ARCHIVE - 2009-2010 Evaluation of the Security Infrastructure Program (Pilot)

RCHIVE - 2009-2010 Evaluation of the Security Infrastructure Program (Pilot) PDF Version (170 KB)

Executive Summary

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

What we examined

The Security Infrastructure Program is a three-year, $3 million pilot program that provides up to $100,000 in matching funds to not-for-profit organizations linked to a community at risk of hate-motivated crime. Projects within the Security Infrastructure Program can take place over a multi-year period, with project activities clearly outlined for each fiscal year, subject to the maximum contribution of $100,000 per project. The Security Infrastructure Program provides assistance for the installation or upgrade of minor security infrastructure at eligible institutions. Eligible institutions include: provincially recognized educational institutions, places of worship, and community centres. Public and private for-profit organizations are not eligible. Only communities that have a demonstrated history of being victimized by hate-motivated crime are eligible.

The Pilot Program is designed to fill a funding void. In order to avoid duplication in funding, an organization is eligible to receive Security Infrastructure Program funding if no other financial support from either the municipal or the provincial levels of government is received for the project. The maximum level of total government assistance cannot exceed 50% of the eligible project costs up to a maximum contribution of $100,000.

Why it is important

The Security Infrastructure Program is a relevant program insofar as it serves the crime prevention priority of the Government of Canada and responds directly to the mandate of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. This program serves communities at risk of hate-motivated crime.

What we found

The experience of the pilot years shows us that there are significant numbers of Canadians, who believe that they need protection from hate crime. The numbers of applications received in the initial years is additional evidence that there is a need for the Program.

Assisting communities with the cost of minor security infrastructure helps Public Safety Canada fulfil its broad mandate of contributing to the safety and security of Canadians, and in particular, Canadians at risk of hate-motivated crime.

If the Program evolves beyond the pilot phase, it will be possible to examine its effectiveness in achieving its intended results. Ultimately, the Program was meant to have a positive impact on public safety and an increased sense of security in communities at risk of hate-motivated crime.

Overall, recipients thus far have reported an increased sense of security amongst community members. In a very limited number of cases, hate-motivated incidents have occurred following the security enhancements. Recipients have also reported that the upgrades have contributed to reducing the severity of these incidents.

The projects that received funding during the initial two years of the Pilot Program (the first year was a truncated year) did not exceed the Program’s budget allocation, within that initial timeframe.  However, as the Program became more widely known, the number of eligible applications and requested funding as part of those applications exceeded the $3 million commitment associated with the Pilot Program.  As budgets are necessarily finite, improved procedures and the ability to rank proposed projects (rather then meets or does not meet criteria) will be required by which to apportion the available funds. 

Recommendation

If the Program is formalized, and based on key findings and conclusions contained in this report, the Evaluation Directorate recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, ensure that the Security Infrastructure Program:

• Develop a process by which to rank order applications such that decision-makers can prioritize and allocate resources based on the projects that most closely correspond to Security Infrastructure Program criteria. The gathering and analysis of the following information is recommended:
• score each request in terms of the urgency and risks for the provision of security infrastructure; and,
• include location of hate crimes cited as evidence of the risk associated with the location to be security enhanced. A rating scale that takes into account the geographical proximity, relative to the location to receive enhanced security, of the hate-crime citations would be a useful addition to the rating procedure.

1. Introduction

This is the 2009-2010 Evaluation of the Security Infrastructure Program (Pilot). This evaluation provides Canadians, parliamentarians, Ministers, central agencies and the Deputy Minister of Public Safety Canada an evidence-based, neutral assessment of the value for money, (i.e. relevance and performance) of this federal government program.

2. Profile

2.1 Background

The Security Infrastructure Program (SIP) pilot phase started in July 2007 and ends September 30, 2010. Up to $3 million has been made available during the Pilot. The Pilot Program provides up to $100,000 in matching funds to not-for-profit organizations linked to a community at risk of hate-motivated crime. Projects within the Program can take place over a multi-year period, with project activities clearly outlined for each fiscal year, subject to the maximum contribution of $100,000 per project. SIP provides assistance for the upgrade or installation of minor security infrastructure at eligible institutions. Eligible institutions include: provincially recognized educational institutions, places of worship, and community centres. Public and private for-profit organizations are not eligible. Only communities that have a demonstrated history of being victimized by hate-motivated crime are eligible.

The Pilot Program was designed to fill a funding void. In order to avoid duplication in funding, an organization is eligible to receive SIP funding if no other financial support from either the municipal or the provincial levels of government is received for the project. The maximum level of total government assistance cannot exceed 50% of the eligible project costs up to a maximum contribution of $100,000.

Eligible expenditures include:

• minor construction related to the project (contractor fees, labour, equipment rental, installation fees);
• security assessments (report and consultation fees) not to exceed 25% of the total project cost;
• security equipment and hardware costs including alarm systems, closed-circuit television systems and monitors, fences, gates, bollards, lighting, security film for windows, intercom systems, public announcement systems and radios, inspection and screening equipment; and,
• training costs for the use of new security equipment.

These costs must be recognized as necessary to accomplish the objectives of an eligible project.

The following are not eligible expenses under the SIP:

• capital costs, such as land, construction of new buildings, vehicles;
• hospitality;
• core or ongoing operating expenses related to the project, including maintenance;
• travel; and,
• profit, defined as an excess of revenues over expenditures.

2.2 Program Objectives

SIP has as three program objectives:

• increased physical security for eligible funded premises;
• a greater sense of security for communities at risk; and,
• a better understanding of the links between security measures and prevention of hate-motivated crime.

The first two are to be achieved by means of increased awareness of the existence of the Program and the use of the Program. The third is to be achieved through lessons learned from the application review process, monitoring and the evaluation of completed projects; it is reflected through enhancements to program delivery and capacity building amongst program staff.

Together these are expected to lead to improved security for communities at risk of hate-motivated crimes. The broader result will be a safer, more secure Canadian society (a safer Canada).

2.3 Stakeholders and Beneficiaries

The focal recipients of SIP are the not-for-profit organizations linked to a community with a demonstrated history of being victimized by hate-motivated crime whose physical structures receive enhanced security. The physical structures identified with these groups include places of worship, and provincially recognized educational institutions - including primary and secondary schools and early childhood education centers and community centers. The Canadian population is a beneficiary in that parts of this larger, all-inclusive population are served by SIP and because those who are not key stakeholders benefit by virtue of (a) the avoidance of collateral damage and (b) the well-being of their fellow Canadians. These benefits contribute to a safer, more secure Canadian society.

The Citizen Engagement Division, part of the Intergovernmental Affairs and Citizen Engagement Directorate within the Strategic Policy Branch of Public Safety Canada, delivers SIP nationally. The Citizen Engagement Division has reached out to partners, such as the police (especially the hate-crime units) and umbrella organizations for assistance in better understanding the situation in communities targeted by hate-motivated crimes and to increase awareness of the SIP in those communities.

2.4 Resources

During the three years of the SIP pilot, $3 million will have been allocated for contributions to projects that met the program eligibility criteria.

2.5 Program Theory

Figure 1 presents the logic flow of the program theory on which the Security Infrastructure Project is based. The rationale is as follows: the program will reduce the incidence of hate crimes by means of increased security at eligible physical structures (such as places of worship and meeting places associated with hate-target groups) and this will result in an increased sense of security for those targeted by hate-motivated crimes and for Canadian society as a whole.

The program theory is supported by the Situational Crime Prevention Strategy. The basic three premises of situation crime prevention are to: reduce the opportunity for crime; increase the risk of detection; and, reduce the rewards for crime.1 Measures placing barriers (e.g. fences, locks, etc.) reduce opportunities by making it harder for crimes to take place. Measures like surveillance cameras and lighting increase the likelihood of perpetrators being caught.

In addition, the requirements of the application process (e.g. letters of support from the community and from the local police services) as well as the reporting requirements (e.g. surveys) increase the awareness of issues related to hate-motivated crime amongst law enforcement and the larger community. Policing services will have been sensitized to acts of hate crimes and therefore will be more able and likely to recognize them when they are occurring.

Together, it is expected that enhanced physical security and increased awareness of the issue should decrease the incidence of hate-motivated crimes. The argument is that communities at risk accept the theory that enhanced security reduces incidents of hate crime. If the members of the target population in the community know that security has been enhanced, then it is expected that they will experience an increased sense of security.

The theory is that increase in the knowledge of what works to increase physical security will improve the understanding of the links between security measures and the prevention of hate-motivated crime. Such knowledge increases are expected to be acquired through: the study of project submission documentation, internal program discussions, and by monitoring results after measures are in place.

3 Focus of the evaluation

3.1 Evaluation Objectives

This Evaluation supports:

• accountability to Parliament and Canadians by helping the Government to credibly report on the results achieved with resources invested in this progran;
• the Deputy Minister of Public Safety Canada in managing for results by informing him about whether this program is producing the outcomes that it was designed to produce, at an affordable cost; and,
• policy and program improvements.

3.2 Evaluation Issues

As required by the Directive on the Evaluation Function, the evaluation addresses the following five core issues:

• continued need for SIP
• alignment with governmental priorities
• alignment with federal roles and responsibilities
• achievement of expected outcomes
• demonstration of efficiency and economy

3.3 Approach

Assessment of the achievement of intermediate, ultimate outcomes and effectiveness of a program requires that the program has stabilized its intentions and its procedures and that it has operated as a mature program for sufficient time that at least the initial intended results have had time to be realized.

A commitment to evaluate SIP in 2009-2010 was made in 2007 at the time of the proposal to establish, on a pilot basis, the Security Infrastructure Program (SIP). The first full operational year for SIP has benefited the recipients of the first intake of applications for a little more than a year. Consequently, the focus of this evaluation is the Program’s ability to monitor its operational effectiveness and produce the intended outputs.

This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Standard on Evaluation for the Government of Canada and resulting standards of the Evaluation Directorate of Public Safety Canada. To assess the evaluation issues and questions, the following lines of evidence were used:

• interviews with program officers;
• review of incidence rates for hate-related crime;
• document review - examination of the project files;
• document review - examination of a sample of recipients’ reports; and,
• database review - examination of the database maintained by the Program;

4. Findings

4.1 Relevance

4.1.1 A Significant Proportion of Hate Crimes Target Property

This program began in response to a request for help from an organization2 representing a segment of the Canadian population that was experiencing hate crime and which sought assistance to protect itself.

The vast majority of hate crimes resulted from one of three primary motivations. The most common of these was race or ethnicity, which accounted for about six in ten incidents in 2007, followed by religion (24%) and sexual orientation (10%). These proportions were similar to those reported by police in 2006. Among racially motivated hate crimes, Blacks continued to be targeted most often, although the number of such incidents, nationally, declined from 238 in 2006 to 154 in 2007. There was also a notable decline in reported incidents against Arabs and West Asians. Police reported fewer incidents that targeted Jewish and Muslim communities. Despite the decrease, incidents targeting the Jewish community continued to account for about two-thirds of all reported hate crimes motivated by religion.

By far the most common type of hate crime was mischief, including acts of graffiti or vandalism of public property, accounting for roughly half of all incidents each year. Minor assaults (14%) and uttering threats (8%), in which little to no physical harm was caused to the victim, were the most common types of violent hate-crime offences. There was one homicide motivated by hate in 2007. Since 1991, there have been a total of 23 hate-motivated homicides in Canada or about one incident per year.

The 2006 Statistics Canada report, Hate Crime in Canada, presents the most recent information on the extent of hate crime in Canada. The study was based on two data sources. The primary source was A Hate Crime Supplemental Survey, 2006, which found that Canadian police services (covering 87% of the population) reported 892 hate-motivated crimes. They report that strangers rather than persons known to victims commit most violent hate crimes.

The secondary source of data was the 2004 General Social Survey3, which indicated that the psychological impacts of crime tend to be more severe when the incident is motivated by hate.

Hate Crime in Canada defined hate crimes as “criminal offences that are motivated by hate towards an identifiable group. The incident may target race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor, such as profession or political beliefs. These types of offences are unique in that they not only affect those who may be specifically targeted by the perpetrator, but they often indirectly impact entire communities.” This study reported that, in 2006, property crime constituted 51.5% of the hate crimes; the remainder were violent crime (36.7%) and other criminal violations (11.8%). Even though SIP is focused on preventing property crime, it may have some secondary impact on other categories of crime as well.

Table 1 shows the numbers of hate crimes, by type of motivation (religion, visible minority, religious orientation), for specific years. For the two most recent years, 2006‑2007 and 2007-2008, there were, respectively, 892 and 785 reported hate crimes. Once SIP has been in place as a mature program for several years, it will be possible to examine the trend data for hate crime in districts that vary in terms of the amount of support that has been given. It will be important to examine the statistics within geographical areas supported by SIP and not just the undifferentiated national data.

However, a few elements need to be considered when assessing the impact of the SIP against data. First, the incidence of hate-motivated crimes may be influenced by a wide variety of factors, including domestic and international events. In addition, findings from the General Social survey, which collects data from Canadians, who report having been victimized by a hate crime, indicate that only about 40% of hate crimes had been reported to the police.

*This table is a sub-set of a Statistics Canada table.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/090513/t090513c2-eng.htm, November 4, 2007.4

The evaluation notes that the number of hate crimes reported to police might not in itself reflect the full extent of the hate crimes in Canada, as some crimes might not get reported to the police or not be consistently reported. These figures may however serve as an indication, which may be supplemented by additional sources.

4.1.2 Support of Communities and Victims is a Government Priority

The SIP objectives are well linked to the priorities of the federal government. The Speech from Throne on November 19, 2008, stated that:

“Canadians look to governments to ensure that the justice system is working effectively and that Canadians are safe. Our Government will take tough action against crime and work with partners to improve the administration of justice. Serious offences will be met with serious penalties. Legal provisions will be strengthened in key areas, such as youth crime, organized crime and gang violence.”

Together with the following quotation from the 2007 Speech from the Throne:

“In addition to tougher laws, our government will provide targeted support to communities and victims.”

Additionally, the SIP objectives are directly linked to the strategic outcome of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, that is: a safe and resilient Canada.

The priority position of SIP was expressed by the Minister of Public Safety, who in a press conference in Toronto, May 10, 2009, said:

“Canadians deserve to feel safe in their communities. By extending this pilot program for an additional year, many more organizations from communities at-risk will be able to benefit from security infrastructure improvements.”

The Minister for Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism recently said. "There are some communities by their very nature that are targets of hate-inspired violence and threats," … "Those communities that have to spend more than others to protect themselves from hate-inspired violence; we'll be there to support their provision of security to their members."

“The Government of Canada is committed to promoting diversity and equality within our communities,” said the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas). “Hate crimes are cowardly acts that are never justified. The funding announced today will help a vulnerable community to better protect itself and create a secure environment for its members.”

 As a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Canada committed to combating hate crimes. Canada is also a party to the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which provides that States “shall declare an offence punishable by law all [...] incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin”

The design and focus of SIP is congruent with the role and responsibility of the federal government. Potential jurisdictional conflict is avoided by ensuring that an organization is eligible to receive SIP funding if no other financial support either from the municipal or provincial levels of government is received for the project.

4.2 Performance

4.2.1 Early Feedback Shows Progress in Meeting Program Objectives

After completion of the security upgrades, funding recipients are required to provide three reports: Activity Report, Financial Report, and Evaluation Report. Overall, recipients have completed the activities as per the terms of the contribution agreements and within the approved budget.

The Evaluation Reports needed to include information regarding how the project contributed to reducing the number of incidents and to increasing the sense of security and well-being amongst staff.

With respect to the number of incidents, most recipients reported that there were no new incidents following the installation of the security upgrades. Only a handful of recipients reported incidents, including under the following circumstances:

• one recipient reported a pellet gun incident, during which the window laminates protected the window from shattering and the pellets from penetrating through the windows;
• another recipient reported that the footage from a surveillance camera was shared with law enforcement following a hate-crime incident; and,
• because of close monitoring of a surveillance camera system, another recipient was able to contact the police in time to prevent a hate-motivated crime from taking place.

Recipients gather information related to the sense of security of users through tools such as surveys or board meeting discussions. For instance, one recipient conducted a survey, which concluded that: “Over 70% of respondents agree or strongly agree that the steps taken have directly increased the security of the children while at school. Fifteen (15%) were neutral and less than 10% disagreed.”

Also resulting from a survey, another recipient reported that: “Our parents and teachers feel that the students, staff and visitors are safer. There is now a deterrent to keep intruders from gaining access.”

Finally, another recipient reported that: “Our member families, staff members and visitors to the building are aware of the security improvements and resulting infrastructure upgrades. As a result, an increased sense of safety is apparent amongst staff members and those who frequent the synagogue building.”

4.2.2 Outreach Activities are Successful

As part of the pilot, SIP program officers contacted ‘umbrella’ groups representative of segments of the target population and a number of police agencies with hate crime units and then held information sessions to increase awareness of the SIP and assist potential applicants with the application process.

During the first intake, program officers held a cycle of information sessions in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. In the second intake, five cities were visited and, in the third intake, nine cities were visited. Montreal, Edmonton, Halifax and Winnipeg were visited at least twice during these three intakes. Eight other cities were each visited once. Table 2, lists the cities visited during each intake. Cities are selected through information gathered from different sources; it includes both statistical data and information obtained through on-site sources, such as police forces and community representatives.

In addition to city visits, the program has sent information about the program to a high number of interested stakeholders, including Parliamentarians, municipalities, and law enforcement.

It is possible to compare the cities visited in the first three years of outreach with the number of SIP applications from each city. (Table A2, in Appendix A). The vast bulk of the applications have come from five cities (Montreal, 124; Toronto, 73; Edmonton, 21; Calgary. 16, Winnipeg 12). Of the four cities visited twice, one (Halifax) had very few applications. Of the eight cities visited once, two (Toronto and Calgary) had many applications. Table 3, indicates the number of visits to each city. It appears that the number of visits had only a weak relationship to the number of applications. This can be explained by a variety of possible factors, such as a certain lack of trust in authority and a lack of resources.

Further, outreach sessions had a significant effect in the quality of applications received. It also contributed to establishing an increased level of trust between the potential applicants and program staff.

4.2.3 An Effective Application Process Established

SIP accepts applicants from all geographical location across Canada. Applications that are received are screened and reviewed. A sub-set is recommended for contribution funding. The recipients are required to report on the results associated with the support they have received.

Projects were assessed against the following selection criteria: 

• the extent to which the project would be in keeping with, and directly support and advance the objectives of the pilot program;
• the capacity of the applicant to develop, implement, manage, monitor, document and evaluate activities within the specified timeframe and budget;
• the capacity of the organization to maintain any equipment or infrastructure proposed under the project;
• the level of support from the community;
• the quality and scope of the evaluation component;
• the project’s overall viability, including whether expenses outlined in the proposal are reasonable as well as the period of time required to undertake the project (though a statement of support from local law enforcement is not mandatory, it would assist in the assessment of a project’s overall viability);
• the history of the organization with regard to victimization by hate-motivated crime5; and,
• an overall assessment of all of the proposed projects to ensure that a diversity of organizations and types of projects are chosen, as well as a number of projects from areas with a higher frequency of hate-motivated crime.

The process for reviewing applications across the three intakes was adapted and improved over time in light of the lessons learned from the previous application intake. It included the following steps:

1. The program staff reviews the applications for eligibility. This includes elements such as whether the application is complete and whether the organization is an eligible recipient. At this stage, clarifications may have been requested from the applicants.
2. Following this first step, the program staff does a preliminary assessment of the file against the selection criteria.
3. Using the preliminary assessment completed by the program staff, the Project Review Committee (PRC) reviews the eligible projects in detail against the selection criteria and makes recommendations for funding. For the three intakes, the PRC was comprised of members from Public Safety Canada, including the National Crime Prevention Centre, the Ottawa Police Service hate crime unit, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

4.2.4 Number of Approved Applications Increasing

Table 4 illustrates the increase in the number of applications and of approved projects by intake. Of the 117 applications received for the first application intake, only 21% of the applications were deemed complete. Of these, 12 projects were approved totalling approximately $0.31 million. In the second intake, 75% of submissions were complete and 46 were approved for funding; the successful applications were awarded roughly $1.2 million. For the third intake, 76% of the applications were complete and 43 have thus far been approved for funding totalling approximately $0.84 million. Furthermore, 46 other projects have met the criteria for funding as part of the third intake with total funding adding to $1.3 million. A decision on which projects to support is pending as supporting all 46 projects would exceed the $3 million envelope associated with this program (i.e. would total $3.6 million).

The significant increase in the quality of applications is largely due to the community outreach efforts of the Program.  

* Please note that the number of approved projects and funding listed in this table does not take into account the 46 projects that meet program criteria for funding and are pending approval.

Of the approved projects, slightly more than half of the contributions were for $25,000 or less, and about 80% were for $50,000 or less (Table 5).

4.2.5 Lessons Learned

Across the application intake, the Project Review Committee refined its recommendations as to security measures should be recommended for funding. By the third intake, the PRC was making more informed decisions in identifying security measures to deter hate-motivated crimes while ensuring value for money.

Examples of the decisions include:

• the PRC will not recommend adding “dummy cameras” as they are believed to create a false sense of safety;
• the PRC will usually recommend only the outdoor cameras, unless there is a specific reason for indoor cameras (e.g. to monitor the area where the sacred texts can be found);
• sufficient lighting is essential to an efficient surveillance system;
• chain-link fences are preferable to fences that obstruct the view, as the later could provide privacy to commit hate crimes; and,
• applicants are encouraged to take into account the approach of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED).

These lessons learned will be used in revising the eligible expenditures and application guides should the program be renewed.

5.0 Conclusions

Relevance

The experience of the start-up years shows that there is a significant number of Canadians, who believe that they need protection from hate crime. The number of requests submitted throughout the three-year Pilot Program is additional evidence of the reality that there is a need for the Program.

By assisting communities with the cost of minor security infrastructure, Public Safety Canada responds to its broad mandate to contribute to the safety and security of Canadians, and in particular, Canadians at risk of hate-motivated crime. This program is designed to enhance protection in the buildings most central to their community life: schools, places of worship, community centres and so forth.

The Security Infrastructure Program is aligned the priorities of the federal government and with federal roles and responsibilities specifically as mandated for Public Safety Canada.

Performance

Early feedback from funding recipients shows that the Pilot Program is meeting its objectives. If the program evolves beyond the pilot phase, it will be possible to examine its effectiveness in achieving its intermediate and long-term objectives. Ultimately, the Program must demonstrate a positive impact on public safety and an increased sense of safety in communities at risk of hate-motivated crime.

This evaluation report has provided an assessment of a pilot program in its infancy stage. Generally, assessments have been positive; however, it is somewhat too soon to assess the extent of SIP’s value for money.

It should be noted that prior to 2009-2010, important changes to the Program structure were taking place and the very existence of the Program was being brought to the awareness of the client populations.

The projects that received funding during the initial two years of the Pilot Program (the first year was a truncated year) did not exceed the Program’s budget allocation, within that initial timeframe. However, as the Program became more widely known, the number of eligible applications and requested funding as part of those applications exceeded the $3 million commitment associated with the Pilot Program. As budgets are necessarily finite improved procedures and the ability to rank proposed projects (rather then meets or does not meet criteria) will be required by which to apportion the available funds. 

6.0 Recommendations

If the Program is formalized, and based on key findings and conclusions contained in this report, the Evaluation Directorate recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, ensure that the Security Infrastructure Program:

• Develop a process by which to rank order applications such that decision-makers can prioritize and allocate resources based on the projects that most closely correspond to Security Infrastructure Program criteria. The gathering and analysis of the following information is recommended:
• score each request in terms of the urgency and risks for the provision of security infrastructure; and,
• include location of hate crimes cited as evidence of the risk associated with the location to be security enhanced. A rating scale that takes into account the geographical proximity, relative to the location to receive enhanced security, of the hate-crime citations would be a useful addition to the rating procedure.

7.0 Management Response and Action plan

The Department accepts and agrees with the recommendation.  Should the Security Infrastructure Program be formalized, the Department will include criteria for prioritization as part of the program design. In addition to the two recommended criteria – urgency and proximity – the Department would also consider including other criteria against which applications could be prioritized.  The specific benchmarks for ranking applications will be itemized prior to a first application intake under the potential new program.  The Department aims to complete this exercise by December 2010.

1 National Crime Prevention Centre. Situational Crime Prevention. (2001)

2 In 2007, the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) made a formal request that assistance be provided to communities at risk of hate-motivated crime. It asked for assistance to enhance minor security infrastructure as added protection to meet the security needs of such communities.

3 Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Profile Series, Hate Crime in Canada, Mia Dauvergne, Katie Scrim and Shannon Brennan, 2006, Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Catalogue no. 85F0033M — No. 17; ISSN 1496-4562; ISBN 978-1-100-10002-9.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/85f0033m2008017-eg.pdf
This profile focuses primarily on 2006 data obtained from the Hate Crime Supplemental Survey, a special survey of hate crimes reported by police services across Canada. Funding for the Hate Crime Supplemental Survey was provided by the Department of Canadian Heritage in support of “Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism” (CAPAR), a five-year project combining federal government programs and major initiatives to combat racism and promote inclusion in Canada. In order to gain a more complete picture of the extent and nature of police-reported hate crime in Canada, data from the Hate Crime Supplemental Survey were combined with data obtained from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR 2.2) Survey. Together, these two surveys reflect hate crime data from police services covering 87% of the population of Canada. Self-reported victimization data from the 2004 General Social Survey (GSS) are presented as a complementary source of information on hate crime. These data are collected from Canadians who reported having been victims of a crime that they perceived to have been motivated by hate.

4 Subsequent to this evaluation, Statistics Canada released figures on police-reported hate crimes for 2007 and 2008. This release, including tables, is accessible for viewing at:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100614/dq100614b-eng.htm .

5 For the third application intake, the Minister decided to modify this requirement to allow for organizations linked to a community at-risk of being targeted by hate motivated crimes, but that had not directly been victimized, to be eligible for funding.

Date modified:

2022-08-12