2012-2013 Evaluation of the Crime Prevention Program

PDF (833 KB)

Table of Contents

Executive summary

Evaluation supports accountability to Parliament and Canadians by helping the Government of Canada to credibly report on the results achieved with resources invested in programs. Evaluation supports deputy heads in managing for results by informing them about whether their programs are producing the outcomes that they were designed to achieve, at an affordable cost; and, supports policy and program improvements by helping to identify lessons learned and best practices.

What we examined

Public Safety Canada's Crime Prevention Program (CPP) includes all activities managed by the National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC). The Centre provides national leadership on effective and cost-effective ways to prevent and reduce crime by intervening on the risk factors before crime happens with two core activities: providing contribution funding to support evidence-based targeted interventions; and developing and disseminating knowledge products, tools and resources related to effective crime prevention.

The scope of the evaluation includes, starting April 1, 2008, the knowledge transfer activities of NCPC related to crime prevention and the administration of the following contribution fundsFootnote 1 :

The budget for CPP represents about $54 million annually.

Why it's important

In 2008, the cost of crime in Canada was estimated to be $100 billionFootnote 3. Since crime prevention has the potential for substantial savings to society and avoidance of huge future costs, there is rationale for an approach that uses early detection and intervention for high-risk youth. The onset of certain behaviours at an early age has been shown to indicate a lengthy criminal career, including serious and violent offences.

What we found

The CPP was originally created, as a result of the 1993 Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, to provide national leadership on crime prevention efforts in cooperation with provinces and territories. Over the years, the CPP has evolved to meet changing needs, shifting focus to reducing risk factors among at-risk groups of the population such as Northern and Aboriginal populations and responding to priority issues such as youth gangs. In 2008, the NCPC made a strategic decision to focus the activities of CPAF, NACPF and YGPF to evidence-based interventions and further develop knowledge transfer activities. The requirement for leadership clearly persists given the current crime trends and attributes of youth crime that point to a need for crime prevention, particularly among geographic or demographic segments of the Canadian population, gang-involved youth, younger at-risk populations, those experiencing bullying and those at-risk of hate crime. There is rationale for the CPP approach that uses early detection and evidence-based interventions for high-risk youth so that potential cost savings to the criminal justice system may be realized.

It is noted that the SIP program does not follow the same evidence-based crime prevention model of the other funds. However, communities believe that they need protection from hate crimes, as demonstrated by the demand in the pilot phase, and recent call for proposals.

Speeches from the Throne, recent budget documents and statements from the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers for Justice and Public Safety identify crime prevention as a priority. At the departmental level, CPP aligns with PS priorities and objectives and is a key component of departmental activities to ensure safe and secure communities.

There is no duplication in programming among federal departments and provinces/territories, but opportunities for synergy among CPP funds should be further explored.

Crime prevention is a shared responsibility and requires multiple stakeholders. NCPC has a leadership role for implementing crime prevention interventions in Canada in cooperation with provinces/territories. While there is overlap in outcomes and target audiences in some federal programs, the NCPC is unique in its federal role of providing evidence-based crime prevention interventions, and the NCPC works with other federal organizations such as Aboriginal and Northern Affairs and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to coordinate these efforts. Opportunities for synergy among the CPP funds under evaluation have not been fully explored. CPAF, NACPF and YGPF share similar objectives, target audiences and expected outcomes, while SIP is unique.

A total of 155 projects, involving about 24,000 participants, have been implemented over the past five years. Participants exhibiting specific risk factors were reached across these funds with many exhibiting multiple targeted risk factors. Collaborations at the project level with community partners have been strengthened and supported by the implementation of CPP projects. Organizations implementing projects partnered with 22 different sectors and over 1500 groups at the community level.

Desired participant outcomes included positive changes in knowledge and awareness, attitudes and skills; positive changes in risk and protective factors and/or anti-social behavior; and changes to offending behaviour and/or gang membership.

In terms of changes to awareness, skills and attitudes, positive changes were seen in most of the projects under evaluation, which demonstrates that a foundation was laid for changes to risk and protective factors.

In terms of changes to risk and protective factors, just over half of the projects under evaluation noted favourable changes. Some of the projects showed success across multiple risk factorsFootnote 4 such as: as improvement in education/academic performance, self-esteem/emotional regulation, parent and family relationships and participation in pro-social activities. Notably, YGPF projects have also contributed to favourable change in proximal risk factorsFootnote 5 such as attachment to the workforce, substance use, and attachment to education/school.

In terms of changes to offending behaviour, most projects under evaluation reported favourably. Changes included reductions in arrests, weapon carrying and participant police contacts. For YGPF, actual behaviour change is observed with gang exits totalling about 103 of the 378 participants who were involved in these projects. The impact of positive results is even more pronounced in YGPF projects because participants are in a higher risk population; thus, even a low rate of success has the potential for great impact.

Over its three year period, the SIP pilot awarded 121 projects to community centres, educational institutions, and places of worship. Interviewees note continuing success with projects funded during the SIP pilot. The 2012 intake by NCPC resulted in 42 agreements being awarded to Jewish, Muslim and other groups. Due to the fact that contribution agreements have recently been awarded, it is too early to assess outcome achievement.

The NCPC has completed a significant amount of work in developing and implementing its Knowledge Strategy including equipping its employees to be key agents for the delivery of the Strategy. Distribution of products has been broad, reaching thousands of recipients. Key target audiences are defined in the Strategy and products are defined in the Publishing Plan; however, the link between specific products and their intended target audiences is unclear. Interviewees indicated that understanding of evidence-based crime prevention has increased; however, refinement of knowledge products is needed to tailor them to target audiences. Target audiences have clearly been reached through numerous “hands-on” events such as training and information sessions and workshops with crime prevention practitioners; committees/working groups and presentations with policy makers at the federal/provincial/territorial level; and presentations and roundtables to researchers and evaluators at universities. Increase in participant knowledge due to these events could not be determined from the data provided to the evaluation.

Sustainability and continued utilization of evidence-based strategies is of interest to federal/provincial/territorial partners. NCPC is taking positive action in this regard including the preparation of a discussion paper at the request of Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers of Public Safety and the inclusion of the sustainability issue in the work plan of the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group on Crime Prevention. Some successful projects have been sustained in whole or in part. Some provinces/territories have been influenced by NCPC and have aligned, or are aligning, their strategies and frameworks with evidence-based concepts.

Program administration ratios for CPAF, NACPF and YGPF are higher than other PS programs, but are in line with the level of effort required by NCPC staff to develop proposals, guide and monitor recipients and report on projects. Much work has been done by the NCPC in this regard to ensure quality programming. The average annual ratio for the pilot phase of SIP is much higher, likely due to the level of effort required by Strategic Policy Branch to launch the program which now resides with the NCPC. Although processing times have been calculated, without a service standard, it is not possible to determine if this is a good result. Work has begun to develop service standards.

The NCPC has taken positive action to determine the cost-benefit of crime prevention interventions. Literature suggests that the potential return on investment of the evidence-based approach is high, but this remains to be more fully established from funded interventions in Canada.

Recommendations

The Internal Audit and Evaluation Directorate recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Partnerships Branch, implement the following:

  1. Consolidate the structure of CPP funding programs to increase administrative efficiency and provide programming flexibility and clarity.
  2. Sharpen the focus of CPP knowledge transfer activities so that products are clearly connected to the needs of target audiences and utilized to inform crime prevention policy and practices across the country.
Management Response and Action Plan

Recommendation

Management Response

Action Plan

Responsible Manager

Planned Implementation Date

1. Consolidate the structure of CPP funding programs to increase administrative efficiency and provide programming flexibility and clarity.

Accepted

NCPC has already developed, and will submit for approval by Treasury Board, common terms and conditions that will simplify program management under the National Crime Prevention Strategy with a view to greater efficiency and responsiveness to program needs, consistent with funding authorities and overall strategic objectives.

Director, Programs Division

By March 31, 2014

2. Sharpen the focus of CPP knowledge transfer activities so that products are clearly connected to the needs of target audiences and utilized to inform crime prevention policy and practice across the country.

Accepted

NCPC will work with the Departmental Web Team to restructure and reorganize crime prevention material on the Public Safety web site to better align products, information and knowledge with key priorities and audiences and provide better access to the material.  

In order to be more deliberate and strategic about knowledge dissemination and to better tailor and target knowledge products to specific audiences:

  1. The Publishing Planning Process will require each product to be categorized by issue and key target audience (i.e. practitioners, policy makers, researchers) as part of knowledge dissemination plans.
  2. NCPC will develop annual stakeholder knowledge and engagement plans; and
  3. NCPC will develop a method for tracking, collecting and analyzing data about activities related to knowledge dissemination.

Director, Policy, Research and Evaluation

By December 2013

  1. During 2013-2014 Planning Process
  2. By April 2014
  3. By April 2014

1. Introduction

This is the Public Safety Canada (PS) 2012-2013 Evaluation of the Crime Prevention Program (CPP). This evaluation provides Canadians, parliamentarians, Ministers, central agencies, and the Deputy Minister of Public Safety with an evidence-based, neutral assessment of the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of this federal government program.

2. Profile

2.1 Background

The CPP includes all activities of the National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC), located organizationally within the Community Safety and Partnerships Branch of PS. The NCPC provides national leadership on effective and cost-effective ways to prevent and reduce crime by intervening on the risk factors before crime happens. The two core activities of the NCPC are to:

The NCPC administers the National Crime Prevention Strategy which is managed in collaboration with provinces and territories. The Strategy provides a policy framework for the implementation of crime prevention interventions in Canada. Crime prevention is defined as “pro-active strategies and measures that seek to intervene and modify identified risk factors among individuals, families, or the environment in order to reduce the propensity to offend or re-offend, and/or the likelihood that criminal acts will be committed”Footnote 6 (see Annex A for a description of risk and protective factors). In order to deliver on this mandate, the NCPC funds and evaluates interventions to prevent and reduce offending among those most at-risk, specifically:

Within these populations, the NCPC will also target specific priority crime issues such as drug-related crime, youth gangs and gun violence.

The NCPC administers the following funding programs (see Annex B for further details on the funding programs):

As part of its crime prevention mandate, the NCPC also administers the Communities at Risk, Security Infrastructure Program (SIP). This program does not implement or test evidence-based programs. SIP provides funds to support enhancements of security infrastructure in communities targeted by hate-motivated crime.

2.2 Resources

Table 1 illustrates approved funding allocations for the CPP.

Table 1 – Budget for the CPP ($ in millions)
 

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

Vote 1

Salaries

$6.959

$6.922

$6.211

$6.964

Operations and Maintenance

$3.464

$3.333

$3.018

$2.852

Subtotal

$10.423

$10.255

$9.229

$9.816

Vote 5

Transfer Payment Budget

$30.678

$48.775

$43.231

$44.000

Total CPP Budget

$41.101

$59.030

$52.460

$53.816

Note: Budget figures do not include amounts for Employee Benefits Plan, Public Works and Government Services Canada accommodation amount, or internal services.

2.3 Logic Model

The logic model presented at Figure 1 is a visual representation that links what the program is funded to do (activities) with what the program produces (outputs) and what the program intends to achieve (outcomes). It also provides the basis for developing the evaluation matrix, which gave the evaluation team a roadmap for conducting this evaluation. 

Figure 1 – Logic Model of the Crime Prevention Program

Figure 1 – Logic Model of the Crime Prevention Program
Image Description

The logic model is comprised of an operational component and a strategic component, which are interdependent.

Operational component

The activities of the operational component are to communicate funding priorities, solicit and select targeted funding proposals, provide project development assistance, and provide targeted funding.

The activities lead to the following output: funded projects for targeted at-risk individuals and communities.

The output leads to the following immediate outcomes:

  1. A. Increased physical security of educational institutions, places or worship and community centres in targeted Communities (SIP)
  2. B. Targeted at risk individuals and populations are reached through support and interventions provided by projects (CPAF, NACFP, YGPF)
  3. C. Positive changes in awareness, skills and attitude/motivations among targeted populations (CPAF, NACFP, YGPF)
  4. D. Improved collaboration among key stakeholders in funded communities (CPAF, NACPF, YGPF)

Immediate outcome A leads to the intermediate outcome E: reduction in incidence of hate-motivated crime in community facilities funded (SIP)

Immediate outcome B, C and D lead to intermediate outcome F: positive changes in risk and protective factors and/or antisocial behaviour among at-risk children and youth, and high risk offenders (CPAF, NACFP, YGPF)

Intermediate outcome E leads to long term outcome G:increased sense of security among users of facilities

Intermediate outcome F leads to long term outcome H: Reduction in offending behaviour among targeted populations

Strategic Component

The activities of the strategic component are to:

  1. Work collaboratively with key partners (federal, provincial, local)
  2. Conduct policy development, research and evaluation
  3. Develop and disseminate knowledge related to effective crime prevention practices

Activity 1 leads to the following output: strategic partnerships with key stakeholders within and outside federal government

Activity 2 leads to the following output: policy instruments, research and evaluation studies. This output also contributes to activity 2.

Activity 3 leads to the following output: Crime prevention tools, products, and resources developed and disseminated

The outputs lead to immediate outcome I: increased understanding and knowledge by relevant stakeholders of evidenced-based crime prevention

The immediate outcome leads to intermediate outcome J: utilization and sustainability of evidence-based strategies to prevent/reduce crime

The intermediate outcome J also contributes to long term outcome H: reduction in offending behaviour among targeted populations.

3. About the evaluation

3.1 Objective

This evaluation supports:

3.2 Scope

The evaluation assessed the relevance and the performance of the CPP. The scope of the evaluation included all activities that correspond to the PS Program Alignment Architecture (1.3.1), Crime Prevention, delivered by the NCPC as follows:

Within the exceptions noted below, the timeframe for the evaluation begins on April 1, 2008.

For YGPF, the scope of this evaluation includes all projects funded under YGPF since the 2006 intake. Some of these projects were in their interim stage during the time of the previous evaluation in 2010-2011 and are now complete. They have been included herein in order to draw a more complete picture of program results.

SIP was implemented on a pilot basis from July 2007 to March 31, 2011. During the pilot phase, the program resided with the Strategic Policy Branch of PS, Intergovernmental Affairs and Citizen Engagement Directorate. In 2009-2010, an evaluation of the pilot was conducted. On April 1, 2011, the program was transferred to NCPC and remained in the implementation phase as of fall 2012. To the extent possible, the pilot program evaluation was used as a line of evidence for this evaluation. In addition, continuing performance related to intermediate and longer-term outcomes, as a result of the pilot phase, were examined in this evaluation.

3.3 Methodology

This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board of Canada Policy on Evaluation, the Standard on Evaluation for the Government of Canada and the PS Evaluation Policy. The evaluators used an implicit design approach combined with program information from quasi-experimental designs. The evaluation took into account the following factors in order to determine the evaluation effort, including the approach, scope, design, and methods, required for this evaluation:

It is noted that CPP is a long-standing program that has been in place for 15 years. Program theory is founded in literature and evidence. Previous evaluations were available for some funds. Specifically, the evaluation methodology and associated level of effort were calibrated based on the quality and availability of performance information from the following sources.

3.3.1 Evaluation Core Issues and Questions

Based on the requirements of the Directive on the Evaluation Function, the following issue areas and evaluation questions were addressed in the evaluation:

Relevance

Performance–Effectiveness  

Performance–Efficiency and Economy

3.3.2 Lines of Evidence

The evaluation team used the following lines of evidence to conduct the evaluation: document review, interviews, and a review of performance and financial data. Each of these methods is described in more detail below.

Document Review

The document review included the following types of documents: corporate documents, accountability and policy documents, program inception and renewal documents, reports on plans and priorities, performance reports, speeches from the Throne, legislative documents and program-specific documents. A list of documents reviewed is presented at Annex C.

Interviews

As summarized in Table 2, 62 interviews were conducted using interview guides tailored to stakeholder groups.

Table 2 – Interview Groups and Number of Interviews

Interview Group

Number of Interviews

PS Program Managers (Headquarters and Regions)

10

Provincial/territorial representatives

9

Funding recipients/Project Evaluators

41

Subject Matter Experts

2

Total

62

Program interviews included program managers from headquarters and from each region. Group interviews were conducted in the regions and included program managers and program officers.

The views of the provinces and territories were gathered through interviews with representatives from each of the five regions.

In order to calibrate efforts for interviews, while providing coverage of the funded programs, the evaluation team interviewed representatives chosen from a sample of funded projects. The criteria used to determine the list of interviews were: quality/availability of data from other lines of evidence, materiality relative to the other funds under evaluation, and national coverage.

YGPF and CPAF had good quality information available. Information was available from the 2011 YGPF evaluation and 10 project-based impact evaluations summarized in a synthesis report. For this reason, YGPF project recipients were not interviewed during the evaluation process. CPAF also had 13 project-based impact evaluations with mid-term findings that were summarized in a synthesis report. For CPAF, interviewees were chosen from projects that had been in place for at least two years but did not have an impact evaluation available. All other CPAF and NACPF projects had process evaluations. Interviewees were chosen to provide geographic coverage of projects that had been in place for at least two years.

SIP projects were only recently awarded at the time of this evaluation and had not had sufficient time to realize outcomes. Thus interviewees for SIP were chosen from the pilot phase in order to assess continuing outcome achievement. SIP interviewees were chosen to ensure projects covered places of worship, educational institutions and community centres as well as groups identified as most likely to be hate crime targets.

The resulting distribution of interviewees included representatives of 13 CPAF projects in five regions; nine NACPF projects in three regions; 18 SIP projects in four regions but predominately Ontario and Quebec; and one interview with the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime. Some projects had an independent evaluator who chose to participate in the interview.

Finally, the subject matter experts were chosen from academics and experts in the field of youth and crime prevention.

Review of Financial and Performance Information

In terms of the financial review, the evaluation team analyzed the program administration ratioFootnote 8 in comparison to other PS contribution programs. Data sources included PS financial system reports and estimates by PS program staff of the level of effort expended to administer the program.

The evaluation team reviewed and analyzed performance information. Key sources of data included: reports from the Grants and Contributions Information Management SystemFootnote 10 (GCIMS); the NCPC Bi-annual Report (July 2012); the CPAF and YGPF synthesis reports; a report on project approval time lines; the NCPC Performance Indicators Tracking Sheet, Knowledge Exchange Events 2008-09 to 2012-13; and a report that summarized results against the NCPC Publishing Plan.

The evaluation team wishes to acknowledge the significant amount of performance information that was made available to the evaluation team from the NCPC. Not only was quantitative information available, some of the information gathered in the project evaluation reports involved pre/post testing, comparison groups and, in some cases, produced statistically significant results. This enhanced the reliability of the information available to the evaluation team.

3.4 Limitations

The following section describes data limitations and how the evaluation team addressed these limitations.

Project-based impact evaluation results were available for 23 projects. In most cases, final results are not yet available since the projects have been in place for about two years, meaning that they are in their early stages of implementation. Interviews were used to supplement performance information. Performance documentation also provided data on outputs and some immediate outcomes.

Given that most project-based evaluations were still under way at the time of conducting this program evaluation, available information was not sufficient to report on the actual number of project participants that exhibited change against expected outcomes. Thus, outcome-based information was reported at the project level.

For SIP, the first agreements since the pilot program was completed have recently been issued; thus, outcomes related to these agreements could not be assessed. To balance this shortcoming, the evaluation team used interviews to gather information about ongoing success related to projects implemented under the pilot phase. The evaluation team also reported on project reach. The pilot evaluation was also reviewed.

There were insufficient data to establish trends in application processing times, therefore, the evaluators established a median time to provide a baseline for future comparison.

Based upon information from interviews, internet research and document review an effort was made to identify and compare crime prevention programs similar to the NCPC in other jurisdictionsFootnote 11 . Constraints on the availability of information made it impossible to conduct an in-depth international comparison of crime prevention programs.

3.5 Protocols

During the conduct of the evaluation, PS program representatives assisted in the identification of key stakeholders and provided documentation and data to support the evaluation. Collaborative participation greatly enriched the evaluation process.

This report was submitted to Program management and to the responsible Assistant Deputy Minister for review and acceptance. A management response and action plan was prepared in response to the evaluation recommendations. These documents were presented to the PS Departmental Evaluation Committee for consideration and for final approval by the Deputy Minister of Public Safety.

4. Findings

4.1 Relevance

4.1.1 Need for the Crime Prevention Program

The evaluation examined the original need for the CPP, how the program has evolved to meet new or changing needs and whether the need for the CPP persists in the current context.

Funding programs were originally introduced in 1998 as part of the National Crime Prevention Strategy, as a result of a report on crime prevention of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General in 1993. The early years of the Strategy focused on the prevention of crime through social development and included several funding programs.

Over the past five years, these funds have evolved to meet changing needs. In line with the government's community safety and tackling crime agenda, the Strategy was repositioned in 2007, marking a significant change in its approach and philosophy. The Strategy became focused on building the knowledge of what works and what doesn't work to prevent crime. The NCPC's mission is to "provide national leadership on effective and cost-efficient ways to both prevent and reduce crime by addressing known risk factors in high-risk populations and places.”Footnote 12

The repositioning moved the NCPS away from a more universal and community-mobilization approach, founded on general social development and capacity building orientation, to more targeted, direct interventions for individuals and populations at risk of offending. The repositioning saw crime prevention situated as a necessary component of an effective response to crime along with policing and corrections.

It is clear that over the past five years, the NCPC repositioned its efforts towards funding evidence-based interventionsFootnote 13 for all three funds, shifting funding for projects to contribution agreements, and including more stringent reporting requirements. Funding now involves much larger sums (up to $1.5M per year over five years) and supports the implementation of evidence-based projects with multiple implementation sites.

Developing calls for proposals and making decisions about what projects are recommended for funding now integrate the knowledge of extensive studies that have assessed the impact of crime prevention programs and have resulted in a substantial pool of knowledge about the most effective approaches.Footnote 14 This approach ensures that the best available evidence is considered in the decision to develop and implement a program or policy designed to prevent or reduce crime.Footnote 15 The renewed strategic direction focuses on testing model and promising programs, but also includes innovative programs for certain at-risk communities (see annex D for definitions of these types of programs).

Document review indicates that the evolution of the CPP is in line with international prevention policy and research, and addresses identified national needs as indicated in Canadian crime trends and statistics. For example, it is well established that the propensity to offend is higher among younger age groups. The 12–24 age group accounts for nearly half of all offenders even though they represent only 18% of the total population.Footnote 16 Key findings from longitudinal and experimental studies show an early age of onset tends to indicate a lengthy criminal career, including more serious, violent offences.Footnote 17

Although the overall rate or police-reported crime is fallingFootnote 18 , this fact hides significant differences across the country and between groups of the population. For example, crime rates and crime severity are substantially higher in the north, relative to the rest of the country. Saskatchewan and Manitoba have almost double the rate of serious assault than other provinces.Footnote 19 Gang-involved youth commit a disproportional number of crimes,Footnote 20 and research indicates that early youth violence is one of the highest predictors of later gang involvement which in turn leads to higher rates of violence.Footnote 21 Bullying (including cyber bullying) is a growing concern; results from studies conducted in Ontario show that children who bully others are 37% more likely to commit offences as adults.Footnote 22 Funding recipients describing crime in their communities most frequently mention problems such as substance abuse, gangs or pre-gang behaviors, domestic violence, aggression, bullying and exploitation of girls, and the phenomenon of problems presenting themselves in younger children. Subject matter experts echoed these comments with regards to youth gangs and the concern that younger children are getting involved in the justice system.

There is also an overrepresentation of aboriginals in the criminal justice system.Footnote 23 Violent victimization among Aboriginal peoples and crime rates in the territories far exceed those of other population groups and the provinces.Footnote 24 The rate of Aboriginal youth accused of crime on reserve is more than three times the rate for the rest of Canada; violent crime and incarceration rates are also higher.Footnote 25 Demographic trends indicate continued public safety challenges due to a fast-growing population in First Nations communities.Footnote 26

Given the fact that, in 2008, the cost of crime in Canada was estimated to be $100 billionFootnote 27 , and in light of the substantial savings to society and avoidance of huge future costs that can result, there is rationale for an approach that is both evidence-based (i.e., uses the best available knowledge) and focused (i.e., focuses primarily on children and youth at risk). It is generally accepted that a set of known factors place some youths at greater risk than others for engaging in delinquent and antisocial behaviour.Footnote 28 Funding recipients identify contributing factors to crime such as substance abuse, poverty, homelessness, difficult family environment, lack of social support, mental health issues and vulnerable groups in society. They also indicate a problem with growing violence in youth crime and with youth gangs, mainly in urban centers.

In terms of the change in strategic direction, about half of funding recipients/project evaluators saw NCPC's shift to multi-year, evidence-based projects and knowledge development direction as strengths. Other interviewees noted that funding has become less accessible to some communities who do not have the capacity to implement the complex projects. Despite these perceptions, program information shows that about half of the projects over the past five years have been awarded to aboriginal communities which traditionally have had capacity issues.

The SIP funding program was initially created in 2007 to respond to issues related to hate crimes. It is important to note that the program addresses hate crime associated with community facilities and not hate crime in general. It is also noted that SIP does not follow the same evidence-based crime prevention model as the other funds.

In terms of the need for SIP, from 2008 to 2009, police services across Canada reported a 42% increase in hate crimes motivated by race, religion and sexual orientation. It is estimated that only about 40% of hate crime is reported to the police and that the actual number of hate crimes would be higher. Many communities believe that they need protection from hate crimes, as demonstrated by the demand in the SIP pilot phase, and recent call for proposals. Most SIP interviewees identified a safety concern stemming from hate-related incidents in their community or related to certain world events.

4.1.2 Alignment with Federal Priorities and Departmental Outcomes

The evaluation sought to assess the degree of alignment of the CPP with federal government priorities and the departmental strategic outcome mainly through document review.

Crime prevention is part of the Government of Canada's action plan to tackle crime and is a theme in recent speeches from the Throne and budget documents. Budget 2008 doubled the NCPS's permanent funding base. Budgets 2009 and 2010 saw investments in youth crime prevention programs. The Government also recognized the importance of security enhancements for not-for-profit community centers, provincially recognized educational institutions, and places of worship with investments in SIP. Budget 2012 provided support to violence prevention programming on reserves. In the 2010 Speech from the Throne, the Government committed to “take steps to support communities in their efforts to tackle local challenges” and in 2011, “…to protect the most vulnerable in society and work to prevent crime…and help at-risk youth avoid gangs and criminal activity”. Ministers have also signaled support of crime prevention through announcements related to specific intervention projects funded across Canada.

At their January 2012 meeting, Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers of Justice and Public Safety, in discussing priorities with regard to Justice System Reform, Prevention and Rehabilitation, identified the need for collaboration and the importance of prevention as an effective means to reduce crime.Footnote 29 At the Ministers request, a Federal/Provincial/Territorial Committee of Assistant Deputy Ministers on Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation was created to provide leadership. The Committee is mandated to draft a two-year work-plan with the following objectives: 1) foster a coherent approach in support of evidence-based crime prevention, and 2) consider options for the longer-term sustainability of effective crime prevention programs.Footnote 30

A review of Reports and Plans and Priorities (2009 to 2012) shows that CPP aligns with PS priorities and objectives and is a key component of departmental activities to ensure safe and secure communities. These documents illustrate the department's ongoing commitment to crime prevention. In addition, a key departmental priority in 2012-13 is to “advance the crime and safety agenda focusing on community corrections, RCMP renewal and engaging on future directions for policing” which includes “reducing offending among targeted population groups (such as at-risk children, youth and high-risk repeat offenders) by providing national leadership on effective and cost-efficient interventions”.Footnote 31

CPP activities are a key component of the departmental Program Alignment Architecture and align with the Countering Crime, program activity (1.3), and contribute to the crime prevention, program sub-activity (1.3.1).

4.1.3 Alignment with a Federal Role

The evaluation sought evidence of accountability and authority to deliver the CPP to understand whether there is alignment with the federal role.
Crime prevention falls within the mandate of PS as stated in the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act in Section 4. (2): “The Minister is responsible for exercising leadership at the national level relating to public safety and emergency preparedness” and Section 6. (1): “In exercising his or her powers and in performing his or her duties and functions and with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories, the Minister may: … b. cooperate with any province, foreign state, international organization or any other entity; c. make grants or contributions; d. facilitate the sharing of information, where authorized, to promote public safety objectives”.Footnote 32
In this regard, the NCPC's mission to provide national leadership, in collaboration with provinces/territories, has been stable since 1998 when it was established. While the provinces have the primary role in the administration of justice, crime prevention is a shared responsibility and requires the involvement of multiple stakeholders. A workshop report, developed by the Institute for the Prevention of Crime (University of Ottawa), indicates that "most significant prevention actions and initiatives will be driven by local actors, and that other orders of government should get organized to support local actionFootnote 33 . The federal government has an appropriate role in focusing on evidence-based practices and investing in research and development in crime prevention and ensuring effective dissemination of lessons learned.Footnote 34

4.1.4 Duplication/Synergy with other Crime Prevention Programs

In terms of the involvement of other federal partners, document review and interviews suggest that several federal programs share broad crime prevention objectives but don't necessarily fund the same activities, have the same funding models or use an evidence-based approach such as that of the CPP. For example, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, National Crime Prevention Services, provides universal programs focused on presentations and events in schools such as drug abuse resistance and bullying prevention. The Department of Justice Aboriginal Justice Strategy has a focus on community-based justice programs such as alternative measures to corrections. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada has programs for urban aboriginals that focus on life skills. The funds from these organizations are directed towards different activities, and no other organization appears to fund evidence-based crime prevention interventions. The NCPC works with these federal partners and others to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach to crime reduction and prevention, through an Interdepartmental Committee on Crime Prevention and other strategic partnerships. For example, the NCPC participates in the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Aboriginal Justice Committee meetings. The program also notes that, within PS, they work with other units such as Aboriginal Corrections Policy Unit, Aboriginal Policing Directorate and the Law Enforcement and Policing Branch to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach.

The National Crime Prevention Strategy provides a policy framework for implementing crime prevention interventions in Canada in cooperation with province/territories. Most interviewees agree that federal/provincial/territorial initiatives work together across the crime prevention continuum, have complementary objectives, build relationships among groups, and share information. Some interviewees note that the NCPC provides the province with evidence of models that work with larger funding amounts and longer-term funding. Provincial/territorial funding tends to fill needs specific to individual communities using smaller funding amounts. Several provinces have recently developed frameworks or strategies that are compatible with, and may have been influenced by, the NCPC, vis-à-vis their focus on early intervention, risk and protection factors and language around evidence-based and knowledge sharing (i.e. Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba, and New Brunswick).Footnote 35 For example, in addition to its crime prevention framework, Alberta's Safe Communities Investment Fund (SCIF) is similar in nature to the NCPC, providing shorter-term (three-year) grants for pilot projects related to community-police partnership and community-based projects.

A review of the Terms and Conditions of CPAF, NACPF and YGPF reveals that these funds share the same expected outcomes and similar objectives. Despite a different focus in terms of target audience (i.e. gang-involved youth, Aboriginal youth, and Northern youth), they all address at-risk youth and ultimately aim to address risk and protective factors with a goal of reduced offending.

NCPC indicates that they also work with other units within PS such as the Aboriginal Corrections Policy Unit in the Law Enforcement and Policing Branch to ensure a coordinated approach. The Aboriginal Corrections Policy Unit funds pilot projects that use holistic and restorative approaches, emphasizing methods that have not yet been tried. The projects are capacity building in nature and help Aboriginal communities to address crime and victimization.

4.2 Performance – Effectiveness

4.2.1 Program Reach and Collaboration with Community Partners  

Program Reach

GCIMS data indicates that, over the past five years, CPAF, NACPF and YGPF have funded 155Footnote 36 projects. Since 2008, funded projects involved over 24,000Footnote 37 participants. Participants exhibiting specific risk factors (e.g. substance abuse and mental health issues) are reached across these funds. Many tend to have multiple risk factors and projects address these in five areas: community, family, school, individual, and peers. Projects offer a range of services to address specific risk factors for example life skills training, counseling, social skills, parenting skills, family support, cultural activities, and substance abuse treatment.Footnote 38

Projects focus on at-risk populations such as youth at high risk of offending or reoffending; youth at risk and/or already involved in the criminal justice system; youth at risk and/or already abusing substances; youth at risk and/or already violent; youth at risk and/or already in a gang; and at-risk youth of Aboriginal descent.Footnote 39

The NCPC Bi-annual report provides information related to active projects for 2012-13. The information shows that the NCPC is reaching its target of 80% model and promising projects; that the overall dropout rate is low at approximately 10%, and that active projects are reaching target age groups and addressing funding priorities (as shown in Table 3) Footnote 40 .

Table 3 – Active Projects for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Projects by Priority

Priority Groups

Percentage

Youth 12-17 years

81%

Aboriginal population

50%

Children 6-11 years

47%

Youth 18-29 years

17%

Priority Issues

Percentage

Drug & alcohol

52%

Youth Gangs

18%

Recidivism

9%

Collaboration with Community Partners

One of the goals of the CPAF, NACPF and YGPF projects is to increase collaboration within funded communities when delivering projects. Performance reports from organizations implementing projects estimate that projects partnered with 22 different sectors and over 1500 groups at the community levelFootnote 41 . The main partners are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 – Partnerships at the Project Level

Sectors

Number of partners

Community, Social or Volunteer Services

502

Education

450

For-profit Organizations

161

Health

152

Government - Provincial or Territorial

141

Police

139

Aboriginal Agencies

110

Types of collaboration included providing in-kind contributions, making referrals, providing staff, accepting referrals, and contributing financially.

The overwhelming majority of interviewees stated that there has been more collaboration within projects. Some interviewees added that these collaborations were not possible before. Some organizations are becoming more youth-friendly and, in some cases, the projects have changed the dynamics when it comes to working with at-risk youth. Interviewees stated that NCPC has supported this collaboration well. Some projects created lasting networks between organizations beyond the project. Interviewees reported that, as a result, each new project is easier to start. Partners appreciated these collaborations and are eager to participate.

4.2.2 Project Participant Outcomes

Introduction to the Analysis of Participant Outcomes

The NCPC deliberately selects specific projects for rigorous, impact evaluations that are conducted by external, third party evaluators. The impact project evaluation studies aim to determine the extent to which the outcomes can be attributed to the project. Project evaluation studies examine multiple variables depending on the nature of the project. In this regard, project evaluators use multiple indicators to measure project outcomes depending on the focus of the project (e.g. different types of awareness and attitude changes or different risk factors).

The analysis contained herein consolidates key indicator information from the project-based evaluations in order to report on outcomes at the fund/program level. Much of the analysis contained is based upon two NCPC synthesis reports of CPAF and YGPF project-based evaluation reports. In the synthesis reports, indicators were reported as “favourable”, “no change” or “unfavourable”Footnote 42 . Projects that reported favourable results in multiple indicators were considered to be demonstrating better success than projects that reported favourable results in a single indicator. For YGPF, the analysisFootnote 43 also considered proximalFootnote 44 factors related to gang involvement. Youth presenting the following proximal factors are four times more likelyFootnote 45 to join gangs if the factors are not addressed: association with negative peers; low attachment to family, community, culture; low attachment to education and school; low attachment to workforce; substance abuse; and poor parental supervision.

It should be noted that the syntheses were considered to be strong lines of evidence due to the rigorous methodology and measurement against indicators. One synthesis included 13 CPAF projects that had interim project evaluation results; and the other included 10 YGPF projects that had final project evaluation results. It is important to note that the NCPC did not select NACPF projects for project impact evaluations because they did not meet the criteria required for a rigorous quasi-experimental evaluation design; however, these projects did undergo process evaluation. Having said this, the analysis contained herein also included findings from a 2012 project-based evaluation for one NACPF project with about 500 participants to provide an example of the types of outcomes being achieved. This example project was included in the analysis since the project-based evaluation went beyond reporting on implementation status (process evaluation) and reported on outcome achievement in some areas.

The evidence from the syntheses was supplemented with interviewee perceptions on 13 additional CPAF and 9 additional NACPF projects. Interviewees included funding recipients and project evaluators when available. Interviewees indicated that they determined behavioural changes among project participants through the following methods: observations of project staff; feedback from others including teachers, parents and the police; and feedback from participants. In terms of a more quantitative approach, some mention using data collected by the project that included testing prior to and again after the project was implemented.

The evaluation examined the extent to which CPAF, NACPF and YGPF projects have realized positive change against the desired outcomes noted in Table 5 (also shown in the logic model at Figure 1). The table also provides examples of indicators used to measure changes among project participants.

Table 5 – Desired Outcomes and Indicators

Desired Outcomes

Examples of Indicators Used to Measure Change in Desired Outcomes

Positive changes in knowledge and understanding

  • knowledge about use of drugs and consequences
  • understanding effects of substance use

Positive changes in awareness, attitudes and skills

  • awareness of consequences of drug use or gang involvement
  • attitudes toward the justice system, anti-social peers, substance abuse or the education system
  • decision-making skills

Positive changes in risk and protective factors and/or antic-social behaviour

  • school attendance
  • emotional regulation
  • family relationships
  • alcohol and drug abuse
  • association with anti-social peers

Offending behaviour and/or gang membership

  • police contacts
  • arrests
  • gang exits


All CPAF, NACPF and YGPF projects follow the logic chain of outcomes noted in Table 5. The projects are based on program theory established in literature, which indicates that foundational changes to knowledge are important for future changes in awareness, attitudes and skills. And that “short term changes in knowledge and attitudes precede intermediate changes in risk and protective factors. In turn, changes in risk and protective factors increase the likelihood of making long term behavioural changes. Each phase is a precursor to the potential preparation and action changes that will follow.”Footnote 46 Each project does not hope to achieve the same type of changes to awareness, risk and protective factors or behavior. Some outcomes such as those shown in Table 5 may not be applicable to all projects. For example, changes in offending behavior would not be measured where project participants are younger children.

Changes in Knowledge and Understanding

Four CPAF projects, reaching just over 1100 youth, tracked indicators related to knowledge and understanding about drug use and the consequences. Three projects showed favourable changes in knowledge of the impacts of substance abuse. For example, one project indicated that just over 90% of participants reported a better understanding of the effects of alcohol and drugs as a result of their participation in a Leadership Resiliency project. The remaining project showed no change.

Three YGPF projects, reaching 900 youth, tracked indicators of knowledge and understanding. All three noted favourable changes in knowledge regarding crime and associated risks, and gangs and associated risks.

The achievement of these expected early results for CPAF and final results for YGPF demonstrate that the foundation is/was laid for desired changes in awareness, attitudes and skills.

Changes in Awareness, Attitudes and Skills

Eight CPAF projects, reaching about 1300 youth, tracked indicators related to awareness, attitudes and skills. Seven of these projects showed favorable results in at least one indicator, with two of the seven reporting successes against multiple indicatorsFootnote 47 . The indicators most likely to show change were in attitudes toward the justice system, employment and education. To highlight this, in two Alternative Suspension projects, over 90% of those sampled indicated improved attitudes toward education and willingness to improve behaviour. One project showed no change in awareness, attitudes and skills.
NACPF funding recipient interviewees also perceive positive changes in attitudes related to violence or gang involvement in their participant population. Examples of outcome achievement were noted in the NACPF project evaluation; this included improved attitudes in terms of life in the community (e.g. social, employment or education opportunities for youth to stay in the community); and improved engagement with community leadership and the local police detachment.

Seven YGPF projects, reaching about 1200 youth, tracked indicators of awareness, attitudes and skills. Six of the seven projects showed favourable changes in at least one indicator with two of these projects showing success against multiple indicatorsFootnote 48 . The indicators most likely to show change were: increase in pro-social attitudes; increase in attitudes toward law enforcement; and decrease in attitudes about aggression and violence. As an example of these results, for the Youth Alliance against Gang Violence project “findings suggest that acceptance of gangs declined with time spent in the program…and acceptance of gangs declined by 42% between entry and 30 months into the project”Footnote 49 . Changes in attitudes about bigotry and sexism were the least likely to be changed. One project showed no change in awareness, attitudes and skills.

Changes in Risk and Protective Factors

Twelve (12) CPAF projects, reaching close to 1500 youth, tracked indicators of change in risk and protective factors. Six projects reported favourable results in at least one indicator, with five of the six reporting favourable results across multiple risk and protective factors.Footnote 50 Favourable changes included: improvement in education/academic performance, self-esteem/emotional regulation, parent and family relationships and participation in pro-social activities. Improvements in education and academic performance were prominent across projects. In two Alternative Suspension projects, participants showed improvements in terms of school suspensions subsequent to the program, with school administrators noting fewer office referrals and disciplinary actions. In addition, two SNAP projects experienced a statistically significant reduction in externalizing behaviour (i.e. rule-breaking, attention and aggression) reducing the likelihood of future police contact. Two projects that reported on numerous indicators showed mixed results; that is, although these projects showed favourable results across multiple indicators, they also reported no change and/or unfavourable results in multiple indicators. FourFootnote 51 of the projects showed no change in risk and protective factors, with one indicating unfavourable results as well.

For CPAF projects that were not included in the synthesis report, funding recipient interviewees perceive similar results citing positive changes for risk and protective factors in their participant population. They cited examples such as improved school attachment/achievement, positive relations and patterns of interaction with others, improved confidence in understanding of self, and better community relationships.

NACPF interviewees also stated that projects are demonstrating success against this outcome. They cited examples such as increases in positive relationships with others; increases in positive interaction with institutions such as schools, police, community, and culture; improved confidence; and improved school attachment and achievement. The NACPF project evaluation provided some examples of improvements in risk and protective factors stating that the entire youth population is now engaged in community activities and that youth have an increased interest in Inuit culture, improved self-confidence and enhanced leadership skills.

Ten (10) YGPF projects, reaching about 1600 youth, tracked indicators of change in risk and protective factors. Seven projects showed favorable results in at least one indicator with three of these reporting positive changes across multiple indicatorsFootnote 52. One highlight is the Durham Youth Gang Strategy project where the pre and post test results indicated that youth disconnected with negative peers during the program, decreasing their risk for gang involvement. The most common types of risk and protective factors that were favourably modified included: increases in self-esteem and personal integrity; increases in positive attachments to the workforce (a proximal factor); decreases in depression and mental health issues; and reductions in impulsive and risk taking behaviour. The most common risk factors that showed relatively lower rates of change included: substance use (a proximal factor); healthy relationships with family and pro-social peers; and attachment to education/school (a proximal factor).Footnote 53 The remaining three projects reported no changes in risk and protective factors.

Changes to Offending Behaviour and Gang Membership

Four CPAF projects, reaching about 1000 youth, tracked indicators related to offending behaviour. Three projects noted favourable results in at least one indicator.Footnote 54 Positive changes included reductions in arrests, weapon carrying and participant police contacts. Highlights include the Velocity project that showed a reduction of close to 70% in police contacts after the program; and the Toward No Drugs project that showed a statistically significant reduction in weapon carrying for participants with a high-risk profile. The remaining project reported no change in offending behaviour. For projects not included in the synthesis, CPAF funding recipient interviewees noted that it is too early in the project lifecycle to assess this outcome or that the project did not address this outcomeFootnote 55.

NACPF interviewees also report some positive results against this outcome. One interviewee stated that the RCMP has communicated a reduction in youth crime in the local area of about 15%. Another interviewee stated that they have kept statistics related to the steady decline in youth contact with the circuit court since the inception of the program. It cannot be determined whether results such as these are fully attributable to the NACPF projects. It is noted however, that small community size may be a factor that allows interviewees to comment with more certainty.

Ten (10) YGPF projects, reaching about 1600 youth, tracked indicators related to offending behaviour and gang membership. Seven projects showed favourable results in at least one indicator of offending behaviour with four of the seven projects reporting success against multiple indicatorsFootnote 56. Reductions in gang involvement, police contact and non-violent offending behavior, such as theft and selling illegal drugs, were reported. Three of these projects were highlighted in the YGPF synthesis as particularly successful. For example, in the Gang Prevention Strategy, there was a statistically significant reduction (22%) in youth committing physical assaults by the end of the project; in the Youth Advocate Program, by the end of the program, youth showed a decrease in delinquency and conduct problems, and reductions in victimization were significant; and the Surrey/Wrap results showed a significant decline (67%) in police contacts relative to the comparison group. The remaining three projects reported no change in offending behaviour.

Notably, in terms of actual gang exits, the YGPF synthesis reported final results of about 103 gang exits out of 378 participants. One CPAF project also noted improvements in indicators related to gang membership for a project sample of 76 participants; however, the actual number of gang exits was not reported. These results are significant given that “the research literature on gangs indicates that being a member of a youth gang is a strong predictor of involvement in criminal activity, and youth gang members commit more crime compared to other high risk youth. For example, a study of Toronto area youth indicates that youth gang members are more than six times as likely compared to other youth to be engaged in a variety of criminal activities”Footnote 57 Given the cost and impact to society of one youth being removed from a life trajectory of crime, even small gains are significant. The impact of positive results is even more pronounced in YGPF projects that deal with a much higher risk population; even a low rate of success has the potential for great impact.

4.2.3 Security Infrastructure Program Outcomes

In terms of intended program reach, SIP projects target institutions victimized by hate crimes. The majority of projects go to communities most at-risk for religious hate crimes. During the pilot phase from 2007-08 to 2010-11, SIP provided funding to 121 organizations with the following distribution: 76 Jewish institutions, 25 Muslim institutions, 20 other groups. The NCPC began administering the SIP program in 2011. The 2012 SIP intake awarded 42 agreements with the following distribution: 29 Jewish institutions, 10 Muslim institutions and 3 other groups. Since these projects were awarded in 2012, it is too early to conclude on impacts; however, continuing impacts of projects implemented during the pilot phase were assessed through interview perceptions.

The 2009 SIP Pilot evaluation found that interviewees perceived a reduction in the number and severity of hate crime incidents. The interviewees for this evaluation also maintain that hate crime incidents have been reduced. Most interviewees perceive that the security upgrades implemented by SIP have contributed to reducing the severity and number of hate-motivated crime incidents. For example, one interviewee reported that prior to the security upgrades, their facility had regularly been the target of graffiti, vandalism, and rock throwing. However, since the security upgrades, there has been a marked decrease in the number of incidences damaging their facility. It is noted that these results cannot be definitively attributed to the SIP program as other contextual factors are possible.

Similarly, the 2009 SIP Pilot evaluation reported an increased sense of security from the security upgrades. Most SIP interviewees for this evaluation reported an increased sense of security among the users of the facility including community members, parents, children and staff following the security upgrades. For example, an interviewee representing an educational institute reported that since they installed cameras using SIP funding, there has been an increased sense of security among staff and students. A few interviewees reported improved collaboration with law enforcement that may not have been possible prior to the security upgrades. For example, facilities which had upgraded their security were able to supply law enforcement with security video and pictures. Some reported that there are still some security concerns or note that it is difficult to discern whether the increased sense of security was caused by the security upgrades.

4.2.4 Knowledge and Understanding of Evidenced-based Crime Prevention

The NCPC Knowledge Strategy Framework (April 2011) and Publishing Plan provide a basis for the delivery of NCPC's knowledge transfer activities. The NCPC considers its employees to be key agents for the delivery of the Knowledge Strategy. Most program interviewees agree that the level of understanding of crime prevention among NCPC management and staff has been transformed over the past five years to an evidence-based approach. Program documents show that staff networks were established in 2008. They provide fora for staff to discuss issues related to project implementation and plan knowledge development and dissemination activities. They regroup staff from all sectors into matrix models organized around similar projects and themes.Footnote 58

In terms of possible improvements, program interviewees noted a need to better harness practical knowledge from people on the ground (regions, recipients and academics) and to integrate this knowledge into operations. Lessons-learned documents show requirements to bridge the gap between Programs Division and Policy, Research and Evaluation. Interviewees desire better integration across the organization and that more information on models and tools be provided before staff help practitioners develop proposals.

The foundation of the Knowledge Strategy rests on the two pillars of knowledge development and knowledge dissemination. The evaluation examined whether knowledge products are being produced; whether they are reaching the intended audience through dissemination activities; and the extent to which knowledge and understanding has increased due to these activities.

Knowledge Development

There are two main sources by which the NCPC develops knowledge products: 1) directly from funded projects (project briefs, Crime Prevention in Action, final summaries, lessons-learned from project-based impact evaluations and thematic syntheses) and 2) through internal and external research on such topics as risk and protective factors; the relationship between substance abuse and antisocial/delinquent behaviour among youth; and understanding criminal life trajectories.

In order to develop knowledge from funded projects, the NCPC has made systematic efforts to capture data that will aid in the production of knowledge products. Primary examples include work on systems such as GCIMS; templates to track and collect data; and the recent project close out exercise to review and mine data from completed projects. Knowledge products include project summaries, Crime Prevention in Action publications, lessons-learned, evaluation summaries and syntheses of project results, implementation challenges and solutions. Knowledge products on the broad topic of evidence-based crime prevention include such publications as “Research Matters”.

Performance against NCPC's Publishing Plan provides the results of these knowledge development efforts. Knowledge products were tracked in the three year period from 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 in accordance with the knowledge strategy. During this period, the NCPC produced an average of 17 products per year from funded projects and an average of 14 research products per year. For 2012-2013, at the time of this evaluation, over one third of the 35 knowledge products identified by the Publishing Plan were completed.

Knowledge Dissemination and reach

As stated in the Knowledge Strategy Framework, the NCPC intends to reach the following key audiences through its knowledge transfer activities:

In order to reach these target audiences, the NCPC disseminates knowledge products widely in a variety of ways including through the PS website, electronic News Flashes (e-mail distribution), hardcopy and publication in journals and newsletters. Performance information indicates that, from 2008-2009 to 2011-2012, the NCPC distributed just over 200,000 products in hard copy format; information on reach to target audience was not tracked. Performance information also shows that the distribution list for electronic News Flashes includes 6000 e-mail addresses. Audiences for the News Flashes include crime prevention practitioners, policy makers, researchers, students and members of the general public with interest in crime prevention. Some interviewees stated that the NCPC website had great research and tools, but that the NCPC needs be more proactive in tailoring their knowledge products to the target audiences. For example, crime prevention practitioners and policy makers may require shorter and less academic publications to assist them in their crime prevention efforts.

Knowledge dissemination activities also include the NCPC's direct and active participation in numerous activities with target audiences as noted below.

NCPC reaches crime prevention practitioners, such as project recipients, through hands-on training for community members, the development of project-based networks, and the delivery of crime prevention tools, products and resources. Performance information indicates that, over the past five years, NCPC delivered over 110 training sessions, information sessions and workshops, and participated in committees involving crime prevention practitioners. Feedback forms, which would have assisted in assessing the impact of knowledge transfer activities, were not available to the evaluation team. In terms of actual increases in knowledge and understanding, many interviewees noted that knowledge on evidence-based crime prevention was enhanced with respect to models and risk and protective factors. About half the funding recipients interviewed stated that, through the NCPC, they realize the importance of data collection and evaluation in demonstrating results and promoting program sustainability.

In terms of reaching out to policy makers, performance information notes that the NCPC has reached policy makers at the federal level through about 45 activities over the past five years. These activities include participation in external committees, horizontal federal initiative working groups, and presentations to other federal departments. The NCPC also participated in about 55 activities that include provincial/territorial participation. These activities include membership on Federal/Provincial/Territorial (FPT) committees and working groups and presentations to provincial/territorial ministries and conferences.

The NCPC also works collaboratively at the federal, provincial and local levels through efforts to develop strategic partnerships. For example, the NCPC provides secretariat support to the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Assistant Deputy Minister Crime Prevention Committee, which is co-chaired by the PS Assistant Deputy Minister Community Safety and Partnerships Branch. The committee meets regularly in person or by conference call and supports the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Deputy Ministers responsible for Justice and Public Safety in addressing their standing agenda item of crime prevention. It also provides direction to the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group on Community Safety and Crime Prevention, co-chaired by NCPC.

The NCPC also works with other stakeholders, for example, joint meetings are held between the NCPC and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Crime Prevention Committee and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to share information and discuss issues such as partnerships and sustainability.

The NCPC chairs the Interdepartmental Committee on Crime Prevention which provides an ongoing DG-level forum for information sharing, consultation, collaboration, and coordination on crime prevention issues for initiatives linked to the work of the NCPC (see Annex E for a list of participating federal organizations).

While provincial/territorial interviewees and NCPC staff had mixed views on the success of strategic partnerships, many see NCPC as supportive in creating partnerships and having good interactions with stakeholders. They indicate the Federal/Provincial/Territorial fora as the main vehicles for engaging the provinces and territories, sharing information on the direction of the NCPC, receiving input from the provinces and territories and sharing information across jurisdictions.

About half of provincial/territorial interviewees say the change in the NCPC mandate has had a negative impact on the NCPC's relationship with the provinces/territories and communities because of a reduction in provincial/territorial participation, consultation and input in the national plan. Some have reacted well to NCPC's new mandate because bigger projects provide much-needed resources and leverage for provincial/territorial programs.

Other comments suggest the NCPC has helped some provinces/territories to align their own strategies and that the provinces/territories do not have the capacity to do what the NCPC can do nationally. Some interviewees also suggest there is a need for more communication around evidence-based interventions because of different interpretations of the meaning of evidence-based particularly at the provincial/territorial level. Some noted a “missing link” between the Federal/Provincial/Territorial working groups and communication within the provincial criminal justice continuum, social, and health organizations where if communication could be improved, more policy support might be provided for evidence-based interventions.

Performance information notes that the NCPC has reached researchers and evaluators mainly through 25 presentations at conferences and roundtables over the past five years. In terms of increases in knowledge and understanding, interviewees noted that NCPC has elevated the level of discussion related to crime prevention and has introduced the discussion of economic costs. Comments also indicate that the change in the NCPC mandate (towards evidence-based crime prevention) has elevated the level of discussion on crime prevention, transforming the way communities/organizations think about crime prevention and their work.

International audiences are not listed as a key component of the Knowledge Strategy Framework. However, the NCPC has made about 10 presentations at several international events over the past five years and leverages development and dissemination of crime prevention research and knowledge through support to publications by the International Center for the Prevention of Crime. Ten publications were produced between 2008 and 2012, and the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime publishes and disseminates these products using its website and networks. For example, the bi-annual International Report provides Canadians and international stakeholders with an analysis of the most important debates and trends in crime prevention at the international level and reaches audiences of more than 500 nationally and 5000 internationally and a project on gangs has shared best practices from three countries – France, Belgium and Canada (Quebec).

4.2.5 Utilization and Sustainability of Evidence-based Crime-Prevention Strategies

The issue of using evidence-based strategies learned through funded projects and sustaining successful projects beyond the funding cycle is of interest to federal/provincial/territorial stakeholders, communities and funding recipients. Interviewees identified a strong need for crime prevention interventions, limited funding options, and potential for negative effects on communities when projects with good results are not sustained.

In recognition of these concerns, the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group on Crime Prevention presented an initial discussion paper to Federal/Provincial/Territorial Deputy Ministers responsible for Justice and Public Safety that examined potential solutions to increasing sustainability of effective crime prevention. In April 2012, the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Assistant Deputy Ministers Committee on Crime Prevention was established, as directed by Ministers, to advance as crime prevention and rehabilitation as priority issues. This Committee is leading work to address ways to assess project sustainability; embed sustainability in project work; and identify mechanisms to support the continuation of effective projects. Recommendations will be presented to Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers responsible for Justice and Public Safety by the fall of 2013.

The NCPC has conducted a preliminary review of its funded projects that have been sustained in whole or in part. From a sample of 138 projects funded since April 2008, 39 completedFootnote 59 projects were reviewed and 18 were identified as having been fully or partially sustained. This includes 11 YGPF projects and seven CPAF/NACPF projects that had some or all activities sustained. Another six projects were identified as having developed resources or tools that are still in use.

Interviews and document review suggest that the provinces/territories have been influenced by NCPC's promotion of evidence-based approaches and have aligned, or are aligning, their strategies and frameworks with the NCPC. Several provinces including Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and QuebecFootnote 60 have crime prevention and/or youth gang frameworks, strategies or funding programs that are compatible with the NCPC in terms of language, orientation, goals and commitment to an evidence-based approach and knowledge sharing. For example, the Alberta Safe Communities Infrastructure Fund was influenced by the NCPC model. Interviewees noted, however, that the understanding and application of the term evidence-based is not consistent across jurisdictions.

4.3 Performance – Efficiency and Economy

4.3.1 Administrative Efficiency

The evaluation gathered examples of measures taken to improve program administration and efficiency through document review and interviews. The efficiency of the CPP was assessed by determining how well the average annual program administration ratioFootnote 61 compares to other PS contribution programs.

Over the past five years, actions have been taken by NCPC staff to improve efficiency and quality of programming related to both the shift in strategic direction and the shift from the delivery of grant funding to contribution funding. Many tools and templates have been developed to support this work. These include: financial administration checklists, risk tools such as a Risk Assessment Guide, Risk Assessment Scoring Charts, a Guide for Writing a Final Project Report and Performance Monitoring Guidelines.

In terms of change management, staff understanding of evidence-based strategies for program delivery has been achieved through 22 training sessions, 16 lessons-learned events, eight networks and five internal working groups. Staff has made the transition and the role of the Program Officer has evolved into a much broader knowledge focus. Internal and external networks as well as lessons learned exercises, typically after calls for proposals for each fund, have been used as mechanisms to identify required improvements. Some sessions are internal and some include funding recipients. These address many issues related to projects and overall management of the program.

The program has made major progress in terms of collecting performance information. The NCPC is collecting project-level and participant data, knowledge development/dissemination data and data with regard to staff activities. The NCPC has created a Performance Measurement Working Group to facilitate and coordinate data collection activities. GCIMS has been updated; extensive work has been done since 2007 and training has been provided to employees. This system is now fully integrated in day-to-day operations and reports are produced on a regular basis.

Almost all funding recipients interviewed expressed that they were well supported by NCPC stating that regional staff are excellent, open and helpful, and that good information is received from Headquarters. Many interviewees mentioned that there is more clarity and rigour throughout the project proposal and delivery process. They indicate that the networks and peer training approach have worked well in terms of providing support, and they were positive about the emphasis on project evaluation to better demonstrate results.

While NCPC has been supportive in helping recipients understand the programs and developing proposals, there were some challenges. Administration has increased and is onerous for funding recipients and Program Officers. Due to the nature of the evidence-based, multi-year projects, the proposal development process was complex and the time to receive funding was long. Funding recipients note that it is difficult to maintain engagement with agencies and retain workers for the project while awaiting approval. Performance information notes that the median proposal development time is 250 calendar days for CPAF, NACPF and YGPF combined; median contribution agreement processing time by Headquarters staff is 40 calendar days. It is noted that work has begun to develop service standards as a result of audit recommendations, the development of which would further inform findings on program efficiency to determine if gains can be made.

The average annual program administration ratios vary across the funds. For CPAF, NACPF and YGPF, the ratios are 28%, 24% and 31% respectively. These results are higher than other PS programs, but are in line with the level of effort required by NCPC staff to develop proposals, guide and monitor recipients and report on projects. The average annual ratio for the pilot phase of SIP is much higher, likely due to the level of effort required by Strategic Policy Branch to launch the program in a short period of time and build the level of staffing and expertise required to do outreach, review proposals and award and monitor agreements. Calculations related to the ratios are found in Annex F.

4.3.2 Economy

Due to time and budget constraints, cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses were not undertaken for the evaluation; however, literature suggests positive cost-benefit ratios for crime prevention programming. Successful interventions have been shown to reduce the social and economic costs of crime.Footnote 62 The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime states that effective, responsible crime prevention has long-term benefits in terms of reducing the costs associated with the formal criminal justice system, as well as other social costs that result from crime.Footnote 63 The efficiency of a criminal justice system in reducing crime and associated costs can be determined by its ability to successfully identify the small number of offenders who commit a high proportion of serious offences. That is how resources can be wisely distributed.Footnote 64 A literature review conducted during the 2010 YGPF Evaluation noted that “studies conducted from 2004 to 2009 provide evidence that some prevention and early intervention programs for youth can give taxpayers a good return on investment. One study estimated that the present value of saving a 14-year-old high risk juvenile from a life of crime can range from $2.6 to $5.3 million.”Footnote 65

“Although evidence-based crime prevention has been identified as a priority in Canada's political and policy settings, very little is known about the economic efficiency of crime prevention programs in the Canadian context. This is an important issue given current fiscal constraints in this country and around the world.”Footnote 66 As such, the NCPC and provincial/territorial partners are interested in advancing efforts to understand cost benefits of evidence-based interventions. The issue has become an FPT working group priority and the NCPC has drafted the “FPT Working Group Framing Paper – Evidence Based Crime Prevention and Sustainability” that discusses the issue of cost-effectiveness and presents a preliminary frame with a view to advancing federal/provincial/territorial discussions. In addition, some provinces (e.g. Alberta) interviewed during the evaluation have begun to calculate social return on investmentFootnote 67 as a means to understand the value of interventions.

In terms of the cost-benefit of the CPP projects, efforts are being made to understand the value of investments but only preliminary information is available. For example the CPAF synthesis had one project that was able to return a cost benefit ratio of 1:4. The YGPF synthesis returned an average cost per participant of about $12,000 per year. In addition, the 2010 Evaluation of the YGPF assessed whether the fund was “breaking-even” from the federal perspective. It notes that "by the end of the YGPF Program funding cycle in 2010-2011, it is projected that approximately 200 gang exits or about 20% of current participants would be needed in order to return the projected total investment of $27.4 million”Footnote 68 . This estimate is based on an incarceration assumption of six year; when the calculation is modeled with an incarceration rate of eight years, the break-even point is at about 150 gang exits. Given the high-risk population that this fund serves, the eight-year assumption may be more valid. By the end of the YGFP cycle, approximately $29 million was spent and about 103 gang exits were realized. This suggests that the federal investment could be returned if another 50 gang exits were realized. It is important to note however, that the overall benefit to society may be returned as the analysis was conducted from the federal perspective and only included PS program costs, federal penitentiaries and federal court costs. As such it did not include any provincial-level costs such as provincial jails, the juvenile justice system, health care, and social services or societal costs such costs of victim and other citizens.

5. Conclusions

5.1 Relevance

In 2008, the NCPC made a strategic decision to focus the activities of CPAF, NACPF and YGPF to evidence-based interventions and further develop knowledge transfer activities. The requirement for leadership clearly persists given the current crime trends and attributes of youth crime that point to a need for crime prevention, particularly among geographic or demographic segments of the Canadian population, gang-involved youth, younger at-risk populations, those experiencing bullying and those at-risk of hate crime. There is rationale for the CPP approach that uses early detection and evidence-based interventions for high-risk youth so that potential cost savings to the criminal justice system may be realized.

It is noted that the SIP program does not follow the same evidence-based crime prevention model of the other funds. However, communities believe that they need protection from hate crimes, as demonstrated by the demand in the pilot phase, and recent call for proposals.

Speeches from the Throne, recent budget documents and statements from the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers for Justice and Public Safety identify crime prevention as a priority. At the departmental level, CPP aligns with PS priorities and objectives and is a key component of departmental activities to ensure safe and secure communities.

There is no duplication in programming among federal departments and provinces/territories, but opportunities for synergy among CPP funds should be further explored.

Crime prevention is a shared responsibility and requires multiple stakeholders. NCPC has a leadership role for implementing crime prevention interventions in Canada in cooperation with provinces/territories. While there is overlap in outcomes and target audiences in some federal programs, the NCPC is unique in its federal role of providing evidence-based crime prevention interventions, and the NCPC works with other federal organizations such as Aboriginal and Northern Affairs and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to coordinate these efforts. Opportunities for synergy among the CPP funds under evaluation have not been fully explored. CPAF, NACPF and YGPF share similar objectives, target audiences and expected outcomes, while SIP is unique.

5.2 Performance

A total of 155 projects, involving about 24,000 participants, have been implemented over the past five years. Participants exhibiting specific risk factors were reached across these funds with many exhibiting multiple targeted risk factors. Collaborations at the project level with community partners have been strengthened and supported by the implementation of CPP projects. Organizations implementing projects partnered with 22 different sectors and over 1500 groups at the community level.

Desired participant outcomes included positive changes in knowledge and awareness, attitudes and skills; positive changes in risk and protective factors and/or anti-social behavior; and changes to offending behaviour and/or gang membership.

In terms of changes to awareness, skills and attitudes, positive changes were seen in most of the projects under evaluation, which demonstrates that a foundation was laid for changes to risk and protective factors.

In terms of changes to risk and protective factors, just over half of the projects under evaluation noted favourable changes. Some of the projects showed success across multiple risk factorsFootnote 69 such as: as improvement in education/academic performance, self-esteem/emotional regulation, parent and family relationships and participation in pro-social activities. Notably, YGPF projects have also contributed to favourable change in proximal risk factorsFootnote 70 such as attachment to the workforce, substance use, and attachment to education/school.

In terms of changes to offending behaviour, most projects under evaluation reported favourably. Changes included reductions in arrests, weapon carrying and participant police contacts. For YGPF, actual behaviour change is observed with gang exits totalling about 103 of the 378 participants who were involved in these projects. The impact of positive results is even more pronounced in YGPF projects because participants are in a higher risk population; thus, even a low rate of success has the potential for great impact.

Over its three year period, the SIP pilot awarded 121 projects to community centres, educational institutions, and places of worship. Interviewees note continuing success with projects funded during the SIP pilot. The 2012 intake by NCPC resulted in 42 agreements being awarded to Jewish, Muslim and other groups. Due to the fact that contribution agreements have recently been awarded, it is too early to assess outcome achievement.

The NCPC has completed a significant amount of work in developing and implementing its Knowledge Strategy including equipping its employees to be key agents for the delivery of the Strategy. Distribution of products has been broad, reaching thousands of recipients. Key target audiences are defined in the Strategy and products are defined in the Publishing Plan; however, the link between specific products and their intended target audiences is unclear. Interviewees indicated that understanding of evidence-based crime prevention has increased; however, refinement of knowledge products is needed to tailor them to target audiences. Target audiences have clearly been reached through numerous “hands-on” events such as training and information sessions and workshops with crime prevention practitioners; committees/working groups and presentations with policy makers at the federal/provincial/territorial level; and presentations and roundtables to researchers and evaluators at universities. Increase in participant knowledge due to these events could not be determined from the data provided to the evaluation.

Sustainability and continued utilization of evidence-based strategies is of interest to federal/provincial/territorial partners. NCPC is taking positive action in this regard including the preparation of a discussion paper at the request of Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers of Public Safety and the inclusion of the sustainability issue in the work plan of the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group on Crime Prevention. Some successful projects have been sustained in whole or in part. Some provinces/territories have been influenced by NCPC and have aligned, or are aligning, their strategies and frameworks with evidence-based concepts.

Program administration ratios for CPAF, NACPF and YGPF are higher than other PS programs, but are in line with the level of effort required by NCPC staff to develop proposals, guide and monitor recipients and report on projects. Much work has been done by the NCPC in this regard to ensure quality programming. The average annual ratio for the pilot phase of SIP is much higher, likely due to the level of effort required by Strategic Policy Branch to launch the program which now resides with the NCPC. Although processing times have been calculated, without a service standard, it is not possible to determine if this is a good result. Work has begun to develop service standards.
The NCPC has taken positive action to determine the cost-benefit of crime prevention interventions. Literature suggests that the potential return on investment of the evidence-based approach is high, but this remains to be more fully established from funded interventions in Canada.

6. Recommendations

The Internal Audit and Evaluation Directorate recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Partnerships Branch, implement the following:

  1. Consolidate the structure of CPP funding programs to increase administrative efficiency and provide programming flexibility and clarity.
  2. Sharpen the focus of CPP knowledge transfer activities so that products are clearly connected to the needs of target audiences and utilized to inform crime prevention policy and practices across the country.

7. Management Response and Action Plan

Management Response and Action Plan

Recommendation

Management Response

Action Plan

Responsible Manager

Planned Implementation Date

1. Consolidate the structure of CPP funding programs to increase administrative efficiency and provide programming flexibility and clarity.

Accepted

NCPC has already developed, and will submit for approval by Treasury Board, common terms and conditions that will simplify program management under the National Crime Prevention Strategy with a view to greater efficiency and responsiveness to program needs, consistent with funding authorities and overall strategic objectives.

Director, Programs Division

By March 31, 2014

2. Sharpen the focus of CPP knowledge transfer activities so that products are clearly connected to the needs of target audiences and utilized to inform crime prevention policy and practice across the country.

Accepted

NCPC will work with the Departmental Web Team to restructure and reorganize crime prevention material on the Public Safety web site to better align products, information and knowledge with key priorities and audiences and provide better access to the material.  

In order to be more deliberate and strategic about knowledge dissemination and to better tailor and target knowledge products to specific audiences:

  1. The Publishing Planning Process will require each product to be categorized by issue and key target audience (i.e. practitioners, policy makers, researchers) as part of knowledge dissemination plans.
  2. NCPC will develop annual stakeholder knowledge and engagement plans; and
  3. NCPC will develop a method for tracking, collecting and analyzing data about activities related to knowledge dissemination.

Director, Policy, Research and Evaluation

By December 2013

  1. During 2013-2014 Planning Process
  2. By April 2014
  3. By April 2014

Annex A: Risk Factors Addressed by CPP Projects

Criminogenic risk factors refer to characteristics that increase the likelihood of an individual committing a crime. Such risk factors can apply to individuals and groups, as well as social environments such as schools and communities. Social science literature generally groups key risk factors under five domains:

Risk Factors Addressed by CPP Projects

Community:

Family:

Individual

Peer Group

School

Annex B: Funding programs

The Crime Prevention Action Fund (CPAF) provides time-limited funding to assist communities and organizations to develop and implement crime prevention initiatives that utilize model and promising programs to address known risk and protective factors associated with offending behaviour. The priorities are to: address early risk factors among vulnerable children and youth at risk; respond to priority crime issues (e.g. youth violence, school-based bullying); prevent recidivism among high risk groups; and foster prevention in Aboriginal communities.

CPAF's objectives include:

The Northern and Aboriginal Crime Prevention Fund (NACPF) assists communities experiencing multiple risk factors and other challenges that affect their ability to respond to crime issues, such as remote geographical location and limited capacity. It achieves this by providing time-limited funding to support culturally sensitive initiatives that foster the development and implementation of crime prevention approaches in Aboriginal communities, both on-and off-reserve and in the North. In addition, it assists building the knowledge and capacity required to develop or adapt culturally sensitive, effective ways to prevent crime.

NACPF's objectives include:

The Youth Gang Prevention Fund (YGPF) provides time-limited grant and contribution funding for initiatives in communities where youth gangs are an existing or emerging threat and supports initiatives that clearly target youth in gangs or at greatest risk of joining gangs.

YGPF's objectives include:

The Communities at Risk: Security Infrastructure Program (SIP) provides time-limited funding to enhance the security infrastructure of communities targeted by hate-motivated crime. Funding is available to not-for-profit organizations with a history of hate-motivated incidents at the project site and/or in the general geographic area of the project site. The funds are to help with the costs of security infrastructure improvements for places of worship, provincially recognized educational institutions, and community centres in communities at risk of hate-motivated crime.

SIP's objectives include:

Annex C: Documents Reviewed

Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat (2012). Press Release: Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers Discuss Key Justice and Public Safety Issues Facing Canadians, Charlottetown, January 26, 2012.

Cohen, M., Piquero A. (2009), “New Evidence on the Monetary Value of Saving a High Risk Youth”. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 25:25–49.

Department of Justice Canada (2011). Costs of Crime in Canada, 2008.

Department of Justice Canada. Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, S.C. 2005, c. 10

House of Commons (1993). Crime Prevention in Canada: Towards a National Strategy, Twelfth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.

Institute for the Prevention of Crime, University of Ottawa (2010). Workshop Report: Developing a Strategic Approach to Criminal Youth Gangs, p. 12.

Public Health Agency of Canada (2011). Report on the State of Public Health in Canada

Public Safety Canada (2007). Evidence-Based Crime Prevention: Scientific Basis, Trends, Results and Implication for Canada (Brandon C. Welsh, PhD).

Public Safety Canada (2009). Supporting the Successful Implementation of the National Crime Prevention Strategy.

Public Safety Canada (2011). Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview.

Public Safety Canada (2011). Knowledge Strategy Framework.

Public Safety Canada (2011). Performance Measurement Strategy for the 2011 Youth Gang Prevention Fund.

Public Safety Canada (2011). Performance Measurement Strategy for the Communities at Risk: Security Infrastructure Program (SIP).

Public Safety Canada (2011). Risk Factors for Delinquency among Canadian Youth: Current knowledge and future directions.

Public Safety Canada (2011). The National Crime Prevention Strategy- A Knowledge Strategy (Presentation).

Public Safety Canada (2011). The Offending Trajectories of Youth Probationers from Early Adolescence to Middle Adulthood: Relation to Dual Taxonomies.

Public Safety Canada (2011). Youth Gang Prevention Fund: What Have We Learned?

Public Safety Canada (2011). Youth At-Risk of Serious and Life-Course Offending.

Public Safety Canada (2012). A Statistical Snapshot of Youth at Risk and Youth Offending in Canada.

Public Safety Canada (2012). Accountability, Risk and Audit Framework for the Renewal of the National Crime Prevention Strategy.

Public Safety Canada (2012). An Introduction to Economic Analysis in Crime Prevention: The Why, How and So What

Public Safety Canada (2012). Crime Matters: Criminal Justice Issues in Canada.

Public Safety Canada (2012). Identification and Operationalization of the Major Risk Factors for Antisocial and Delinquent Behaviour among Children and Youth.

Public Safety Canada (2012). Interim Report: Synthesis of Impact Evaluation Studies (2009-2012).

Public Safety Canada (2012). National Crime Prevention Centre Bi-Annual Report (July 2012).

Public Safety Canada (2012). Terms of Reference: Federal/Provincial/Territorial Assistant Deputy Minister Committee on Crime Prevention.

Public Safety Canada (2012). Youth Gang Prevention Fund Projects (2007-2012): What did we learn about what works in preventing gang involvement?

Public Safety Canada (2013). FPT Working Group - Framing Paper – Evidence Based Crime Prevention and Sustainability (Draft).

Public Safety Canada. 2010-2011 Evaluation of the Youth Gang Prevention Fund Program

Public Safety Canada. 2009-2010 Evaluation of the Security Infrastructure Program (Pilot)

Public Safety Canada. 2010-2011 Integrated HR and Business Plan.

Public Safety Canada. 2010-2011 Report on Plans and Priorities.

Public Safety Canada. 2010-2011 Department Performance Report.

Public Safety Canada. 2011-2012 Integrated HR and Business Plan.

Public Safety Canada. 2011-2012 Report on Plans and Priorities.

Public Safety Canada. 2011-2012 Department Performance Report.

Public Safety Canada. 2012-2013 Integrated HR and Business Plan.

Public Safety Canada. 2012-2013 Report on Plans and Priorities.

Statistics Canada (2012). Police-reported hate crime in Canada, 2010.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Economic and Social Council Resolution 2002/13, annex.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Economic and Social Council Resolution 2005/22.

Websites

Annex D: Definitions of Model, Promising and Innovative Projects

NCPC projects are categorized by type of program - model, promising or innovative program. The programs are defined below.

Model program:

Promising program:

Innovative program:

Annex E: Interdepartmental Committee on Crime Prevention

The members of the Interdepartmental Committee on Crime Prevention consist of representatives of the departments and agencies interested in community safety, crime prevention and victimization issues. These include:

Annex F: Financial Information

Crime Prevention Action Fund

The amounts below represent the total estimated cost to the federal government. For some line items, actual expenditure information was available. Values are expressed in thousands.

Crime Prevention Action Fund

Program Administration Costs

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

Public Safety Program Staff

 

 

 

 

Salaries

573

560

533

690

Operations and Maintenance

127

147

284

278

Subtotal

700

707

817

968

Public Safety Regional Program Staff

       

Salaries

1,617

1,720

1,810

2,047

Operations and Maintenance

447

347

344

150

Subtotal

2,064

2,067

2,154

2,197

Executive Director's Office

       

Salaries

212

198

171

195

Operations and Maintenance

97

142

142

171

Subtotal

309

340

313

366

Total Program Cost

3,073

3,114

3,284

3,531

Internal Services

       

Salaries

961

991

1,006

1,173

Operations and Maintenance

268

254

308

240

Subtotal

1,229

1,245

1,314

1,413

Employee Benefits Plan
(20% of Salary Expenditures)

673

694

704

821

PWGSC Accommodation Allowance
(13% of Salary Expenditures)

437

451

458

534

Total Program Administration Cost

5,412

5,504

5,760

6,299

         

Transfer Payments

       

Budget

20,596

39,703

27,192

31,678

Contribution payments

10,664

16,711

24,939

29,241

Budget minus contributions paid

9,932

22,992

2,253

2,437

Program Administration Ratio *

 

 

 

 

Annual

51%

33%

23%

22%

Four-year Average

 

 

 

28%

* The program administration ratio refers to the total program administration cost as a percentage of the contribution paid in a given year.

Northern and Aboriginal Crime Prevention Fund

The amounts below represent the total estimated cost to the federal government. For some line items, actual expenditure information was available. Values are expressed in thousands.

Northern and Aboriginal Crime Prevention Fund

Program Administration Costs

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

Public Safety Program Staff

 

 

 

 

Salaries

-

64

110

167

Operations and Maintenance

-

17

58

67

Subtotal

-

81

168

234

Public Safety Regional Program Staff

       

Salaries

-

196

373

495

Operations and Maintenance

-

39

71

36

Subtotal

-

235

444

531

Executive Director's Office

 

 

 

 

Salaries

-

23

35

47

Operations and Maintenance

-

16

29

41

Subtotal

-

39

64

88

Total Program Cost

-

355

676

853

Internal Services

 

 

 

 

Salaries

-

113

207

284

Operations and Maintenance

-

29

635

581

Subtotal

-

142

271

342

Employee Benefits Plan
(20% of Salary Expenditures)

 

79

145

199

PWGSC Accommodation Allowance
(13% of Salary Expenditures)

-

51

94

129

Total Program Administration Cost

-

627

1,186

1,523

         

Transfer Payments

       

Budget

 

 N/A

5,875

5,921

Contribution paid

-

1,901

5,141

6,762

Budget minus contributions paid

-

-

734

(841)

Program Administration Ratio *

 

 

 

 

Annual

-

33%

23%

23%

Three-year Average

 

 

 

24%

* The program administration ratio refers to the total program administration cost as a percentage of the contribution paid in a given year

Youth Gang Prevention Fund

The amounts below represent the total estimated cost to the federal government. For some line items, actual expenditure information was available. Values are expressed in thousands.

Youth Gang Prevention Fund

Program Administration Costs

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

Public Safety Program Staff

 

 

 

 

Salaries

285

256

191

176

Operations and Maintenance

63

67

102

71

Subtotal

348

323

293

247

Public Safety Regional Program Staff

       

Salaries

804

785

649

521

Operations and Maintenance

222

158

123

38

Subtotal

1,026

943

772

559

Executive Director's Office

 

 

 

 

Salaries

105

90

61

50

Operations and Maintenance

48

65

51

44

Subtotal

153

155

112

94

Total Program Cost

1,527

1,421

1,177

900

Internal Services

 

 

 

 

Salaries

478

453

360

298

Operations and Maintenance

133

116

110

61

Subtotal

611

569

400

359

Employee Benefits Plan
(20% of Salary Expenditures)

335

317

252

209

PWGSC Accommodation Allowance
(13% of Salary Expenditures)

217

206

164

136

Total Program Administration Cost

2,690

2,513

2,063

1,604

         

Transfer Payments

       

Budget

6,182

6,182

8,953

6,132

Contributions paid

5,300

7,629

8,937

7,106

Budget minus contributions paid

882

(1,447)

16

(974)

Program Administration Ratio *

 

 

 

 

Annual

51%

33%

23%

23%

Four-year Average

 

 

 

31%

* The program administration ratio refers to the total program administration cost as a percentage of the contribution paid in a given year

Communities at Risk: Security Infrastructure Program

The amounts below represent the total estimated cost to the federal government. For some line items, actual expenditure information was available. Values are expressed in thousands.

Communities at Risk: Security Infrastructure Program

Program Administration Costs

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

Public Safety Program Staff

   

 

 

Salaries

74

256

260

32

Operations and Maintenance

2

158

66

13

Subtotal

76

414

326

45

Public Safety Regional Program Staff

       

Salaries

-

-

-

95

Operations and Maintenance

-

-

-

7

Subtotal

     

102

Executive Director's Office

   

 

 

Salaries

-

-

-

9

Operations and Maintenance

-

-

-

8

Subtotal

   

0

17

Total Program Cost

76

414

326

164

Internal Services

       

Salaries

30

103

104

16

Operations and Maintenance

1

63

26

8

Subtotal

31

166

130

24

Employee Benefits Plan
(20% of Salary Expenditures)

21

72

73

31

PWGSC Accommodation Allowance
(13% of Salary Expenditures)

13

47

47

 

20

Total Program Administration Cost

141

699

576

239

         

Transfer Payments

       

Budget

1,500

2,400

890

N/A

Contributions to Security Infrastructure Program

1,018

878

827

-

Budget minus contributions paid

482 

1,522 

63 

-

Program Administration Ratio *

   

 

 

Annual

14%

80%

70%

 

Three-year Average

 

 

52%

 

* The program administration ratio refers to the total program administration cost as a percentage of the contribution paid in a given year

Notes:

  1. During the pilot phase, from July 2007 to March 31, 2011, SIP resided with the Strategic Policy Branch. On April 1, 2011, the program was transferred to the NCPC.
  2. Although there were no SIP projects in 2011-12, Salary and O&M resources were incurred by NCPC to manage the SIP funding call for proposal.                            

Footnotes

  1. 1

    During the time period under evaluation, the NCPC also administered a time-limited named grant to the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime. This grant is no longer in effect.

  2. 2

    During the pilot phase, from July 2007 to March 31, 2011, SIP resided with the Strategic Policy Branch. On April 1, 2011, the program was transferred to the NCPC within the Community Safety and Partnerships Branch.

  3. 3

    Department of Justice Canada (2011). Costs of Crime in Canada, 2008, p. 6.

  4. 4

    Addressing multiple risk factors is viewed as more positive than achieving success against a single risk factor because positive change across multiple risk factors improves the “support net” that youth require to then proceed to positive behaviour change.

  5. 5

    Youth presenting the following proximal factors are four times more likely to join gangs if the factors are not addressed: association with negative peers; low attachment to family, community, culture; low attachment to education and school; low attachment to workforce; substance abuse; and poor parental supervision.

  6. 6

    Public Safety Canada (2012). Terms of Reference, Federal Provincial Territorial Assistant Deputy Minister, Committee on Crime Prevention, p.1

  7. 7

    During the time period under evaluation, the NCPC also administered a time-limited named grant to the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime. This grant is no longer in effect.

  8. 8

    The program administration ratio refers to the total program administration cost as a percentage of the contribution paid in a given year.

  9. 9

    GCIMS is a database designed to capture tombstone and financial information from the funded projects.

  10. 10

    The comparison programs were: the Australian Institute of Criminology, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, and National Institute of Justice, National Forum on Youth Violence (USA).

  11. 11

    Public Safety Canada (2009). Supporting the Successful Implementation of the National Crime Prevention Strategy, p.1.

  12. 12

    The NCPC's evidence-based approach refers to programs/practices that are proven to be effective through sound research methodology and have produced consistently positive results.

  13. 13

    Public Safety Canada (2012). National Crime Prevention Center Bi-Annual Report, July 2012, p.9

  14. 14

    Public Safety Canada (2007). Evidence-Based Crime Prevention: Scientific Basis, Trends, Results and Implication for Canada (Brandon C. Welsh, PhD), p.1.

  15. 15

    Public Safety Canada (2009). Supporting the Successful Implementation of the National Crime Prevention Strategy, p. 3.

  16. 16

    Public Safety Canada (2012). Identification and Operationalization of the Major Risk Factors for Antisocial and Delinquent Behaviour among Children and Youth, p. 5.

  17. 17

    Public Safety Canada (2011). Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview, p. 8.

  18. 18

    Public Safety Canada (2012). Crime Matters: Criminal Justice Issues in Canada, p. 14, 22.

  19. 19

    Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/

  20. 20

    Public Safety Canada. 2010-2011 Evaluation of the Youth Gang Prevention Fund Program, p. 10 (refers to Wortley, S & Tanner, J (2006). “Immigration, Social Disadvantage and Urban Youth Gangs: Results of a Toronto-area Survey”. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 15(2), Supplement pages 18-37).

  21. 21

    Community Safety and Correctional Services (2012). Crime Prevention in Ontario, A Framework for Action, p.6.

  22. 22

    Public Safety Canada (2012). Crime Matters: Criminal Justice Issues in Canada, p. 132, 138.

  23. 23

    Public Safety Canada (2012). Accountability, Risk and Audit Framework for the Renewal of the National Crime Prevention Strategy, p. 7, 8.

  24. 24

    Public Safety Canada (2012), Crime Matters: Criminal Justice Issues in Canada, p. 169.

  25. 25

    Public Safety Canada (2012). Crime Matters: Criminal Justice Issues in Canada, p. 48.

  26. 26

    Department of Justice Canada (2011). Costs of Crime in Canada, 2008, p. 6.

  27. 27

    Public Safety Canada (2011). Risk Factors for Delinquency among Canadian Youth: Current knowledge and future directions.

  28. 28

    Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat (2012). Press Release: Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers Discuss Key Justice and Public Safety Issues Facing Canadians, Charlottetown, January 26, 2012.

  29. 29

    Public Safety Canada (2013). FPT Working Group - Framing Paper – Evidence Based Crime Prevention and Sustainability (Draft), p. 1.

  30. 30

    Public Safety Canada. 2012-13 Report on Plans and Priorities, p. 5.

  31. 31

    Department of Justice. Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, S.C. 2005, c. 10

  32. 32

    Institute for the Prevention of Crime, University of Ottawa (2010). Workshop Report: Developing a Strategic Approach to Criminal Youth Gangs, p. 12.

  33. 33

    Public Safety Canada. 2010-2011 Evaluation of the Youth Gang Prevention Fund Program, p. 16.

  34. 34

    It should be noted there is no way to determine whether "evidence-based" is defined and applied in the same manner across all jurisdictions.

  35. 35

    Projects starting April1, 2008 with the exception of YGPF that includes all projects, regardless of start date. Distribution: CPAF=102, NACPF=33, YGPF=18, International Centre for the Prevention of Crime=2

  36. 36

    GCIMS data: projects approved from July 2007 to September 2011. Data on the number of participants was available for the past two years only as it was not tracked prior to this time. Thus, there are 28 projects for which this data was unavailable.

  37. 37

    Public Safety Canada (2012). National Crime Prevention Center Bi Annual Report, July 2012, p. 24.

  38. 38

    Public Safety Canada (2012). Interim Report: Synthesis of Impact Evaluation Studies (2009-2012). (CPAF Synthesis) p. 9.

  39. 39

    Public Safety Canada (2012). National Crime Prevention Center Bi Annual Report, July 2012, p. 4, 9, 21.

  40. 40

    Performance reports may include some duplicate information, and it is noted that the data was not available for all projects.

  41. 41

    A favorable change is defined as a result that demonstrated a statistically significant (p<0.05) reduction in risk factors or offending behaviours or an increase in positive knowledge, attitudes or protective factors.

  42. 42

    It is recognized that the results of the analysis contained herein may differ from NCPC published reports because different analysis assumptions were used by the evaluation team.

  43. 43

    Proximal factors are those risk factors that appear close in time to the event or onset of the behaviour. (source: Public Safety Canada (2012). Identification and Operationalization of the Major Risk Factors for Antisocial and Delinquent Behaviour among Children and Youth, p. 7).

  44. 44

    Public Safety Canada (2013). Youth Gang Prevention Fund Projects (2007-2012): What did we learn about what works in preventing gang involvement? (YGPF Synthesis Paper), p. 10 (refers to Hawking, David 1999; Howell, James, 2005).

  45. 45

    Public Safety Canada (2013). Youth Gang Prevention Fund Projects (2007-2012): What did we learn about what works in preventing gang involvement? (YGPF Synthesis Paper), p.

  46. 46

    Three of the seven projects also reported “no change”, and one showed an “unfavourable” result on other indicators that were tracked by the projects related to awareness, attitudes and skills.

  47. 47

    These six projects also reported “no change” against other indicators that were tracked by the projects related to awareness, attitudes and skills.

  48. 48

    Public Safety Canada (2013). Youth Gang Prevention Fund Projects (2007-2012): What did we learn about what works in preventing gang involvement? (YGPF Synthesis Paper), p. 11

  49. 49

    Three of the six projects also reported “no change” or “unfavourable” on other indicators of risk and protective factors.

  50. 50

    One project was included in the “no change” category because results showed five indicators that had “no change” and only one indicator that showed favourable change. Thus, no change was seen in multiple risk factors.

  51. 51

    These seven projects also reported “no change” against other indicators of risk and protective factors.

  52. 52

    Public Safety Canada (2013). Youth Gang Prevention Fund Projects (2007-2012): What did we learn about what works in preventing gang involvement? (YGPF Synthesis Paper), p. 12.

  53. 53

    One project also reported “no change” on one other indicator of offending behaviour.

  54. 54

    It noted that not all CPAF projects are expected to achieve changes to offending behaviour.

  55. 55

    Four of the seven projects also reported “no change” against other indicators of offending behaviour and gang membership.

  56. 56

    Public Safety Canada (2013). Youth Gang Prevention Fund Projects (2007-2012): What did we learn about what works in preventing gang involvement? (YGPF Synthesis Paper), p. 3 (refers to Wortley, Tanner, 2006).

  57. 57

    Public Safety Canada (2011). Knowledge Strategy Framework, p. 8.

  58. 58

    Projects with activity completion dates of July 2012 or earlier giving sufficient time for final reports to be produced.

  59. 59

    Although Quebec's Crime Prevention Strategy pre-dates the NCPC, its recently developed gang strategy uses the same language as the NCPC and recognizes the NCPC as a partner for funding projects and keeping abreast of scientific knowledge on crime prevention.

  60. 60

    The program administration ratio refers to the total program administration cost as a percentage of the contribution paid in a given year. See Annex F.

  61. 61

    Public Safety Canada (2009). Supporting the Successful Implementation of the National Crime Prevention Strategy

  62. 62

    United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Economic and Social Council Resolution 2002/13, annex.

  63. 63

    Public Safety Canada (2011). The Offending Trajectories of Youth Probationers from Early Adolescence to Middle Adulthood: Relation to Dual Taxonomies.

  64. 64

    Cohen, M., Piquero A. (2009), “New Evidence on the Monetary Value of Saving a High Risk Youth”. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 25:25–49.

  65. 65

    Public Safety Canada (2012). An Introduction to Economic Analysis in Crime Prevention: The Why, How and So What

  66. 66

    According to the U.K. Cabinet Office – Office of the Third Sector, social return on investment is a framework for understanding, measuring and managing the outcomes of an organization's activities…it is distinct from other approaches in that it places a monetary value on outcomes, so that they can be added up and compared with the investment made. (source: Social Return on Investment an Introduction)

  67. 67

    Public Safety Canada. 2010-2011 Evaluation of the Youth Gang Prevention Fund Program, p. 25. It is noted that the actual "break even" point can be higher or lower than this result based on modeling assumptions.

  68. 68

    Addressing multiple risk factors is viewed as more positive than achieving success against a single risk factor because positive change across multiple risk factors improves the “support net” that youth require to then proceed to positive behaviour change.

  69. 69

    Youth presenting the following proximal factors are four times more likely to join gangs if the factors are not addressed: association with negative peers; low attachment to family, community, culture; low attachment to education and school; low attachment to workforce; substance abuse; and poor parental supervision.

  70. 70

    Public Safety Canada (2012). National Crime Prevention Center  Bi-Annual Report, July 2012.

Date modified: