Evaluation of the going to Canada Immigration Portal Initiative

3. Results and key findings

This section presents the key findings of the Evaluation of the Going to Canada Immigration Portal.

3.1. Relevance of the GTC-IP

3.1.1. Addressing a demonstrated need

Prior to the GTC-IP Initiative, information and services aimed at helping immigrants make informed decisions about coming to Canada and settling was fragmented and, to a large extent, alternative sources of online information still exist outside of the Portal Initiative. These sources are provided by both the private and public sectors, such as through immigration consultants, online reference sites, private individual sites, Service Canada, SPOs, and the main CIC website. The creation of the GTC-IP Initiative was intended to address the perceived problem of a dispersed landscape of information providers by unifying much of the information under the umbrella of a single collaborative effort. It was felt that this would help streamline much of the information being served to the target audience.

The need for streamlined, bundled and easily accessible information on immigration, settlement, education and employment, continues today.For example, a 2008 usability study of the GTC website found that site users wanted information on a variety of topics, including eligibility requirements, available jobs and detailed and up-to-date labour market information - all of which are offered on the GTC-IP.^{Footnote 24} This need was seen in another survey of recent immigrants commissioned by British Columbia, in which it was revealed that the most sought after information by immigrants and newcomers included a wide collection of knowledge related to Canada’s “health care, education, employment (labour market information), English language training, [and] job search…^{Footnote 25} . The study in BC also offered evidence to suggest that there is a need for, “authoritative information for front-line staff [to help] support clients through the immigration and integration process.^{Footnote 26}”

Furthermore, in his 2009 report to federal, provincial and territorial ministers, the chair of the Advisory Panel on Labour Market Information, Don Drummond, outlined how labour market information (LMI) was essential to Canada's economic growth and efficiency, allowing the country to better respond to the growing information and planning needs of employers, workers and learners.^{Footnote 27} Drummond’s report spoke of the benefits and necessity of a single, free, and fully accessible LMI platform in Canada – not only for potential immigrants and newcomers, but also for Canadian citizens. In this regard, the report recognized HRSDC’s WiC tool as having a central place in the delivery of that information. The report went on to categorize WiC as Canada’s chief source and most comprehensive platform for LMI.

This was supported by most key informants who felt there is a continued need for the Portal because it is complete, comprehensive, and more efficient and effective than the alternative sources of information noted above. The GTC-IP was generally described in interviews as a source which contains a greater breadth and scope of information than most alternatives. In effect, key informants referred to the GTC-IP as a primary source of information that reduces the need to visit multiple sites or consult multiple sources of information.As well, key informants felt that other sources of information may not provide the same degree of accuracy or reliability as is provided on the GTC-IP.

Focus group participants who had used the GTC-IP echoed the feelings of key informants regarding the continued need for a Portal by citing specific examples. Users expressed how the GTC-IP provided them with desired information on Canadian climate, culture, and what to expect when arriving in Canada. While some focus group participants reported finding this information on the CIC main site, they felt that it was not readily available due to the site’s overly complex layout and design, and the sophistication of the language it used.Focus group participants also noted the benefits of having a wide array of reliable information in one place, rather than spread across multiple, unrelated locations. Upon being shown the GTC-IP during group sessions, non-users within focus groups generally felt that the information contained on the Portal would have been useful to them had they known about it – both before and after they arrived in Canada.

In March 2010, CIC also conducted a Review of Recent Literature on Horizontal Management, which was prepared in support of the Summative Evaluation of Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism (CAPAR). The primary focus of this review was to examine the objectives, rationale, and strengths of federal government initiatives which involve two or more departments/agencies, in addition to drawing upon a wider array of literature on collaborative and networking arrangements. A key message from the review was that horizontal initiatives help governments to address increasingly complex issues, where no clear solution exists or is manageable by a single department or stakeholder group.^{Footnote 28} As a horizontal initiative, the GTC-IP helps to unify the efforts of an ever expanding network of stakeholders involved in migration and labour market issues, in an effort to provide a comprehensive, authoritative online resource for its target population.

3.1.2. Consistency with departmental strategic outcomes and government of Canada priorities

The GTC-IP’s 2007 Project Charter^{Footnote 29} outlined five key objectives of the Portal Initiative: to create an authoritative, comprehensive Internet source for immigrants and newcomers; to increase awareness of the opportunities, challenges and barriers to immigrate to Canada; to inform immigrants of the steps necessary to adapt, live and work in Canada; to help immigrants make local connections in their P/T or community; and to build effective long-term relationships with stakeholders and partners of the Initiative.

These objectives link to the strategic outcomes of both CIC (Strategic Outcome #3 – “Successful integration of newcomers into society and the promotion of Canadian Citizenship”) and HRSDC (Strategic Outcome – “A skilled, adaptable and inclusive labour force and an efficient labour market”). These strategic outcomes are further articulated in CIC and HRSDC’s respective 2010-11 Reports on Plans and Priorities (RPPs). In support of this finding, all HRSDC and CIC key informants stated that the Portal helps new immigrants adapt to and participate more fully in the workforce, helps to support settlement objectives and/or facilitates the integration of newcomers.

In addition to being highly aligned with CIC and HRSDC strategic outcomes, the GTC-IP was found to be aligned with priorities of the Government of Canada. For example, the GTC-IP is linked to the Government of Canada’s Advantage Canada commitments, which were reiterated in the October 2007 Speech from the Throne.^{Footnote 30} The GTC-IP also supports commitments made in the Government of Canada’s Budget 2007 – namely, to attract and retain skilled immigrants by better informing potential newcomers of the realities of living and working in Canada. The GTC-IP supports Canada’s Economic Action Plan (January 2009) which includes a commitment to help newcomers get their credentials recognized faster so that they can more swiftly pursue appropriate pathways to employment. Simultaneously, the WiC site works to strengthen the implementation of the FQR Framework by developing and integrating specialized information on qualification recognition processes for different occupations and in different jurisdictions.

This finding was supported by all CIC and HRSDC key informants who stated that the GTC-IP supports GoC priorities by providing a link between new Canadians and Canada’s economic priorities, including Canada’s economic action plan, and by addressing the need for a larger skilled workforce. Interviewees also reported that the GTC-IP Initiative supports Canada’s settlement objectives.

3.1.3. Suitability of CIC and HRSDC as delivery mechanisms

Almost all key informants who were asked this question said that the federal government’s responsibility over the GTC-IP is appropriate. The shared federal and provincial/territorial role with respect to immigration, which is enshrined in the Canadian Constitution, and the need for a single information source that provides national-level content and data, were frequently cited as reasons to support the federal role in the GTC-IP.It was felt that competition between provinces and territories for immigrants necessitates the provision of neutral, pan-Canadian information and coordination of national information. It was noted that provinces and territories are well-placed to provide more specific, P/T, and local information for newcomers.

Most key informants also indicated that delivery of GTC-IP content by alternative sources would not be as effective, as they feel that they do not currently provide the same level of information immigrants and newcomers seek.Focus group participants also spoke of the trustworthiness of information delivered by an authoritative source such as the Government of Canada.

In order to leverage the significant user population of the CIC main site, CIC has sought to replicate much of the content from the GTC site on the CIC main site. Comparing the information on the CIC main site and the GTC-IP sites, this evaluation found 5 major areas of overlap:

1. Information related to the theme of “Welcome to Canada,” which includes sections on preparing potential newcomers to get to know Canadian customs, geography, climate, laws, etc; moving to Canada; and what one can expect during their first days here;
2. Information related to immigration issues such as entry requirements, adoption, and travelling to Canada;
3. Information on visiting Canada, specifically dealing with visa requirements;
4. Information on studying and working in Canada as a foreign student;
5. Information on finding a job in Canada, which links to the WiC site and WiC tool.

A perception of duplication between GTC and the CIC main site has also been noted by Portal partners. For instance, many key informant interviewees felt that at least some of the content available on the Portal is duplicated elsewhere, with almost all of those who felt there was duplication citing the CIC main site as the chief source. Overall, a few of the interviewees were also inclined to believe that most, if not all, of the settlement information available on GTC can be found on the CIC main site, with one respondent claiming: “the Portal (meaning GTC) is living in the CIC site’s shadow”. Interviewees were concerned that because the majority of the GTC’s content is provided on a website with much higher profile and traffic, users would be less likely to seek out and use the GTC, thus limiting its usefulness. Users in focus groups also mentioned being confused between the CIC main site and GTC as they both offer similar content. As they were more familiar with the CIC site, focus group participants chose it over the GTC when seeking information.

There is also evidence to suggest that the GTC site’s target audience has visited and obtained the information they require within the above five areas of duplication by going to the CIC main site prior to, in conjunction with, or in place of the Portal. The CIC main site was the primary source of information for 84% (104 of 125) of intermediary survey respondents when providing services to potential immigrants and/or newcomers to Canada.As well, in the user survey, respondents were asked to identify other sources they had used to obtain information on immigrating, working, settling, visiting, and studying in Canada, as well as on Canada’s provinces and territories. Many indicated that they had used other GoC websites to access information contained on the GTC, with the CIC site being mentioned often. To give one example, 51% (47 of 92) of surveyed users said that they accessed information on immigrating to Canada on another GoC website, with a further 89% of those (42 of 47) indicating the CIC main site as the source.

During focus group sessions with users, respondents underscored how it was easier to find and locate the CIC main site when using a search engine to find information on immigration and settlement issues. Non-users in focus groups who had heard of the Portal also reported that the CIC main website was recommended to them as an information source – not the GTC-IP. Many non-users had also never even heard of the GTC-IP to begin with and recommended that there should be a more prominent link from the CIC main site to the GTC site in order to highlight GTC’s content.

Compounding the challenges of duplicated information between GTC and the CIC main site is the fact that the number of visitors to the CIC departmental site is significantly greater than the number of visits to the GTC-IP. Log file analysis showed that in 2009, on average, the monthly unique visitor count for the main CIC site was approximately 3.5 million, compared to an average of approximately 248,000 unique visitors for the GTC-IP (WiC and GTC sites combined from January-April, 2010), as noted in section 2.2.3. The impact of these figures on their own should be tempered by considerations of the differences between site users, and the content and history of these two sources. The CIC site has been running longer, has had more exposure, and holds information that is used by a broader client group than those who visit the Portal.

Nevertheless, the duplication and overlap in content, along with evidence of the CIC main site’s dominant web presence (as perceived by users and non-users of the GTC-IP) and the significant differences in web traffic between the Portal and CIC main site, points to ongoing challenges to the primacy of information contained on the Portal moving forward. Compared to the GTC site, however, the WiC site has not been affected by issues of duplication. Content related to “finding work” on the CIC site is clearly and directly linked back to the WiC site. The WiC tool is also designed to be versatile and to be shared across different sites – including the CIC main site. Accordingly, the CIC site only accounts for 6% of referrals to GTC, whereas it accounts for 32% of the referrals to WiC as shown in log file analysis.

3.2. Performance

3.2.1. Governance structure

Challenges to horizontal initiatives

According to a recent literature review on horizontal management,^{Footnote 31} an effective and appropriate coordinating management structure is vital to the success of any horizontal initiative. For instance, an overly complex governance structure, or excessively formalistic operation, can create delays and slow down momentum. Likewise, overly complicated and ineffective internal structures of participating organizations can compound problems and impact cohesive decision-making. In offering its solutions to these challenges, the CAPAR Literature Review recommended several measures on how to ensure effective horizontal initiatives.

1. The Initiative should designate a single unit as the focal point for coordination, which would help reduce the need for further coordination within participating organizations and branches.
2. It is important to ensure that members of the Management Committee have a firm grasp of the initiative, and understand the perspectives of the other participating organizations.
3. Stakeholders must be well-connected within their respective departments, with regular, tightly focussed meetings at various levels with clear records of decision and follow-through on action items and on requests for further information and analysis.
4. There should be clear protocols for joint decision-making and financing of operations.

In this study, we report the findings on GTC-IP governance structures and communications in view of these 4 criteria.

Governance between CIC and HRSDC

The original horizontal governance structure for the GTC-IP Initiative was articulated in the 2007 Project Charter as well as the Results-Based Management and Accountability Framework. This model included a variety of committees and working groups responsible for providing coordination and oversight with respect to the GTC-IP. None of these committees and working groups had a Terms of Reference to guide their operation.Almost half of the interviewees from CIC and one from HRSDC reported issues with the former governance structure, stating it was overly complex for such a small initiative and was difficult to implement. In 2010, CIC and HRSDC redesigned their committee oversight structure to be more streamlined. Interviewees report that this new model has improved the effectiveness of the GTC-IP’s governance.

This notwithstanding, the current governance between CIC and HRSDC was considered effective by only a few CIC and HRSDC key informants. However, the majority of remaining interviewees did not provide a clear response regarding the effectiveness of the current governance structure. As mentioned, many focused on the former structure and others were neutral in their response. Only one individual reported that the current structure was not effective, attributing this to a lack of common vision between CIC and HRSDC.

Other governance-related concerns raised by interviewees included a lack of clarity surrounding future directions of the Initiative and in the roles and responsibilities of both departments. However, some interviewees believed that an upcoming Letter of Understanding (LOU) to be signed by CIC and HRSDC will serve as a solution to these issues. For instance, the LOU is expected to clarify roles specific to each department in terms of content and partnership development. The LOU also provides information on the new horizontal committee structure for the Initiative.

The LOU also states that CIC will continue to host FPT portal workshops and coordinate FPT conferences.HRSDC will host a yearly labour market information workshop for Working in Canada Tool partners. Each department will be a standing participant at each other’s event to ensure proper policy linkages are developed between settlement and labour market related information.

The above noted measures are supported by the Horizontal Literature Review which outlines the criteria for effective horizontal management.

Governance within CIC

Historically, there has been a lack of clarity around CIC’s governance structure. There were no documents provided for the evaluation that outlined CIC’s originally intended internal governance structure for the GTC-IP. Key informant interviews also did not provide clarity on the former structure, with some interviewees stating that Integration Branch led the Initiative at CIC, while others referred to joint leadership between Integration and OMC Branches. This confusion could have been due, in part, to the March, 2006 departmental reorganization that led to the creation of the OMC Branch. The reorganization was implemented in order to “create coherent and consistent program delivery throughout Canada and abroad”. Prior to that reorganization, Integration Branch’s policy and operations units were housed together in one team. This split between policy and operations may have contributed to a lack of clarity around CIC’s internal governance structure, which has continued to the present day.

Most of the CIC respondents reported that the internal governance of the Portal has been fragmented, with responsibility for components of the GTC-IP resting in three different branches within CIC. Just over half of the CIC interviewees cited a combination of blurred lines of communication, undefined roles and responsibilities, differing opinions of three Branches leading to difficulties in decision-making, a lack of leadership and an uneven distribution of resources as both the cause and effect of CIC governance structure problems to date. A few CIC respondents either stated that governance has not been an issue or did not provide a response. Several HRSDC key informants also commented that CIC’s governance structure lacked clarity as a result of undefined roles and responsibilities.

Issues with CIC’s internal governance of the GTC-IP were articulated in a deck titled Management of the Going to Canada Immigration Portal project within CIC, presented by Integration Branch at a Portal Directors General meeting in June, 2008. That document stated that the structure needed to improve because there was an overall lack of accountability due to decentralization of authority, a significant overlap of responsibilities, and deficient coordination of the Initiative overall, with no one taking ownership. The document recommended that project management for the GTC-IP within CIC be centralized and led by a branch with expertise in web and communications. It also recommended that roles and responsibilities be defined by expertise and function.

These recommendations were partially implemented recently, with e-Communications Branch taking over as CIC lead of the GTC-IP. As well, an internal CIC Letter of Understanding has been drafted (for signature by e-Communications, OMC, Integration, Finance, and IMTB Branches), which more clearly outlines the roles and responsibilities of each CIC Branch implicated in the GTC-IP. Regular CIC meetings at various levels within the department were also outlined in this LOU, although Terms of Reference for these committees have yet to be developed. Almost half of the key informants from CIC expressed optimism about the functioning of CIC’s governance stemming from the LOU, and have cited recent improvements. However, this LOU has yet to be signed by the affected branches.

Governance within HRSDC

The governance model currently employed by HRSDC involves one team, working in one branch.It was viewed positively by both CIC and HRSDC respondents, with no interviewees reporting that the HRSDC model was ineffective. Almost half of the CIC key informants reported that HRSDC’s governance model is more effective than the one used by CIC. The approach whereby most WiC-related activities are performed by a single group of staff dedicated to Working in Canada, has fostered an atmosphere which encourages creativity, innovation and efficiencies according to key informants. For example, all of the systems work on the WiC website is conducted “in-house,” which facilitates implementation of updates, as well as planning and coordination with other branches within HRSDC and with other GTC-IP partners.

The effectiveness of this type of structure was corroborated by other government departments^{Footnote 32} (OGDs) and agencies who operate and maintain websites targeted at potential immigrants and newcomers and who were interviewed as part of the evaluation. These OGD were asked to comment on their own internal governance structure in order to better understand the positive and negative features of different governance models.Although responses regarding the governance structure of their portals varied, those representatives generally commented that working in a single team or unit when engaged in web-based initiatives provides efficiencies from a resource and cost-based perspective, thus, supporting the governance structure employed by HRSDC and reiterating one of the challenges encountered by CIC in developing and maintaining GTC.

Federal-provincial/territorial roles and responsibilities

The Contribution Agreements (CAs) in place with the partnering provinces and territories articulate the roles and responsibilities of CIC and the P/Ts related to the GTC-IP Initiative. Specified in these agreements are details around funding, reporting requirements, and collaboration. The majority of provincial and territorial representatives reported that their roles and responsibilities are clear and that this is supported through ongoing collaboration and information sharing by Portal partners.

However, in spite of a clear articulation of roles and responsibilities within the CAs, a number of interviewees from CIC and HRSDC and one provincial/territorial representative reported a lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities of the P/Ts stemming from differences across contribution agreements and the absence of a common goal and vision among P/Ts. One difference noted was that some CAs clearly identify staffing as an allowable project expense while others do not.

Given the nature of F/P/T relations, OMC Branch negotiates the CAs with individual P/Ts, which can result in differences across these documents. In the case of salary dollars identified above, in fact, salary and/or contract expenses related to direct and indirect projects were allowable expenses for all partners although this was not articulated in the individual CAs.

While differences across contribution agreements likely led to some of the confusion regarding the roles and responsibilities of the P/Ts, it is likely that reporting on expenditures and outputs was a contributing factor as well. Each contribution agreement stipulates that anticipated spending by the provinces and territories should be reported annually, detailing activities, deliverables, and costs related to specific projects. Comparing the Expenditure Reports across the P/Ts, this evaluation found that despite some P/Ts’ contribution agreements being identical on this aspect, reporting on eligible costs differed in level of detail, with some P/Ts describing the individual costs of specific items and deliverables, while others gave lump sums with an attached list of activities, connected to larger activities. A few respondents from CIC also noted a lack of clarity regarding P/T projects and outputs achieved as a result of GTC-IP funding.

As well, a September, 2009 deck titled Contribution Agreements Reporting and Monitoring, which was presented at the St. John’s bi-annual workshop, provides evidence of another difference. The CAs allow for a variety of invoicing frequencies across P/Ts, with some choosing to produce expenditure reports annually while others report semi-annually or quarterly. This deck also highlighted issues with timeliness of submission of required reporting by P/Ts; however, the document review conducted as part of this evaluation showed that this has been improving recently.

3.2.2. Communications, priority setting, and collaboration

Interviewees spoke of a variety of communication mechanisms, both formal and informal, that are in place within the GTC-IP Initiative. Most interviewees highlighted the bi-annual workshops, while several others mentioned the WiC Wiki, meetings (both in-person and via teleconference), and e-mails between partners. Each of these mechanisms was seen as effective by most respondents, with the bi-annual workshops, followed by the Wiki, being seen as the most effective. Records provided by CIC and HRSDC (e.g., meeting agendas, minutes, and documented decisions at Portal Director’s meetings) and a review of the Wiki further demonstrate the effectiveness of communications between Portal partners.

Partners of the GTC-IP were asked how communication between partners could be improved. Despite an overall satisfaction with the current mechanisms, there were a few suggestions made, which included increased use of organizing materials such as agendas and calendars of events/projects, the use of new collaborative tools such as virtual meetings/videoconference, and an increase in opportunities for multilateral communication through mini-workshops at the bi-annual workshop or regular conference calls with PTs.

A variety of reasons were cited by many of the key informants who said that collaboration among GTC-IP partners has been effective. Approximately one-third of all interviewees also reported that that the extent of success found in collaboration between partners of the Portal has been a positive unexpected outcome of the GTC-IP Initiative. Partners have shared tools, information, and best practices in an environment that encourages creativity and innovation. The Initiative was seen consistently by interviewees as a mechanism where each partner gained value through information-sharing and freely-exchanged ideas and experiences. Relationships and partnerships have been facilitated by the collaboration and openness among partners, and key informants were most consistently supportive of the work that has been done on these partnerships, including the mechanisms that have supported them.

The most highly regarded collaborative effort has been the bi-annual workshops, to which all Portal partners are invited. The workshops were acknowledged as the key to the development of partnerships and relationships; sharing of information resources and tools among partners; and the development of common goals and strategies. These key informants spoke highly of the way in which the workshops generated a positive atmosphere around Portal projects, have “encouraged innovation and creativity” among Portal partners and led to the free exchange of specific tools and information, including the WiC tool, interactive maps, software codes and programming, and performance measures and practices. This free exchange of tools and knowledge among GTC-IP partners is a key benefit to ongoing collaboration by partners and stakeholders in the Initiative.

Table 3-1 provides an overview of tools and information that have been shared among GTC-IP partners. Sharing of these tools increases the level of sophistication of all partner Portals and creates considerable cost savings for partners, as the development of these tools on an individual site basis would be cost-prohibitive.

Most P/T interviewees said that they have a voice in setting priorities for the GTC-IP, and are involved in decisions that will impact their province or territory. A number of examples of where input was solicited were cited by these respondents, including a two-way dialogue when establishing the contribution agreements between CIC and the P/Ts, having the opportunity to provide comments and input on the GTC and WiC websites, and being provided a venue to raise questions and concerns (e.g., meetings, emails). Of note is that two P/T respondents felt they had more of a role in decision-making with HRSDC than with CIC.

3.2.3. Funding and Expenditures

As part of the evaluation, analysis of funding and expenditures was performed using data provided by CIC, HRSDC and from contribution agreement documents and information for each of the provinces and territories. Table 3-2, Table 3-3, and Table 3-4 show the amounts of money allocated and spent (both salary and non-salary dollars) for all Portal partners, along with any variance for each year. It should be noted these tables were constructed for the purposes of the evaluation and the information contained therein was obtained through various systems and sources. Allocations reported for both CIC and HRSDC were actual amounts provided by each department’s respective Finance Branch. Funding amounts for provinces and territories were provided by OMC Branch at CIC. Best efforts were made to provide the most accurate information possible in order to present an overall view of funding and expenditures across the Initiative. As well, due to the transfer of the site from DFAIT to CIC in 2007, financial information prior to that time was not available.

Within CIC

Table 3-2 shows financial information on CIC’s component of the Portal. Information broken down by individual branch within CIC was not available for the purposes of the evaluation. The allocations presented in the table are total allocations to CIC and are consistent with the amounts reflected in the Treasury Board submission for the GTC-IP. The funding reflects initially approved A-base funding and does not take into account various government-wide operating budget reductions and administrative measures that the department had to absorb over the last few years.

The expenditures included in the table are those that have been tracked using SAP, the department’s financial coding system. However, expenditures reflect what has been coded under the Internal Orders (IO) in the financial system only.Therefore, if the IO is not used in the coding, expenditures will not be tracked. Portal funding was allocated to various sectors and branches in the department but was not tracked consistently throughout the department. Therefore, we are unable to say with any certainty how much of the total allocation was spent on the Portal Initiative.

Table 3-2 also shows the percentages of total Portal untracked funding by CIC as 79% in 2007-08, 68% in 2008-09, and 62% in 2009-10. Internal records from CIC’s branches implicated in the Portal Initiative show that a variety of projects were completed on the Portal and provide evidence that the expenditures are much higher than indicated by the IO coding. For example, in 2007-08, the department engaged in web testing and public opinion research (POR) on the Going to Canada Site as well as development of the Entry Requirements Tool. In 2008-09, the Entry Requirements Tool was finalized and the Service Provider Organization (SPO) tool was developed. Plain language benchmarking and additional POR was also conducted on the Portal in that year. In 2009-10, Google ad words campaigns and a visitor path analysis were conducted on the Portal. These accomplishments are not all reflected in the current Portal expenditures as they were likely not tracked using the Portal IO.

As noted above, the Portal was transferred to CIC from DFAIT in 2007 and in the first year of this transition period, the department’s capacity to deliver the program may not have been fully realized. As well, full resources may not have been expended on the Portal Initiative over the last three years due to the anticipated integration of the Portal into CIC’s main site.

Additional information was provided by CIC’s branches on money that was not tracked as part of the Portal Initiative, although the exact amount of funds that were actually lapsed cannot be provided. Several projects were planned and money put aside for their implementation. However, the organizations responsible for completing these projects were not able to do so within the fiscal year and therefore money may have lapsed due to project delays or cancellations. Examples of these projects are the Interactive Map Project, the Cyber Mentorship Project and Site Search.

Note: Amounts provided in the total expenditure columns are the amounts captured in SAP and do not reflect actual expenditures.

Within HRSDC

Table 3-3 outlines HRSDC’s Portal allocations and expenditures for fiscal years 2007-2010. The numbers provided by HRSDC Finance were received for the evaluation in a timely manner, without indication of any tracking issues. According to the records, HRSDC spent an average of 93% of their allocated funding over three fiscal years.

Provinces and territories

As previously mentioned, the evaluation found inconsistencies in reporting by the provinces and territories.  As well, OMC Branch does not have a consistent way of tracking allocations and expenditures for provinces and territories. In certain circumstances, the existence of multiple sources of financial information led to confusion as to which iteration of funding and expenditure figures were the most accurate.

When P/Ts lapse money, these funds were automatically returned to CIC for use in other programs or areas of activity, unless otherwise negotiated with each province or territory to be re-profiled to the following fiscal year. The most commonly cited reasons by the provinces and territories for those lapses in funding were delays in portal development, or the delay of specific projects or activities (e.g., delays in developing or launching interactive maps). This could be expected as not all of the provincial and territorial portals were fully functional over the period covered by the evaluation. Issues in one area of portal development could have hindered implementation of other planned activities, depending on the stage of portal implementation. Issues related to lapsed and re-profiled P/T portal money is reflected in Table 3-4. According to these records, in 2007-08 the provinces and territories spent only about 50% of their allocated funding. In the subsequent years, the P/Ts collectively overspent by 13% of allocations in 2008-09 and 6% in 2009-10.

Financial records showed that in fiscal years 2007-08 and 2009-10, the four CIC branches implicated in the GTC-IP Initiative (overall) did not track between 62% and 79% of expenditures. As well, just over half of the interviewees from CIC commented that resources allocated to the Portal were sometimes used for other projects. This may be due in part to a reallocation of a portion of Portal funding to branches within CIC that have not been implicated in the GTC-IP Initiative (e.g., FCRO, Immigration Branch, SIO) to date.

In the spring of 2010, a review of Portal allocations within CIC was conducted in order to address these issues. The result of that review was a restructuring of funding allocations to ensure that funding is distributed more appropriately to three of the four Branches within CIC (e-Communications, Integration and OMC) and is in accordance with the activities and level of staffing required by each. Prior to the current fiscal year, IMTB Branch had permanent funding associated with the Portal. In future years this will not be the case as it was recognized that IMTB’s functions are project related and are not consistently required from year to year.

As noted above, provinces and territories are in differing stages of development of their web portals, which can create varying needs across partners. OMC has ensured that allocations to P/Ts have been flexible in order to accommodate these differences. In some cases, funding that will not be used by one province can be moved to another PT that has the need for additional funding to complete a project or to fund a municipal portal, for example. As well, when project delays occur, causing funds to lapse, the department can re-allocate funds in order to provide this money in subsequent fiscal years. In the case of Ontario, OMC made special arrangements to accommodate delays in the flow of funding as a result of signing the Canada-Ontario Immigration Agreement (COIA). This flexibility allowed Ontario to spend its entire allocation over the five years of the program.

These activities create a funding model that is more responsive to the needs of partners and allows for completion of projects that contribute to overall program outcomes.

3.2.4. Use of the GTC-IP

Use of GTC and WiC websites

Analyses of multiple lines of evidence, including web analytics, analyses of log files, key documents and usability studies demonstrate that the GTC-IP is being used as an information source by its target audience.

Figure 3-1: Growth in usage of the WiC, 2008-2010 (# of unique visitors in March of each year)

Note: This figure demonstrates the growth in number of unique visitors to the WiC site over a three year period. These numbers were obtained from WiC site web analytics.

As shown in Figure 3-1 , the WiC website has experienced considerable growth over the last three years (2008 to 2010), growing from 45,199 unique visitors in March 2008 to 128,983 unique visitors in March 2009 and to 195,429 unique visitors in March 2010.^{Footnote 33}

As well, web data from Google Urchin show consistent use of the GTC site over time with 191,620 page views recorded in March 2009 and 191,587 in March 2010.

Intermediaries who provide services to new and prospective immigrants are also using the GTC-IP, as more than two-thirds (69% or 86 respondents) of those surveyed (N=125) said that they have used either the GTC website or the WiC website, with 54 of these respondents reporting using both the GTC website and the WiC website. In addition, 16 respondents used only the GTC site and 16 used only the WiC sites. Moreover, almost half (47%) of the 70 intermediaries who visited the GTC site indicated they had done so within the last month.Seventy-six percent of the intermediaries who have visited the GTC and 76% who have visited the WiC website indicated they have used or referenced information from the site in their work.

As well, results from the online survey of GTC-IP users found that 36% (107 of 299) of respondents who had visited the GTC-IP did so at least 5 or more times in the last year. In terms of continued relevance, these figures give an indication of the frequency of use by those who have recently accessed the GTC-IP. Furthermore, 122 of 139 users (88%) reported that they would recommend the GTC-IP to others – suggesting users found the sites useful.

Use of GTC and WiC tools

In addition to using the information provided on the GTC-IP, target audiences are also using the tools provided on the GTC-IP, including the WiC tool and the SPO tool. For example, data from log file analysis show that in 2009, about three WiC tool reports were produced for every four visitors to the WiC website (453,944 of 576,168 of unique visitors produced a WiC report in 2009). In addition, most online users surveyed (94 of 116 or 81%) reported using the WiC tool to produce a report. While less than one-fifth (12 of 70) or 17% of intermediaries have produced a report using the WiC tool during their visit to the WiC site, all of those intermediaries who produced a report said they found the reports to be useful (100%, n=12) in dealing with clients. Several key informant interviewees also highlighted the widespread use of the WiC tool as an unexpected outcome of the Portal Initiative. Specifically, the WiC tool has become the authoritative source of labour market information, not only for immigrants, but for all Canadians.

Web analytics provided by CIC also show that the SPO tool was being accessed by users of the GTC-IP. For example, in September 2010, approximately 10% of all visits to the SPO tool (1,559 visits) came from the Going to Canada website.

Accessing content on the GTC-IP

The popularity of GTC-IP content does not appear to be equal among different content categories. First, according to a PublicInsite study on the GTC-IP, 76.3% of all search-driven visits fall within only five categories of terms (based on the top 500 search terms): moving to Canada; working/living/visiting/studying; immigration; brand/department; and general information about Canada.

Online users who completed the survey most often accessed the site for information on working in Canada, followed by information on immigrating to Canada. For instance, Working in Canada was cited most often by online users as their main reason for visiting the GTC-IP (109 of 299 or 37%), followed by immigrating to Canada 27% (92 of 299), settling in Canada 5% (16 of 299), studying in Canada 5% (14 of 299), visiting Canada 3% (10 of 299), and information on Canada’s provinces or territories 1% (7 of 299). However, another 14% of the overall respondents (43 of 299), who indicated that they accessed the GTC-IP for “another reason,” gave reasons tied to finding work in Canada. This demonstrates that over half of the users who responded to the user survey (51%), actually viewed job-related information as their main area of interest.

Web analytics from 2009 for the GTC support these findings.For example, apart from the heavily trafficked welcome pages, the top 5 content areas concern^{Footnote 34}:

1. Immigration related content – 28% of views
2. Settlement related content – 13%
3. Visiting – 8%
4. Move to Canada – 8%
5. Canada’s provinces and territories – 3%

The popularity of content also reflected seasonal variations. For example, information on visiting Canada shows clear growth in click-throughs during the summer months, whereas all other content remains relatively the same.

A wide range of practices in web data collection among the provinces and territories prohibited a complete and comprehensive analysis of usage of their portals. For example, various metrics are collected and reported differently among the provinces and territories (e.g., some provinces/territories only collect the number of visits, while others collect numbers of unique visitors, while still others collect page views).Also, differing time periods of data were provided (e.g., some provinces/territories provided multiple years of data, while others provided only days or months of data), which restricted analyses.

Nevertheless, web data does tend to suggest that the provincial and territorial portals are being used. For example, in the first three months of calendar year 2010, the New Brunswick portal averaged 7,807 visits per month^{Footnote 35}, while the Saskatchewan portal averaged 42,209 visits per month in 2010. Available data also show that usage of some provincial and territorial portals is increasing over time. As shown in Table 3-5, available trend data show that the British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Yukon portals all generated increased use over time (as measured by the number of unique visitors per month or the number of visits per month).

* Shaded cells indicate that no data were available for that province/territory in that year.

3.2.5. Awareness and promotion

Although the GTC-IP is being accessed and used as an information source, the profile and awareness of the GTC website in contrast to the WiC site is low.

Awareness

Focus group participants who had previously used the GTC reported first finding the website by conducting searches in Google. They would use the popular search engine to find different combinations of keywords related to immigrating, moving, jobs, etc. However, these keywords did not push the Portal to the top of the search results as GTC’s page rank is relatively low in Google. Using the terms ‘Canada and Immigration’ yielded the GTC website as the 98th result, while ‘Immigration and Canada’ yielded the GTC website as the 93rd result. Using these same words, the CIC website was ranked first in both instances. Given that Google displays only 10-15 links per search page, the GTC typically would not show up until several pages into the search results. In comparison, the WiC website was listed first when searching the terms ‘Working and Canada’ on Google, likely facilitated by its extensive search engine optimization.

However, the terms ‘Settling in Canada’ and ‘Visiting in Canada’ yielded much better results – ranking the GTC 3rd for each of these terms (the CIC main site was still ranked first). The overall impact of these search terms is lessened, however, given that information on settling and visiting Canada are not the most sought after content on the GTC site.Other problems affected the ability of users to find GTC. For instance, searching directly for the ‘Going to Canada Immigration Portal’ in Google yielded the GTC site’s link which read, ‘Welcome’ rather than displaying the name of the website (this issue was recently fixed). Search engine optimization issues such as this have likely attributed to low usage of the GTC-IP. Of the 31% (39 of 125) of intermediaries who indicated they had never visited the portal, roughly half (25 respondents) said that they had not done so because they had never heard about it. Non-users in the focus groups sessions also indicated they had not heard of the Portal and those who had, could not find a link to it.

Online users who completed the survey cited the use of a search engine (e.g., Google, Yahoo, etc.) most often as their means of finding the GTC-IP (154 of 299, or 52%), followed by those who found the GTC-IP through a referral from a friend (11%) and those who found the site from a link on a Canadian provincial or territorial website on immigration (11%). In comparison, intermediaries were more likely to find the Going to Canada site (63%, 44 of 70) and the Working in Canada site (57%, 40 of 70) through the CIC website.

Promotion

Compared to the WiC website, there has been considerably less promotion of the GTC website, particularly in recent years. Documents show that CIC has participated in a variety of conferences and promotional activities related to the GTC website, most recently attending the Metropolis Conference in April 2008. CIC has also engaged in other promotional activities, including distribution of bookmarks, pens, and pamphlets/leaflets. It appears that no promotional activities have occurred since 2008 with the exception of some recent Google ad-word campaigns, which have been met with varying degrees of success according to CIC key informants. Many key informants attributed the lack of promotion to the anticipated merger of GTC website content with the CIC website.

For the WiC website, HRSDC has engaged in a number of promotional campaigns, the most prominent of which has been the use of social media, including Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.

• Twitter: Launched in November 2008, the Working in Canada Twitter feeds consists of three channels, including channels in English, French and Chinese.^{Footnote 41}
• Facebook: Launched in February 2009 (in both English and French), the English Working in Canada Facebook page had over 1,300 unique fans from January to September 2010, while the French Working in Canada Facebook page had over 530 fans for the same nine- month period.Available data show that an average of 392 clients per month (January to September 2010) accesses the WiC website via the Working in Canada Facebook pages (representing approximately 41% of all visitors to the WiC Facebook pages from January to September 2010).^{Footnote 42}
• YouTube: Also launched in February 2009, the Working in Canada YouTube pages are provided in both English and French and now contain over 200 videos. Clients are using the YouTube pages to reach the WiC website, as 151 clients in April 2010 and 144 in May 2010 reached the WiC website directly via YouTube. As of May 2010, videos on the Working in Canada YouTube pages have been viewed over 150,000 times in English and over 39,000 times in French since they were first launched in 2009. Those YouTube videos are also available as streaming content through the WiC reports and the WiC widget.

In addition to its use of social media, HRSDC has also engaged in a number of traditional promotional campaigns, including attending conferences, developing bookmarks, pamphlets and other branded items and, like CIC, HRSDC has engaged in Google ad-word campaigns to increase traffic to the WiC website (the HRSDC Google ad-words campaign resulted in a 50% growth in users from India, the Philippines, and China). HRSDC’s promotional activities were highly regarded by both HRSDC and CIC key informants. According to one HRSDC key informant, “over 80% of the traffic to the site [WiC website] comes from outside of Canada,” which is supported by web analytics (79% of visitors accessing the WiC were from outside of Canada from January to April 2010) and suggests that the WiC website is reaching its target audiences.

To increase overall awareness and use of their portals, a number of provinces and territories have engaged in both traditional and non-traditional promotional and advertisement campaigns for their portals. For example, New Brunswick has developed multiple campaigns designed to increase awareness and promote their provincial portal. A recent campaign was the ‘Come Home to NB’ contest which targeted people nationally using multiple forms of media (e.g., postcards, online advertisements). Other provinces, such as Newfoundland and Labrador have provided direct links to their provincial/territorial portals from their main provincial/territorial government website as a way of further connecting with new and prospective immigrants. Alberta has successfully engaged in targeted e-mail advertising campaigns, while the British Columbia portal executed a marketing campaign to leverage exposure and client access through the 2010 Winter Games.

Other promotional campaigns, cited by key informants and/or provided in various documents, include Google ad-word campaigns (undertaken by various provinces or territories); using or linking to social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.); attendance at conferences and workshops; meetings and presentations to service provider organizations; pamphlets and leaflets; and the distribution of promotional items (e.g., Newfoundland and Labrador’s Puffin Stress Ball).

While there are many marketing and promotional initiatives being undertaken by P/Ts, there was insufficient information available for the evaluation on the results of these initiatives. Therefore, the effectiveness of these campaigns cannot be determined at this time^{Footnote 43}.

3.2.6. Usability and functionality

An important measure in a website (or web portal) evaluation is the extent to which it is usable and functional for its intended target audience. In this evaluation, focus group participants, online users, intermediaries, and the subject matter expert generally agreed that the GTC-IP was functional, user-friendly and easy to navigate.

Online users indicated that it was easy to find the information they were looking for in a number of areas, including immigrating (83%, 76 of 92), settling (80%, 16 of 20), working (78%, 103 of 132), visiting (77%, 10 of 13), and studying (56%, 9 of 16).

Figure 3-2: Percent of online users who said it was easy to find information

In addition, intermediaries who indicated that they had visited the WiC site (n=70) and the GTC site (n=70) were asked to rank the sites’ usability and functionality. These attributes were rated on a scale of 1 to 4 where 1 represented “Does not agree at all” and 4 was “Completely Agree.” Both of these statements were rated quite highly by intermediaries who used the GTC and the WiC websites with a mean rating of 3.42 out of 4 for being ‘logical and user-friendly’ and 3.22 and 3.27 out of 4 (for the GTC and WiC website respectively) for ‘information is easy to find’.

Figure 3-3: Comparison of specific attributes of usability and functionality of GTC and WiC by intermediaries

Note: Only respondents who used each site provided an assessment of its functionality.

Focus group participants were asked if they had any suggestions to increase the overall functionality and navigation of the GTC-IP. Responses included: more drop-down menus on the Portal; more pictures and images on the site; and providing clearer definitions, descriptions and examples of job titles that can be searched with the WiC tool (many participants cited difficulties finding their occupation according to their traditional or historical job title using the WiC tool).

Participants in several focus groups also mentioned that one of the biggest challenges of the GTC-IP was that when they followed one of the many external links on the Portal (e.g., Canada Border Services Agency website), it was often difficult to return to the GTC-IP. Despite suggestions to improve the GTC-IP from online users, intermediaries, and focus group participants (including users and non-users), most felt the GTC-IP was user-friendly and easy to navigate.

Web analytics produced for this evaluation demonstrate that very few users of the GTC-IP experienced errors while using the Portal. For example, between January and April 2010, 92% of all visits to the GTC website and 97% of visits to the WiC website were error-free (resulting in the user accessing the requested page uninterrupted). Further analyses of GTC-IP log files demonstrate that the GTC-IP (including the GTC and WiC websites) has one broken link on every fourth page that is available to users. This is considered acceptable, as “the average website has one page in every four containing a broken link.”^{Footnote 44} As part of the review of the GTC-IP, the subject matter expert commented positively on the accessibility (functionality) of the Portal, including the relatively small number of broken links and the currency of links to external websites. A study conducted in 2008 on the GTC also found that:

Part of the overall functionality and usability of the GTC-IP can be attributed to the rectification of past issues and errors that have been identified on the GTC website and the WiC website. Based on available data, at least 121 updates, of varying degrees of significance from minor to major, have been made to the GTC website since 2008. Previous usability studies have also demonstrated that barriers to usability have been addressed, such as providing more clarity to the specific sub-menus of the “Welcome to Canada” menu on the GTC site.^{Footnote 46} Further anecdotal evidence emerged during the course of the evaluation that demonstrates that updates are being made to the GTC website, including the appearance of the title of the GTC website when conducting a search in Google, which was changed from a generic and unidentifiable “Welcome!” to the distinguishable “Going to Canada Immigration Portal – Welcome!” in September 2010.

Although very few respondents answered questions related to the provincial and territorial portals (N=7), almost all who did reported that information on the P/Ts was easy to find. These findings were reaffirmed by the subject matter expert who found the provincial and territorial websites to be, in general, accessible and easy to navigate. Additionally, documents provided by the provinces and territories (BC, AB, SK, ON, NFL, NS, and YK), including usability testing, customer segmentation, and search engine optimization studies, demonstrate that the provincial and territorial portals are generally usable, functional and easy to navigate, and have undergone improvements to ensure their target audiences are receiving the information they require in an easy to use format. Examples of these studies are provided in Table 3-6.

3.2.7. Quality of information

For the purposes of this evaluation, the quality of the GTC-IP was assessed according to three criteria, including:

1. Relevance: whether information provided was pertinent and significant to its target audience.
2. Clarity: the manner in which information is presented, such as whether it is readable and understandable to the target audiences.
3. Currency: the extent to which the information on the GTC-IP is up-to-date.

A 2007 study of GTC (that included eight focus groups and 46 one-on-one interviews in eight cities) found “widespread agreement that the content is clear and easy to understand.”^{Footnote 47}

These findings were supported by the 2010 assessment of the GTC-IP by the subject matter expert who looked specifically at the relevance, clarity and currency of information presented on the GTC-IP. Based on his expertise in immigration and settlement content, the subject matter expert found that the GTC-IP is relevant to its target audience, provides clear information that is sufficiently up-to-date, easy to read, understandable and at an appropriate language-level for new and prospective immigrants. No concerns were raised by the subject matter expert about the content presented on the GTC-IP (the GTC website and the WiC website).

As part of their survey, intermediaries were also asked to comment on a number of specific attributes related to the quality of the GTC-IP. As shown in Figure 3-4, all three statements related to quality received high agreement ratings from intermediaries who used the GTC (n=70) and WiC (n=70) sites, with only marginal differences observed between the GTC and WiC websites. Specifically, intermediaries agreed that information on the GTC-IP is easy to understand (3.13 for the GTC website and 3.22 for the WiC website), the information is of high quality (3.36 for the GTC website and 3.51 for the WiC website), and the information is relevant and up-to-date (3.20 for the GTC website and 3.31 for the WiC website). Similarly, three-quarters (75%, 168 of 224) of online users said that information presented on the GTC-IP was easy to understand.

Figure 3-4: Comparison of specific attributes of quality of GTC and WiC by intermediaries

Note: Respondents were asked to rate their agreement with statements regarding the quality of the websites on a scale of 1 to 4 (where 1 is “Completely agree” and 4 is “Do not agree at all”). Only respondents who used each site provided an assessment of its quality.

Despite these findings and the 121 updates that have occurred on the GTC since 2008, CIC key informants generally reported that the information on the GTC website needs to be updated more often.The anticipated merger of the GTC with the CIC website was often cited as the main reason for fewer updates to the GTC website.In addition, there was strong agreement among both CIC and HRSDC key informants that the page updates on the WiC website occur on a regular basis and those updates are sufficiently frequent. Updates to the WiC tool and the social media pages (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) are made by HRSDC on a daily basis to ensure they are relevant and up-to-date. CIC dashboard reports from 2010, which includes statistics on web publishing requests and updates, also indicate that the main CIC site is updated daily.

Like the GTC-IP, the quality of content on the provincial and territorial portals was reviewed by the subject matter expert to assess relevance, clarity and currency, and also to assess the consistency of their content with the content presented on the GTC-IP. The subject matter expert found that the content presented on the provincial and territorial portals was both relevant and current. That is, they provided information that is accurate and needed by new and potential immigrants and immigrant service organizations, and the information is up-to-date, providing the most recently available information that would help new and potential immigrants make a decision about immigrating, living, working, settling, visiting, or studying in Canada. Furthermore, information on the provincial and territorial portals was found by the subject matter expert to be consistent with content presented on the GTC website and the WiC website – a finding echoed by key informants from the provinces and territories.

In terms of the clarity of the provincial and territorial portals, the subject matter expert generally found the content on those portals to be clear, and easy to read and understand. A few suggestions were made by the subject matter expert to increase clarity on three of the provincial and territorial portals as follows:

• A number of links on the Yukon portal (French) presently link to English text, where French text would be readily available;
• Several pages on the Manitoba portal (English and French) are duplicated, but with different URLs; and,
• The Prince Edward Island portal should undergo an English editorial review.

In addition to the subject matter expert review, a number of the provincial and territorial portals have commissioned their own language assessment studies to assess the language level (or readability) of their portals. Language assessment studies using commonly accepted standards and/or focus groups on readability have been commissioned to assess the language level of the portals in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador. All studies found that the information presented on those portals was easy for new and potential immigrants to understand and was presented at an acceptable level (e.g., 85% who responded to a survey posted on the Alberta portal in 2009-10 agreed that the language was easy to understand).

A number of provincial/territorial portals have also received awards and recognition for the overall quality of their portal. For example, the British Columbia portal received an award from the Institute of Public Administration in Canada (IPAC) in 2009 as recognition of the portal contributing to an improvement to a part of the public sector. The British Columbia portal also received the BC Premier’s Award of Excellence (2008-09), and a Public Sector Information Technology Award (2008). More recently (December 2010), the Saskatchewan portal has won a Silver Leaf Award from the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) in the Interactive Media category. In addition, several municipal websites in Ontario have won awards for their websites as part of the Welcoming Communities’ Initiative.

3.2.8. User satisfaction

Data from multiple lines of evidence demonstrate that the target audience is generally satisfied with the GTC-IP. For example, focus group participants (including both users and non-users of the Portal) said that they were satisfied with the information provided on the GTC-IP and 75% (223 of 299) of online users reported that they were satisfied with the GTC-IP.

Online users were further asked to rate the usefulness of the information provided on immigrating, working, settling, visiting and studying in Canada.As shown in Figure 3-5, a large majority of respondents found the information on immigrating, settling and working in Canada to be useful (gave a rating of 1 or 2), and at least half who were looking for information on visiting and studying said that they found the information to be useful.

Findings presented in Figure 3-4 are supported by a 2008 usability study of the GTC-IP, which stated that, “A majority are satisfied with all elements of the Web site included in the survey.”^{Footnote 48}

Figure 3-5: Percent of online users who found specific components of the GTC-IP to be useful

Note: The number of respondents varies by category because only those who had viewed those pages were asked to provide an assessment of the related content.

A further measure of satisfaction is the extent to which GTC-IP target audiences would recommend the GTC-IP to others, including friends, family members, and/or clients. A very high percentage of online users (88%, 122 of 140) said they would recommend the GTC-IP to others, while an additional 79% (55 of 70) of intermediaries said they would recommend the WiC website and 77% (54 of 70) of intermediaries would recommend the GTC website to their clients. Of those intermediaries who reported that they have recommended the WiC to their clients, 58% (32 of 55) recommend it often, and only 7% (4 of 55) rarely recommend it. Similarly, the majority of intermediaries who have recommended the GTC to clients, recommend it often (61%, 33 of 54), and only 9% (5 of 54) rarely recommend it.

Figure 3-6: Frequency of intermediaries recommending WiC or GTC

Studies commissioned by some provinces and territories, including focus groups and satisfaction studies/surveys, show that the target audiences are satisfied with the provincial and territorial portals. For example, focus group testing conducted by British Columbia in 2008 with recent immigrants and service provider organizations demonstrated that users are generally satisfied with the information provided on the British Columbia portal. In 2009-10, 68% of respondents who completed a feedback survey on the Alberta portal said that they were satisfied with the website. In addition, 88% (36 of 41) of intermediaries who participated in the online survey conducted for this evaluation said that they have recommended the provincial and territorial portals to new and prospective immigrants.

3.2.9. Impact of the GTC-IP

Data from multiple lines of evidence show that the GTC-IP is providing needed information that is helping new and prospective immigrants. As shown in Figure 3-7, sixty-nine percent (69%, 22 of 32) of online users who participated in the survey said that the information provided on the GTC-IP was useful in helping them integrate into Canadian society. Furthermore, online users said the information provided on the GTC-IP helped them make a decision about immigrating to Canada (84%, 77of 92) and working in Canada (78%, 103 of 132). Online users also found the information on the GTC-IP useful in preparing for the immigration process and for helping them to settle in Canada. In addition to survey data, focus group participants who had used the GTC-IP reported that the information provided on the Portal helped them prepare for the immigration process and non-users reported that the information would have been helpful to them had they known about it.

Figure 3-7: Percent of online user survey respondents indicating instances where information on GTC-IP was useful/helpful

Another measure of the impact of the GTC-IP is the extent to which it has resulted in increased knowledge among new and prospective immigrants. Online respondents to the user survey were asked if they had learned something new while visiting one of the GTC-IP sites and 77% of respondents (229 out of 299) indicated that they had learned something new with the information found on the Portal.

As well, intermediaries were asked to comment on the usefulness of the GTC-IP as it related to the needs of their client-base of new and prospective immigrants. As shown in Figure 3-8, 73% of intermediaries found the GTC-IP useful overall, including 77% (54 of 70) who said the GTC-IP helps immigrants make informed decisions about coming to Canada, 72% (50 of 70) who said the GTC-IP prepares prospective immigrants to work in Canada, and 77% (54 of 70) who said the GTC-IP helps prepare prospective immigrants to immigrate to Canada.

Figure 3-8: Percent of intermediaries who found specific aspects of the GTC-IP useful for new and prospective immigrants

Of those online user survey respondents who currently live in Canada but were not Canadian by birth, 76% (34 of 45) said that they found the information on the GTC-IP to be useful in helping them prepare to immigrate to Canada.

3.2.10. Location of the GTC-IP

In September, 2008 a “Portal and CIC Main Site implementation Plan” was drafted to articulate an approach for the partial integration of the GTC-IP into CIC’s main site. In the Plan, it was stated that incorporating GTC-IP content and tools into the CIC website “would maximize value for taxpayers and CIC website visitors, namely prospective immigrants and newcomers.” Furthermore, it stated that “as the CIC website receives approximately 50 visitors for every single visitor to the GTC-IP, incorporating GTC-IP elements into the CIC website will result in a much higher number of people exposed to [its] valuable content, without the added effort of promoting the GTC-IP as a separate entity.”

As previously noted, the GTC-IP RMAF also provided information on what full integration of the GTC-IP into the CIC main site could consist of. CIC, HRSDC, and provincial and territorial key informants were all asked to provide their opinion on full integration. Responses and opinions among those three key informant interview groups differed as follows:

1. Among the twelve CIC key informants, just over half were in favour of moving GTC-IP content to the CIC website, five of which cited the necessary conditions that would allow such a move, such as ensuring that GTC-IP content be placed prominently on the CIC website. Only one CIC informant wanted the GTC-IP maintained at its current location and URL, while three others provided pros and cons for maintaining the URL or moving content to the CIC website. Most CIC respondents felt that a site move would garner more visitors to the GTC-IP^{Footnote 49}. These interviewees also stated the benefits of having all of the information in one location, which would help to reduce duplication of content and confusion among new and prospective immigrants.
2. Among the seven HRSDC key informants, all provided responses on the pros and cons of both options (maintaining the information in its current location versus moving the GTC-IP to CIC); however, most were generally supportive of maintaining the GTC-IP as a separate website at its current URL.
3. Among the eleven provincial and territorial key informants, almost half said that the GTC-IP should be maintained as a separate website at its current URL, two were in favour of moving GTC-IP content to the CIC website, while three provided responses on the pros and cons of each option (maintaining the URL or moving content to the CIC website).

A number of reasons were provided by key informants (CIC, HRSDC, and provinces/territories) to support relocating content on the GTC-IP to the CIC website, including:

1. Having more visitor traffic to the CIC website compared to the GTC-IP^{Footnote 50} and thus, a greater reach to new and prospective immigrants;
2. Having all of the information in one location would reduce potential confusion among new and prospective immigrants; and
3. Removing duplication as much of the information presented on the GTC-IP is already located on the CIC website (e.g., the WiC tool).

Reasons provided by key informants (CIC, HRSDC, and provinces/territories) that supported maintaining the GTC-IP at its current location as a separate website included:

1. The complexity and current layout of the CIC website would make it difficult, if not impossible for users to find the information presently found on the GTC-IP;
2. The need to keep settlement and working information together in one location or website; and
3. Concerns that GTC-IP content would not be updated frequently enough if it were moved to the CIC website.

When asked, CIC, HRSDC, and provincial and territorial key informants also said they did not foresee any technical or branding issues that would preclude or complicate moving GTC-IP content to the CIC website.

While focus group participants were not presented with the question of keeping versus moving GTC-IP content to the CIC website, users of the GTC-IP indicated that the GTC-IP provided them with information not readily available on the CIC site (e.g., information sought related to climate, the population (culture), and day-to-day life in Canada), and that the information was helpful to them when planning their move to Canada. Both users and non-users of the GTC-IP generally reported that there is a need for the information provided on the GTC-IP, although there was some ambiguity and confusion between the GTC-IP and the CIC website (particularly among non-users who sometimes had a difficult time distinguishing between the two websites).

As further demonstrated in the focus groups (users and non-users of the GTC-IP), the CIC website was visited most often by people looking for forms, checking on application status, or retrieving technical documentation required to live, work, study, or visit Canada. In spite of this, focus group participants stated that they found the layout and design of the CIC site complex, technical and overly sophisticated in its use of the English and French languages (e.g., language barriers).

3.2.11. Cost effectiveness

As part of the evaluation, a comparison of the costs of the GTC-IP (e.g., costs per FTE and costs per unique visitor) to other similar government and non-government portal initiatives was planned. However, due to significant dissimilarities in the scope of the websites, technical considerations and web data capture, the GTC-IP could not be compared to other portal initiatives in terms of usage and costs. For example, each comparator website tracked different metrics on their websites (e.g. unique visitors, page views) and used a variety of web analytics packages to produce reports. This creates an inconsistent and incomparable value related to website usage.

However, the evaluation did reveal that cost-savings and efficiencies resulted from participation in the portal Initiative. The primary cost saving benefit of the GTC-IP stems from the quality added to various sites through collaboration among Portal partners. Half of the interviewees, who provided a response, articulated that the GTC-IP Initiative promoted the creation of networks and partnerships and Table 3-2 in section 3.2.2 provided a list of the various ways in which Portal partners share tools and resources. Through collaboration, the overall quality of participant sites is enriched and more comprehensive information made available on partner sites. In many cases, the production of tools would be cost-prohibitive if Partners were required to develop them on their own.

Other cost-saving qualities of the Portal include the nature of the tools that have been developed and the creative ways in which various partners have used social media to increase site traffic. For example, as a fully embeddable source, the WiC tool is easily merged into the look and feel of any site on the GTC-IP Initiative without writing additional code or further development. Furthermore, by becoming the source for Canada’s labour market information, the level of outreach and exposure that the WiC tool has gained, only further acts to bring users to the GTC-IP and lower advertising costs. HRSDC has also demonstrated effective use of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, as cost-saving ways to increase the presence of the Portal.

• Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6 (current)
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• Next