Overall, the Agency has met most of its expected results for the sub-program. In 2016–17, Parks Canada welcomed more than five million visitors to its national historic sites, the largest recorded level of visitation since 2010-11. This increased visitation was well above the national target of 2%. The Agency is also meeting and or exceeding its targets for visitor satisfaction, enjoyment, and learning in these historic places. However, there may be a need to improve results related to visitor connection at some national historic sites.

Findings related to each of the six key activities in the visitor experience framework are highlighted below:

1. Identify Target Markets. Parks Canada has identified and refined national target markets. However, inconsistencies in the presentation of these markets in different reference materials has contributed to confusion at the field-level with regards to the application of this approach.
   
   
2. Do a Diagnostic. Parks Canada has completed national reviews of the national historic site visitor experience in attempts to develop an integrated strategy to address key barriers to visitation. While most national historic sites have access to data required to complete a local diagnostic, there have been few comprehensive diagnostics completed since 2012. Resources to complete this activity have been limited.
   
   
3. Create and Deliver On-Site Experiences. We observed a renewal of the visitor experience offer at national historic sites, including both the implementation of new national programs aimed at increasing visitation from target markets and site-specific initiatives. However, many smaller sites have had a limited capacity to develop, deliver and review new programs, products and events. Guidance and tools created to facilitate decision-making are not necessarily scaled to the capacity or geared to the activities of national historic sites.
   
   As of 2016-17, the Agency was reported to be 'on track' to deliver expected improvements in the condition of visitor experience assets but existing funding is insufficient to address all deficiencies identified since 2012.
   
   
4. Promote. The Agency has made strides in improving its website and broadening its exposure on social media platforms. However, staff are challenged to develop effective site-level campaigns given limited marketing resources. Many national historic sites leverage partners' resources to increase their reach, either through joint marketing efforts or partnered events.
   
   
5. Measure and Report. Performance measurement programs are in place to ensure the accountability and effectiveness of the sub-program. However, measures may be insufficient to effectively assess the contribution of heritage messaging at national historic sites to their commemorative integrity. Field staff also perceive a need for more timely and targeted visitor information that can be used to evaluate and adjust specific aspects of the visitor experience offer.

We found that Parks Canada has used its management flexibilities to implement significant changes to the design and delivery of the sub-program at numerous national historic sites (e.g., move to a 'self-guided' delivery model, reductions in hours and season of operations).

However, there is no existing objective criteria or thresholds that can be used to assess the efficiency of the sub-program or determine acceptable costs or cost-recovery. As a result, it is difficult to conclude on the relative efficiency of national historic sites in the delivery of the visitor experience.

We also found that Parks Canada lacks a coherent system to define and classify the visitor offer at its national historic sites. This makes it challenging for the Agency to apply consistent management direction and review related performance. The ability to assess the relative performance of individual national historic sites was impeded by the lack of a clear framework for judging sub-program performance at the site level.