• HSP is aligned with identified SAR, departmental and federal priorities
• Program delivery complements but does not duplicate other programs

• Demonstration of a clear HSP mandate that is aligned with federal government jurisdiction
• Extent to which HSP’s goals and objectives correspond to Environment Canada/DFO/PCA strategic directions, federal government priorities and National Strategy for the Protection of Species at Risk
• Presence/absence of other programs that complement or duplicate the objectives and/or activities of HSP

• Document review (e.g., legislation/policies; Treasury Board submissions; speeches from the Throne and budgets; annual reports; departmental performance reports (DPRs) and reports on plans and priorities (RPPs))
• Interviews with NSC members; HSP Secretariat; RIB members; regional coordinators; experts/recovery team members; provincial/territorial representatives

• HSP serves the environmental needs of species at risk

• Demonstration that HSP addresses identified environmental needs regarding species at risk inhabiting non-federal lands and waters

• Document and literature review
• Interviews with NSC members; HSP Secretariat; RIB members; regional coordinators; experts/recovery team members; provincial representatives; funding recipients
• Funding proponents/recipients survey
• Case studies

• Species-at-risk habitats protected
• Habitats for species at risk enhanced or restored
• Threats to species-at-risk individuals and populations reduced
• Canadians informed about species at risk and support conservation

• Extent to which species-at-risk habitats have been enhanced, protected or restored as a result of HSP (e.g., increase in the number of ha/km of shoreline protected or improved and number of participating landowners)
• Extent to which threats to species at risk have been reduced as a result of HSP (e.g., increase in the number of species-at-risk individuals protected)
• Evidence of HSP information activities reaching target groups of Canadians (e.g., increase in the number of people reached and participants engaged)

• Document review (e.g. , project final reports, program annual reports, other program documents)
• Review of HSP Online Tracking System for performance data
• Interviews with NSC members; HSP Secretariat; RIB members; regional coordinators; experts/recovery team members; provincial representatives; funding recipients
• Funding proponents/recipients survey
• Case studies

• Populations of species at risk are increased
• Species listed as at risk are delisted
• Total number of species listed as at risk is reduced
• Canadians are engaged in species-at-risk conservation

• Percentage change of select species-at-risk populations attributable to HSP activities
• Number of species listed as at risk targeted by HSP that have been delisted
• Percentage change in the total number of listed species at risk targeted by HSP
• Change in the level of stakeholders engagement in stewardship activities as a result of HSP (e.g., actions identified in recovery strategies)
• Opinions of stakeholders and tangible examples of achievement of intended intermediate outcomes

• Document review
• Review of HSP Online Tracking System for performance data
• Interviews with NSC members; HSP Secretariat; RIB members; regional coordinators; experts/recovery team members; provincial representatives; funding recipients
• Funding proponents/recipients survey
• Case studies

• Unintended outcomes are present that can be attributed to the program
• Where appropriate actions to address unintended outcomes were taken

• Presence/absence of unintended outcomes
• Where appropriate, documented management actions and/or lessons learned from unintended outcomes

• Document/file review (e.g., meeting minutes and presentations; project and annual reports)
• Interviews with Secretariat; RIB members; regional coordinators; experts/recovery team members; provincial representatives; funding recipients
• Funding proponents/recipients survey

• Factors external to HSP are identified that have influenced the achievement of results

• Evidence of factors outside HSP that have influenced the achievement of intended outcomes (e.g., partner capacity and cooperation, information about species at risk, other policies and incentives)
• Where appropriate, documented management actions to address the influence of external factors

• Document/file review (e.g., planning documents; meeting minutes; project and annual reports; other program documents)
• Interviews with NSC members; HSP Secretariat; RIB members; regional coordinators; experts/recovery team members; provincial representatives; funding recipients

• Alternative design/ delivery methods that are less costly/effort-intensive, enable quicker achievement of results, and /or enable achievement of better results
• Evidence of leveraging of funds from non-federal sources
• HSP activities show opportunities for efficiency increases

• Comparison of HSP activities to other similar programs
• Resources leveraged from contributions and their associated impact
• Opinion of key informants on the ability of program elements to achieve intended results, compared to alternative design/delivery approaches
• Opinions of key informants on whether HSP investments are a good use of public funds and whether the cost of producing outputs is as low as possible
• Opinions of key informants on how the efficiency of HSP activities could be improved
• Cost analysis

• Document review (e.g., program design reports; available documents on other programs)
• Review of program/project financial data
• Interviews with NSC members; HSP Secretariat; RIB members; regional coordinators; experts/recovery team members; provincial representatives; funding recipients
• Case studies
• Funding proponents/recipients survey

• HSP design is aligned with its overall mandate, identified needs and intended program outcomes
• Program processes are adequate and effective
• Roles, responsibilities and accountability are clear, adequate and duly implemented

• Soundness of logical linkages between program mandate, activities, outputs and intended outcomes
• Defined program processes, roles, responsibilities and accountability
• Opinions of key informants on the adequacy and effectiveness of program activities, processes and governance structures

Specific processes to be examined:

• Priority setting
• Project review and decision making
• Program outreach and communications

• Document/file review (e.g., TB submissions; logic model; RMAF; program and regional prospectuses and reports; meeting minutes; other program documents)
• Interviews with NSC members; HSP Secretariat; RIB members; regional coordinators; funding recipients
• Funding proponents/recipients survey

• Performance data are collected against program outputs and outcomes and are used to inform decision making

• Presence/absence of populated performance data system with reliable and timely data
• Evidence of decisions based on performance information
• Extent to which performance measurement activities vary between regions

• Document/file review (e.g., RMAF; planning documents; meeting minutes and decisions
• Review of HSP Online Tracking System performance data)
• Interviews with HSP Secretariat; RIB members; regional coordinators
• Funding proponents/recipients survey
• Case studies

• Identified learnings and best practices

• Identified learnings and best practices

• Document review
• Analyses completed for questions 1–9
• Interviews with NSC members; HSP Secretariat; RIB members; regional coordinators; funding recipients
• Case studies