The report is a post‑analysis of the National Call for Proposals (CFP) 2024 that funded Canada’s Settlement and Resettlement Assistance Programs (outside Québec) for the period April 1 2025 – March 31 2028. Its aim is to evaluate how well the CFP achieved its intended outcomes, identify strengths and weaknesses of the funding process, and generate actionable recommendations for future CFP cycles.
Key guiding questions include:
Did the CFP meet the policy objectives and priorities set out in 2024?
How effective were the supports, tools, and communications provided to applicants and assessors?
What were the impacts of the 2024 immigration‑levels adjustment on timing, funding allocations and negotiations?
Which aspects of the process require improvement (e.g., timing, guideline clarity, equity/EDI integration, negotiation efficiency)?
What do you need to know? – Context & Why It Matters
Policy backdrop – CFP 2024 was the largest IRCC funding round to date, launching in Nov 2023 with a $3.25 billion investment over three years. It followed the 2019 CFP and incorporated new Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (EDI) and Gender‑Based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) criteria for the first time.
Immigration‑levels shock – In Oct 2024 the government released a reduced multi‑year immigration plan, forcing IRCC to rebalance funding, shift from five‑year to three‑year agreements, and delay final results by nine weeks.
Process innovations – Compared with CFP 2019, IRCC introduced:
Upgraded Grants and Contributions System (GCS) infrastructure,
Expanded webinars, FAQs, help‑desks, and a dedicated communications advisor,
Early sector consultations (Mar 2023) and a formal EDI scoring component.
Uniqueness – The report blends quantitative survey data (external ≈ 2 285 invitations, 626 responses; internal ≈ 646 invitations, 184 responses) with qualitative feedback from support mailboxes, webinars, and ongoing stakeholder engagement. It is the first IRCC CFP analysis to systematically evaluate EDI integration and negotiation transparency.
What did the researchers find? – Key Highlights & Themes
Improved supports & tools - “58 % of applicants found the application and proposal submission process clear and easy to understand.” “Applicant resources related to EDI (68 % satisfied) and enhanced FAQs (62 % satisfied) were among the most positively‑received tools.”
Timing pressures - “Compressed timelines placed pressure on both applicants and IRCC staff… the length of time from CFP launch to notification of results was 53 weeks.” “Advance notice of CFP priorities and launch date was the top‑ranked improvement desired (74 %).”
Guideline complexity - “Funding guidelines were noted as large and unclear, especially for new applicants.” “Respondents called for plain‑language, shortened guidelines (69 % of external respondents).”
Equity/EDI integration - “EDI questions in the GCS organization profile were judged clear and easy by 60 % of respondents, and 68 % were satisfied with EDI resources.” “However, some applicants felt the expectation to incorporate EDI lacked corresponding resources, leading to inconsistent prioritization.”
Negotiation challenges - “Only 44 % found the overall negotiation process clear; 52 % said regional negotiation sessions were helpful.” “Key suggestions: extend negotiation timelines (65 % of internal respondents) and provide cheat‑sheet aids (58 % of external respondents).”
Sector perception of fairness - “Smaller, grassroots organizations felt the process favoured larger, experienced NGOs.” “Several respondents expressed disappointment that policy priorities (anti‑racism, innovation) were not reflected in final funding decisions.”
French‑language support - “Overall satisfaction with French‑language tools was moderate (≈ 60 %); the GCS assessment module in French received the lowest rating (48 %).”
Additional observations
Sector‑specific feedback loops – While IRCC instituted a dedicated communications advisor, respondents still reported insufficient real‑time updates during the Levels‑driven adjustments.
Holiday‑season launch – The CFP opened during the December 2023 holidays, which many respondents said reduced proposal quality and added strain.
Cost‑per‑client benchmarks – Applicants criticized the lack of transparent methodology for cost‑per‑client figures used in negotiations.
Early, off‑cycle funding mechanisms – The report recommends exploring smaller, off‑cycle calls (e.g., for Francophone or grassroots groups) to avoid holiday/fiscal‑year bottlenecks.
Plain‑language EDI guidance – Despite high satisfaction with EDI resources, the terminology around GBA Plus was repeatedly cited as confusing; simplifying intersectionality language is a priority.
Negotiation transparency – Participants want pre‑published cost‑per‑client ranges and single‑point Program Officer contacts to reduce confusion.
Differential impact on new vs. experienced applicants – New applicants reported lower satisfaction with guidelines and support tools, suggesting a need for targeted onboarding webinars.
Did the CFP meet the 2024 policy objectives and priorities?
The CFP met the baseline service‑delivery objectives, but fell short of fully operationalizing the higher‑order equity and innovation priorities that were set for 2024.
Overall alignment: The report concludes that the CFP largely succeeded in delivering the core policy goals—maintaining core direct client supports, protecting high‑impact, cost‑effective services, and preserving the Francophone Integration Pathway (FIP).
Equity/EDI objective: The new Equity stream and EDI capacity‑building component were funded (four national‑level projects, ≈ $16 M total) and 68 % of external respondents were satisfied with the EDI resources. However, many participants felt that the policy‑level priorities (anti‑racism, innovation, targeted programming) were not fully reflected in the final funding decisions, describing the inclusion of those priorities as “more symbolic than substantive.”
How effective were the supports, tools, and communications?
The supports and tools were substantially effective, especially the help‑desks, webinars, and EDI resources, but clarity of the funding guidelines and timeliness of communications need considerable improvement.
Positive outcomes:
Overall satisfaction – 58 % of external applicants found the application process “clear and easy,” and 55 % of internal staff rated the CFP supports as “clear.”
EDI resources – 68 % satisfied with EDI tools; 60 % found the new EDI questions in the GCS profile “clear and easy.”
Help‑desks & webinars – Two dedicated help‑desks and 33 live webinars (in both official languages) were highlighted as the most useful supports.
Weaknesses:
Guideline complexity – The funding guidelines were repeatedly described as “large and unclear,” especially for new applicants; 69 % of external respondents called for “simplify and shorten the funding guidelines.”
Timing of communications – Applicants wanted earlier notice of CFP priorities (74 % selected this as a top improvement).
French‑language tool gaps – The GCS assessment module in French received the lowest satisfaction rating (48 %).
Impact of the 2024 immigration‑levels adjustment
The immigration‑levels adjustment compressed the negotiation window, extended the overall timeline, and necessitated a shift to shorter‑term funding agreements, which amplified stress for both applicants and IRCC staff.
Timeline disruption: The reduction in immigration levels announced on 24 Oct 2024 forced IRCC to rebalance funding and delay final results by nine weeks. The total time from CFP launch to results stretched to 53 weeks (vs. the planned ~30‑week window).
Funding allocation changes: Original five‑year agreements were replaced with three‑year agreements (802 agreements covering Apr 1 2025 – Mar 31 2028). The total investment remained $3.25 B but was redistributed across fewer years.
Negotiation pressure: Negotiations, originally slated for Sep 2024, were pushed to Nov 23 2024 – Mar 31 2025, overlapping the holiday season and fiscal‑year‑end, creating “pressure on both applicants and IRCC staff.”
Which aspects of the process require improvement?
The report identifies these improvement areas as the most critical levers for future CFP cycles:
Timing & Planning - Compressed timelines caused overload; respondents want earlier notice of CFP priorities, avoidance of holiday/fiscal‑year periods, and buffer time for contingencies. Recommendation: explore smaller, off‑cycle funding calls and longer planning windows.
Guideline Clarity - Funding guidelines were seen as complex, lengthy, and jargon‑heavy. Over two‑thirds of external respondents called for plain‑language, shortened guidelines and a resource tool with definitions.
Equity/EDI Integration - While EDI tools were well‑received, participants noted inconsistent application and a lack of resources to meet EDI expectations. Recommendation: simplify GBA Plus language, streamline EDI criteria, and provide capacity‑building grants for equity‑focused organizations.
Negotiation Efficiency/Transparency - Negotiations were perceived as unclear, rushed, and lacking transparent cost‑per‑client benchmarks. Desired improvements include longer negotiation periods, single‑point PO contacts, and cheat‑sheet aids.
French‑Language Support - Lower satisfaction with French‑language GCS assessment module (48 %). Need for enhanced translation, clearer French FAQs, and better French‑language tool usability.
Support for New/Small Organizations - New applicants reported lower satisfaction with guidelines and tools. Suggested actions: generic proposal‑development webinars, targeted onboarding resources, and possibly a separate funding stream for grassroots organizations.
How can you use this research? – Audience‑Specific Takeaways
Policy Makers / IRCC Leadership - • Institutionalize more effective earlier sector consultations (≥ 6 months before launch). Pilot off‑cycle, smaller‑scope funding calls for high‑need groups (Francophone, grassroots). • Mandate plain‑language revisions of all funding guidelines and EDI criteria. Publish cost‑per‑client benchmarks before proposal development. Examine the effectiveness of off‑cycle, targeted funding calls on application quality and equity outcomes. Conduct longitudinal studies on how EDI integration influences service delivery for newcomer populations. Evaluate the impact of plain‑language guideline revisions on success rates of new versus experienced applicants.
Program Officers & Regional Teams - Assign one PO per recipient throughout negotiation to improve consistency. Develop negotiation cheat‑sheets and a consolidated guidance document released early. Expand French‑language support for the GCS assessment module.
Non‑profit Service Providers (Applicants) - Attend generic proposal‑development webinars (especially if new to CFP). Leverage the enhanced FAQ & EDI resources; prepare plain‑language explanations of equity components. Plan for buffer time around holiday periods and fiscal‑year ends when budgeting proposals.
