2017-2018 Evaluation of the National Crime Prevention Strategy

2017-2018 Evaluation of the National Crime Prevention Strategy - PDF Version (1.1 MB)

Table of contents

• Executive Summary
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Profile
  • 2.1 Background
  • 2.2 Resources
  • 2.3 Logic Model
• 3. About the Evaluation
  • 3.1 Objective
  • 3.2 Scope
  • 3.3 Methodology
  • 3.4 Risks and Limitations
• 4. Findings
  • 4.1 Relevance
  • 4.2 Performance – Achievement of Expected Outcomes
  • 4.3 Performance – Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy
• 5. Conclusions
  • 5.1 Relevance
  • 5.2 Governance
  • 5.3 Performance
• 6. Recommendations
• 7. Management Response and Action Plan
• Appendix A: Logic Model
• Appendix B: Bibliography
• Footnotes

Figures and Tables

• Table 1: Planned Spending (sub-program 1.3.1 Crime Prevention)
• Table 2: Number of Interviewees by Category
• Table 3: Site Visits – Location and Type of Fund
• Table 4: Documents by Type
• Figure 1: NCPS Organizational Structure
• Table 5: Ten Most Commonly Used Models (2012-2017)
• Table 6: Top Ten Municipal Recipients of Transfer Payments for Funded Projects
• Table 7: Grants and Contributions Spending

2018-07-09

Executive Summary

This report presents the results of the 2017-18 Evaluation of the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS). The NCPS is the framework for crime prevention initiatives in Canada. Under the NCPS, Public Safety administers four funding programs, and is focused on implementing evidence-based models in the Canadian context.

What we examined

Covering the five-year fiscal period from 2012-13 to 2016-17, the evaluation addressed both operational and strategic parts of the Strategy, including the four funding programs. The evaluation assessed the Strategy’s relevance and the performance, taking into account the organizational changes within Public Safety during the time period under review.

What we found

Relevance

The NCPS remains relevant and there is a continuing need for crime prevention investments and efforts to address risk factors that lead to crime. Although police-reported crime rates have declined overall since 2006, they increased in 2015 and 2016, as did hate crimes. Gun related crimes have increased since 2013 and the economic burden of crime continues to rise.

The Strategy has been adaptive. Over the past five years, the Strategy has evolved to address emerging societal needs and government priorities. Crime prevention occurs at all levels of government and involves many stakeholders from the national to the local level and, therefore, collaboration is a critical element for projects’ success and sustainability. The Strategy complements crime prevention efforts and investments made by other jurisdictions. While other initiatives do exist in various forms across the country, it is widely acknowledged that the Strategy’s scale and scope are unique.

Performance

The Strategy has reached target audiences in a variety of ways and with a variety of tools, and activities.  It has encouraged stakeholders to collaborate through its work with Provinces and Territories as well as through its funding processes, projects and research. There are no mechanisms for engaging other stakeholders. Collaboration can be strengthened to ensure that there is continued complementarity of efforts.

The evidence, including survey data and project level impact evaluations, indicates that the Strategy has contributed to positive changes in awareness, skills and attitudes while helping to reduce crime among targeted, at-risk populations. However, the evidence also points to some challenges including the need for more conclusive quantifiable data regarding the full extent of those contributions, especially with respect to long-term outcomes. 

An important goal of the Strategy is to create evidence-based knowledge on crime prevention. The Strategy’s activities and outputs are expected to help stakeholders understand crime prevention issues and identify best practices for crime prevention efforts. Data on the access and dissemination of knowledge products such as research reports, impact evaluation reports, publications and presentations supported by the Strategy provide evidence of its contribution to this goal. However, evidence also suggests that a more coherent and timely approach to knowledge dissemination is required.

There are also some unintended drawbacks with limiting projects to evidence based models. The evidence suggests that the Strategy could benefit from providing greater flexibility and variety in funding support to lessen these challenges and risks.  

Time limited funding has given rise to three primary concerns. The first is that implementation of evidence-based models can be resource- and time-intensive, often taking a year or more before projects are fully operational. The second is that these timeframes are sometimes insufficient to adequately assess the longer-term impact of projects. The third is that project sustainability can greatly concern recipients at the end of their funding period, especially considering that the lives of at-risk individuals can be significantly impacted when support programs and services are no longer available.

Prior to 2014, the National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC) provided a focal point for the Strategy’s management and administration. However, management responsibility and coordination for the Strategy has been less clear since the role of the NCPC was distributed between two branches (Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch and Emergency Management and Programs Branch). There is evidence that this change has adversely affected cross-functional communication and coordination (i.e., between policy, research and programs). 

Public Safety budgeted about $50 million per year to support the Strategy with approximately $42 million allocated annually to the four funding programs in the form of transfer payments. The Strategy lapsed funds in all five years. There were a variety of factors that led to these lapses, such as delays in approvals.   

Recommendations

The Assistant Deputy Ministers of the Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch and the Emergency Management and Programs Branch should:

• Establish clear processes between the two Branches to plan, coordinate and deliver the National Crime Prevention Strategy.
• Examine mechanisms for improving engagement with provincial and territorial governments, and other government departments to support crime prevention initiatives. 
• Implement the existing knowledge dissemination strategy and systematically collect data on the reach and impact of knowledge products.

Management Response and Action Plan

Management accepts all recommendations and will implement an action plan.

Introduction

This report presents the results of the Evaluation of the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS or the Strategy). The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board of Canada Policy on Results. This evaluation assessed the relevance, governance, performance and alternative service delivery options for the Strategy, including the extent to which the Strategy was designed and delivered to meet the needs for gender-specific crime prevention. The evaluation covers the four funding programs that form an integral part of the Strategy. The Strategy was last evaluated in 2012-13.

Profile

Background

The development of the National Crime Prevention Strategy began in 1993 following a recommendation by the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.^Footnote1 In 1998, the National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC) was created to oversee the implementation of the Strategy. As a result of organizational realignment within Public Safety, the NCPC’s activities were allocated to the Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch (CSCCB) and the Emergency Management and Programs Branch (EMPB) beginning in 2014-15.^Footnote2

Since the beginning, the Strategy has become an integral part of the Government of Canada’s plan to prevent and reduce crime by intervening before offences occur. The Strategy provides a policy framework to implement crime prevention initiatives in Canada. Through the Strategy, Public Safety works with the provinces and territories to develop and implement programs that target specific crime issues in regions and communities across the country.

The Strategy is based on two premises. The first is that well-designed interventions can positively influence behaviours that lead to crime, especially among youth. The second is that crimes can be reduced or prevented by addressing risk factors^Footnote3 that can lead to offences. Successful interventions have been shown to reduce not only crime and victimization, but also the social and economic costs that result from criminal activities and of processing cases in the criminal justice system.

The Strategy has consistently promoted a social development approach towards crime prevention, and in recent years it has focused on implementing evidence-based models. This is reflected in the way the Strategy and its related funding programs were managed during the period covered by this evaluation (2012-13 to 2016-17).

The Strategy contains three key elements:

1. Providing national leadership on preventing and reducing crime by working with partners to develop evidence-based methods to address risk factors in high-risk populations.
2. Supporting the implementation and evaluation of crime prevention programs through grant and contribution funding.
3. Gathering and disseminating practical knowledge about program effectiveness and implementation to relevant stakeholders.

The Strategy delivers four funding Programs:

• Crime Prevention Action Fund (CPAF)
• Provides time-limited grant and contribution funding that supports evidence-based crime prevention initiatives in communities.
• Northern and Aboriginal Crime Prevention Fund (NACPF)
• Provides time-limited grant and contribution funding that supports culturally sensitive crime prevention practices for Indigenous, Inuit, and northern populations.
• 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.
• Communities at Risk: Security Infrastructure Program (SIP)
• Provides funds to support enhancements of security infrastructure in communities targeted by hate crimes.

Resources

Table 1 below shows planned spending on crime prevention (sub-program 1.3.1), as reported by Public Safety. The budget allocation for the Department’s crime prevention initiatives amounted to approximately $50 million annually over the five-year evaluation period.

Source: Departmental Reports on Plans and Priorities

Logic Model

The NCPS logic model contains two major parts. The first is strategic and it focuses on increasing stakeholder understanding and knowledge to support evidence-based crime prevention strategies. The second part is operational; it focuses primarily on the activities, outputs and outcomes of the four funding programs. The expected outcomes from the Strategy and their associated funding programs are as follows:

• Immediate Outcomes
• Operational outcomes
• Increased physical security of educational institutions, places of worship and community centres in targeted communities (SIP)
• Reaching of targeted at-risk individuals and populations through support and interventions provided by projects (CPAF, NACPF, YGPF)
• Positive changes in awareness, skills, attitudes and motivations among targeted populations (CPAF, NACFP, YGPF)
• Improved collaboration among key stakeholders in funded communities (CPAF, NACPF, YGPF)
• Strategic outcomes
• Increased stakeholder understanding and knowledge of evidence-based crime prevention
• Intermediate Outcomes
• Operational outcomes
• Reduction of hate crimes in community facilities funded (SIP)
• Positive changes in risk and protective factors and/or antisocial behaviour among at-risk children and youth, and high-risk offenders (CPAF, NACPF, YGPF)
• Strategic outcomes
• Use and sustainability of evidence-based strategies to prevent or reduce crime
• Long Term Outcomes
• Increased sense of security among  facility users
• Reduction in offending behaviour among targeted populations

About the Evaluation

Objective

This evaluation examined the following five evaluation issues:

1. Continued need for the Strategy;
2. Alignment with federal government priorities and departmental outcomes;
3. Alignment with government roles and responsibilities;
4. Achievement of expected outcomes (effectiveness);
5. Efficiency and economy of the Strategy.

This evaluation also examined the extent to which the Strategy meets gender-specific needs, the extent to which the Strategy’s governance structure has been effective and whether the delivery model for the Strategy is optimal for achieving expected results.

The evaluation considered several contextual elements including:

• public and government policy priority shifts over the past five years,
• changes in crime rates,
• impact of roles and expectations of stakeholders on the Strategy, and
• evolution of funding programs to meet changing needs. 

The evaluation also considered the impacts of organizational changes within Public Safety that occurred during the period under review, particularly the implications of these changes on the Strategy’s governance and administration.

Scope

Covering the five-year fiscal period from 2012-13 to 2016-17, the evaluation addressed both strategic and operational parts of the Strategy, including the four Grants and Contribution programs delivered through the Strategy. The evaluation assessed the Strategy’s relevance and the performance, taking into account the organizational changes within Public Safety during the time period under review.

Methodology

Evaluation Core Issues and Questions

The evaluation framework identified 23 evaluation questions and 43 key indicators. The evaluation questions are linked to the five core issues noted earlier (see section 3.1 above) as well as three additional considerations (gender, governance and alternative delivery). These issues and questions reflect the guidelines in the TB Directive on Results (2016) as well as Public Safety’s needs.

Lines of Evidence

Interviews

Interviews were conducted with a representative sample of participants drawn from records provided by Public Safety. Table 2 below summarizes the number of interviews conducted by target category.

Internal interviews included those with program executives, managers and program officers from Public Safety headquarters and from the regions. Evaluators gathered the views of the provinces and territories by interviewing members and observers of the FPT Working Group from each of the five regions. In addition, the evaluation team interviewed representatives chosen from a sample of funded projects (recipients).

Interviewees for funded projects were chosen to reflect geographical representation of projects that had been in place during the evaluation period for each of the four funds. The subject matter experts were chosen from a list of researchers, academics, experts and evaluators in the field of crime prevention provided by PS, most of whom had had some prior engagement with the Strategy or its various activities and outputs.

Site Visits

Site visits provided first-hand observations and briefings on specific crime prevention projects funded under the Strategy. Table 3 following summarizes the five locations visited and seven site visits conducted for this evaluation.

Stakeholder Survey

A bilingual stakeholder survey was sent by e-mail to 171 potential respondents. These potential respondents included funding recipients (projects) as well as relevant researchers, project evaluators and persons from academia. The survey asked respondents how well the Strategy’s activities and outputs fostered collaboration, knowledge, understanding and crime prevention outcomes. Among those, 74 individuals (43%) responded to the survey.

Document Review

A comprehensive web content scan and document review was conducted. Documents reviewed included a mix of strategy documents, Public Safety program documents, news releases, media texts, external crime prevention research papers and reports and NCPS knowledge products, including a selection of impact evaluations led by the NCPS (CSCCB Research Division) Table 4 summarizes the documents reviewed by quantity and type.

Performance and Financial Data Review

The review of performance and financial information included project funding, information on the dissemination of knowledge products, presentation and event data, web statistics, and budgeted versus actual expenses. These applied to each of the five years covered by the evaluation and to the four funding programs.

Service Improvement and Alternative Service Delivery Options Review

Using interviews and internet research, options for improving and delivering services were explored. The focus was on strategies, programs and initiatives undertaken in other jurisdictions in Canada and internationally.

Risks and Limitations

The following section describes risks and limitations associated with this evaluation and how they were addressed.  

Interview sample

Qualitative information from interviews represented the views of a sample of interviewees selected from contact lists provided by Public Safety. The lists contained names and contact information of people familiar with the Strategy or its related programs and outputs. This prior familiarity may have biased the sample in favour of the Strategy and its programs. Wherever possible, this risk was addressed by stressing confidentiality and transparency during the interviews, and by verifying the input with other lines of evidence.

Performance and financial data

In some cases, there was a lack of performance and financial data for indicators or gaps for certain time periods. In these instances, existing data was used to extrapolate and interpolate. Data was also triangulated with qualitative sources of evidence.

Causality between activities and outcomes

The nature and the context of the Strategy make it difficult to prove the causality between certain activities and outcomes, especially for intermediate and ultimate outcomes. Some of the outcomes measured could result from multiple factors, either internal or external to the Strategy. Caution was exercised in attributing results directly and solely to the Strategy.

Alternative service delivery review

Based on interviews, internet research and the document review, an effort was made to identify crime prevention programs similar to the Strategy in other jurisdictions. However, the objectives and scope of this evaluation prevented a detailed comparison with other crime prevention programs.

Findings

Relevance

Need for the National Crime Prevention Strategy

Continued need

The NCPS forms part of a broad range of societal efforts to prevent and reduce crime. The need for the NCPS can be associated with trends in crime rates as well as socio-economic costs of crime, especially trends linked to vulnerable or at-risk populations.

2016 marked the second consecutive yearly increase in the police-reported crime rate, as measured by the Crime Severity Index (CSI), after 11 years of decline. The CSI measures the volume and severity of police-reported crime in Canada and has a base index value of 100 for 2006. In 2016, the national CSI increased 1% from 70.1 in 2015 to 71.0, but remained 29% lower than a decade earlier in 2006.^Footnote4

Within the same year, the overall Youth Crime Severity Index (youth CSI), which measures both the volume and severity of crimes involving youth (both charged and not charged) declined by 2%. However, when looking at violent crimes there was an increase of 5%. There were even higher rates of police-reported youth accused of attempted murder (+115%), sexual violations against children (+38%) and robbery (+6%). Criminal violations involving firearms have increased 30% between 2013 and 2016.^Footnote5

Hate crimes have also increased. In 2015, the most recent year for which data is available, police reported 1,362 criminal incidents motivated by hate, representing an increase of 5% over the previous year. The increase was largely attributable to hatred of a religion, a race or ethnicity.^Footnote6

While the overall trend in reported crime since 2006 is down, the cost of crime has continued to rise. In 2008 expenditures on policing alone were estimated at $11B and expenditures on criminal justice were estimated at $15B. Overall, the social and economic impact of crime was estimated at $100 billion that year.^Footnote7 These figures include the impact on victims when considering both tangible and intangible costs.

Investments in crime prevention are a means to lessen the cost of crime. Four crime prevention experts interviewed for this evaluation stated that the Strategy’s commitment for crime prevention funding was inadequate especially when compared to the large expenditures made for law enforcement, justice system operations and incarceration.

While only a small percentage of Canada’s population will engage in criminal behaviour, interviewees (15) recognized that certain regions and population segments are represented disproportionally in crime statistics. Crime rates are also heavily influenced by repeat offenders and research has shown that the pathway to a “life of crime” or so-called “criminal trajectories” often begins early in life. Indeed, one of the key underlying assumptions of the NCPS is that efforts should focus on youth vulnerable to risk-factors associated with crime.^Footnote8 Interviewees felt that the Strategy’s focus on youth was appropriate, and many (27) pointed out that the need for prevention was growing among certain vulnerable segments. These segments include new Canadians (immigrants and refugees) and indigenous populations (especially in northern and small, isolated communities).

Many interviewees (36) supported the Strategy’s evidence-based approach to crime prevention. Most accepted that the Strategy should direct funding towards projects that utilize existing models with the greatest potential for success. However, interviewees (32) also indicated that the approach was not necessarily responsive to smaller communities and organizations that lacked the capacity to meet project funding criteria. Some felt that there was a risk of stifling innovation and that models imported from other countries did not always reflect the Canadian context. Strategy documentation supports flexibility based on context which is seen by the program as addressing these concerns.

Crime prevention experts and funding recipients who responded (74) to the survey overwhelmingly supported the Strategy. Over 90% of respondents indicated that it is very important (87%) or important (6%) for Canada to support a national strategy to prevent crime. Similarly, many interviewees (28) felt that support should not only continue, but also increase. However, more than half of survey respondents (56%) also said that the Strategy insufficiently addresses certain needs and risk-factors.

Most interviewees (44) understood that the NCPS funding programs are time-limited (i.e., they receive a maximum of five years of funding). However, these interviewees also saw a need to sustain projects and adopt culturally adapted and relevant “ground up” approaches (Canadian approaches and northern approaches, including sensitivity to cultural and language needs). Many (33) also noted a need to consider causal risk-factors such as development impairment (e.g., Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder), physical, emotional, and psychological trauma (e.g., domestic violence, historical and cultural-based trauma), and mental illness (e.g., anxiety, depression, personality disorders). Some interviewees (15) also mentioned that there is a gap in the Strategy when it comes to preventing re-offending. Interviewees (40) also suggested consideration, in terms of research and funding priorities, should be given to emerging needs and trends. These emerging issues include increased focus on inclusivity (e.g., LGBTQ+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, and others)), legalisation of marijuana, radicalization, increased usage of opiates, increased age of those at risk of gang entry and membership, and the negative effects associated with widespread use of electronic devices and social media (e.g., cyberbullying). These perspectives are shared broadly by both interviewees and survey participants from all stakeholder groups. It should be noted that there are separate program areas within Public Safety that are addressing some of these emerging needs, such as marijuana and radicalization, and some of these activities fall outside of the scope of the Strategy.

Evolution of the Strategy

The Strategy has expanded and evolved to address emerging issues surrounding crime prevention. For instance, in December 2014, with the coming into force of the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, Canada’s Justice Minister announced new funding of $20 million to support programming for those who want to leave the sex work industry. This funding included $10.47 million through the Department of Justice’s Victims Fund and $9.55 million for the National Crime Prevention Strategy.  

More recently, in the wake of the shooting at a Quebec City mosque on January 29, 2017, the 2017 federal budget committed an additional $5M to SIP, doubling the SIP investment to $10M over the next five years. Each year, $2M will be available to help not-for-profit organizations improve security.

The allocation of new funding responds to emerging needs and priorities linked to legislation or significant events. So, while the Strategy has evolved in response to needs, it has done so somewhat reactively, driven by new events and policy needs.

Alignment with Federal Government Priorities and Departmental Outcomes

The Strategy aligns with federal government priorities and departmental outcomes. Canada’s National Crime Prevention Strategy is now almost 20 years old. Evidence from background files and key documents reviewed for this evaluation point to the ongoing priority placed on crime prevention by the federal government and the Department between 2012 and 2017. In January 2012, FPT Ministers of Justice and Public Safety discussed the importance of prevention as an effective means to reduce crime and victimization and in April 2012, the FPT Assistant Deputy Ministers Crime Prevention and Policing Committee (FPT ADM CPPC) was formed to oversee the work of the then FPT Working Group on Community Safety and Crime Prevention.  

In January 2013, FPT Deputy Ministers approved the FPT ADM CPPC workplan, publicly available, which included the preparation of two documents: the first, a Framing Paper on Advancing Evidence-Based Crime Prevention and Sustainability in Canada and the second, the Ministerial Priorities Reference Document on Advancing Evidence-Based Crime Prevention and Sustainability in Canada. Both documents were developed, with the latter document outlining a Five-Year National Action Plan towards sustaining evidence-based crime prevention and supporting mechanisms of social innovation, as agreed upon by provinces and territories (PTs) and Public Safety representatives.

During the period under review, successive federal budgets have emphasized themes reflected by the Strategy. These themes include supporting communities at risk (2011-12), support for First Nations and Inuit communities (2013-14), protecting Canadians and strengthening community safety (2015-16), and community outreach (2016-17).

Crime prevention has also been a consistent theme in official departmental documentation and communications. Departmental Reports on Plans and Priorities (RPPs) and Departmental Performance Reports (DPRs) noted that Public Safety continued to advance the Government’s crime and safety agenda through the NCPS. The RPPs and DPRs contain summary details of planning highlights and performance outcomes attributed to the Strategy. For example, the Department’s 2016-17 RPP states that “the Department will continue to work with the provinces and territories to implement the Five-Year National Action Plan on Crime Prevention.” 

Departmental communiqués and news releases emphasized the Strategy’s contribution to crime prevention through its funding programs. For the five-year period, the evaluators noted 37 news releases pertaining to funding announcements and specific project investments. Several of these releases announced new funding priorities related to SIP and exiting prostitution.

Alignment with Federal Government Roles and Responsibilities

Crime prevention falls within the mandate of Public Safety, as stated in the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act (2005). With respect to national leadership, section 4 (2) states that “The Minister is responsible for exercising leadership at the national level relating to public safety and emergency preparedness”. 

Interviewees (16) for this evaluation saw no inconsistency or misalignment with federal government or Public Safety’s role in the Strategy. Many (30) pointed out that the Strategy’s success requires various jurisdictions to collaborate. In this regard, it was noted (33) that more collaboration is required, particularly with PTs, for example, to share knowledge and determine program funding priorities. The Research Division of CSCCB has been developing a portal to provide access to knowledge products developed at the provincial and federal level, and is compiling an inventory of evidence based crime prevention programs in Canada. This will supplement the knowledge products produced by the Research Division that are currently available on the Public Safety website.

Complementarity with other programs, policies, or initiatives

Evidence from the background review conducted for this evaluation points to several potential areas of overlap for the Strategy. For example, at the federal level, the RCMP’s Centre for Youth Crime Prevention aims to provide Canadians with evidence-informed and age-appropriate crime prevention messages, information, tools, and programs to prevent youth crime and victimization. Meanwhile, Justice Canada’s Youth Justice Fund provides grants and contributions to projects that encourage a more effective response to youth justice issues including gangs and drugs. However, there are no other programs with the same focus of the Strategy on implementing evidence-based crime prevention models across the country and in addressing those not currently involved in the criminal justice system.

Several provincial and territorial crime prevention initiatives also exist that complement the Strategy. For example, Ontario’s Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services is investing in local crime prevention and community safety and well-being initiatives across the province. The province of Alberta takes a similar approach to crime prevention using civil forfeitures to fund innovative, promising and proven practices. Many provincial and territorial programs such as B.C.’s Youth Intervention Program aim to prevent or divert youth from a life of crime; many are also supported by federal funding.    

Law enforcement models are also evolving to include crime prevention activities. For instance, Ontario’s model of community policing emphasizes crime prevention through community engagement in addition to crime enforcement and suppression. Meanwhile, community hub models first introduced in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan in 2010 are using collaborative, risk-driven interventions to improve community safety.

However, these related initiatives, programs and resources are viewed as complementary by the majority of interviewees (50) and by all survey respondents. Many interviewees (38) also expressed that no other initiative equalled the Strategy’s scale and scope. The Strategy was viewed as unique in informing and supporting other more localized initiatives and efforts and in applying an evidence-based approach.

While survey respondents see little or no duplication in the Strategy (many stating that “more is better” when it comes to crime prevention), several (13) indicated that more could be done to meet the needs of vulnerable populations and communities. Interviewees (24) also noted that more could be done to integrate NCPS activities with other initiatives at all levels of government.

In this regard, several additional federal initiatives and grants and contributions programs (e.g., Employment and Social Development Canada’s Housing First approach, Health Canada’s Substance Use and Addictions Program, and the Public Health Agency of Canada’s Family Violence Initiative) were identified as possible opportunities for integration. Respondents also noted provincial and territorial initiatives, such as Ontario’s Safer and Vital Communities Grant, and New Brunswick’s Crime Prevention Strategy.

Additionally, other survey respondents and interviewees mentioned that foundations, agencies, networks, and non-governmental organisations, including the Trillium Foundation, the Law Foundation of Ontario, the Gang Action Interagency Network, the Canadian Municipal Network on Crime Prevention, and the International Centre for Prevention of Crime are also engaged in crime prevention activities, but with a more targeted focus than the NCPS.  Finally, although the Strategy was not designed to provide ongoing support, interviewees (28) indicated that collaboration with other funding sources could help sustain projects that show promise or results.

Design and Delivery

Gender specific needs

The Treasury Board Directive on Results requires that program performance profiles consider government-wide policies, where relevant, such as gender-based analysis. Gender-based analysis examines policies, programs, initiatives or services for impacts on men and women.^Footnote9

The Strategy was not designed with a gender-based lens. Although males are five times more likely to commit crimes than females, men and women share similar rates of victimization.^Footnote10 Because the Strategy focuses on lessening risk-factors such as youth membership in gangs, males figure prominently in project designs and interventions.

The Strategy also responds to gender needs by targeted funding, such as in projects to help women leave prostitution. Some organisations funded under CPAF, such as Support, Acceptance, Resources, Action for Women and the Elizabeth Fry Society, work solely with women and female youth. Some of the projects funded under YGPF focus on LGTBQ+ youth.

Some (8) interviewees also noted that the risk of gang participation crosses gender lines, for two reasons. First, females often associate with male gang members. And second, in some communities, female gang activity is prominent. In this respect, those funding recipients stated interest in adding or integrating activities that address female participation in gangs.  

Because the Strategy omits mention of gender, many interviewees could not say whether the Strategy responds to gender-specific needs. When asked if the Strategy considered gender-related issues, almost half of the interviewees (47%) were either neutral or did not know. Several (19) interviewees suggested that the Strategy and its projects have accounted for gender concerns. Some (12) also felt that projects are trending somewhat more towards gender-specific issues.

Performance – Achievement of Expected Outcomes

Governance and Oversight

The Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group on Crime Prevention (FPT WG CP) is the forum for national collaboration and exchange of knowledge for the advancement of the crime prevention agendas at the federal, provincial and territorial levels, with an emphasis on identifying and promoting evidence-informed policies and practices that will reduce crime and victimization and enhance the safety of individuals and communities. It is a mechanism for horizontal oversight. The group comprises representatives from each of the provinces and territories, as well as representatives from Public Safety’s policy, research and program areas. The scope of the group’s work is defined by objectives in the Five-Year National Action Plan and by priorities for crime prevention at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels.

The FPT WG CP meets four times a year by teleconference and once a year in person.  Interviewees emphasized that group members relied on these meetings to coordinate their activities and work on the implementation of the Action Plan. As part of these efforts, the group is expected to regularly update the FPT ADM CPPC, the Deputy Ministers and Ministers of Justice and Public Safety. The group also contributes to achieving the NCPS’s objectives, including the promotion of public support for evidence-based crime prevention. 

For its part, the FPT ADM CPPC provides direction to the FPT WG CP and reviews the working group’s outputs including status reports, discussion documents, and workplans. The ADM level committee has also helped implement the Five-Year National Action Plan by providing a forum to recommend ways to advance evidence-based policies and practices to prevent crime. Public Safety is the Secretariat, and meetings are co-chaired by the ADM of CSCCB and a rotating provincial chair. There are not mechanisms for engaging other stakeholders.

With respect to internal governance, several interviewees (17) suggest that the centralizing focus (vision) embodied by the NCPC diminished after the realignment in 2014. Indeed, some interviewees (11) (especially funded recipients) viewed the Strategy and the NCPC as synonymous. The Public Safety website continues to highlight NCPC’s mission 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” as well as the role the NCPC plays in achieving this mission. 

Although the activities of the NCPC have been integrated into other areas of Public Safety, the responsibility for managing and coordinating the Strategy is not as clear today as it was prior to 2014. In addition to perceiving that the Strategy’s implementation drifted during Public Safety’s realignment, internal interviewees (15) felt that the two-branch structure has in some cases resulted in a silo effect in terms of communication and coordination between the policy, programs and research functions. As well, some interviewees (17) suggested that internal processes have become more reactive and less timely than before the realignment. These processes deal with funding proposal calls and decisions, memorandums of understanding, involvement of experts or PTs in setting priorities and selecting projects, and collaboration.

Figure 1 below presents the current organizational structure under which the Strategy is managed. It illustrates the current configuration of strategic and operational activities and their alignment with the two branches.  

Figure 1. NCPS Organizational Structure

Image Description

Deputy Minister’s Office

• Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch
• Crime Prevention, Corrections and Criminal Justice Directorate
• Crime Prevention and Aboriginal Community Safety Division
• Research, Intergovernmental Affairs and Horizontal Policy Directorate
• Research Division
• Crime Prevention Research and Evaluation Unit
• Emergency Management and Programs Branch
• Programs Directorate
• Community Safety Programs
• Quebec and Nunavut Region
• Prairie and Northwest Territories Region
• Atlantic Region
• Ontario Region
• Pacific Region

Roles and Responsibilities

The Crime Prevention Policy Unit in CSCCB is responsible for all policy development tasks including: the drafting of Cabinet documents and establishing the strategic direction for the NCPS including the policy priorities for calls for proposals. The work of the Policy Unit is supported by the research led or commissioned by the Research and Evaluation Unit in CSCCB. This Unit is also responsible for leading any evaluations targeting crime prevention and for determining which projects receive impact evaluations.

The Program Division within EMPB is responsible for the tasks associated with funding crime prevention projects including: developing the overall performance measurement strategy; designing Terms and Conditions for the programs; administering the Call for Proposals process; receiving and assessing proposals; signing and monitoring contribution agreements; making payments and managing the collection of data from projects.

Both branches are involved in stakeholders relations, but with different target audiences: EMPB manages relations with regional, local and community-based organizations while CSCCB manages federal, provincial, territorial and international relationships.

Program Reach and Collaboration with Community Partners

The Strategy is reaching intended audiences and fostering collaboration among relevant communities. Public Safety reported that projects reached 16,250 at-risk individuals through projects in 2012-13 and 23,000 in 2013-14.^Footnote11 The Strategy reached internal and external audiences in a variety of ways, including through NCPS sponsored events, presentations, publications, website, media releases, and committee meetings.^Footnote12 Currently on the Public Safety website, there are over 140 crime prevention publications (in both official languages). These publications were downloaded over 600,000 times between 2012 and 2015.

The Strategy’s funding programs also foster collaboration and community partnerships. Funding recipients and experts (20) noted that they collaborate with partners to develop and implement funding proposals. These partners typically include community organizations, health and social service agencies, schools and law enforcement, among others. Crime prevention experts and academics (23) worked together on impact evaluations or crime prevention research funded by Public Safety.

Recipient interviewees (14) stated that more collaboration and opportunities are needed to enable networking and partnerships and to share lessons learned and best or promising practices. Thirteen of the recipients felt that a crime prevention symposium hosted by the NCPC was an excellent forum to accomplish these goals. In the absence of this event or other official opportunities to share and collaborate in recent years, interviewees (24) stated that some funding recipients have developed their own working groups, and others have held conferences calls and learning events with regional counterparts.

Project Outcomes

Contribution to positive changes in awareness, skills, and attitudes among targeted populations

Most interviewees (40) believe that the Strategy is contributing to positive changes in awareness, skills and attitudes among targeted populations. Project funding recipients emphasize that providing youth with a network, safe space, and community of support is particularly effective. Knowledge and research summaries support this view. For example, the summary of the Atlantic Youth Inclusion Program depicts the creation of a safe place for participants to learn new skills, receive support, and participate in activities.^Footnote13 Similar findings were cited in other evaluation summaries and impact evaluations, such as for Wraparound, Youth Advocate Program, and the Durham Youth Gang Strategy.

Survey data also support this view. The majority of respondents agree or strongly agree that the Strategy has improved awareness among targeted populations (85%), that it has contributed to positive changes in skills (82%) and that it has contributed to positive changes in attitudes and motivations among targeted populations (85%).

Reduction of risk factors and offending behaviours among targeted populations

Interviewees (42), including most experts, also believe that the Strategy is contributing to the reduction of risk factors and offending behaviours. Survey data supports this view with roughly three-quarters of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that the Strategy has contributed to the reduction of risk factors among at-risk children and youth, and high-risk offenders (79%), that it has contributed to the reduction of antisocial behaviour (74%) and that it has contributed to the reduction of offending behaviour among targeted populations.

Given that the Strategy’s projects are typically funded for five years or fewer, it was challenging for the evaluation to determine the extent to which the Strategy has reduced crime over the long term.

Increased physical security and reduction in incidence of hate-motivated crimes

The SIP focuses on physical security infrastructure. Evidence from interviewees and survey respondents strongly indicates that SIP investments have increased physical (and psychological) security among users of vulnerable target facilities. All SIP survey respondents agreed that the Strategy has increased security and reduced the incidence of hate-motivated crime at their facilities. In its 2013-14 DPR, Public Safety reported a 63% decrease in the number of hate-motivated crimes against buildings that received SIP funding.

The site visit specific to SIP conducted for this evaluation further confirmed that SIP was achieving the desired outcomes. However, it was suggested that SIP might be an appropriate funding mechanism to address the causal factors leading to hate crimes (e.g., funding for workshops, youth outreach and engagement).

Impact Evaluations

Project funded impact evaluations (78) show that projects are contributing to reduction of risk factors and to positive changes in awareness, skills, and attitudes among targeted populations. However, many interviewees (28) noted limitations related to impact evaluations, namely that it is difficult to establish attribution and causality and to determine long term impact; that evaluations are costly and present a potential obstacle for organisations and communities with smaller capacities; and that the evaluations may not be as neutral if they are integrated into the  project. Additionally, in lieu of long-term data or information about long-standing projects many reports included anecdotal evidence. The evaluation summaries note these limitations. These limitations are not unique to crime prevention programs, and are frequently identified in the evaluations of federal social programs.

Assessing the Strategy’s long-term outcomes is also constrained by the five-year funding period. Many funding recipients (16) pointed out that projects often take a year or more to start-up, and they may need to be in place for several more years before their results can be assessed. In addition, if a project has been adapted from another model, challenges associated with adapting the project to Canada or to a given community can make it difficult to evaluate the project’s long-term impact. Finally, impact assessments tend to highlight the fact that attributing longer-term outcomes to specific initiatives is not always possible without comparison to longitudinal studies or control groups.  

Notwithstanding these challenges, Public Safety has reported on several indicators drawn from impact evaluations that point directly or indirectly to a decline in offending behaviour. For example, in its 2012-13 DPR Public Safety reported that 112 youth exited from gangs. In 2014-15, 83% of projects were successful in decreasing at least one criminal justice outcome. It was also noted that 70% of direct intervention projects reported a decrease in charges among targeted populations as a result of program participation in both 2012-13 and 2013-14. This increased to 83% in 2014-15.

Knowledge and Understanding of Evidence-based Crime Prevention

Dissemination and usefulness of crime prevention tools, products, and resources

A variety of crime prevention tools, products and resources are produced and disseminated as Strategy outputs. These outputs are intended to help stakeholders improve their knowledge of crime prevention and support the funding process. Specific outputs of the Strategy include research reports on preventing crime, impact evaluation reports, presentations (internal, national and international), crime prevention symposiums/events and news releases. Much of this information is accessible through the “NCPC” page on the Public Safety website. Web data collated for this evaluation indicated that the 140 crime prevention publications generated by the Research Division received a total of 432,248 visitors between 2012 and 2017. Visitors most frequently accessed publications related to risk factors among youth, cost of crime and pathways to crime.

Impact evaluation processes and reports are also an important means for sharing knowledge and promoting understanding. These processes and reports are intended to objectively determine the extent to which projects and their underlying models achieve results. Seventy-eight impact evaluations were conducted between 2012 and 2017, including 48 for CPAF projects, 25 for YGPF projects and 5 focussed on Exiting Prostitution. Information generated by funded projects, as well as from other crime prevention programs at Public Safety associated with the Strategy, are shared through presentations and knowledge events. For example, a total of 21 NCPS-sponsored events were held between 2012 and 2017. These events addressed a variety of topics, including youth gang prevention, cyberbullying, crime and victimization, project implementation challenges, monetary cost of criminal offending and the lifecycle of crime. In addition, 69 presentations related to crime prevention were delivered between 2012 and 2017. Topics included outcome evaluation and sustainability; monetary cost of criminal trajectories in Ontario; implementation and evaluation of countering violent extremism initiatives; new methodologies in crime prevention; human rights data collection; re-contact with the Justice system; and murdered and missing Indigenous women.

Some interviewees (16) indicated that the Strategy could benefit from additional opportunities for knowledge exchange and sharing of lessons learned between projects, especially since there has not been a national NCPS event since 2015.  

Knowledge and usefulness of the Strategy’s outputs varied considerably among interviewees. For example, funding recipients (17) tended to be most familiar with application tools and templates. These people stated that they mostly used research outputs to develop proposals and conduct initial research. Experts (7) tended to be most familiar with research publications. Those interviewees (29) who were aware of the outputs said they were useful and have contributed to their understanding.

Nonetheless, some interviewees (16) complained of difficulty navigating information on the website, dated content and lack of timeliness. Many interviewees (29) noted that although project-related knowledge is being created (e.g., via impact evaluations), it is not adequately disseminated or mobilized. In particular, these interviewees stated that current projects could benefit from the experiences, lessons learned, adaptations, and best practices from other ongoing or completed projects. Although there are some attempts (e.g., learning events) to stimulate sharing of this knowledge, there is not an opportunity to consistently share results. There was also interest in having access to a database of research and evidence-based models that have been adapted and implemented in Canada.

The survey responses further indicated the Strategy’s contribution to knowledge and understanding. An overwhelming majority (85%) of survey respondents agree (40%) or strongly agree (45%) that the Strategy has contributed to their understanding and knowledge of evidence-based crime prevention. Furthermore, survey respondents also accessed or used other Strategy outputs to varying degrees. The most commonly used or accessed outputs are:

• Public Safety crime prevention tools, publications and reports (71%);
• the NCPC website (69%);
• project summaries (53%);
• evaluations summaries (51%); and
• news releases (47%).

Among interviewees (funded recipients and experts), many (17) also indicated that the Strategy added to their knowledge or understanding of evidence-based approaches, provided them with the opportunity to implement and test models or added to their existing understanding.

With a view to enhancing access, awareness and use of its research products, in 2016 the Research Division developed a plan to disseminate knowledge. This plan listed potential activities, target audiences, and feasibility for implementation. However, the Strategy’s knowledge outputs have not been systematically tracked against specific objectives or measurable targets.

Utilization and Sustainability of Evidence-based Crime-Prevention Strategies

Using evidence-based strategies to prevent crime is central to YGPF, CPAF, and NACPF. Many interviewees (27) spoke to the benefits of employing evidence-based models including access to training materials, user communities, and existing knowledge associated with these models. Interviewees also perceived a benefit in the impact evaluations and research that are developed around the usage of these approaches, to assist in building a base of knowledge on models and promising practices to prevent crime in Canada. Evidence from internal documentation, web statistics, and interviews (5) indicates that stakeholders are particularly interested in economic analysis and cost of crime and criminal trajectories (e.g., benefit-cost ratios) which can be found in publications such as Cost of Crime and Criminal Justice Responses and Tyler’s Troubled Life.^Footnote14

The various models funded by the Strategy are all approaches based on existing evidence. The following table presents the ten most commonly applied approaches for the 2012-17 period.

*Hybrid approaches were used for projects including Velocity Adventure Program, Specialized Before and After School Program, and others.

Experts and funding recipients noted some challenges with using evidence-based approaches as designed. For example, interview (16) and document evidence indicates a trend towards using evidence-based models tested and implemented successfully elsewhere, often the U.S. While these approaches have typically shown results, interviewees (32) suggested that imported models sometimes only partially suit Canada, a point that is particularly relevant for isolated, Northern, or First Nations and Inuit communities.

In addition, funding recipients (15) noted that significant challenges can be posed by a lack of training and materials or lack of capacity. In some instances the training is not being provided by the models’ originators. In other cases, the funded organizations may have overlooked certain program elements such as travel costs and other expenses in their initial project planning. However, eligible travel and training expenses are covered under the program’s Terms and Conditions.

Literature and research that deals with the implementation of evidence-based approaches point to potential operational challenges. These challenges relate to data management, recruitment and referral of participants, partnership building and maintenance (among community organisations, for instance), management and administrative issues, program content, staff turnover, participant engagement, and planning.^Footnote15 These issues were mentioned in interviews with funding recipients to varying degrees.

Similarly, the review of selected impact evaluations and evaluation summaries confirms that several methodological or operational limitations occurred during project implementation. These limitations included: lack of data for the evaluation of long term outcomes; difficulties attributing outcomes; and challenges related to recruiting and screening participants. Representatives from the site visits cited similar challenges.

Although NCPS funding is not designed to be long-term,^Footnote16 interviewees (39) and survey respondents expressed concern about the fate of projects once funding ends. For example, only 41% of survey respondents indicated that their projects were likely (23%) or very likely (18%) to continue after NCPS funding ended. Organizations differ in their ability to access other funding sources and in their level of internal resources which were identified as reasons for the lack of sustainability.

Many interviewees (25) noted that target populations and communities can suffer when project funding stops. As one interviewee put it, “in my experience, …if you’re in a five-year cycle, by year three, you need to think about funding. It’s very stressful.” Regarding the impact on target populations, an interviewee mentioned, “There are so many layers of trauma and pain. …It’s almost worse to have something and lose it.” Another pointed out that communities can become discouraged or apathetic after they lose funding and their projects end (e.g., “Why bother, if we know it [funding] will disappear again soon.”)

Unintended Outcomes

The evaluation found that the design and implementation of the Strategy has led to several unintended outcomes, both negative and positive.

One unintended negative outcome is that funding tends to go to urban recipients rather than remote communities where the needs are often proportionately greatest. Small, northern communities often lack the resources to assist at-risk youth, many of whom are vulnerable to the effects of isolation including alcoholism, drug abuse, family violence and loss of cultural identity.

Many interviewees (27) noted that urban organizations and communities tend to have advantages over their small, remote counterparts in obtaining funding. Urban entities are more likely to possess the capacity to develop the complex proposals associated with larger, evidence-based projects. The data support this conclusion. Table 6 below shows that during 2012-17 large urban centres and capital cities were the top ten municipal recipients of transfer payments.

Source: Public Safety Information Management System

On the positive side, some provinces and territories have applied for NCPS funding on behalf of smaller communities and have organized themselves to deliver programming on crime prevention. For example, the Community Justice Department in Iqaluit administers Nunavut’s Ikajuqtiqiiniq (Working Together for a Common Purpose) NACPF project and serves remote communities throughout the territory. A similar partnership exists between Saskatchewan’s Ministry of Justice-Corrections and Policing and three predominantly First Nations communities (Sandy Bay, Pelican Narrows, and Deschambault Lake) through the Northeast Youth Violence Reduction Partnership.^Footnote17

Because they tend to be larger in scale, the existing evidence-based models can, under the right conditions, spark community organisations to collaborate. Many interviewees (22 experts and funding recipients) described how some of similar approaches had created networks (e.g., SNAP network, Wraparound network). Finally, impact evaluations have helped determine the effectiveness of these evidence-based models in Canadian communities. Currently, the requirement to conduct an impact evaluation is determined at the application stage and the expert resources are typically identified then and integrated with the project. From 2009 to 2013, many of the evaluations were managed by Public Safety through separate contracts.

Performance – Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy

Efficient and Effective Administration of the Strategy

Public Safety departmental reports show that planned departmental spending on crime prevention totalled slightly over $250M or approximately $50M per year. The majority of this funding was allocated to transfer payments for the Strategy’s four funding programs, which were distributed as follows: CPAF ($244.2M), YGPF ($49.6M), NACPF ($33.8M), and SIP ($2.5M). This funding represents the value of the grant and contribution agreements signed between 2012 and 2017. As there are multi-year projects, several projects are continuing beyond March 31, 2017 (end of fiscal year).

Program data indicates that the budget for transfer payments averaged roughly $42M per year. Actual payments were significantly below budget for each of the five years covered by this evaluation. The gap between planned versus actual expenditures ranged from a low of $5.5M in 2012-13 to a high of $15.5M in 2015-16. The cumulative amount of the gap was $55.3M. Internal interviewees provided multiple reasons for lapses, including the length of approval processes due to the delegation of authorities, and the increased workload on program staff as a result of program realignment.

Source: Departmental Results on Plans and Priorities

* This does not include the grant to the City of Moncton in support of the establishment of a permanent commemorative memorial for the three fallen RCMP members.

** This does not include the Counter Radicalization to Violence funding, as the activities were not part of the evaluation.

The extent to which the Strategy leveraged financial or in-kind contributions from other partners was not calculated, as projects are not required to provide this information. As well, the evaluators were unable to obtain internal costs, as the activities of the NCPS are integrated into the activities of two branches.

Interviewees (22) acknowledge the need for Public Safety to exercise due diligence in funding processes. Most funding recipients (20) said that they appreciated the support and assistance provided by Public Safety staff when dealing with application questions and administrative issues. However, many funding recipients (17) spoke of the time and effort required to prepare their application proposals, of the time lapsed waiting for approval, and of the subsequent adverse impact on project implementation and fidelity. 

Funding recipients (23) noted that frequent changes to program administration tools, templates and procedures increased their administrative burden. These interviewees perceived a need for more stability and flexibility in project budgeting, reporting and administration. Many interviewees (29) also suggested that better communication and greater transparency would improve administration of the Strategy’s funding processes. Suggested improvements included quicker notice regarding the timing of calls for proposals, status updates, and future foreseeable allocations and plans.

Steps Taken to Improve the Efficiency of the Strategy’s Implementation and Delivery

The Strategy’s efficiency is linked to the administration of the funding processes. Efficiency is measured in part by how quickly these processes respond both during and after the calls for proposals.  Internal interviewees (4) explained that with the recent change in the delegation of authority, approval times may be shortened. In its 2016-17 DPR, Public Safety recognized the need to improve the Strategy’s administrative efficiency and effectiveness and committed to “explore options to consolidate the structure of the NCPS funds to increase administrative efficiency and provide programing flexibility and clarity.” As well, a 2017-18 Public Safety Internal Audit of Grants and Contributions identified areas for improvement including reviewing service standards and ensuring ongoing tracking and monitoring.

Suggestions for Improvements

Suggested improvements to the Strategy shared by interviewees (56) tended to fall into three areas: 1) closer collaboration with PTs and stakeholders, 2) more flexibility and sustainability in funding (i.e., to support transition), and 3) improved governance and integration.   

Regarding collaboration, evidence suggests a need for closer collaboration with PTs on design (e.g., selecting target groups), planning and priority setting. This collaboration is needed to ensure that the Strategy is national and not simply concerned with the federal government involvement. Suggested activities for collaboration included involving PTs in decision making on funding priorities (especially to reflect regional specificities), and knowledge sharing with PTs and stakeholders.   

With regards to funding, interviewees (22) felt that the Strategy might benefit from adding options for accommodating smaller, innovative projects (e.g., those dealing with emerging priorities) or by testing “promising practices” possibly using smaller contribution agreements. Many external interviewees (27) felt that the Strategy could benefit from ongoing funding to projects. They also felt that the current project-based funding approach might be enhanced by proportional funding allocated by region (for transparency, planning, and foreseeability). However, this could limit the ability of the Strategy to support new projects, or to provide sufficient funding for Northern projects. As well, some interviewees (6) indicated that the Strategy might benefit from a social finance^Footnote18 component (reflected in the Five-Year National Action Plan^Footnote19).

In regards to the program governance, some internal interviewees suggested that improving or streamlining processes would help units and branches within Public Safety integrate their efforts, while addressing the perceived silo effect resulting from the reorganization. It was also felt by some interviewees (12), including a few expert interviewees and funding recipients, that the Strategy’s definitions and underlying assumptions need review (e.g., definitions of success, target populations/groups, and risk factors) to ensure they are reflecting the current landscape.   

Alternative Service Delivery Options

A review of crime prevention strategies in several countries indicates that most strategies support evidence-based approaches with a focus on key risk-factors. Most countries also fund programs to support crime prevention initiatives targeted at youth. However, approaches differ in important ways.

For example, the US National Crime Prevention Council employs a strategy in which communities, businesses and law enforcement work together through civic engagement and public education. The UK, has a Modern Crime Prevention Strategy (2016) which targets six key drivers of crime. In addition to offering programs to prevent youth crime and discourage gang membership, the UK strategy also funds community projects aimed at preventing hate crimes.

Meanwhile, the Australia and New Zealand National Crime Prevention Framework provides guidance by way of information on best practices. This information assists stakeholders to develop appropriate policies, strategies and programs to address crime problems. Grants are provided to organizations for crime prevention campaigns and safer communities initiatives.

Conclusions

Relevance

The NCPS remains relevant and there is a continuing need for crime prevention investments and efforts to address risk factors that lead to crime. Although police-reported crime rates have declined overall since 2006, they increased in 2015 and 2016, as did hate crimes. Gun related crimes have increased since 2013 and the economic burden of crime continues to rise.

The Strategy has also been adaptive. Over the past five years, the Strategy has evolved, sometimes reactively, to address emerging needs and priorities. For example, the Strategy devoted new funding to assist women to leave the sex trade, and to help make community buildings (such as places of worship) safer. 

The Strategy aligns with federal government priorities and departmental outcomes as expressed in FPT Ministerial documentation, federal budgets, departmental reports and communiques. The Strategy also aligns with federal roles and responsibilities.

Crime prevention occurs at all levels of government and involves many stakeholders from the national to the local level. The Strategy complements crime prevention efforts and investments made by other jurisdictions. While other initiatives do exist in various forms across the country, it is widely acknowledged that the Strategy’s scale and scope are unique.

Although not specific to its design, the Strategy is seen to respond to gender specific needs, and has shown some ability to adapt to emerging priorities, such as funding for exiting prostitution.

Governance

At the FPT level there is a Working Group and an ADM Committee to provide governance and oversight for the Strategy. They also help coordinate and provide accountability for activities among partners. The Five-Year National Action Plan provides guidance to FPT partners and stakeholders and to Public Safety policy, research and program staff.

Prior to 2014, the NCPC provided a focal point for the Strategy’s management and administration. However, following departmental realignment the centre of management responsibility and coordination for the Strategy has been distributed between CSCCB and EMPB. There is evidence that this change has resulted in concerns with cross-functional communication and coordination (i.e., between policy, research and programs).   

Performance

The Strategy has reached target audiences in a variety of ways and with a variety of tools, activities and outputs. The Strategy has encouraged stakeholders to collaborate and has done so through its FPT work as well as through its funding processes, projects and research. There are no mechanisms for engaging other stakeholders. The evidence, including survey data and project level impact evaluations, indicates that the Strategy has contributed to positive changes in awareness, skills and attitudes while helping to reduce crime among targeted, at-risk populations. However, the evidence also points to some challenges including the need for more conclusive quantifiable data regarding the full extent of those contributions, especially with respect to long-term outcomes.  

An important goal of the Strategy is to create evidence-based knowledge on crime prevention. The Strategy’s activities and outputs are expected to help stakeholders understand crime prevention issues and identify best practices for crime prevention efforts. Data on the access and dissemination of knowledge outputs such as research reports, impact evaluation reports, publications and presentations supported by the Strategy provide evidence of its contribution to this goal. However, evidence suggests that a more coherent and timely approach to knowledge dissemination is required.

There are also some unintended drawbacks with limiting the funding to projects implementing the evidence based models. These include challenges with adapting and implementing foreign models within the Canadian context, the risk of excluding small or remote organizations and communities from eligibility (due to design complexity), and the risk of dampening creativity and innovation or not responding to emerging needs (due to the focus on proven models). The evidence suggests that the Strategy could benefit from providing greater flexibility and variety in funding support to lessen these challenges and risks.   

Funding flexibility also extends to administrative compliance as well funding timeframes. While the exercising of due diligence in funding programs is important, the evidence indicates that efficiencies can be gained by streamlining lengthy and burdensome funding processes.

Furthermore, the fact that projects are funded for five years or fewer gives rise to three primary concerns. The first is that implementation of evidence-based models can be resource- and time-intensive, often taking a year or more before projects are fully operational. The second is that these timeframes are sometimes insufficient to adequately assess the longer-term impact of projects. The third is that project sustainability can greatly concern recipients at the end of their funding period, especially considering that the lives of at-risk individuals can be significantly impacted when support programs and services are no longer available.

Public Safety budgeted about $50 million per year to support the Strategy with approximately $42 million allocated annually to the four funding programs in the form of transfer payments. The Strategy lapsed funds in all five years. There were a variety of factors that led to these lapses. The cumulative gap between budgeted and actual transfers amounted to $55.3 million.

Recommendations

The Assistant Deputy Ministers of the Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch and the Emergency Management and Programs Branch should:

1. Establish clear processes between the two Branches to plan, coordinate and deliver the National Crime Prevention Strategy.
2. Examine mechanisms for improving engagement with provincial and territorial governments, and other government departments to support crime prevention initiatives. 
3. Implement the existing knowledge dissemination strategy and systematically collect data on the reach and impact of knowledge products.

Management Response and Action Plan

Appendix A: Logic Model

Image Description

There are two components: the Operational Component and the Strategic Component.

Under the Operational Component are the following activities:

• Communicate funding priorities
  
• Solicit and select targeted funding proposals
  
• Provide project development assistance
  
• Provide targeted funding

These lead to the operational output of:

• Funded projects for targeted at-risk individuals and communities.

The operational outputs lead to four operational immediate outcomes:

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

Immediate Outcome A leads to Intermediate Outcome E: Reduction in incidence of hate-motivated crime in community facilities funded.

Intermediate Outcome E leads to Long-term outcome G: Increased sense of security among users of facilities.

Immediate Outcomes 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.

Under the Strategic Component are the following activities:

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

These activities lead to the strategic outputs of:

• Strategic partnerships with key stakeholders within and outside federal government
  
• Policy instruments, research, and evaluation studies
  
• Crime prevention tools, products, and resources developed and disseminated

The strategic outputs lead to the strategic immediate outcome I: Increased understanding and knowledge by relevant stakeholders of evidence-based crime prevention.

Immediate Outcome I leads to Intermediate Outcome J: Utilization and sustainability of evidence-based strategies to prevent/reduce crime.

Intermediate Outcomes F and J lead to the Long Term Outcome H: Reduction in offending behaviours among targeted populations.

Appendix B: Bibliography

Welsh. B. C. and Farrington, D. P. (2007). Saving Children from a Life of Crime: Toward a National Strategy for Early Prevention, Victims and Offenders, 2:1, 1-20, DOI: 10.1080/15564880601087233.

Fairfax County, Virginia (2008). LRP Logic Model. Retrieved from: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/csb/services/leadership-resiliency/logic-model.pdf.

Allen, M. (2016). Police-reported Crime Statistics in Canada, 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/access_acces/alternative_alternatif.action?l=eng&loc=/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14642-eng.pdf.

Allen, M. (2016). Young Adult Offenders in Canada, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/access_acces/alternative_alternatif.action?l=eng&loc=/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14561-eng.pdf.

Allen, M. K. and Superle, T. (2016). Youth Crime in Canada, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14309-eng.htm.

Arbor Educational & Clinical Consulting Inc. (2017). SACY LRP: Year One Evaluation Report.

Blake, W. (2015). Building a Northern Evidence-based Approach to Crime Prevention Draft Steering Committee Terms of Reference.

Canadian Municipal Network on Crime Prevention (2016). Introduction. Retrieved from: http://safercities.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/CMNCP-Introduction-ENG-2016v9.pdf.

Canadian Municipal Network on Crime Prevention (2017). Parliamentary Submission to the Standing Committee on Finance House of Commons 2018 Pre-Budget Consultations. Retrieved from: http://safercities.ca/parliamentary-submission-to-the-standing-committee-on-finance-2018-pre-budget-consultations/.

Canadian Police College (2014). The Prince Albert Hub and the Emergence of Collaborative Risk-driven Community Safety, Change and Innovation in Canadian Policing. Retrieved from: http://www.cpc-ccp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/prince-albert-hub-eng.pdf.

Club Garçons et Filles de LaSalle (2017). Synthèse des Résultats Préliminaires.

Currie, J. and Roberts, T. (2015). Crime Prevention in Canada: Implementation Challenges and Strategies to Overcome Them. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r005/index-en.aspx.

Day, D.M., Koegl, C.J., Rossman, L., and Oziel, S. (2015). The Monetary Cost of Criminal Trajectories for an Ontario Sample of Offenders. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/mntry-cst-crmnl-trjctrs/index-en.aspx.

Day, D.M., Nielsen, J. D., Ward, A. K., Rosenthal, J. S., Sun, Y., Bevc, I., Duchesne, T., Rossman, L., & Samuels, S. (2012). Criminal Trajectories of Two Subsamples of Adjudicated Ontario Youths. NCPC Research Report. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/trjctrs-djdctd-yths/index-en.aspx.

Day, D.M., Wanklyn, S.G. (2012). Identification and Operationalization of the Major Risk Factors for Antisocial and Delinquent Behaviour among Children and Youth. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2012-03-adb/2012-03-adb-eng.pdf.

Department of Justice Maligaliqiyikkut (2017). Nunavut Crime Prevention Strategy Five- Year Strategy. Retrieved from: http://assembly.nu.ca/sites/default/files/TD-302-4(3)-EN-Nunavut-Crime-Prevention-Strategy.PDF.

Drapeau, S., Lessard, G., Turcotte, D., Ivers, H., Lépine, R., Tremblay, J., Vézina, M., Villatte, A. (2014) Building the Evidence Evaluation Summaries- PréCrimAdo Program. Retrieved from: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/sp-ps/PS18-14-2014-eng.pdf.

Dunbar, L. (2017). Youth Gangs in Canada: A Review of Current Topics and Issues. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2017-r001/index-en.aspx.

Farrington, D.P., Ttofi, M.M., and Loeber, R. (2014). Protective Factors Against Delinquency.

Farrington, D.P., Weisburd, D.L., and Gill, C.E. (2011). The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group: A decade in Progress. In C.J. Smith, S.X. Zhang, and R. Barberet (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of International Criminology (pp. 53-63). Chippenham, Wiltshire: Routledge.

Federal / Provincial / Territorial Working Group on Crime Prevention (2017). Federal / Provincial / Territorial Ministers of Justice and Public Safety Five-Year National Action Plan on Crime Prevention: a Mid-term Progress Report.

Fishbein, D., and Boylam, D. (1997). Washington/Baltimore HIDTA 1997 Prevention Report.

FPT Working Group on Crime Prevention (2013). Framing Paper- Advancing Evidence Based Crime Prevention and Sustainability.

Gabor, T. (2015). Costs of Crime and Criminal Justice Responses. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r022/index-en.aspx.

Government of Ontario (2012). Crime Prevention in Ontario - A Framework for Action.

Gov.UK. Home Office (2016). Modern Crime Prevention Strategy, March 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/509831/6.1770_Modern_Crime_Prevention_Strategy_final_WEB_version.pdf.

Gov.UK HM Government (2016). Ending Gang Violence and Exploitation. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/491699/Ending_gang_violence_and_Exploitation_FINAL.pdf.

Hate Crimes Community Working Group (2006). Addressing Hate Crime in Ontario: Final Report of the Hate Crimes Community Working Group to the Attorney General and the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Retrieved from: https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/hatecrimes/HCCWG_full.pdf.  

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

Justice Canada (2014). Prostitution Criminal Law Reform: Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. Retrieved from: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/c36fs_fi/.

Lacourse, É. (2012). Late Childhood Risk Factors Associated with Conduct Disorder Subtypes in Early Adolescence: A latent Class Analysis of a Canadian Sample. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/lt-chldhd/lt-chldhd-eng.pdf.

Laliberté, D. (2015). Evaluation Summary of the Atlantic Youth Inclusion Program. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r047/index-en.aspx.

Laliberté, D., Rosario, G., Léonard, L., Smith-Moncrieffe, D., and Warner, A. (2015). Results of Crime Prevention Programs for 12 to 17 Year Olds. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rslts-crm-prvntn-12-17/index-en.aspx.

Malakieh, J. (2017). Youth Correctional Statistics in Canada, 2015/2016. Retrieved from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/access_acces/alternative_alternatif.action?l=eng&loc=/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14702-eng.pdf.

McFee, D.R. and Taylor, N.E. (2014). The Prince Albert Hub and the Emergence of Collaborative Risk-driven Community Safety. Retrieved from: http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.832291/publication.html.

Mcintosh, C., & Li, J. (2012). An introduction to economic analysis in crime prevention: The why, how & so what. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/cnmc-nlss/index-en.aspx.   

Miladinovic, Z. (2016). Youth Court Statistics in Canada, 2014/2015. Retrieved from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/access_acces/alternative_alternatif.action?l=eng&loc=/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14656-eng.pdf.

National Crime Prevention Centre (2007). A Blueprint for Effective Crime Prevention. Retrieved from: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2009/sp-ps/PS4-44-2007E.pdf.

National Crime Prevention Centre (2008). Promising and Model Crime Prevention Programs. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/prmsng-mdl-vlm1/index-en.aspx.

National Crime Prevention Centre (2012). Guide to Select Promising and Model Crime Prevention Programs - 2012. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/gd-slct-prmsng-mdl-2012/index-en.aspx.

National Crime Prevention Centre (2012). Implementation Fact Sheets on Promising and Model Crime Prevention Programs - 2012. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/mplmnttn-fct-shts-2012/index-en.aspx.

National Crime Prevention Centre, Community Safety and Partnerships Branch – Public Safety (2011). Performance Measurement Strategy for the 2011 Youth Gang Prevention Fund.

National Crime Prevention Centre, Community Safety and Partnerships Branch - Public Safety (2011). Performance Measurement Strategy for the Communities at Risk: Security Infrastructure Program (SIP).

Nilson, C. (2017). Collaborative Risk-Driven Intervention: Technology-Enabled Opportunities in Rural & Remote Communities a Pilot Project Plan. Retrieved from: https://www.usask.ca/cfbsjs/documents/TechEnabledHubsPilotProjectFINAL.pdf.  

Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime (2016). Annual Report 2015- 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.victimsfirst.gc.ca/res/pub/ar1516-ra1516/index.html.

Ontario Provincial Police (2015). Ontario's Mobilization and Engagement Model of Community Policing. Retrieved from: https://www.opp.ca/index.php?&lng=en&id=115&entryid=56b798218f94aca25828d18f.

Public Safety (2009). Supporting the Successful Implementation of the National Crime Prevention Strategy. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/spprtng-mplmtn/spprtng-mplmtn-eng.pdf.

Public Safety (2011). Promising and Model Crime Prevention Programs Volume II. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/prmsng-mdl-vlm2/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2012). A Statistical Snapshot of Youth at Risk and Youth Offending in Canada. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ststclsnpsht-yth/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2012). Building the Evidence- Evaluation Summaries Durham Youth Gang Strategy. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/drhm-strtgy/drhm-strtgy-eng.pdf.

Public Safety (2012). Building the Evidence- Evaluation Summaries Gang Prevention Strategy.  Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/gng-prvntn-strtgy/gng-prvntn-strtgy-eng.pdf.

Public Safety (2012). Building the Evidence- Evaluation Summaries- L'Allié: A multimodal approach to remedy behavioural problems and prevent violence in schools. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cn000042059469-eng.pdf.

Public Safety (2012). Building the Evidence- Evaluation Summaries- Regina Anti-Gang Services. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rgn-nt-gng/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2012). Building the Evidence- Evaluation Summaries- The Surrey Wraparound: A Youth Driven Plan for Gang Violence Prevention. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/srr-wrprnd/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2012). Building the Evidence- Evaluation Summaries- Winnipeg Youth Gang Prevention Fund. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/wnnpg-prvntn/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2012). Building the Evidence- Evaluation Summaries- Youth Advocate Program. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/yth-dvct/yth-dvct-eng.pdf.

Public Safety (2012). Building the Evidence- Evaluation Summaries- Youth Alliance Against Gang Violence. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/yth-llnc/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2012). Building the Evidence- Evaluation Summaries- Youth At Risk Development. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/yth-rsk-dvlpmnt/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2012). Harper government announces additional support for crime prevention in Alberta [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/nws-rlss/2012/20120810-en.aspx.  

Public Safety (2012). Harper government helps keep our communities safe by tackling crime - Abbotsford [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/nws-rlss/2012/20120913-3-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2012). Harper Government is making a difference for African Nova Scotian children and youth [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/nws-rlss/2012/20120226-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2012). Harper Government launches next phase of Youth Gang Prevention Program [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/nws-rlss/2012/20120221-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2012). Harper Government supports Calgary in fight against gangs [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/nws-rlss/2012/20121011-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2012). Harper Government supports Nova Scotia communities in fight against crime [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/nws-rlss/2012/20121215-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2012). Harper Government supports Toronto in fight against gangs and violence [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/nws-rlss/2012/20120927-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2012). Minister Toews speaks to Chamber of Commerce on tackling gang and youth crime, and supporting victims [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/nws-rlss/2012/20120718-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2012). Research Matters: A General Overview of Economic Analyses in Crime Prevention Summary. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/vrv-cnmc-nlss/index-en.aspx.  

Public Safety (2012). Research Matters: Criminal Trajectories of Ontario Adjudicated Youths. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/trjctrs-djdctd-yths/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2012). Research Summary: The Spatial Distribution of Police-Reported Youth Crime in Toronto. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/dstrbtn-yth-crm/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2012). Risk Factors Associated with Conduct Disorder. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/cndct-dsrdr/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2012). The Harper Government supports communities in fight against crime [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/nws-rlss/2012/20120820-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2013). 2012- 13 Departmental Performance Report.

Public Safety (2013). 2012- 2013 Evaluation of the Crime Prevention Program Final Report.

Public Safety (2013). 2012- 2013 Report on Plans and Priorities.

Public Safety (2013). Building the Evidence- Evaluation Summaries- Results from the Stop Now and Plan (SNAP) Program. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rslts-stp-nwpln/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2013). Building the Evidence- Evaluation Summaries- Results from the Towards No Drug Abuse (TND). Project Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rslts-twrds-ndrg-bs/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2013). Building the Evidence- Evaluation Summaries- Results from the Youth Inclusion Program- Atlantic Canada. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-s047/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2013). Building the Evidence Evaluation Summaries- Prevention Intervention Toronto (PIT). Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/prvntn-ntrvntn-trnt/prvntn-ntrvntn-trnt-eng.pdf.

Public Safety (2013). Building the Evidence Evaluation Summaries- Results from the Alternative Suspension (AS) Program. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rslts-ltrntv-sspnsn-prgrm/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2013). Building the Evidence: Evaluation Summaries Results from the Multisystemic Therapy Program. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rslts-mltsystmc-thrpy-prgrm/rslts-mltsystmc-thrpy-prgrm-eng.pdf.

Public Safety (2013). Government of Canada helps protect communities targeted by hate crimes in Hamilton [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/nws-rlss/2013/20130122-en.aspx.  

Public Safety (2013). Government of Canada helps protect communities targeted by hate crimes in Toronto [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/nws-rlss/2013/20130124-en.aspx.  

Public Safety (2013). Government of Canada launches next call for applications for the Security Infrastructure Program [News Released]. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/nws-rlss/2013/20130211-en.aspx.  

Public Safety (2013). Government of Canada supports Alberta community in fight against crime [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/nws-rlss/2013/20130118-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2013). Harper Government helps fight hate crime in Hamilton [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/nws-rlss/2013/20130709-1-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2013). Harper Government helps fight hate crime in London [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/nws-rlss/2013/20130709-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2013). Harper Government supports Scarborough in fight against gangs [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/nws/nws-rlss/2013/20130710-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2013). Ministerial Priorities Reference Document on Advancing Evidence-Based Crime Prevention.

Public Safety (2013). Stop Now and Plan (SNAP) Projects. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/snp/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2014). 2013- 14 Departmental Performance Report.

Public Safety (2014). 2014- 14 Report on Plans and Priorities.

Public Safety (2014). Building the Evidence Evaluation Summaries- The Achievers: Positive Alternatives to Youth Gangs (PAYG). Retrieved from: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/sp-ps/PS18-19-2014-eng.pdf.

Public Safety (2014). Federal Government helps Nova Scotia in fight against crime [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2014/04/federal-government-helps-nova-scotia-fight-against-crime.html.

Public Safety (2014). Government of Canada launches next call for applications for the Security Infrastructure Program [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2014/02/government-canada-launches-next-call-applications-security-infrastructure-program.html.

Public Safety (2014). Government of Canada supports PEI in fight against crime [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2014/01/government-canada-supports-pei-fight-against-crime.html.

Public Safety (2014). Harper Government helps Edmonton combat crime [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2014/01/harper-government-helps-edmonton-combat-crime.html.

Public Safety (2014). Harper Government helps Kamloops in fight against crime [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2014/10/harper-government-helps-kamloops-fight-against-crime.html.

Public Safety (2014). Harper Government Invests in Crime Prevention Projects in Nova Scotia [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2014/08/harper-government-invests-crime-prevention-projects-nova-scotia.html.

Public Safety (2014). Harper Government reaches out to at-risk youth in Pikangikum First Nation [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2014/02/harper-government-reaches-out-risk-youth-pikangikum-first-nation.html.

Public Safety (2014). Harper Government supports Maskwacis community in fight against gang violence [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2014/01/harper-government-supports-maskwacis-community-fight-against-gang-violence.html.

Public Safety (2015). 2014- 15 Departmental Performance Report.

Public Safety (2015). 2014- 15 Report on Plans and Priorities.

Public Safety (2015). Harper Government addresses gang violence in Surrey [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2015/05/harper-government-addresses-gang-violence-surrey.html.

Public Safety (2015). Harper Government addresses violence and bullying with youth in the Cowichan Valley [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2015/04/harper-government-addresses-violence-bullying-youth-cowichan-valley.html.

Public Safety (2015). Harper Government announces support for youth crime prevention and addiction services in Sydney, Nova Scotia [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2015/06/harper-government-announces-support-youth-crime-prevention-addiction-services-sydney-nova-scotia.html.

Public Safety (2015). Harper Government helps Edmonton at-risk youth and their families [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2015/05/harper-government-helps-edmonton-risk-youth-their-families.html.

Public Safety (2015). Harper Government teaches Chilliwack at-risk youth to lead [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2015/02/harper-government-teaches-chilliwack-risk-youth-lead.html.

Public Safety (2015). Research Division Knowledge Dissemination Strategy.

Public Safety (2015). Research Summary- Implementation of Crime Prevention Programs. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rsrch-smmr-mplmntn-crm-prvntn-prgrms/rsrch-smmr-mplmntn-crm-prvntn-prgrms-en.pdf.

Public Safety (2015). Research Summary- Monetary Cost of Criminal Trajectories. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/mntry-cst-crmnl-trjctrs/smmry-en.pdf.

Public Safety (2015). Research Summary- Results of Crime Prevention Programs for 12 to 17 Year Olds. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rslts-crm-prvntn-12-17/smmry-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2015). Research Summary: Costs of Crime and Criminal Justice Responses. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-s022/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2015). Research Summary: Crime Prevention in Canada: Implementation Challenges and Strategies to Overcome Them. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r005/2015-r005-smmry-en.pdf.

Public Safety (2015). Research Summary: Summary of the Atlantic Youth Inclusion Program Evaluation. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-s047/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2015). Research Division Knowledge Dissemination Strategy.  

Public Safety (2016). 2015- 16 Departmental Performance Report.

Public Safety (2016). 2015- 16 Report on Plans and Priorities.

Public Safety (2016). Government of Canada provides support to youth in Prince Edward Island [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2016/11/government-canada-provides-support-youth-prince-edward-island.html.

Public Safety (2016). Research Summary- Tyler's Troubled Life. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2016-s005/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2016). Tyler's Troubled Life: The Story of One Young Man's Path Towards a Life of Crime. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2016-r005/2016-r005-en.pdf.

Public Safety (2017). 2016- 17 Report on Plans and Priorities.

Public Safety (2017). Community Resilience Fund. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/bt/cc/fnd-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2017). Crime Prevention Action Fund: Measures to Support Exiting Prostitution. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/crm-prvntn/fndng-prgrms/crm-prvntn-ctn-fnd-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2017). Crime Prevention Related Presentations 2012 – 2017.

Public Safety (2017). Evaluation 2017: Crime Prevention Policy: Key Policy Documents.

Public Safety (2017). Evaluation and Research Consultants.

Public Safety (2017). Funding announced for expansion of Circles of Support and Accountability model across Canada [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2017/05/funding_announcedforexpansionofcirclesofsupportandaccountability.html.

Public Safety (2017). Funding doubled to help communities protect themselves against hate-motivated crimes [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2017/04/funding_doubled_tohelpcommunitiesprotectthemselvesagainsthate-mo.html.

Public Safety (2017). Government of Canada helps communities at risk protect themselves from hate-motivated crimes by contributing to increased security at mosque in Newfoundland and Labrador [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2017/08/government_of_canadahelpscommunitiesatriskprotectthemselvesfromh.html.

Public Safety (2017). Government of Canada provides support to youth in Saskatoon [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2017/05/government_of_canadaprovidessupporttoyouthinsaskatoon.html.

Public Safety (2017). Government of Canada provides support to youth in Vancouver [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2017/06/government_of_canadaprovidessupporttoyouthinvancouver.html.

Public Safety (2017). Government of Canada supports Project Venture, a youth crime prevention project in Clearwater River Dene Nation and La Loche, Saskatchewan [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2017/07/government_of_canadasupportsprojectventureayouthcrimepreventionp.html.

Public Safety (2017). Government of Canada supports the Blue Door Program in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador [News Release]. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2017/08/government_of_canadasupportsthebluedoorprograminstjohnsnewfoundl.html.

Public Safety (2017). Info Source: Sources of Federal Government and Employee Information. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/nfsrc-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2017). List of All Funded Projects 2012- 2017.

Public Safety (2017). List of Project Evaluation Studies.

Public Safety (2017). National Crime Prevention Strategy Corporate Evaluation 2017 Preliminary Documents for Consultant.

Public Safety (2017). NCPS Sponsored Events (2012 to 2017).

Public Safety (2017). Research Summary- Youth Gangs in Canada: A Review of Current Topics and Issues. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2017-s001/index-en.aspx.

Public Safety (2017). SORACOM Solutions de rechange et acquisition de compétences Approche Wraparound.

Public Safety (2017). Statistics on Crime Prevention publications from April 1, 2016 to August 28, 2017.

SACY (2016). SACY Leadership & Resiliency Program (LRP) Policy & Procedures Manual.

SACY LRP Team (2016). SACY Leadership Resiliency Program (LRP): Curriculum.

Savignac, J. and Dunbar, L. (2014). Guide on the Implementation of Evidence-Based Programs: What Do We Know So Far? Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/gd-mplmnttn-vdnc-prgrms/index-en.aspx.

Savignac, J. and Dunbar, L. (2015). Guide for Selection an Effective Crime Prevention Program. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/gd-slctng-ffctv-prgrm/index-en.aspx.

Smith-Moncrieffe, D. (2013). Youth Gang Prevention Fund Projects: What Did We Learn About What Works in Preventing Gang Involvement? Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/yth-gng-prvntn-fnd/yth-gng-prvntn-fnd-eng.pdf.

Smith-Moncrieffe, D. (2015). Final Program Evaluation Towards No Drug Abuse. Retrieved from: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r010/index-en.aspx.

Soracom (2017). Approche WrapAround.

Soracom (2017). L'histoire d'Éric.

Statistics Canada (2017). Juristat. Retrieved from: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/index-eng.htm.

Status of Women Canada (2017). What is GBA+?. Retrieved from: http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/gba-acs/index-en.html.

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

Thibault, C. (2017). Prévention de l'adhésion aux gangs de rue - L'expérience des jeunes participants.

Date modified:

2022-07-21