substandard applications experienced by

GTS, but also in late submission or the discouragement of people to apply at all. With the GTS small staff

numbers and diverse set of programs, the internal capacity to provide comprehensive and sufficient application

support is also limited. With applications often not submitted on time, or at the last minute, it makes it difficult for

staff to follow-up and ensure complete and quality applications for the decision-making team.

7.4.1 RECOMMENDATION – PROJECT APPLICATION PROCESS Review and revise the project application process, considering different application levels and standardized

forms. The review team recommends the GTS board, with guidance from an external party, review and adjust

the application form(s) and requirements, identify appropriate changes and implement accordingly. With 55% of

the 2009 to 2014 projects allocated under $10,000 and 52% of projects planned to last less than three months,

the review team recommends GTS adopt two or more levels of application requirements. Application

requirements should include considerations of size, length, complexity and potential benefit and impacts. One

option to consider is to use a shorter application for projects <$10,000, designed for more simple, time-sensitive

projects that are less than 6 months; whereas a more detailed application would be used for projects that are

either <$10,000 and greater than 6 months, or >$10,000. By adopting two levels of applications, this reduces

administration support needed and application challenges for the bulk of smaller projects. The review team also recommends standardizing the application forms across all project-based programs, as they all request the same

basic information. Specific program related questions could also be included in the standard form. This will reduce

confusion and allow GTS to better compare results across programs.

7.4.2 RECOMMENDATION – APPLICANT SUPPORT Strengthen the applicant support provided by GTS. The review team recommends the GTS board, with

guidance from the communications consultants, review the current support systems in place for applicants. With

community input, identify and implement additional plausible structures and support systems. Additional support

will make the process easier for applicants to understand,70 reduce constraints on GTS staff, increase quality of

proposals received, and ideally reduce the number of late submissions. There are many approaches to support;

examples to consider are shared below.

• Increase on-line transparency (as per Section 4.4: Communications and recommendations in 7.3).

• Introduce on-line tutorials and/or explanations:71 Include a detailed explanation of the application process,

and expectations of question responses. Include examples of responses (i.e., expected benefits and

outcomes that can be measured) and hyperlinks to ‘star applications’ that are posted on the webpage (as

per Recommendation 7.3.3). 69 See Section 4.5: Application Process. 70 Comments shared in the public survey’s written feedback. 71 The Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation (HCTF) is an example a Trust that provides thorough instructions, explanations and examples Application instructions can be found here: http://www.hctf.ca/apply-for-funding/enhancement-grants/hctf-online.


• Pay it Forward: Formalize a list of people who have completed strong successful applications (and final

evaluations) and are willing to mentor others in their community. This will bring forward stronger

champions in the community, strengthen community relationships, and complement the GTS staff efforts

in encouraging quality applications.

• Standardize ‘in-kind’ reporting and/or provide clear requirements. There is a lack of clarity around the

management and reporting of in-kind contributions in the application and regulatory phase.72 Creating a

standard form or requirements will better assist applicants understanding, tracking and reporting abilities.

7.4.3 RECOMMENDATION – APPLICATION DEADLINES Build in an earlier submission deadline for applications. It is recognized that GTS has previously adjusted their

deadlines to try to give the staff sufficient time to prepare projects to go to the board. Despite this earlier deadline,

GTS staff is still pressed for time and incomplete applications are presented, reducing chances of approval for

some applications. In addition, feedback from stakeholders and applicants express concern that deadlines are still

too close to board meeting dates, and this should be addressed.73 The review team recommends GTS to add

an additional appropriate period of time to the deadline for staff and technical advisors74 to do a sufficient follow-

up before projects are presented to the decision-making team.

7.5 CAPTURING SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC OUTCOMES Social and economic outcomes are essential to analyze program effectiveness, maintain accountability, assess

project impact, guide decision-making going forward and support advocacy. Interview respondents in the previous

GTS five-year review indicated GTS did not routinely document outcomes in 2009, and the close of projects was

mainly focused on financial accounting.75 The GTS current project application form(s) and evaluation forms have

evolved somewhat, however data is limited and does not successfully capture social or economic outcomes.

Recipients are not required to provide specific indicators or show measurable change or effects that occurred as a

result of the projects. The absence of strong outcome-based reporting makes it difficult to show and quantify all

the great changes GTS projects have made to Haida Gwaii. The project document reviewers shared frustrations

in reading project reports that appeared to bring monumental change to the community, but were not able to

capture it well in the report.76 In addition, with 52% of the 2009 to 2014 GTS projects planned for less than three

months and the majority under a year,77 it’s difficult to measure medium and long-term impacts (changes of lives

of residents) in the communities.

72 See Section 4.5: Financial/Tracking Process; Comments were also expressed in various reviewed project evaluation forms. 73 See Section 4.5: Application Process. 74 Technical advisors are in reference to Recommendation 7.1.1: Technical Accountability in Decision-Making. 75 Counterpoint Consulting (October 2009). Gwaii Trust Evaluation Framework, Draft Report. Unpublished. 76 The completion of the 2009 Haida Gwaii Food Sustainability Initiative implemented by Graham Island East Coast Farmers appears to have resulted in change of provincial legislation that prohibited local food production, and has led to significant impact on the island. Unfortunately outcomes were difficult to capture due to (1) the limited evaluation form and (2) completion of the form soon after the project ended. Social and economic implications would be better captured 1-5 years after project completion. 77 See Section 6.2: Projects – Lengths.


7.5.1 RECOMMENDATION – SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND TRENDS Advocate to pool island-wide resources and create a comprehensive database of Haida Gwaii socio-economic

baseline conditions and trends. Access to relevant and current community data is important to GTS for both

ensuring the most urgent community needs are recognized, but also help as benchmarks to show outcomes and

impacts of projects. In the 2010 GTS Business Plan, unsuccessful initiatives were developed to gather, analyze

and examine annual social and economic data for each community,78 possibly demonstrating challenges with

internal capacity. The review team’s experience with collecting baseline data is that there are overlapping efforts

with multiple Haida Gwaii organizations collecting similar data. The review team recommends the GTS board

work together with key organizations that collate data and identify levels of capacity, define what kind of support

GTS can provide (i.e., funding for coordinating annual data collection), and which organizations and/or people can

take leadership and ownership of the database. All participating parties will be required to share data and

resources, keeping it up-to-date, and have access for project/program assessments. Social service providers in

the community could then feed into this database annually.

7.5.2 RECOMMENDATION – OUTCOME-BASED REPORTING Clearly incorporate goals, indicators and socio-economic outcomes in GTS applications, evaluations and reports.

For reasons described above, social and economic outcomes are essential to reporting to effectively show the

changes or effects that occur as a result of the projects. The review team recommends the GTS board invest in

consulting support to help develop an approach to build stronger requirements and more appropriate measurable

indicators in the application, evaluation and reporting of GTS projects. It is recognized that a single process may

not apply to all situations, however it is essential planned outcomes in the application are reported on at project

completion.

7.5.3 RECOMMENDATION – INTEGRATED DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Create an integrated data management system for GTS to track applicants, projects, etc. and auto-generate

collective reports. As GTS moves toward an online application system, incorporating application and evaluation

information, and the abilities to analyze and report on collected data would greatly improve the administration and

overall data management practices. This will also support future five-year reviews and significantly improve

access to information. The review team recommends the GTS board work with the web-developing consultant

to integrate results from the improved reporting system (outcomes from Recommendation 7.5.2) into the

upcoming changes to the website.

78 Gwaii Trust Society (2015). 1-3-5 Business Plan 2010, Section 5.4 Media & Public Relations. Retrieved from http://www.gwaiitrust.com/ AGM_2010.2011/GT_Business_2010.2011/April_16.11/GT.Business.Plan.04.15.2011.pdf


7.5.4 RECOMMENDATION – SCHEDULED IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Introduce formal Impact Assessment(s) to selected GTS projects 1-5 years after completion. Impact assessments

give a clear description of the value of a project to the community, and are generally the longer-term benefits to

society. Impacts go far beyond what is captured in a recipient’s evaluation or final report, and require in-depth

assessment of multiple stakeholders. They measure long-term changes in areas like community demographics,

knowledge, demand for services, markets, income or employment, preservation of resources, and perceived

quality of the community. The review team recommends for the GTS board to regularly identify key interest

projects (i.e., large complex or island-wide infrastructure projects) and create agreements with recipients to have

external consultants assess impacts at an agreed date in the future.

7.6 REGULATORY MECHANISMS Monitoring and evaluation of projects are critical to assessing whether progress is being achieved and results are

in line with the original indicated plans. In the past, GTS project staff completed informal monitoring and site visits

of some projects, however this practice has not been maintained. Currently, there is no formal monitoring system

in place, and the small number of GTS staff is limited in capacity. This impedes ability of GTS to be informed of

the status of projects, particularly large and complex projects, and provide timely assistance if problems arise.

Staff explained that they often chase recipients to get information and reports, and expect a number of recipients

to ask for project extensions each year.

A formal evaluation form has been in place over the 2009 to 2014 time period, and is required by recipients to

complete in order to receive their last project funds. Although consistent over the years, the GTS evaluation form

does not require recipients to refer back and report on intended plans and outcomes, resulting in difficulties

reporting outcomes adequately.79 The evaluation process and reporting requirements are consistent across all

programs (with the exception of the Arts Program), regardless of whether the request is for $1,000 or $250,000.

7.6.1 RECOMMENDATION – MONITORING SYSTEM Introduce a formal monitoring system as a mitigation measure for larger complex projects. The integration of a

monitoring system arms GTS with knowledge and the ability to provide project support if needed. The review

team recommends the GTS staff develop a simple, yet structured monitoring form completed by staff during site

visits of selected projects of interest or concern. The monitoring form should also reference intended plans

identified in the application form (outcomes from Recommendation 7.5.2). It is recommended for the GTS board

to assess the internal capacity to monitor, and support in the implementation. If capacity is limited, the review

team recommends GTS staff to develop and introduce a mid-term report for recipients to complete.

79 See Recommendation 7.5.2: Outcome-Based Reporting.


7.6.2 RECOMMENDATION – EVALUATION PROCESS Review and revise the project evaluation process; consider different evaluation levels, with more detailed

requirements for large complex projects, and align reporting standards to other major co-funders. The review

team recommends the GTS board, with guidance from an external party, review and adjust the evaluation

form(s) and requirements, identify appropriate changes and implement accordingly. Consider amending the

evaluations to different types and depths of evaluation forms, balanced and linked to the application forms80 and

integrated with outcome-based reporting.81 More evaluation detailed requirements for larger projects will capture

outcomes more effectively, and provide GTS stronger information for future impact assessments if completed.

The review team also recommends research of other major organizations that co-fund GTS projects, and try to

align GTS reporting standards and requirements as best as possible. This alignment with other funders could

keep reporting requirements as simple as possible for recipients.

7.6.3 RECOMMENDATION – RECIPIENT REPORTING SUPPORT Strengthen the recipient support in creating quality evaluations and final reports. Similar to support for

applicants,82 the review team recommends the GTS board, with support from the communications consultants,

review the current monitoring and reporting support systems in place for project recipients. GTS project evaluation

forms and optional final reports are often incomplete or lacking details. Additional support for recipients will make

the process and requirements easier to understand and ensure much improved quality of reported information is

submitted. See Recommendation 7.4.2 (Applicant Support) for approaches to consider for the evaluation forms.

7.7 REOCCURING ISSUES This five-year review identified a number of strategic needs and gaps important to the community, some of which

were also reoccurring issues that were shared in the previous 2009 GTS review.83 The four issues identified and

unaddressed in this review include:

1. Community allocations 2. On-island investments 3. Multi-year and sustainable funding 4. Core and operational funding

These issues appear to have been in discussion for years, both within the communities and within GTS, and

remain close to the hearts of islanders and formally unaddressed by GTS in the eyes of the community. A number

of stakeholders, particularly council members, made reference to the previous $1 million allocations made to the

communities, and believe these allocations are the best approach to targeting community needs.84 GTS has

80 See Recommendation 7.4.1: Project Application Process. 81 See Recommendation 7.5.2: Outcome-based Reporting. 82 See Recommendation 7.4.2: Applicant Support. 83 Counterpoint Consulting (October 2009). Gwaii Trust Evaluation Framework, Draft Report. Unpublished. 84 See Section 4.7: Allocations to Communities.


recently introduced a $250,000 allocation for the communities over the next four years, however the long-term

vision beyond this has not been determined. The GTS 2010 Business Plan also indicated that, “the Trust will

begin to look beyond simply category based granting and move to include investing a portion of the Trust’s

portfolio in on Island entities, creating wealth and employment opportunities directly within our communities.”85

Reponses from interviewed stakeholders indicate there is no recognition of GTS on-island investments and the

need still remains.86 In addition, core, operational and multi-year funding challenges are identified as being

particularly relevant to smaller entities as well as the non-profit sector. An in-depth review of these four issues is

beyond the scope of this review, however these pose important questions for GTS and cannot be ignored.

Hesitation of GTS to take a concrete and public stand on these four core issues will not make the issues go away.

7.7.1 RECOMMENDATION – FURTHER EXPLORATION Explore, discuss and formulate a position on community allocations, on-island investments, multi-year and

sustainable funding, as well as core and operational funding. The review team recommends the GTS board

involve external support to guide GTS in the exploration of these issues further and help GTS develop realistic

responses in line with their mandate.

85 Gwaii Trust Society (2015). 1-3-5 Business Plan 2010, Section 1.1 Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://www.gwaiitrust.com/ AGM_2010.2011/GT_Business_2010.2011/April_16.11/GT.Business.Plan.04.15.2011.pdf 86 See Section 4.7: On-Island Investment.


7.8 RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY Upon the review of the information presented in this report and subsequent recommendations, the reviewers

encourage the GTS board and management to decide upon the best course of action to take going forward. It is

apparent to the review team that a number of the emerging issues will require external support (i.e., from expert

consultants) to help guide GTS through some challenging issues. Figure 19 outlines the recommendations made

from the review with participating bodies and types of action or change in need of attention.

Figure 19. Summary of Proposed Action or Change to respond to the Recommendations

Recommendation

Participants (* recommended lead) Type of Action/Change Required

GTS

Sta

ff

GTS

Boa

rd

Ext

erna

l C

onsu

ltant

Par

tner

s

Stru

ctur

e

Pol

icy

Pro

cess

Gui

delin

es,

Crit

eria

, R

equir

emen

ts

Com

mun

icatio

n &

Too

ls

Trai

ning

7.1 Board Politics and Ethics 7.1.1 Technical accountability in decision-making: Bring

stronger accountability and technical expertise to the project analysis and decision-making process.

X X* X

(committees)

X

(decision-making)

7.1.2 Decision-making guidelines and criteria: Create clear guiding principles and program criteria for project decision-making, including a project scoring system.

X X* X

(decision-making)

X (decision-making)

7.2 Internal Capacity and Governance 7.2.1 Criteria for Board of Directors: Create eligibility criteria for

the board of directors, for both elected and appointed positions.

X* X

(board criteria)

X

(board criteria)

7.2.2 Scheduled Board Meeting: Schedule and commit to all board meeting dates for the year, engage alternates and formally publish board attendance online.

X* X

(board meetings)

7.2.3 Capacity and Operational Gaps: Deliver support and professional development for both board members and staff.

X X* X

(prof devt’)

X

7.3 Public and Stakeholders Communication 7.3.1 Community Engage and Information: Strengthen the

means for the public to access GTS information and provide feedback.

X X X*

(communication)

X

7.3.2 Communication of Processes and Requirements: Ensure communication and online transparency of GTS internal processes and requirements.

X X X*

(communication)

X

7.3.3 Project Transparency: Embrace full transparency and post applications, evaluations and final reports on the GTS website.

X* X*

(communication)

X

7.4 Application Process and Requirements 7.4.1 Project Application Process: Review and revise the

project application process, considering different application levels and standardized forms.

X X* X (appl’n)

X (appl’n)

7.4.2 Applicant Support: Strengthen the applicant support provided by GTS. X X*

X (pay it

forward) X

(appl’n) X

7.4.3 Application Deadlines: Build in an earlier submission deadline for applications. X*

X (due

dates)

7.5 Capturing Social & Economic Outcomes 7.5.1 Social and Economic Conditions and Trends: Advocate

to pool island-wide resources and create a comprehensive database of Haida Gwaii socio-economic baseline conditions and trends.

X* X X

(data collect)


Recommendation

Participants (* recommended lead) Type of Action/Change Required

GTS

Sta

ff

GTS

Boa

rd

Ext

erna

l C

onsu

ltant

Par

tner

s

Stru

ctur

e

Pol

icy

Pro

cess

Gui

delin

es,

Crit

eria

, R

equir

emen

ts

Com

mun

icatio

n &

Too

ls

Trai

ning

7.5.2 Outcome-Based Reporting: Clearly incorporate goals, indicators and socio-economic outcomes in GTS applications, evaluations and reports. X X*

X (appl’n, eval’n, report)

X (appl’n, eval’n, report)

7.5.3 Integrated GTS Data Management System: Create an integrated data management system for GTS to track applicants, projects, etc. and auto-generate collective reports.

X* X

(web-devt)

X

(data mgt)

7.5.4 Scheduled Impact Assessments: Introduce formal Impact Assessment(s) to selected GTS projects 1-5 years after completion. X*

X (in

future)

X (impact

assessment)

7.6 Regulatory Mechanisms 7.6.1 Monitoring System: Introduce a formal monitoring system

as a mitigation measure for larger complex projects. X* X X

(monitoring)

X

7.6.2 Evaluation Process Review and revise the project evaluation process; consider different evaluation levels, with more detailed requirements for large complex projects, and align reporting standards to other major co-funders.

X X* X X (eval’n)

X (eval’n)

7.6.3 Recipient Reporting Support: Strengthen the recipient support in creating quality evaluations and final reports. X X*

X (pay it

forward)

X (reporting

guidelines) X

7.7 Reoccurring Issues 7.7.1 Further Exploration: Explore, discuss and formulate a

position on community allocations, on-island investments, multi-year and sustainable funding, as well as core and operational funding.

X X* X

(exploration)


8.0 APPENDICES A. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW ADVERTISEMENTS

Sample of Observer Articles (and poster), published 24th and 31st October 2014

Five Year Review

www.gwaiitrust.com

Gwaii Trust SocietyBox 588, Masset, Haida Gwaii V0T 1M0

1-250-626-3654 (Massett Office) 1-250-559-8883 (Skidegate Office)

Gwaii Trust Five-year review is underway. Come and share your thoughts!How has your community been impacted by the Gwaii Trust? Have they been living up to their mandate? Are they aligned with the Islands Community needs? We are interested in hearing your opinions on how the Gwaii Trust Society has been performing as the Trust undertakes its five-year review.

The performance review has been a regular feature of the Gwaii Trust since it was established in 1994 with a grant of $38.2 million from the federal government, as part of the Gwaii Haanas Agreement. The society, made up of directors representing all the communities of Haida Gwaii, has been growing the fund’s capital and giving out grants to enhance life on the islands in a sustainable and respectful way since then. The fund now has a balance of $81 million.

This year, the ISIS Research Centre, Sauder Business School, will be conducting the review, and they want to hear from you. To ensure future investments align with the Islands Community values, this is your opportunity to give your input, so please come join the team for drinks and snacks and share your thoughts!

Community input sessions to be held from 7-9pm at the following locations:

Monday November 3rd at the Sandspit Community Centre (Moresby Island - Sandspit)Tuesday November 4th at the Gwaii Trust Skidegate office (Graham Island South)Wednesday November 5th at the Port Clements Community Hall (Graham Island Central)Thursday November 6th at the Gwaii Trust Old Massett office (Graham Island North)


B. SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE INFORMATION

B.1 DEMOGRAPHICS Total Population

BC Stats estimated that from the peak in 1996, Haida Gwaii has lost 1,400 people over a 15-year timespan, averaging a decline of 200 people per year. The latest 2011 census indicated 4,370 people, with a relatively stable population projected over the next 20 years reaching 4,689 in 2034.

Figure 21 shows the population differences among Haida Gwaii communities in the 2006 and 2011 census. Overall, every community experienced a decline over this time period with an overall average loss of 9.2%. The largest declines experienced were in Sandspit/Moresby Island (21.1%) and Port Clements (14.1%).

87 Adapted from “BC Stats Population Estimates and Projections,” Local Health Area 50. Copyright 2015, Province of British Columbia. http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/Demography/PopulationEstimates.aspx 88 Adapted from “BC Stats The Census of Canada, 2006 and 2011 Census”. Copyright 2015, Province of British Columbia. http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/Census.aspx

Figure 20. Haida Gwaii Population, 1986-201487

Figure 21. Haida Gwaii Population by Community, 2009 and 201188

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Queen Charlotte (-0.4%)

Massett (-0.6%)

Skidegate (-9.2%)

Old Massett (-11.5%)

Area D (Tlell,

Lawn Hill, Tow Hill) (-13.7%)

Port Clements (14.1%)

Sandspit/ Moresby

Island (-21.1%)

Num

ber o

f Peo

ple

2006 Census

2011 Census

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014

Num

ber o

f Peo

ple

TOTAL POPULATION:

Haida British Gwaii Columbia

2006 Census 4,812 4,113,487 2011 Census 4,370 4,400,057 Percent Change - 9.2% + 7.0%


Gender and Age Profiles

Figure 22. Haida Gwaii Female and Male Population Changes, 2009 to 201489

Figure 23. Haida Gwaii Population Grouped by Age, 2000 to 201090

89 2006 & 2011 Census 90 Adapted from “BC Stats Population Estimates,” School District 50. Copyright 2015, Province of British Columbia. http://www.bcstats. gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/Demography/PopulationEstimates.aspx

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Females

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

<14yrs

15-29

30-44

45-59

60-74

75+ Males

2014

2009

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Num

ber o

f Peo

ple <14yrs

15-29 30-44 45-59 60-74 75+


Aboriginal Population: Masset and Skidegate % Growth Indian Reserve Population91: Masset

2006 Population 614 2010 Population 694 -11.5%

2011 Occupied Private Dwelling 241 2011 Population Density 191.5

Skidegate 2006 Population 709 2010 Population 781 -9.2%

2011 Occupied Private Dwelling 295 2011 Population Density 138.3

Aboriginal Population: Haida The 2011 census reported a 1,710 self-identified aboriginal population for Haida Gwaii, representing 39% of the

total population indicated. This is a 9% reduction from the 1,880 reported in the 2006 census. Additionally, Figure 24 below shows the registered Haida population in 2013 provided by Aboriginal and Northern Development Canada. At that time, the self-identified Haida population was 4,546, of which 32.7% or 1,490 were identified as living on reserve (757 males and 733 females). This information does not distinguish whether the Haida reside on or off-island, therefore this can only provide a regional view.

Figure 24. Population of Haida living on and off-reserve in 201392

Immigrant Population Haida Gwaii BC Immigrant Arrivals: 2007-2012 (% of total immigrants)93

Total Number of Immigrants 64.0 239,544.0 Children Age 0-18 35.9 23.4

Youth Age 19-24 n/a 9.4 Working Age 25-64 48.4 63.8

Seniors Age 65+ n/a 3.4 Age 25-64 with post secondary 77.4 72.2

91 Adapted from “BC Stats The Census of Canada, 2006 and 2011 Census”. Copyright 2015, Province of British Columbia. http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/Census.aspx 92 Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, AANDC (2013). Registered Indian Population by Sex and Residence 2013. Retrieved from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/aadnc-aandc/R31-3-2013-eng.pdf 93 Adapted from “BC Stats Socio Economic Profiles,” School District 50. Copyright 2015, Province of British Columbia. http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/statisticsbysubject/SocialStatistics/SocioEconomicProfilesIndices/Profiles.aspx

751

2191

2942

739 865

1604

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Old Massett On-Reserve

Old Massett Off-Reserve

Old Massett Total

Skidegate On-Reserve

Skidegate Off-Reserve

Skidegate Total

Num

ber o

f Peo

ple

Males Females Total


Home Language Haida Gwaii BC Top non-English/French home languages excluding Aboriginal languages: 2011/201294 (% of All Public School Students)

Chinese 0.3 0.6

German 0.9 0.1 B.2 EDUCATION High School Haida Gwaii BC High School Graduation: % of 18 year olds who did not graduate94 (Average 2009/10-2011/12)

39.5 26.2

Provincial Exams & Test Scores94 Haida Gwaii BC Provincial Exam Non-completion Rate (Average 2009/10-2011/12)

Science - Grade 10 35.1 17.8 English - Grade 10 35.7 17.0 English - Grade 12 55.9 35.8

Students Test Results: % Below Standard (Average 2009/10-2011/12)

Reading - Grade 4 22.8 18.9 Reading - Grade 7 35.5 22.0

Reading - Average Grade 4&7 29.8 20.5 Writing - Grade 4 18.8 14.6 Writing - Grade 7 30.1 13.8

Writing Average Grade 4&7 25.0 14.2 Math - Grade 4 30.6 21.6 Math - Grade 7 42.3 25.9

Math - Average Grade 4&7 37.1 23.8 B.3 ECONOMIC HARDSHIP Employment Insurance94 Haida Gwaii BC Employment Insurance Beneficiaries September 2012 (3MMA)

Total Beneficiaries Age 15+ 136.5 52,940.0 % Female 52.0 50.7

% 15-24 5.7 7.6 Employment Insurance Beneficiaries (as a Percent of Total Population Age 15+)

Sept 2011 3.1 1.4 Dec 2011 4.0 1.4 Mar 2102 5.1 1.8

June 2012 3.3 1.4 Sept 2012 3.5 1.3

4 Quarter Average 4.0 1.5

94 Adapted from “BC Stats Socio Economic Profiles,” School District 50. Copyright 2015, Province of British Columbia. http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/statisticsbysubject/SocialStatistics/SocioEconomicProfilesIndices/Profiles.aspx


Income Assistance/Supplement95 Haida Gwaii BC Income Assistance Beneficiaries September 2012

Number of Canadian Born on Income Assistance 70.0 69,126.0 % of Recipients: Canadian Born age 0-14 24.3 27.2

% of Recipients: Canadian Born age15+ 75.7 72.8 % of Recipients: with duration 1 year or more 54.3 56.8

Guaranteed Income Supplement: 2012 (% of OAS Recipients Receiving Maximum)

2.5 2.9

B.4 CRIME Serious Crime95 Haida Gwaii BC Serious Crime - All Ages: 2009-2011 (per 1,000 population)

Serious Violent Crime 3.9 3.1 Serious Property Crime 9.5 7.0

Total Serious Crime 13.3 10.1

Serious Crime - Juvenile 12-17yrs: 2009-2011 (per 1,000 population)

Serious Violent Crime 3.1 2.3 Serious Property Crime 6.9 1.2

Total Serious Crime 10.0 3.5

Serious Drug Crime/Deaths95 Haida Gwaii BC Non Cannabis Drug Offences: 2009-2011 (per 100,000 population)

All Ages 283.9 170.3 Juvenile (12-17) 196.5 40.4

Illicit Drug Deaths: Average 2008-2010 (per 100,000 population Age 19-64)

20.5 7.7

Other Indicators of Crime95 Haida Gwaii BC Number of Serious Crimes per Police 2009-2011

4.7 7.0

Motor Vehicle Thefts: 2009-2011 (per 1,000 population)

1.4 3.6



B.5 HEALTH General Health96 Haida Gwaii BC Life Expectancy at Birth: Average 2009-2013

Male 75.1 80.2 Female 79.4 84.3

Total 77.2 82.3 Physical Health96 Haida Gwaii BC Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 Live Births): 2008-2012 8.7 3.7

Potential Years of Life Lost (per 1,000 pop): Average 2007-2011

Due to Natural Causes 52.0 29.7 Due to Accidental Causes 11.6 7.0

Mental Health96 Haida Gwaii BC Potential Years of Life Lost (per 1,000 pop): Average 2007-2011

Due to Suicide/Homicide 5.0 4.0 Alcohol Sales96 Haida Gwaii BC Per Capita Alcohol Sales - Age 19+: 201297

Dollars Spent $1,312 $796 Litres Consumed 184.4 103.2

% Distribution of Alcohol Litres Sold: 2012 Spirits 6.0 6.3 Wine 12.1 16.4

Beer/Cider/Coolers 81.9 77.4 Hospital Rates Haida Gwaii BC Hospitalization Rates98: 2011-2012 (per 1,000 population Ages 0-14 years)

Respiratory Diseases 6.3 9.0 Injury and Poisoning 8.5 4.4

Youth (15-24) due to Motor Vehicle Accidents 0.0 1.1

96 Adapted from “BC Stats Socio Economic Profiles,” School District 50. Copyright 2015, Province of British Columbia. http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/statisticsbysubject/SocialStatistics/SocioEconomicProfilesIndices/Profiles.aspx 97 This represents sales per resident population 19+; therefore, high tourist areas will be overstated. 98 Adapted from “BC Stats Socio Economic Profiles,” School District 50. Copyright 2015, Province of British Columbia. http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/statisticsbysubject/SocialStatistics/SocioEconomicProfilesIndices/Profiles.aspx


Health Resources and Staffing99

Old Massett Masset

Port Clements Tlell Skidegate

Queen Charlotte Sandspit Total

Hospitals No 1 No No No 1 No 2 Beds n/a 12 n/a n/a n/a 16 n/a 28 Outpatient Clinics Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes 6 Physicians n/a 3 n/a n/a n/a 5 n/a 8 Ratio of Physicians per 1000

n/a 1.21 n/a n/a n/a 1.72 n/a 1.48

Registered Nurses n/a 12 n/a n/a n/a 20 n/a 33 Dental Offices 1 No No No 1 1 No 3 Ratio of Dentists per 1000 0.4 Served by

Queen Charlotte

Served by Queen

Charlotte

Served by Queen

Charlotte

1.28 0.47 Served by Queen

Charlotte

0.56

Veterinarians No No No Yes No No No 1 General Duty Staff - 49 - - - 75 - 123

Chronic Disease 2010-2011 Estimates for Queen Charlotte LHA and Masset VL100

Chronic Conditions Existing or treated cases New cases/year Cost per patient/year Masset VL LHA Masset VL LHA

Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) 47 237 5 25 $9,525 Dementia 6 30 1 7 $6,647 Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD) 37 185 3 15 $9,701 Osteoarthritis 63 313 7 33 $5,271 Rheumatoid Arthritis 11 55 0 0 $6,430 Asthma 42 209 2 8 $1,171 Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) 20 101 3 14 $12,239 Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) 12 58 2 8 $14,585 COPD 23 115 4 22 $14,414 Stroke 8 39 1 6 $8,294 Depression 136 679 8 42 $2,599 Diabetes 74 370 4 18 $6,534 Hypertension 134 672 16 81 $5,098 AMI 14 70 1 7 $13,022

*Community level estimates are based upon each community's relative share of the total Local Health Area (LHA) population and reflect what "might be expected" at the community level.

99 Misty Isles Economic Development Society, MIEDS (2011). Haida Gwaii Investment-Ready Community Profile Guide 2011. Retrieved from http://www.mieds.ca/images/uploads/Community%20Profile-Haida%20Gwaii.pdf 100 Adapted from “Healthy Northern Communities 2013, Queen Charlotte Local Health Area 050 (Haida Gwaii). Revised 2014”. Copyright 2014, Northern Health. http://chip.northernhealth.ca/Portals/2/Document Repository/2013 Updates/2013 Community Profiles/LHA 050 Haida Gwaii - Final 2014.pdf


Health Service Locations101 Location where inpatient hospital services were received For all residents of Haida Gwaii during the five year period: 2005/06-2009/10

Number of Cases and Days

QCI Hospital

Masset Hospital

Prince Rupert Other NH Other BC OOP Total

Cases 1,236 1,037 425 251 813 8 3,770 Days 6,003 3,451 1,283 1,796 6,941 548 20,112

Facility Activity Summary101 No. 918 - Northern Haida Gwaii Hospital and Health Centre (Masset) Selected Measures 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Acute discharges/deaths total 1,984 1,948 2,121 213 189 Acute in-patient admissions total 2,003 1,938 2,125 211 189 Acute in-patient days (excl. ALC) 7,753 7,468 7,551 643 521 ALC days total 1,609 930 1,177 196 372 Psychiatry/addiction admissions n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Ambulatory visits (excl. E/R). 11,780 8,041 10,583 892 476 Emergency visits (excl. Ambul) 24,905 27,492 23,606 2,201 2,290 In-patient surgical cases total 612 461 543 n/a n/a Surgical day care cases total 1,932 1,662 1,880 n/a n/a Lab Tests (excludes respiratory) 36,948 35,173 33,084 38,115 39,841 Medical Imagine Tests 1,703 1,475 1,717 1,567 1,610

No. 907 - Queen Charlotte Hospital (Queen Charlotte Village)

Selected Measures 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Acute discharges/deaths total 282 249 263 279 239 Acute in-patient admissions total 286 249 259 281 237 Acute in-patient days (excl. ALC) 1,499 1,327 1,029 1,331 1,168 ALC days total 371 379 553 278 293 Psychiatry/addiction admissions n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Ambulatory visits (excl. E/R). 1,147 1,257 1,025 954 962 Emergency visits (excl. Ambul) 3,184 3,039 2,958 2,686 2,964 In-patient surgical cases total n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Surgical day care cases total n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Lab Tests (excludes respiratory) 34,045 58,608 56,254 55,413 65,132 Medical Imagine Tests 1,804 1,476 1,698 1,739 2,094

101 Adapted from “Healthy Northern Communities 2013, Queen Charlotte Local Health Area 050 (Haida Gwaii). Revised 2014”. Copyright 2014, Northern Health. http://chip.northernhealth.ca/Portals/2/Document Repository/2013 Updates/2013 Community Profiles/LHA 050 Haida Gwaii - Final 2014.pdf


B.6 CHILDREN AND YOUTH Income Assistance102 Haida Gwaii BC * All Income Assistance recipients, except Aboriginal persons on-reserve and the disabled.

% of Children (0-14 years) in Families Receiving Income Assistance (Sept 2012)

<1 Year 1.7 1.4 1 Year or > 2.4 1.8

Total 4.1 3.1 In single parent family 3.9 2.7

% of Youth (15-24) Receiving Income Assistance - Sept 2012

2.3 1.8 % of Youth (15-24) Receiving Employment Insurance - Sept 2012 1.4 0.7 * All Income Assistance recipients, except Aboriginal persons on-reserve and the disabled.)

Other102 Children in Care: Dec 2012 (rate per 1,000 pop 0-18)

11.0 9.1

Children in Need of Protection: Dec 2012 (rate per 1,000 pop 0-18)

14.0 6.4

B.7 LABOUR MARKET Income Dependency Haida Gwaii BC Income Dependency102: 2005 (percentage) BC data are a Weighted Average of LHAs/RDs

Forestry 14% 7% Mining 0% 3%

Construction 4% 8% Government Transfers 18% 15%

Tourism 11% 6% Public Sector 33% 26%

Fishing Trapping 6% 1%



C. INTERVIEW GUIDELINE GWAII TRUST REVIEW – INTERVIEW GUIDELINE:

Participants: Stakeholders and relevant social and economic focused service providers in the community.

Introduction: Thanks for taking the time to participate in this review on the Gwaii Trust Society. This is part of a larger five-year review process that has been a regular feature of the Gwaii Trust since it was established, and is conducted by the Centre for Social Innovation & Impact Investing (Sauder Business School). <Introduce moderator and assistant moderator>.

The purpose of this review process is two-fold (1) to collect feedback on whether Gwaii Trust Society is living up to their mandate as well as (2) provide stakeholder and community input to ensure future investments align with the Island Community values. As part of this, we are meeting with various stakeholders in the community like yourselves, to get your opinions about how the Gwaii Trust has been working. We would like to hear from you and get your knowledge and awareness of the vision and mandate of GTS, impacts it has made in the Island Community and your sectors as well as the relevance of these impacts to the community and sector needs.

During this focus group I will ask questions related to three main areas to help facilitate a conversation about the Trust. Please keep in mind that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers to any of the questions I will ask. The purpose is to stimulate conversation and hear the opinions of everyone in the room. I hope you will be comfortable speaking honestly and sharing your ideas with us.

Please note that this session will be recorded (or notes will be taken) to ensure we adequately capture your ideas during the conversation. However, comments will remain confidential and your name will not be attached to any comments you make. Do you have any questions before we begin? Discussion:

1. First, I’d like to hear what your understanding of the vision and mandate of GTS is in the communities (& how it relates to the Island Community and your sectors).

a. What specific areas do they focus in? (and why) What’s the first thing that comes to mind? b. What do you think are their objectives? c. What is their role specific to your sector/organization? To the community as a whole? d. How is this information communicated to you?

Purpose: UNDERSTANDING OF MISSION: Get a sense of stakeholder’s perception/awareness of GTS ‘raison d'être’. Is this accurate? What objectives stand out more than others in the community? * Opportunity to share the mission and some of the objectives if missed.

2. What kind of impacts or changes do you see in the Island Community resulting from GTS investments (over past 5 years)?

a. Have you seen any community or systemic changes occur as a result of GTS? b. Probe impacts regarding GTS societal objectives and inputs

Purpose: ACCOUNTABILITY: Get a sense of whether GTS is living up to its mandate. Is it making the impacts it’s intending? How do the stakeholders perceive the impacts?

3. Do you feel these impacts and GTS mandate is relevant to the Island Community? Do they align with the needs of the community? Why/Why not?

a. Are they meeting the needs? b. Are there any unaddressed areas/needs in the Island Community that you would recommend

GTS to consider in the future (that lie under their mandate)? Purpose: ALIGNMENT/RELEVANCE: Get a sense whether GTS is aligned with community values.

4. Does anyone have any other comments to make? Was there anything we missed in the discussion?

Wrap Up: <Explain the next steps and what participants can expect> We will be consolidating the feedback from both stakeholders and the community, as well as a review of Gwaii Trust Fund recipients of the last 5 years and include this in the review, including recommendations forward. Thank the group!


D. LIST OF INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS List of interview participants in alphabetical order:

1. Lin Armstrong 20. Ralph Leach

2. Bill Beldessi 21. Art Lew

3. Oliver Bell 22. Scott Marsden

4. Leslie Brown 23. Greg Martin

5. Rachel Cameron 24. Sharon Matthews

6. Laurie Chisholm 25. Michaela McGuire

7. Elizabeth Condrotte 26. Andrew Merilees

8. Astrid Egger 27. Jacques Morin

9. Beng Favreau 28. Kim Mushynsky

10. Victor Fradette 29. Lucy Neville

11. Dwain Gould 30. Bonnie Olson

12. Ian Gould 31. Barry Pages

13. Natanis Hageman 32. Sandra Price

14. Bob Isaacs 33. Seraphine Pryce

15. Trevor Jarvis 34. Mike Racz

16. Leslie Johnson 35. Janet Rigg

17. Bret Johnston 36. Jason Thompson

18. Carol Kulesha 37. Carol Wagner

19. Peter Lantin 38. Harold Yeltatzie


E. COMMUNITY SURVEY FORM

!!!

Thank!you!for!your!participation.!This!survey!will!be!used!to!assess!the!past!five8years!of!Gwaii!Trust!Society!service!and!help!shape!the!strategy!for!the!years!ahead.!This!is!part!of!a!larger!review!process!that!the!Gwaii!Trust!carries!out!every!five!years.!These!surveys!are!extremely!important!in!finding!out!the!views!of!islanders!on!how!well!the!Trust!has!been!doing!as!well!as!the!future!direction!the!Gwaii!Trust!Society!should!be!taking.!!

As!an!independent!third!party,!the!Sauder!Business!School!will!conduct!the!analysis!of!the!data.!Any!information!that!could!identify!the!respondent!will!be!removed!and!will!not!be!made!available!to!the!Gwaii!Trust!or!published!in!the!report.!Anonymity!is!completely!assured.!!

The!survey!consists!of!15!questions!and!should!take!no!longer!than!10!minutes!to!complete.!It!can!also!be!found!online!at!https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GwaiiTrustSociety.!!*Deadline!is!November!14

th,!2014,!with!one!entry!per!person!accepted.!

Prizes!will!be!drawn!on!November!21st,!2014.!

!

We!thank!you!again!for!taking!part!in!such!an!important!project!!!1. Name!(optional):!_________________________________________________________!

2. Include!contact!information!if!you!would!like!to!be!included!in!the!prize!draw!(optional)!!

a) Email:! ! ____________________________________________!

b) Phone!Number(s):____________________________________________!

3. What!is!your!age?!a) Under!18!years!b) 18!to!24!

c) 25!to!34!d) 35!to!44!

e) 45!to!54!f) 55!to!64!

g) 65!to!74!h) 75!or!older!

4. What!is!your!gender?!a) Female! b)!!!!Male!

5. What!Haida!Gwaii!Community!do!you!currently!live!in?!a) Old!Massett!b) Masset!c) Tow!Hill!Community!

d) Port!Clements!e) Tlell!f) Skidegate!

g) Queen!Charlotte!h) Sandspit!i) Other:!_______________________!

6. Have!you!or!your!organization!applied!for!Gwaii!Trust!funding!since!2009?!!a) Yes!! b)!!!No!

7. Have!you!or!your!organization!been!a!recipient!of!Gwaii!Trust!funds!since!2009?!!a) Yes!! b)!!!No!

8. What!do!you!think!is!Gwaii!Trust’s!most%important!objective?!!!!!!

!9. What!is!the%largest%impact!you!have!seen!on!Haida!Gwaii!as!a!result!of!Gwaii!Trust’s!support?!

!!!!!

10. Have!you!or!anyone!you!know!received!employment!as!a!result!of!a!Gwaii!Trust!project?!If!so,!what!kind?!a) Did!not!receive!employment!b) Permanent!full!time!

c) Permanent!part8time!d) Short8term!(project8based)!

Gwaii Trust Society Survey (2009-2014)


11. Below!is!a!small!sample!of!previous!and!current!projects!supported!by!the!Gwaii!Trust!in!the!past!5!years.!!!!!!!!!Please!identify!the!level!of!importance!you!feel!they!have!made!to!the!Islands!Community.!

! No!Importance!at!all!

Somewhat!Unimportant!

No!Opinion!

Somewhat!Important!

Very!Important!

! a) Skidegate!Youth!Center!! ! ! ! ! !!!! b) Haida!Salmon!Restoration!Project! ! ! ! ! !! c) Haida!Gwaii!Film!Festival!(2013!Arts)! ! ! ! ! !! d) Haida!Gwaii!Youth!Assembly! ! ! ! ! !! e) Port!Clements!Barge!Facility! ! ! ! ! !! f) Fitness!Center!Expansion! ! ! ! ! !! g) Village!of!Queen!Charlotte!Teen!Centre! ! ! ! ! !! h) Masset!Airport!Parking!Lot!! ! ! ! ! !! i) Skidegate!Felt!Making!Workshop! ! ! ! ! !! j) School!Food!Program! ! ! ! ! !! k) Continuing!Education!Grants! ! ! ! ! !! l) Travel!Assistance! ! ! ! ! !! m) PostXSecondary!Education!Grants! ! ! ! ! !! n) Tlell!Farmers!Market! ! ! ! ! !! o) High!School!Job!Readiness!Project! ! ! ! ! !! p) Masset!Northwest!Drive!Road!and!Sewer!Extension! ! ! ! ! !! q) Sandspit!Tot!Park! ! ! ! ! !! r) Edge!of!the!World!Music!Festival! ! ! ! ! !

!12. Please!select!the!level!you!agree!with!the!statements!below.!!!

!!!!!!!!!!The!Gwaii!Trust!Society!successfully!promotes:!!

Strongly!Disagree!

Disagree! No!Opinion! Agree!Strongly!Agree!

! a) Cultural!and!economic!health!of!the!Community!! ! ! ! ! !! b) WellXbeing!of!the!Community! ! ! ! ! !! c) The!concept!of!the!Islands!as!‘one’!Community! ! ! ! ! !! d) The!Island’s!spirit!of!cooperation,!cultural!understanding!and!trust!! ! ! ! ! !! e) Education!and!artistic!expression!in!the!Community!! ! ! ! ! !!13. How!satisfied!are!you!overall!with!the!services!that!Gwaii!Trust!Provides?!

i) Very!Unsatisfied! j) Unsatisfied! k) Satisfied! l) Very!Satisfied!

Comment:!!

!14. What!other!projects!or!areas!would!you!like!Gwaii!Trust!Society!to!support!in!the!future?!(please!list)!

!!!!!!!!

15. Please!add!additional!comments!or!feedback!for!the!review!in!the!space!provided.!!


F. COMMUNITY SURVEY ONLINE PUBLICATION SITES Promotion and links to the online Gwaii Trust Review Community Survey was posted on various Facebook pages

and websites between October 24th and November 15th 2014. Facebook posts were made through the Centre for

Social Innovation & Sustainability’s (an interim name for the Centre for Social Innovation & Impact Investing

during the Autumn of 2014) Facebook account as well as participating Councils. This may not be a complete list,

as it was possible that the survey was shared or posted on unknown websites as well.

Facebook post sent out on Nov 6th through Centre for Social Innovation & Sustainability Facebook page

The Gwaii Trust Society five-year review team wants to hear your voice! A UBC team is collecting feedback

for the review. Fill out our short, anonymous online survey before Nov 14th to be entered in a prize draw.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GwaiiTrustSociety

(please feel free to share this)

Known Facebook Groups pages posted:

(The information was posted November 6th by Sauder Business School, unless otherwise stated.)

1. GTS Youth Board (posted by Debbie Crosby 5-November)

2. GTS Arts Group (posted by Debbie Crosby 5-November)

3. Haida Gwaii Youth Assembly

4. Old Masset Youth Program, Haida Gwaii

5. Skidegate Haida Immersion Program

6. Skidegate CCP

7. Haida Gwaii Society for Community Peace

8. Haida Gwaii Arts Council

9. Haida Heritage Centre

10. Tlell Farmers Market

11. Love Haida Gwaii

12. Village of Port Clements (5-November)

13. Village of Masset (posted by Village of Masset 6-November) – with 1 known share

14. CHN (posted by Simon Davies via Leticia Hill 12-November) – with 1 known share

Known website pages posted:

1. GTS website – request for Youth’s input (24-October)

2. GTS website – Community Meetings poster (3-November)

3. GTS website – survey (5-November)

4. Village of Queen Charlotte (7-November)


G. COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS Questions 1 and 2 refer to respondents’ names and contact information for the participation prize draw. The responses were considered anonymous; therefore this section has been omitted.

Q4: What is your gender?

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Male 28% 30 Female 72% 76 answered question 106

Q5: What Haida Gwaii Community do you currently live in? Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Old Massett 5.7% 6 Masset 17.0% 18 Tow Hill 0.9% 1 Port Clements 14.2% 15 Tlell 3.8% 4 Skidegate 26.4% 28 Queen Charlotte 20.8% 22

Sandspit 8.5% 9 Other 2.8% 3 answered question 106

Q3: What is your age?

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Under 18 4% 4 18 to 24 5% 5 25 to 34 11% 12 35 to 44 16% 17 45 to 54 29% 31 55 to 64 25% 26 65 to 74 10% 11 75 or older 0% 0 answered question 106

4% 5%

11%

16%

29%

25%

10%

0% 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

<18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45- 54 55-64 65-74 75+

Q3: What is your age?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Male

Female

Q4: What is your gender?

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30% Q5: What Haida Gwaii Community do you currently live in?


Q6: Have you or your organization applied for Gwaii Trust funding since 2009?

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Yes 57.5% 61 No 42.5% 45 answered question 106

Q7: Have you or your organization been a recipient of Gwaii Trust funds since 2009?

Answer Options

Response Percent

Response Count

Yes 51.9% 55 No 48.1% 51 answered question 106

Questions 8 and 9 asked respondents what they thought is Gwaii Trust’s most important objective and largest impact seen on Haida Gwaii as a result of GTS support. The responses were open-ended and summarized within the body of the report.

Q10: Have you or anyone you know received employment as a result of a Gwaii Trust project? If so, what kind of employment?

Answer Options Response Percent

Response Count

Did not receive employment 65.1% 69 Permanent full time 0.9% 1 Permanent part-time 3.8% 4 Short-term (project-based) 30.2% 32 answered question 106

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Yes

No

Q7: Have you or your organization been a recipient of Gwaii Trust funds since 2009?

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Yes

No

Q6: Have you or your organization applied for Gwaii Trust funding since 2009?

Did not receive

employment

65%

Permanent full time

1%

Permanent part-time

4%

Short-term (project-based) 30%

Q10: Have you or anyone you know received employment as a result of a Gwaii Trust project? If so, what kind of employment?


Q11: Below is a list of some previous projects supported by the Gwaii Trust from 2009 to 2014. Please identify the level of importance you feel they have made to the Islands Community.

Answer Options Not

Important At All

Somewhat Unimportant

No Opinion Important Very

Important Response

Count

k) Continuing Education Grants 0 0 8 23 74 105 m) Post Secondary Education Grants 0 2 8 24 72 105 j) School Food Program 1 1 14 26 63 105 d) Haida Gwaii Youth Assembly 4 3 15 37 48 105 l) Travel Assistance 0 5 17 26 57 105 a) Skidegate Youth Center 2 2 19 37 45 105 g) Village of Queen Charlotte Teen Centre 2 5 20 37 42 105 o) High School Job Readiness Project 2 4 19 39 39 103 f) Fitness Center Expansion 3 10 25 42 23 103 b) Haida Salmon Restoration Project 14 1 28 28 33 104 p) Masset Northwest Dr Road & Sewer Extension 2 9 36 41 16 104 n) Tlell Farmers Market 4 11 35 45 9 104 q) Sandspit Tot Park 2 9 40 35 19 105 r) Edge of the World Music Festival 4 14 35 34 18 105 h) Masset Airport Parking Lot 1 21 36 36 9 102 e) Port Clements Barge Facility 5 7 49 27 17 103 c) Haida Gwaii Film Festival 8 17 40 33 5 103 i) Skidegate Felt Making Workshop 10 25 44 22 3 104

answered question 106

18

19

16

39

9

72

57

74

63

3

9

42

23

17

48

5

33

45

34

35

41

39

45

24

26

23

26

22

36

37

42

27

37

33

28

37

35

40

36

19

35

8

17

8

14

44

36

20

25

49

15

40

28

19

14

9

9

4

11

2

5

0

1

25

21

5

10

7

3

17

1

2

4

2

2

2

4

0

0

0

1

10

1

2

3

5

4

8

14

2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

r) Edge of the World Music Festival

q) Sandspit Tot Park

p) Masset Northwest Drive Road & Sewer Extension

o) High School Job Readiness Project

n) Tlell Farmers Market

m) Post Secondary Education Grants

l) Travel Assistance

k) Continuing Education Grants

j) School Food Program

i) Skidegate Felt Making Workshop

h) Masset Airport Parking Lot

g) Village of Queen Charlotte Teen Centre

f) Fitness Center Expansion

e) Port Clements Barge Facility

d) Haida Gwaii Youth Assembly

c) Haida Gwaii Film Festival

b) Haida Salmon Restoration Project

a) Skidegate Youth Center

Very Important Important No Opinion Somewhat Unimportant Not Important At All

Q11: Below is a list of previous projects supported by the Gwaii Trust from 2009 to 2014. Please identify the level of importance you feel they have made to the Islands Community.


Q12: Please select the level you agree with the statements below. The Gwaii Trust Society successfully promotes:

Answer Options Strongly Disagree Disagree No

Opinion Agree Strongly Agree

Response Count

Education and artistic expression in the Community 1 4 19 47 33 104

Cultural and economic health of the Community 2 8 16 54 25 105

Well-being of the Community 0 10 18 48 29 104

The Island’s spirit of cooperation, cultural understanding and trust

4 10 28 46 17 105

The concept of the Islands as ‘one’ Community 4 17 30 32 22 105

answered question 106

Q13: How satisfied are you overall with the services that Gwaii Trust Society has provides?

Answer Options Response Percent

Response Count

Very Satisfied 14.2% 15 Satisfied 67.0% 71 Unsatisfied 13.2% 14 Very Unsatisfied 5.7% 6 Additional comments 33 33

answered question 106 Questions 14 asked respondents to identify projects or areas they would like to see GTS support in the future. The response was open-ended and summarized within the body of the report. Additional comments by respondents was also included within the summaries and considered by the review team in making recommendations going forward.

22

17

29

25

33

32

46

48

54

47

30

28

18

16

19

17

10

10

8

4

4

4

0

2

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

The concept of the Islands as ‘one’ Community

The Island’s spirit of cooperation, cultural understanding and trust

Well-being of the Community

Cultural and economic health of the Community

Education and artistic expression in the Community

Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree

Q12: Please select the level you agree with the statements below. The Gwaii Trust Society successfully promotes:

14%

67%

13%

6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Unsatisfied

Very Unsatisfied

Q13: How satisfied are you overall with the services that Gwaii Trust Society has provides?


H. 2009-2014 PROJECT DOCUMENT REVIEW RESULTS

GTS-FUNDED PROJECTS103

GTS Project Funding Allocations, 2009 to 2014

Allocation 2009! 2010! 2011! 2012! 2013! 2014! 2009(2014!#! %! #! %! #! %! #! %! #! %! #! %! #! %!

<$10,000 35 52.2% 24 50.0% 32 58.2% 25 61.0% 36 54.5% 29 52.7% 181! 54.5%!$10,000 -< $20,000 15 22.4% 9 18.8% 8 14.5% 6 14.6% 16 24.2% 9 16.4% 63! 19.0%!$20,000 -< $30,000 5 7.5% 1 2.1% 5 9.1% 4 9.8% 5 7.6% 2 3.6% 22! 6.6%!$30,000 -< $40,000 2 3.0% 1 2.1% * 0.0% 2 4.9% 2 3.0% 2 3.6% 9! 2.7%!$40,000 -< $50,000 1 1.5% 1 2.1% * 0.0% * 0.0% 2 3.0% 2 3.6% 6! 1.8%!$50,000 -< $60,000 2 3.0% 2 4.2% * 0.0% * 0.0% * 0.0% 3 5.5% 7! 2.1%!$60,000 -< $70,000 1 1.5% 2 4.2% 1 1.8% 1 2.4% 2 3.0% 1 1.8% 8! 2.4%!$70,000 -< $80,000 1 1.5% 1 2.1% 1 1.8% * 0.0% * 0.0% 1 1.8% 4! 1.2%!$80,000 -< $90,000 2 3.0% * 0.0% 1 1.8% 1 2.4% 2 3.0% * 0.0% 6! 1.8%!$90,000 -< $100,000 * 0.0% 1 2.1% * 0.0% * 0.0% * 0.0% * 0.0% 1! 0.3%!>$100,000 3 4.5% 6 12.5% 7 12.7% 2 4.9% 1 1.5% 6 10.9% 25! 7.5%!

Total 67 100.0% 48 100.0% 55 100.0% 41 100.0% 66 100.0% 55 100.0% 332 100.0%!

103 A total of 221 projects between 2009 and 2014 were reviewed and included in this information. Education and travel grants are reported separately.

181

63

22 9 6 7 8 4 6 1

25

0

50

100

150

200

<10 10-<20 20-<30 30-<40 40-<50 50-<60 60-<70 70-<80 80-<90 90-<100 >100

Num

ber o

f Pro

ject

s

Allocated Funding (thousands of dollars)

Initial GTS Project Funding Allocations, 2009-2014


GTS Project Lengths, 2009 to 2014

Project Months 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2009-2014 # % # % # % # % # % # % # %

<3 months 19 44.2% 18 51.4% 16 43.2% 17 53.1% 27 55.1% 17 68.0% 114 51.6% 3-<6 months 10 23.3% 7 20.0% 11 29.7% 6 18.8% 7 14.3% 3 12.0% 44 19.9% 6-<9 months 6 14.0% 6 17.1% 6 16.2% 2 6.3% 7 14.3% 1 4.0% 28 12.7% 9-<12 months 3 7.0% 2 5.7% 1 2.7% 5 15.6% 5 10.2% 2 8.0% 18 8.1% >12 months 5 11.6% 2 5.7% 3 8.1% 2 6.3% 3 6.1% 2 8.0% 17 7.7%

Total 43 100.0% 35 100.0% 37 100.0% 32 100.0% 49 100.0% 25 100.0% 221 100.0%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

Num

ber o

f Pro

ject

s

<3m 3-<6m 6-<9m 9-<12m >12m

Length of GTS Projects in Months (reported in applications)


44% 51%

43% 53% 55%

68%

23% 20%

30% 19% 14%

12% 14% 17% 16%

6% 14% 4% 7%

6% 3% 16% 10% 8%

12% 6% 8% 6% 6% 8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Perc

enta

ge o

f Ann

ual P

roje

cts

<3m 3-<6m 6-<9m 9-<12m >12m

Lengths of GTS Projects in Months (reported in applications)

52%!

20%!

13%!

8%!8%!

2009-2014 Anticipated Length of Project (percentage of all projects)

<3m!3/<6m!6/<9m!9/<12m!>12m!


GTS Projects Meeting GTS Objectives weighted by Total Allocated Funds

GTS Objective

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2009-2014 $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ %

1 $16,810 1% $0 0% $30,000 1% $19,270 3% $25,542 3% $0 0% $91,622 1% 2 $455,969 37% $486,038 46% $950,105 36% $513,305 77% $502,503 60% $125,073 32% $3,032,993 44% 3 $162,699 13% $33,255 3% $300,022 11% $56,081 8% $91,842 11% $160,325 40% $804,224 12% 4 $302,608 25% $275,134 26% $190,751 7% $154,625 23% $293,632 35% $87,580 22% $1,304,330 19% 5 $145,877 12% $247,105 24% $121,035 5% $264,876 40% $282,319 33% $174,112 44% $1,235,324 18% 6 $196,997 16% $328,049 31% $60,117 2% $365,619 55% $143,804 17% $14,931 4% $1,109,517 16% 7 $384,606 31% $577,835 55% $2,432,213 91% $205,000 31% $405,349 48% $67,031 17% $4,072,034 59% 8 $281,964 23% $228,764 22% $59,883 2% $273,966 41% $143,668 17% $172,773 44% $1,161,018 17% 9 $0 0% $10,000 1% $2,000 0% $10,000 1% $10,000 1% $9,549 2% $41,549 1%

10 $36,700 3% $2,662 0% $1,800,000 68% $27,810 4% $60,899 7% $13,119 3% $1,941,190 28% 11 $34,038 3% $216,667 21% $9,500 0% $9,270 1% $30,000 4% $10,325 3% $309,800 5% 12 $9,000 1% $0 0% $2,055 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $11,055 0%

Total $2,027,267 $2,405,510 $5,957,681 $1,899,822 $1,989,558 $834,818 $15,114,656 Total Allocated

Funds $1,227,058 $1,048,858 $2,662,640 $666,875 $843,356 $396,319 $6,845,106

1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9! 10! 11! 12!0%!

10%!

20%!

30%!

40%!

50%!

60%!

Gwaii Trust Objectives

Perc

enta

ge o

f Pro

ject

s

Rep

orte

d to

Mee

t O

bjec

tives

(w

eigh

ted

by p

roje

ct a

lloca

ted

fund

s)

Projects Meeting Gwaii Trust's Objectives (reported in applications)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Projects Meeting Gwaii Trust's Objectives (reported in applications) 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Perc

enta

ge o

f Pro

ject

s

Rep

orte

d to

Mee

t Obj

ectiv

es

(wei

ghte

d by

pro

ject

allo

cate

d fu

nds)


GTS Reported Project Outcomes, 2009-2014

Outcome 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2009-14 $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ %

Social 519,983 42% 555,428 53% 2,346,220 88% 563,106 84% 723,041 86% 130,949 33% 4,838,728 71% Economic 591,365 48% 557,930 53% 1,915,313 72% 456,210 68% 402,690 48% 247,386 62% 4,170,894 61% Health and Safety 382,554 31% 416,028 40% 2,304,782 87% 309,038 46% 564,252 67% 182,383 46% 4,159,037 61% Environmental 63,302 5% 435,545 42% 1,898,165 71% 67,810 10% 163,127 19% 78,070 20% 2,706,019 40% Cultural and Art 352,178 29% 320,725 31% 627,029 24% 285,825 43% 468,768 56% 115,854 29% 2,170,378 32% Tourism 312,292 25% 213,123 20% 758,491 28% 235,000 35% 214,310 25% 155,423 39% 1,888,640 28% Education and Capacity Building 374,915 31% 257,795 25% 61,303 2% 445,706 67% 491,553 58% 65,084 16% 1,696,356 25%

Off-Island 95,245 8% 10,000 1% 35,816 1% 34,370 5% 20,700 2% 8,100 2% 204,231 3% Total 2,691,834

2,766,574

9,947,119

2,397,065

3,048,441

983,249

21,834,282

Total Allocated Funds 1,227,058 1,048,858 2,662,640 666,875 843,356 396,319 6,845,106

SO

CIA

L

EC

ON

OM

IC

HE

ALT

H &

SA

FETY

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NTA

L

CU

LTU

RA

L

& A

RT

TOU

RIS

M

EDUC

ATIO

N

& CA

PACI

TY

BUIL

DING

OFF

-ISLA

ND

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Perc

enta

ge o

f Pro

ject

s

Project Reported Outcomes

Reported Project Outcomes of GTS Projects, 2009-2014

(wei

ghte

d by

pro

ject

allo

cate

d fu

nds)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Annual Reported Outcomes of Projects SOCIAL

ECONOMIC

HEALTH & SAFETY

ENVIRONMENTAL

CULTURAL & ART

TOURISM

EDUCATION & CAPACITY BUILDING OFF-ISLAND

Perc

enta

ge o

f Pro

ject

s

Rep

orte

d to

Mee

t Obj

ectiv

es

(wei

ghte

d by

pro

ject

allo

cate

d fu

nds)


Reported GTS Jobs Jobs - over project duration 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2009-14 % Full-time 26 17 11 3 17 1 75 13% Seasonal Full-time 11 14 94 38 77 34 268 45% Part-time 46 78 13 38 26 6 207 35%

Subtotal 83 109 118 79 120 41 550 Jobs -

supported/created after project completion 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2009-14 Full-time 2 0 2 0% Seasonal Full-time 8 8 1% Part-time 2 1 11 8 3 25 4%

Subtotal 2 1 13 8 8 3 35 Jobs - ongoing 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2009-14

Ongoing 5 5 1% TOTAL 85 110 131 87 128 49 590 100%

Reported GTS Jobs Created or Supported

26 17 11 3

17 1

11 14

94

38

77

34

46 78

13

38

26

6

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Num

ber o

f Rep

orte

d Jo

bs C

reat

ed


Reported Jobs Created (for duration of project)

2 0

8

2 1

11

8

3 0

5

10

15

20

25

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Num

ber o

f Rep

orte

d Jo

bs C

reat

ed


Reported Jobs Created or Supported (after project completion)

85

110

131

87

128

47

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

Num

ber o

f Rep

orte

d Jo

bs

Total Number of Reported Jobs Created



Reported Participation Per$Month$Use$ 2009! 2010! 2011! 2012! 2013! 2014! 2009(14!a.$Recreation$/Fitness$facilities$ 1362$ 50$ 60$ 88$ 258$ 11$ 1829$b.$Youth$/Teens$ 483$ 1829$ 59$ 826$ 606$ 1260$ 5063$c.$Seniors$ 71$ $$ 732$ $$ 103$ $$ 906$d.$Learning$Centre$ 25$ 150$ 625$ 44$ 46$ $$ 890$e.$Regional$Library$ $$ 30$ 10$ $$ 26$ $$ 66$f.$Other$ 53$ 1651$ 62$ 44$ 52$ $$ 1862$Volunteers$/$chaperones$ $$ 24$ $$ $$ 30$ 21$ 75$Haida$Citizens$of$Old$Massett$and$Skidegate$ 110$ 38$ $$ $$ 1742$ 63$ 1953$

Total&Annual&Visitors&Reported:& 2104& 3772& 1548& 1002& 2863& 1355& 12644&Total&Monthly&Visitor&Reported:&

& & & & & &2107%

Per$Project$ 2009! 2010! 2011! 2012! 2013! 2014! 2009(14!OnePtime$Events$(various$participants)$ 183$ 1990$ 918$ 43$ 404$ 2053$ 5591$Youth/$Teens$ 13$ $$ 341$ 397$ 367$ 299$ 1417$Students$ 14$ $$ $$ 360$ 331$ $$ 705$Teachers$ 2$ $$ 1$ 27$ 51$ 2$ 83$Artists$ 31$ 1$ $$ 27$ $$ 18$ 77$Partner$Organizations$ $$ 1$ $$ 16$ 2$ 8$ 27$

Total&Visitors&Reported:& 243& 1992& 1260& 870& 1155& 2380& 7900%

Reported GTS Projects Within Budget and On Time Reported$Within$Budget$ 2009! 2010! 2011! 2012! 2013! 2014! 2009(14! %!Yes$ 30$ 24$ 28$ 17$ 34$ 13$ 146$ 90%$No$ 1$ 4$ 3$ 1$ 3$ 4$ 16$ 10%$

Total&Reported:& 31& 28& 31& 18& 37& 17& 162$ $$Reported$On$Time$ 2009! 2010! 2011! 2012! 2013! 2014! 2009(14! %!Yes$ 23$ 20$ 22$ 15$ 31$ 14$ 125$ 76%$No$ 9$ 8$ 9$ 4$ 6$ 3$ 39$ 24%$

Total&Reported:& 32& 28& 31& 19& 37& 17& 164$ $$ GTS-FUNDED EDUCATION AND TRAVEL GRANTS104 GTS Education and Travel Grant Allocations, 2009-2014 Project!Allocated!Funds! 2009! 2010! 2011! 2012! 2013! 2014! 2009(14!

Program:& ED& TR& ED& TR& ED& TR& ED& TR& ED& TR& ED& TR& ED& TR&<$500$ 4$ 106$ 10$ 121$ 7$ 74$ 3$ 15$ 4$ 115$ 21$ 278$ 49$ 709$$500P<$1,000$ 26$ 4$ 25$ 13$ 18$ 10$ 12$ 3$ 34$ 16$ 43$ 13$ 158$ 59$$1,000P<$2,000$ 93$ 20$ 86$ 17$ 104$ 14$ 35$ 7$ 66$ 20$ 41$ 15$ 425$ 93$$2,000P<$3,000$ 0$ 24$ 0$ 27$ 0$ 22$ 0$ 4$ 2$ 9$ 25$ 11$ 27$ 97$$3,000P<$4,000$ 0$ 3$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 2$ 0$ 38$ 5$ 40$ 8$$4,000+$ 0$ 3$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 9$ 0$ 12$$$ 123$ 160$ 121$ 178$ 129$ 120$ 50$ 29$ 108$ 160$ 168$ 331$ 699$ 978$

104 (1,677) grants were included in the review (699 education, 978 travel), and assumed to be distributed over the 2009 to 2014 time period.


GTS Education and Travel Grants, Distribution Dollars Spent 2009-2014

Grant$Numbers$ 2009! 2010! 2011! 2012! 2013! 2014! 2009(14!Total$Education$ 123$ 121$ 129$ 50$ 108$ 168$ 699$Travel$Assistance$ 160$ 178$ 120$ 29$ 160$ 331$ 978$

Total:& 283& 299& 249& 79& 268& 499& 1677%Grant$Dollars$ 2009! 2010! 2011! 2012! 2013! 2014! 2009(14!Total$Education$ $147,264$ $144,238$ $163,779$ $58,927$ $125,457$ $268,236$ $907,900$Travel$Assistance$ $128,880$ $115,415$ $89,877$ $22,691$ $85,538$ $165,534$ $607,934$

Total:& $276,144& $259,653& $253,656& $81,618& $210,995& $433,770& $1,515,835%

49

158

425

27 40 0

709

59 93 97

8 12 0

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

<500 500-<1,000 1,000-<2,000 2,000-<3,000 3,000-<4,000 4,000+

Num

ber o

f Gra

nts

Allocated Dollars

Education and Travel Grants, 2009-2014 Allocations Education Travel

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Num

ber o

f Gra

nts

Dis

tribu

ted

Education and Travel Grants Number of Grants Distributed

Education

Travel

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Education and Travel Grants Total Dollars Spent

Education

Travel


GTS Education and Travel Grant, Distribution Dollars Spent, 2009-2014 Type!of!Grant! 2009! 2010! 2011! 2012! 2013! 2014! 2009(14!$$ #$ $$ #$ $$ #$ $$ #$ $$ #$ $$ #$ $$ #$ $$Mature$Student$Bursary$

80$ $83,764$ 76$ $77,488$ 78$ $87,279$ 25$ $22,427$ 68$ $67,457$ 3$ $2,084$ 330$ $340,498$

Post$Secondary$Education$

43$ $63,500$ 45$ $66,750$ 51$ $76,500$ 25$ $36,500$ 40$ $58,000$ 7$ $18,000$ 211$ $319,250$

Continuing$Education$Grant$

0$ $0$ 0$ $0$ 0$ $0$ 0$ $0$ 0$ $0$ 158$ $248,152$ 158$ $248,152$

Education&subtotal&123& $147,264& 121& $144,238& 129& $163,779& 50& $58,927& 108& $125,457& 168& $268,236& 699& $907,900&

Travel$Assistance$ 160$ $128,880$ 178$ $115,415$ 120$ $89,877$ 29$ $22,691$ 160$ $85,538$ 331$ $165,534$ 978$ $607,934$

TOTAL% 283% $276,144% 299% $259,653% 249% $253,656% 79% $81,618% 268% $210,995% 499% $433,770% 1677% $1,515,835%

Mature Student Bursary

$340,498 23%

Post Secondary Education $319,250

21%

Continuing Education

Grant $248,152

16%

Travel Assistance $607,934

40%

Education & Travel Grants, 2009-2014 (dollars spent) Mature

Student Bursary

330 20%

Post Secondary Education

211 13%

Continuing Education

Grant 158 9%

Travel Assistance

978 58%

Education & Travel Grants, 2009-2014 (number of grants)


I. GTS APPLICATION AND EVALUATION FORMS GTS Major Contributions Program Application

!Major Contributions Program Application “Only online submissions will be accepted. Download the application, complete the file and then return to the specific program and upload the file in the COMPLETED APPLICATION UPLOADS online form found at the bottom of the page.” !Personal Information Date

Applicant’s Legal Full Name

Physical Mailing Address (street, PO Box #, City)

Length of Residence on Haida Gwaii

E-mail Address

*Applicants will be notified by email.

Home Phone

Cell

Fax

Emergency Contact Person

Phone Number

Are you a first time applicant?

Project Information

Project Name

Project Location

Amount requested from Gwaii Trust

Project Total Cost

Project Start Date

Project Completion Date

Contact Name for Site Visits


Project Description Outline your project including: A brief Project Description, the mission/vision (goals) of the project, why you are proposing the project, and how the project will unfold from start to finish. (essay maximum 1000 words)

Describe the Project Benefit to the community including: what the benefit is, who it benefits, which communities will benefit, and will the project create any job(s) in the construction and/or completion phases.

Describe the Project Management Structure including: who the key individuals are, what their skills and history are, and who will be responsible to manage and work within the project.

Project Funding & Budget Amount of Gwaii Trust Funding

Description of Other Funding Amount Funding 1

Funding 2

Funding 3

Funding 4

Funding 5

Total Funding:

Description of Expenses Amount Expense 1

Expense 2

Expense 3

Expense 4

Expense 5

Total Expenses:

Note: Expenses Must Equal Funding Budget Summary 1. Provide a budget for the entire project 2. Include other sources of funding 3. Detail the amount requested from GT for each eligible expense category 4. Projects must identify a minimum of 50% equity (own or other sources) to support total project costs. 5. Equity can be in kind professional or specialized fees, in a general nature labour at 10.00 per hour etc. 6. Must provide receipts worth total project cost along with your final reporting List any information regarding the Project Costs and Source(s) of Funds including comments around cash flow. Once you have identified all your expenses, propose what revenues (sources of funding) will pay for them. (Please explain maximum 1000 words)


Explain Attempts to Secure Other Funding including: any funding initiatives you have undertaken prior to this application, other funding being used to complete this project, and if there are pending funding sources (Please explain maximum 1000 words)

Explain 'In-house' Bookkeeping and Accounting including: who will manage the 'financial end' of the project, and how will you keep track of the project finances. (Please explain maximum 1000 words)

Confirm that Operational and Maintenance Funds exist once the project is completed including: how the project will be financed after the initial funding, and are there ongoing costs that need to be considered. (Please explain maximum 1000 words)

Project Objectives Explain how your project meets the constitutional goals and objectives of the Gwaii Trust (found under the constitution section of this website). (Please explain maximum 1000 words)

Explain how you have leveraged any partnership opportunities to fund this application. (Please explain maximum 1000 words)

Comment on how your group has demonstrated community support or buy-in. (Please explain maximum 1000 words)

Evaluation Process How will you determine the success of your project and what will you use to measure its success?

Letter of Support & Verification of Costs Upload letters of support, confirmation of income, cost quotes or relevant information. Certification I/We certify that the information contained in this application any other submitted information are correct and complete at the date of submission. Submission of false or deliberately misleading information may result in the Gwaii Trust denying this and or future applications to the Trust under any of its granting programs. The Gwaii Trust Board of Directors will not consider any information or supporting documentation received after the allocation deadline in their review of this project. All applications submitted become the property of the Gwaii Trust, who may publish the said applications on their website www.gwaiitrust.com or may otherwise utilize their content as the Gwaii Trust sees fit. By checking YES in the box below, and submitting this application, I agree to the above statements Yes OFFICE USE: Approved: Yes No Date Processed:

Project Officer:

Conditions:


GTS Evaluation Form, 2009-2014

!

Gwaii%Trust%Society%PO!Box!588,!162!Raven!Ave,!Masset,!B.C.!V0T!1V0!

Ph:!250.626.3654!Toll!Free:!1.800.663.2388!Fax:!250.626.3261!www.gwaiitrust.com!

1!!

!

GWAII%TRUST%PROJECT%EVALUATION%FORM%

Instructions:!Please!fill!out!the!project!evaluation!form!below.!If!some!of!the!question!do!not!apply!to!your!project!please!leave!blank.!This!form!must!be!filled!out!and!submitted!with!your!final!report.!

PROJECT%NAME:!___________! ! ! ! FILE%NUMBER:%___________! %% % % % %Date:%___________% Contact%Person:%___________%%Section%1:%Economic%Development%!

1) Were!any!jobs!created!in!relation!to!your!project,!if!yes!how!many?!! _____________________________________________________________________________!!

2) Were!you!able!to!use!local!contracting!companies!during!any!phase!in!construction?!If!yes!to!what!degree?!______________________________________________________________________________!

! !3) Were!any!jobs!created!as!a!result!of!your!completed!projects?!NO!

a. If!yes;!how!many!full!time.!___________________________________________________________________!

b. How!many!partXtime?!! ___________________________________________________________________!

Section%2:%Infrastructure,%Governance:%%

1) Your!project!predicted!a!revenue!component!from!the!facilities!to!assist!in!operating!costs,!has!this!been!successful?!!

a. If!yes!to!what!degree?!! ______________________________________________________________________________!!

2) Has!your!project!yielded!any!other!sources!of!revenue!for!your!organization?!______________________________________________________________________________!!

3) Were!you!able!to!keep!within!prospective!budgets!and!timelines?!!!______________________________________________________________________________!

4) Explain!if!and!how!your!project!has!assisted!in!bringing!all!Islanders!closer!together!enhancing!their!common!betterment!or!enabling!the!consolidation!of!services!wherever!practicable.!______________________________________________________________________________!

!% %


!

Gwaii%Trust%Society%PO!Box!588,!162!Raven!Ave,!Masset,!B.C.!V0T!1V0!

Ph:!250.626.3654!Toll!Free:!1.800.663.2388!Fax:!250.626.3261!www.gwaiitrust.com!

2!!

Section%2:%Infrastructure,%Governance%Cont:%!

5) Overall!can!you!estimated!annual!savings!on!operating!or!other!costs!for!the!facility!as!a!whole?!______________________________________________________________________________!!

6) Did!this!project!enable!you!now!or!in!the!future,!to!leverage!additional!funding?!!______________________________________________________________________________!!

7) Based!on!your!experience!what!recommendations!would!you!give!to!similar!projects!with!their!budgets!and!timelines?!______________________________________________________________________________!

%Section%3:%Community,%Culture,%&%Youth:%!

1) How!many!participants,!on!average,!use!per!month!or!quarterly!(note!where!there!are!increases):!

a. Recreation/Fitness!facilities.!________________________________________________________________________!

b. Youth/Teens.!________________________________________________________________________!

c. Seniors.!!________________________________________________________________________!

d. Learning!Centre.!________________________________________________________________________!

e. Regional!Library.!________________________________________________________________________!

f. Other.!________________________________________________________________________!!

2) Explain!how!your!project!demonstrates!or!promotes!Island!culture.!______________________________________________________________________________!!

3) Were!there!any!areas!of!success!that!were!not!anticipated!when!the!project!was!completed?!______________________________________________________________________________!

%Section%4:%Food%Security:%!

1) Explain!how!this!project!encouraged!on!island!food!source!solutions,!highlighting!your!successes!and!challenges!being!as!specific!as!possible.!______________________________________________________________________________!

!

Your%comments/feedback:%!!%

Centre for Social Innovation & Impact Investing | GTS Five ...€¦ · three to six months, whereas...

Documents

Transcript of Centre for Social Innovation & Impact Investing | GTS Five ...€¦ · three to six months, whereas...