First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) Project – Phase 2

IFSD is pleased to provide the eighth monthly update to its stakeholders on the progress of the First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) Project – Phase 2.

Principal updates

• We hope this update finds you, your families, communities and agencies safe and well as we collectively deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.  
• This month’s update is focused on COVID-19 emergency funding and considerations in the allocation, flow and speed of funding.
• IFSD is grateful to the agencies who continue to share their experiences for this work through survey participation and meetings via distance.  IFSD welcomes your feedback throughout this work.
• Inspite of the national health and economic circumstances, IFSD is continuing its work with stakeholders on the FNCFS project.

Are you an agency that hasn’t yet participated in the questionnaire?
Connect with IFSD or download the questionnaire

Emergency funding for COVID-19: Responses and support to Indigenous Peoples

SUMMARY 
The pandemic has sent economies into recession and is stressing health systems and the people they serve.  In response, the Government of Canada has introduced a variety of interim measures to ease the immediate financial pain caused by the pandemic.  

While all economic sectors and people have been in some way affected by the pandemic, vulnerable populations or populations with pre-existing social and economic challenges may be more severely burdened.  Indigenous Peoples, and especially, First Nations living on-reserve with overcrowded housing, limited access to social and health services, and higher incidences of child and family services interventions, are at greater risk of ramifications. 

Recognizing the particular challenges, Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) announced $305 million for the Indigenous Community Services Fund on March 26, 2020.  This funding is to be distributed across groups of Indigenous Peoples, with 65% of the funding attributed to First Nations.  

When considering three parameters for assessing resource allocation and distribution (allocation, flow and speed), the announced funding falls short.  While funding will flow principally to First Nations communities, there is no definition of targeted people or services.  Without a plan, the impact of emergency funding may be limited. 

Precedents exist to better allocate and distribute funding in crisis situations.  Four broad approaches to distributing emergency funding can be defined, each with its own trade-offs in allocation, flow and speed.  These approaches have clear targets and intentions, e.g. immediate financial relief allocated directly to a recipient, or long-term disaster mitigation planning.  To address needs in an emergency and to build resiliency for the next unexpected situation, funding targets, approaches and amounts will differ.  

There are models of planned and targeted emergency response.  Consider for instance, Dakota Ojibway Child and Family Services (DOCFS), based in Manitoba.  The organization has a well-developed business continuity plan that can be actioned in one half-day.  From staff roles to connections with other branches of the Tribal Council, DOCFS works to fulfill the emergency needs of the people they serve from the procurement and delivery of food to personal items.  

Emergency funding is a tool that should have clearly defined purposes to reach those in need in moments of crisis.  Allocating funding is one step, getting it to work is another. 

Introduction

The pandemic has sent economies into recession and is stressing health systems and the people they serve.  In response, the Government of Canada has introduced a variety of interim measures to ease the immediate financial pain caused by the pandemic.  

While all economic sectors and people have been in some way affected by the pandemic, vulnerable populations or populations with pre-existing social and economic challenges may be more severely burdened.  Indigenous Peoples, and especially, First Nations living on-reserve with overcrowded housing, limited access to social and health services, and higher incidences of child and family services interventions, are at greater risk of ramifications. 

Recognizing the particular challenges, Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) announced $305 million for the Indigenous Community Services Fund on March 26, 2020.  This funding is to be distributed across groups of Indigenous Peoples, with 65% of the funding attributed to First Nations.  In mid-April, nearly $307 million was announced for Aboriginal businesses, largely made available through Indigenous financial institutions through short-term interest free loans, and non-repayable contributions.   

To provide a rough comparative basis on which to understand the funding, per capita calculations suggest that First Nations on-reserve receive approximately $645 per person, Inuit receive approximately $700, with Métis and Urban Indigenous Peoples receiving substantively less on a per capita basis:

Most of the total funding (approximately $290 million or 92%) is being allocated on a regional basis.  Since funding for urban Indigenous services is proposal-based (approximately 5% of total funding), there is no defined regional association (until the funding is allocated).

On a per capita basis, North West Territories receive the highest per capita funding amounts and Ontario receives the lowest.

At the time of writing, ISC had not released information on if and when allocated resources have flowed to participants.  For the funding allocated by proposal, the deadline for proposals was April 13, 2020.

Beyond the dollar amounts, there are three principal considerations on resources:

1)    The way in which funding is allocated (i.e. who gets what)
2)    The way in which funding flows (i.e. how money moves to recipients)
3)    The speed with which funding is distributed (i.e. when it flows to recipients)

Allocation

ISC defines population, remoteness and need as three parameters for distributing funding to First Nations.  ISC can be credited with identifying relevant factors for funding.  The problem, however, is that the definition of the factors and their application are unclear.  Without understanding how population, remoteness and need are being used to determine allocations, they have little meaning.

Flow

On the matter of funding flows, ISC defined different means of moving money based on recipient group.  For instance, First Nations dollars will flow directly to communities, whereas funding for Inuit will flow based on an allocation determined by ITK and regional Inuit land claims organizations.  In the case of Métis and Urban Indigenous funding, eligible parties can apply for funding. 

There is a helpful distinction to be made between emergency response funding to ease the immediate shock/pain of a pandemic, versus the longer-term funding that is meant to support development in communities.

In the current circumstances, it may be helpful to ensure funding flows to recipients as quickly and as efficiently as possible to ensure their basic needs are being met, especially in challenging circumstances.

Speed

The speed with which funding reaches recipients is closely connected to how it flows.  ISC has defined different means through which Indigenous Peoples will receive support: directly through their First Nation, through a land-based organization, or by applying for funding. 

The most efficient funding receipt will likely be among First Nations.  It can be expected that funding will move with relative ease to First Nations (as mechanisms and agreements already exist), and that the band council structures in place should generally be able to put funding into practice.  The slowest funding by contrast, may be funding allocated through the call for proposals for those providing services to Indigenous Peoples in urban centres or off-reserve.

Re-thinking emergency funding

There are four principal models that emerge when considering approaches to delivering emergency funding across jurisdictions: application-based temporary assistance; direct transfers to persons; medium- to long-term grants; and third-party managed funding.

There are considerations for each of these funding approaches, that may be suitable to responding to different types of crises or particular moments over the course of a crisis and its recovery. 

Next steps

1. Model funding approaches and develop explanatory notes for funding components.
2. Analyze initial expenditure data from ISC.
3. Analyze data shared by FNCFS agencies and build case study profiles.
4. Build research on transition and resource considerations.

Contact information

IFSD is pleased to respond to requests for further information or to provide individual briefings on the project and its project. For questions about the project or to participate, please contact:

Dr. Helaina Gaspard, Director, Governance and Institutions Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy (IFSD) at the University of Ottawa 
helaina.gaspard@ifsd.ca
1 (613) 983-8461

March 2020

IFSD is pleased to provide the sixth monthly update to its stakeholders on the progress of the First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) Project – Phase 2.

Download the March 2020 update

Principal Updates

• We hope this update finds you, your families, communities and agencies safe and well as we collectively deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. 
• IFSD is pleased to share the updated measurement approach shaped by agency leadership and experts.
• In consultation with AFN, IFSD has concluded a data sharing agreement with Indigenous Services Canada and received an initial data set from ISC, and is continuing to work with the team tasked with delivery of the data to complete the request consistent with the project’s requirements.
• IFSD welcomes your feedback throughout this work.
• Inspite of the national health and economic circumstances, IFSD will continue its work with stakeholders on the FNCFS project, though will transition to online and telephone modes in order to maintain social distance.

Are you an agency that hasn’t yet participated in the questionnaire?

Connect with IFSD or download the questionnaire

Measuring to Thrive

Overview

Appendix 1 – Measuring to Thrive framework

First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) Project – Phase 2

IFSD is pleased to provide the eighth monthly update to its stakeholders on the progress of the First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) Project – Phase 2.

Principal updates

• We hope this update finds you, your families, communities and agencies safe and well as we collectively deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.  
• This month’s update is focused on COVID-19 emergency funding and considerations in the allocation, flow and speed of funding.
• IFSD is grateful to the agencies who continue to share their experiences for this work through survey participation and meetings via distance.  IFSD welcomes your feedback throughout this work.
• Inspite of the national health and economic circumstances, IFSD is continuing its work with stakeholders on the FNCFS project.

Are you an agency that hasn’t yet participated in the questionnaire?
Connect with IFSD or download the questionnaire

Emergency funding for COVID-19: Responses and support to Indigenous Peoples

SUMMARY 
The pandemic has sent economies into recession and is stressing health systems and the people they serve.  In response, the Government of Canada has introduced a variety of interim measures to ease the immediate financial pain caused by the pandemic.  

While all economic sectors and people have been in some way affected by the pandemic, vulnerable populations or populations with pre-existing social and economic challenges may be more severely burdened.  Indigenous Peoples, and especially, First Nations living on-reserve with overcrowded housing, limited access to social and health services, and higher incidences of child and family services interventions, are at greater risk of ramifications. 

Recognizing the particular challenges, Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) announced $305 million for the Indigenous Community Services Fund on March 26, 2020.  This funding is to be distributed across groups of Indigenous Peoples, with 65% of the funding attributed to First Nations.  

When considering three parameters for assessing resource allocation and distribution (allocation, flow and speed), the announced funding falls short.  While funding will flow principally to First Nations communities, there is no definition of targeted people or services.  Without a plan, the impact of emergency funding may be limited. 

Precedents exist to better allocate and distribute funding in crisis situations.  Four broad approaches to distributing emergency funding can be defined, each with its own trade-offs in allocation, flow and speed.  These approaches have clear targets and intentions, e.g. immediate financial relief allocated directly to a recipient, or long-term disaster mitigation planning.  To address needs in an emergency and to build resiliency for the next unexpected situation, funding targets, approaches and amounts will differ.  

There are models of planned and targeted emergency response.  Consider for instance, Dakota Ojibway Child and Family Services (DOCFS), based in Manitoba.  The organization has a well-developed business continuity plan that can be actioned in one half-day.  From staff roles to connections with other branches of the Tribal Council, DOCFS works to fulfill the emergency needs of the people they serve from the procurement and delivery of food to personal items.  

Emergency funding is a tool that should have clearly defined purposes to reach those in need in moments of crisis.  Allocating funding is one step, getting it to work is another. 

Introduction

The pandemic has sent economies into recession and is stressing health systems and the people they serve.  In response, the Government of Canada has introduced a variety of interim measures to ease the immediate financial pain caused by the pandemic.  

While all economic sectors and people have been in some way affected by the pandemic, vulnerable populations or populations with pre-existing social and economic challenges may be more severely burdened.  Indigenous Peoples, and especially, First Nations living on-reserve with overcrowded housing, limited access to social and health services, and higher incidences of child and family services interventions, are at greater risk of ramifications. 

Recognizing the particular challenges, Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) announced $305 million for the Indigenous Community Services Fund on March 26, 2020.  This funding is to be distributed across groups of Indigenous Peoples, with 65% of the funding attributed to First Nations.  In mid-April, nearly $307 million was announced for Aboriginal businesses, largely made available through Indigenous financial institutions through short-term interest free loans, and non-repayable contributions.   

To provide a rough comparative basis on which to understand the funding, per capita calculations suggest that First Nations on-reserve receive approximately $645 per person, Inuit receive approximately $700, with Métis and Urban Indigenous Peoples receiving substantively less on a per capita basis:

Most of the total funding (approximately $290 million or 92%) is being allocated on a regional basis.  Since funding for urban Indigenous services is proposal-based (approximately 5% of total funding), there is no defined regional association (until the funding is allocated).

On a per capita basis, North West Territories receive the highest per capita funding amounts and Ontario receives the lowest.

At the time of writing, ISC had not released information on if and when allocated resources have flowed to participants.  For the funding allocated by proposal, the deadline for proposals was April 13, 2020.

Beyond the dollar amounts, there are three principal considerations on resources:

1)    The way in which funding is allocated (i.e. who gets what)
2)    The way in which funding flows (i.e. how money moves to recipients)
3)    The speed with which funding is distributed (i.e. when it flows to recipients)

Allocation

ISC defines population, remoteness and need as three parameters for distributing funding to First Nations.  ISC can be credited with identifying relevant factors for funding.  The problem, however, is that the definition of the factors and their application are unclear.  Without understanding how population, remoteness and need are being used to determine allocations, they have little meaning.

Flow

On the matter of funding flows, ISC defined different means of moving money based on recipient group.  For instance, First Nations dollars will flow directly to communities, whereas funding for Inuit will flow based on an allocation determined by ITK and regional Inuit land claims organizations.  In the case of Métis and Urban Indigenous funding, eligible parties can apply for funding. 

There is a helpful distinction to be made between emergency response funding to ease the immediate shock/pain of a pandemic, versus the longer-term funding that is meant to support development in communities.

In the current circumstances, it may be helpful to ensure funding flows to recipients as quickly and as efficiently as possible to ensure their basic needs are being met, especially in challenging circumstances.

Speed

The speed with which funding reaches recipients is closely connected to how it flows.  ISC has defined different means through which Indigenous Peoples will receive support: directly through their First Nation, through a land-based organization, or by applying for funding. 

The most efficient funding receipt will likely be among First Nations.  It can be expected that funding will move with relative ease to First Nations (as mechanisms and agreements already exist), and that the band council structures in place should generally be able to put funding into practice.  The slowest funding by contrast, may be funding allocated through the call for proposals for those providing services to Indigenous Peoples in urban centres or off-reserve.

Re-thinking emergency funding

There are four principal models that emerge when considering approaches to delivering emergency funding across jurisdictions: application-based temporary assistance; direct transfers to persons; medium- to long-term grants; and third-party managed funding.

There are considerations for each of these funding approaches, that may be suitable to responding to different types of crises or particular moments over the course of a crisis and its recovery. 

Next steps

1. Model funding approaches and develop explanatory notes for funding components.
2. Analyze initial expenditure data from ISC.
3. Analyze data shared by FNCFS agencies and build case study profiles.
4. Build research on transition and resource considerations.

Contact information

IFSD is pleased to respond to requests for further information or to provide individual briefings on the project and its project. For questions about the project or to participate, please contact:

Dr. Helaina Gaspard, Director, Governance and Institutions Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy (IFSD) at the University of Ottawa 
helaina.gaspard@ifsd.ca
1 (613) 983-8461

March 2020

IFSD is pleased to provide the sixth monthly update to its stakeholders on the progress of the First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) Project – Phase 2.

Download the March 2020 update

Principal Updates

• We hope this update finds you, your families, communities and agencies safe and well as we collectively deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. 
• IFSD is pleased to share the updated measurement approach shaped by agency leadership and experts.
• In consultation with AFN, IFSD has concluded a data sharing agreement with Indigenous Services Canada and received an initial data set from ISC, and is continuing to work with the team tasked with delivery of the data to complete the request consistent with the project’s requirements.
• IFSD welcomes your feedback throughout this work.
• Inspite of the national health and economic circumstances, IFSD will continue its work with stakeholders on the FNCFS project, though will transition to online and telephone modes in order to maintain social distance.

Are you an agency that hasn’t yet participated in the questionnaire?

Connect with IFSD or download the questionnaire

Measuring to Thrive

Overview

Appendix 1 – Measuring to Thrive framework

February 2020

IFSD is pleased to provide the sixth monthly update to its stakeholders on the progress of the First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) Project – Phase 2.

Download the February 2020 update

Principal Updates

• IFSD hosted a roundtable on measurement for thriving First Nations children, families and communities.  We are grateful to agency leadership from all regions and experts for their engagement and invaluable insights that have helped to refine the proposed approach to measurement.  IFSD looks forward to sharing the updated measurement approach with stakeholders in the next update.
• IFSD is pleased to share its interim research on funding approaches.  This preliminary research is an overview of the case-focused analysis being pursued on the cost-benefit analysis of funding approaches.
• Overall participation in the questionnaire has increased to 48%.  To get to at least a 50% participation from all provinces, we need four more agencies from Alberta, and one more agency from Ontario.  We’re almost there.  Please help us achieve at least 50% participation from each province/region to ensure agencies are represented.  IFSD wishes to thank all those agencies that have participated and is asking that all agencies who have not yet participated to download and return the completed questionnaire as soon as possible.
• IFSD is continuing to working with an Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) team tasked with delivery of the data consistent with the project’s requirements.
• IFSD welcomes your feedback throughout this work.

Are you an agency that hasn’t yet participated in the questionnaire?

Connect with IFSD or download the questionnaire

Resources and flexibility in service delivery

Participation gaps – questionnaire

January 2020

IFSD is pleased to provide the fifth monthly update to its stakeholders on the progress of the First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) Project – Phase 2.

Download the January 2020 update

Principal Updates

• IFSD is continuing its work on refining the results framework in collaboration with agencies and experts.  A roundtable is scheduled for February 2020.   
• As the work on data structures and alignment to results is pursued, work is underway on the structure of a funding approach to meet the goal of thriving First Nations children, families and communities.  Cases such as Tennessee are being explored to learn from their experience.
• Overall participation in the questionnaire has increased to 45%.  To get to at least a 50% participation for all provinces, we need five more agencies from Alberta, and two more agencies each from Saskatchewan and Ontario.  We’re almost there.  Please help us achieve at least 50% participation from each province/region to ensure agencies are represented.  IFSD wishes to thank all those agencies that have participated and is asking that all agencies who have not yet participated to download and return the completed questionnaire as soon as possible.
• IFSD is continuing to working with an Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) team tasked with delivery of the data consistent with the project’s requirements.
• IFSD welcomes your feedback throughout this work.

Are you an agency that hasn’t yet participated in the questionnaire?

Connect with IFSD or download the questionnaire

Money as a tool for change

Participation gaps – questionnaire

December 2019

IFSD is pleased to provide monthly updates to its stakeholders on the progress of the First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) Project – Phase 2.

Download the December 2019 update

Principal Updates

• Following the update on the results framework, this update will focus on the related necessary data.
• Relevant, available, comparable, and consistenly captured data is necessary to give life to a results framework. 
• IFSD has prepared a draft alignment of necessary data and data gaps in the current universe of available information.  Consult the full update for details.
• Overall participation in the questionnaire has increased to 42%.  Saskatchewan’s participation has improved significantly to 37% (over double its previous rate).  Important gaps remain however, for Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan.  The goal is to achieve at least 50% participation from each province/region to ensure agencies are represented.  IFSD wishes to thank all those agencies that have participated and is asking that all agencies who have not yet participated to download and return the completed questionnaire as soon as possible.
• IFSD is now working with an Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) team tasked with delivery of the data consistent with the project’s requirements.
• IFSD welcomes your feedback throughout this work.

Are you an agency that hasn’t yet participated in the questionnaire?

Connect with IFSD or download the questionnaire

Data alignment and data gaps

IFSD welcomes your feedback on the alignment of data and indicators.  IFSD looks forward to continuing to refine this framework with its stakeholders.   

Beyond the availability of data, there are considerations relative to its accessibility and its sufficient detail for analytic use. Publicly accessible data tends to be available (e.g. housing, access to potable water) but aggregated, which limits its applicability for decision-support in specific domains. Granular data may be available at the level of the individual agency or First Nation, but is not always readily available, comparable or consistently captured (i.e. loss of time series).

The draft diagram below plots the indicators from the performance framework based on their current-state accessibility and granularity.  A significant majority of indicators are accessible but insufficiently granular (bottom right quandrant).  This suggests that while there is aggregate data at the level of a First Nation, a province or region, the data may not have the necessary detail to measure the indicator defined in the performance framework.  For instance, there may be data at the level of the First Nation on alcohol and drug misuse (for assessment of the risk management indicator), but that data may not be available for the individual child.  Even though individual data will not be shared, it is a useful internal metric for agency decision-support and planning for the child and family.  The mismatch between accessibility and granularity is not insurmountable.  It will require agency action with requisite resources. 

The upper right quadrant is both accessible and sufficiently granular.  Most of this data relates to child safety, as it is expected that agencies already collect this information at the level of the individual child for their case files.  It is anticipated that while this data will not be made public at the level of the individual, the aggregated data can be a reliable source of information to asses overall outcomes for children and families in a community.  Some community level data is also included, as it can be accessed from public sources at the level of the First Nation.  Such data includes housing suitability and access to potable water to fulfill certain indicators.  The two community well-being indicators related to infrastructure and health and social services in the bottom left corner are deemed both insufficiently granular and insufficiently accessible because the data does not tend to exist.  It would be up to individual communities or agencies to collect or produce this data.    

To help to close the data gaps and ensure data is relevant for the proposed results framework, a mix of existing and new data will have to be collected and analysed.

This is an opportunity for agencies to standardize the capture of relevant data to support planning, decision-making, and the alignment of activities and resources for the well-being of children, families and communities.

In the coming months, IFSD looks forward to sharing a data framework that agencies may wish to leverage to capture their own information.

Participation gaps – questionnaire

November 2019

IFSD is pleased to provide monthly updates to its stakeholders on the progress of the First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) Project – Phase 2

Download the November 2019 update

Principal Updates

• At this time 37% of FNCFS agencies have completed the questionnaire.  There are significant participation gaps in Saskatchewan, Ontario and Alberta.  The goal is to achieve at least 50% participation from each province/region to ensure agencies are represented.  IFSD wishes to thank all those agencies that have participated and is asking that all agencies who have not yet participated to download and return the completed questionnaire as soon as possible.
• A draft results framework is available in the full update, which builds from the goal of enabling First Nations children to thrive defined in Phase 1.  This framework will serve as the point of departure for the funding approach.  IFSD welcomes feedback from agencies on this work.
• IFSD is continuing to work with Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) to complete its August 2019 data request on departmental spending.
• IFSD is grateful to all of the agencies who have come forward to serve as case studies and regular collaborators for this project.  We look forward to visiting and learning from you.
• IFSD welcomes your feedback throughout this work.

Are you an agency that hasn’t yet participated in the questionnaire?

Connect with IFSD or download the questionnaire

Participation gaps – questionnaire

The short (7-question) questionnaire is designed to capture basic information on funding (e.g. total expenditures, CHRT funding requested) and performance practices among FNCFS agencies.  Most of the questionnaire can be completed by checking boxes. 

The information from the questionnaire will help IFSD to ensure alignment to need as a funding approach is developed and more accurately cluster agencies to model the effects of transition. 

In Phase 1, the participation rate for 100+ question survey was 76%.  The overall participation rate for the Phase 2, 7-question questionnaire, is currently 37%.  IFSD is targeting at least 50% participation from each province/region for representivity.  By sharing your experience, you’re making this work more representative and reflective of your agency’s reality.  We encourage all agencies to complete the survey.

Results framework

October 2019

IFSD is pleased to provide monthly updates to its stakeholders on the progress of the First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) Project – Phase 2.

Download the October 2019 update

Principal Updates

• IFSD has extended the questionnaire deadline to November 6, 2019.  FNCFS gencies are encouraged to complete the short questionnaire and return it via email to IFSD, if they haven’t already done so.
• Some basic data on FNCFS program spending was shared by ISC pursuant to IFSD’s August 2019 request for required data.  The balance of the request is in-progress.  
• IFSD is seeking other FNCFS agencies to join those which have already agreed to serve as case studies and regular collaborators for this project.  This will be a unique opportunity to share your experiences and have them inform this work on funding approach development.Are you an agency that hasn’t yet participated in the questionnaire, or would like to inquire about being a case study agency?

Connect with IFSD

Current state spending by Indigenous Services Canada (ISC)

IFSD submitted a request for data in August 2019 to ISC.  Some basic elements of the request have been fulfilled (and others are in progress).  The data delivered by ISC suggests that:

• FNCFS program spending has trended upward since 2014-15, with an important increase between 2017-18 and 2018-19.

• Over time, Manitoba, Ontario and Alberta have received the largest total FNCFS program transfers.

• Ontario-based agencies have received the highest amount of CHRT-mandated supplementary funding.

• Agencies serving at least one community inaccessible by year-round receive larger transfers than those serving communities accessible by year-round round (using only identifiable agencies in ISC’s data).

Would your agency like to be considered as a case study agency?

In addition to the questionnaire, IFSD is seeking in-depth engagement from approximately 12 FNCFS agencies and two communities not served by a FNCFS agency. These agencies, all with different characteristics (e.g. geographic location, size, etc.), will be selected to serve as representative cases for the project. These agencies/communities will work closely with IFSD to evaluate and test models and frameworks throughout the project.

Are you an agency that hasn’t yet participated in the questionnaire, or would like to inquire about being a case study agency?

Connect with IFSD