Final Report
July 12, 2011
Figure 1 presents a graph of the number of model-year 1995 and older vehicles on the road in Canada each year from 2005 to 2009. Over this five-year period, the number of these vehicles on the road decreased steadily each year, from 6.28 million vehicles in 2005 to 3.01 million vehicles in 2009.
As noted in the text of the report, Figure 2a illustrates the chain of contribution agreements and contracts put into place for program delivery. Environment Canada signed a contribution agreement with Summerhill Impact, which, in turn, signed separate agreements with provincial not-for-profit organizations. Either through a contract with a third party or through their existing agreements, Summerhill Impact and the provincial organizations delivered the incentives, the auto recycling services and the call centre services.
Reports from these relationships fed Environment Canada’s reporting obligations for the National Vehicle Scrappage Program. Figure 2b illustrates how Environment Canada reported to the Clean Transportation Theme of the federal government’s Clean Air Agenda, which in turn reported to the Clean Air Agenda Secretariat and the associated Horizontal Management Accountability and Reporting Framework.
Figure 3 presents the logic model for the National Vehicle Scrappage Program. This model consists of words inside a number of boxes linked by lines with arrows. The model depicts the key program activities, outputs, participants and intended outcomes, as well as the logical linkages among these components. The intended outcomes are presented at three levels: short-term, medium-term and long-term outcomes.
Figure 4 illustrates in a graph the survey findings on the level of participant satisfaction with the National Vehicle Scrappage Program at three different times: 2009, January 2010 and December 2010. The graph indicates that the level of participant satisfaction increased steadily over the lifespan of the program. Overall satisfaction (that is, the proportion of survey respondents indicating that they were completely or mostly satisfied) rose from 77 percent in 2009 to 81 percent in January 2010 to 89 percent in December 2010.
Figure 5 illustrates in a graph the survey findings on program participants’ satisfaction with service delivery at call centres at three different times: 2009, January 2010 and December 2010. The graph indicates that the proportion of participants who agreed or strongly agreed that call centre staff were able to answer questions, were knowledgeable, and provided bilingual service generally increased between 2009 and December 2010. By December 2010, 93 to 96 percent of respondents indicated agreement regarding all three aspects of service delivery.
Figure 6 illustrates in a graph the survey findings on program participants’ satisfaction with the timeliness of vehicle pick-up and receipt of incentives at three different times: 2009, January 2010 and December 2010. The graph indicates that the proportion of participants who agreed or strongly agreed that vehicles were picked up in a timely fashion and incentives were received in a timely fashion increased as the program matured. By December 2010, approximately 90 percent of respondents agreed on the timeliness of both of these aspects of program delivery.