ARCHIVE - Summative Evaluation of the Phase II Expansion of the National Crime Prevention Strategy — Final Report

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or record-keeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

Adobe Acrobat version (PDF 743KB)

Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table 4.1   Percentage of Projects in Each Program by Contributor (Partner) Type
Table 4.2   Percentage of Projects in Each Program by Priority Group
Table 4.3   Contribution to NCPS Phase II Expansion Objectives

Executive Summary

Background

The findings of the Summative Evaluation of the Phase II Expansion of the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS) are presented in this report. The NCPS is a federal initiative of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC), designed to prevent crime and victimization in communities. Phase I of the Strategy was implemented in 1994, Phase II in 1998, and the expansion of Phase II in 2001. A mid-term evaluation of Phase II was conducted in the summer of 2000 and a number of recommendations were made to improve the effectiveness and delivery of the NCPS. A summative evaluation of Phase II was completed in December 2002. Later, a mid-term evaluation of the expansion of Phase II was completed in December of 2003.

Overview of Strategy

The National Crime Prevention Strategy is based on the principle that the surest way to reduce crime is to focus on the factors that put individuals at risk. The Strategy aims to reduce crime and victimization by addressing crime before it happens. Specifically, the objectives of the NCPS are:

The NCPS is based on the principle of crime prevention though social development (CPSD). CPSD is based on the philosophy that there is a need to balance law enforcement and corrections approaches to crime prevention, and to promote the reduction of victimization with social development approaches that recognize and address root causes of crime and victimization. CPSD involves identifying and addressing risk factors that are associated with criminal activity.

The NCPS is focused on four priority groups considered to be at particular risk with respect to crime and victimization: children; youth; Aboriginal peoples and communities; and the personal security of women and girls. In addition, the Strategy has broadened its reach to address other at-risk groups, including seniors, ethno-cultural groups, the gay and lesbian community, and persons with disabilities.

The Government of Canada launched Phase I of the National Strategy on Community Safety and Crime Prevention in 1994 (which was renamed the National Crime Prevention Strategy in 2002). Then, in 1998, Phase II of the National Strategy was implemented with an initial investment of $32 million annually.

Phase II Expansion of NCPS

In May 2001, the federal government announced the expansion of Phase II. At that time, the NCPS was comprised of three components – the National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC), the Safer Communities Initiative, and Promotion and Public Education. Two major changes occurred as a result of the expansion: the implementation of a fifth Safer Communities funding program, the Crime Prevention Strategic Fund (SF or Strategic Fund); and the implementation of an additional component to the Strategy, the Crime Prevention and Public Safety Initiative (CPPSI), which was not part of the present evaluation (because the CPPSI evaluation was the responsibility of the former Solicitor General of Canada).

The expansion of Phase II also included an additional investment of $145 million over four years (2001-2005). This additional funding was to provide more support for community projects, a strengthened infrastructure, and greater reach into every part of the country. The rationale underlying such a strategic investment was to reduce the burden of the traditional criminal justice system on taxpayers by stopping crimes before they occur. More specifically, the expansion was to allow the NCPS to do the following:

Over the course of the Phase II expansion, a variety of departmental and organizational changes have occurred. For instance, the NCPS and NCPC were originally under the direction of the Department of Justice, and later changed to the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC) during a reorganization of certain federal government departments. Furthermore, prior to the transfer of the Strategy from Justice to PSEPC, there was a hiring freeze the last two years while the Strategy was under the Department of Justice. In addition, NCPC has seen two Executive Directors come and go over the course of the expansion, and a third Executive Director came into the position in April 2005.

NCPS Components and Programs

The overall program design of the NCPS is reflected in the four key components including the National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC), the Safer Communities Initiative, the Promotion and Public Education Program (PPEP), and the Crime Prevention and Public Safety Initiative (CPPSI).

National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC): The NCPC is responsible for overall management and implementation of the NCPS and is the principal administrator of the NCPS. The NCPC activities include policy and strategic planning, coordination of activities within the federal government and between the federal and provincial/territorial governments, research and evaluation, and administration of funding programs (under the Safer Communities Initiative). Overall responsibility for the Centre rests with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. The NCPC serves as the federal government’s crime prevention policy centre. Though housed within the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the NCPC is a separate organizational unit with its own funds administration.

Safer Communities Initiative: The second component of the NCPS, the Safer Communities Initiative, is administered by the NCPC and consists of grants and contributions funding programs. The Safer Communities Initiative is designed to assist Canadians in undertaking crime prevention activities in their communities through the development and implementation of programs — the Community Mobilization Program (CMP), the Crime Prevention Partnership Program (CPPP), the Business Action Program on Crime Prevention (BAP), the Crime Prevention Investment Fund (CPIF), and the Crime Prevention Strategic Fund (SF). These programs fund communities and organizations to develop, implement and evaluate CPSD models. All of these programs are overseen by a Director, Program Development and Delivery, who reports directly to the NCPC Executive Director.

Promotion and Public Education Program (PPEP): The Promotion and Public Education Program is intended to increase public awareness about the National Crime Prevention Strategy. The Communications, Promotion, and Public Education Team coordinates the PPEP and is responsible for media relations, public events and announcements, the production and distribution of NCPS publications and multimedia tools, the NCPS website, and the resource centre.

Crime Prevention and Public Safety Initiative (CPPSI): The CPPSI is in place to strengthen and build capacity in the areas of policing and corrections to address the root causes of crime. The focus is on crime and victimization issues in Aboriginal and remote/isolated communities, substance abuse awareness and prevention, addressing the risks associated with children and families of offenders, and developing strategies to deal with youth at risk. As noted, this component of the Strategy was not part of the present evaluation, because the evaluation of CPPSI was the responsibility of the former Solicitor General of Canada.

Evaluation Objectives and Issues

The overall objective of this evaluation was to support PSEPC’s inherited commitment to accountability for and evaluation of the expansion of Phase II of the NCPS. The evaluation focused on the achievements of the former Department of Justice component of the expansion of Phase II. The scope of the evaluation included the four years of the Phase II expansion (2001-02 to 2004-05) and all NCPS programs, with the exception of the CPPSI, which was evaluated separately.

The summative evaluation of the expansion of Phase II focused on assessing the degree to which the expansion has made progress toward and achieved its objectives/intended outcomes, given that the mid-term evaluation concentrated on design and delivery issues. The focus was on impacts, in particular, on what has been accomplished since the mid-term evaluation. Specific evaluation issues were related to: broader participation in crime prevention; increased awareness/understanding of crime prevention; identification and adoption of successful crime prevention approaches; increased community capacity to respond to crime; and enhanced policy planning and development in crime prevention. In addition, the evaluation assessed the strengths and weaknesses, challenges faced and lessons learned by the NCPS, and provided recommendations related to the renewal of the Strategy.

It should be noted as context that the NCPC has faced a variety of operational challenges, which have caused delays and hampered the implementation of the Phase II expansion of the NCPS. These challenges have included: overworked staff for the past two years due to budgetary constraints on staffing; the lack of a Director, Research and Evaluation for the past two years (the position has been vacant); and an overall climate of uncertainty as to the future of the NCPS, including the uncertainty associated with the end of the expansion sunset funding, which has led to high staff turnover. Moreover, the NCPS and the NCPC have shifted from the Department of Justice to the new Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC). The transition and adjustment to a new organizational environment and departmental culture clearly takes time. In assessing the progress and impacts of the Phase II expansion, these factors needed to be taken into account.

Methodology

The evaluation issues/questions were examined through the collection and analysis of information from the following sources/methods:

A matrix linking the evaluation issues with indicators and data sources/methods is provided in Appendix A. The data collection instruments are provided in a separate document.

Findings and Conclusions

Broader Participation in Crime Prevention

Evaluation findings from the key informant interviews and review of documentation, administrative data and files indicate that the expansion of the NCPS Phase II (and the associated additional funding) has helped to broaden the participation of various stakeholders in community safety and crime prevention initiatives, though participation is much greater from some groups than others. In particular, non-governmental organizations and community groups, the police and high-risk communities have participated significantly (i.e., as project sponsors, partners or participants) whereas there have been lower levels of participation by community correctional agencies and the private sector. The comparatively low level of participation from community corrections is not necessarily a negative finding, given that this stakeholder group is a primary focus of the CPPSI component of the Strategy, which was examined in a separate evaluation. Possible reasons for the lack of private sector involvement include NCPC staff/resource constraints, which make it difficult to expend the effort to engage the private sector; a lack of interest on the part of the some private sector organizations unless the crime prevention effort is clearly linked to business concerns; and the lack of clear procedures/mechanisms for the Strategy to attract private sector participation.

Regarding the degree of participation of municipalities (beyond municipal police agencies), the evaluation findings are mixed suggesting that municipal involvement has not been uniformly strong in all areas of the country. Nevertheless, there are numerous examples of relevant participation by some municipalities and through Comprehensive Community Initiatives as well as the involvement of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

The Strategy’s efforts over the Phase II expansion period (2001-02 to 2004-05), including the broadened participation of stakeholders, have made some contribution toward the objectives of the NCPS expansion. In particular, the evaluation findings suggest that there has been progress in facilitating citizenship engagement and public education, offering a continuum of supports/models for communities, and undertaking development work needed in high-need, low-capacity communities, though more work needs to be done on all fronts. In addition, key informants believe that a contribution has been made in expanding the scope of relationships with non-traditional partners and deepening efforts in priority areas (e.g., seniors, persons with disabilities, the gay and lesbian community, and ethno-cultural communities); however, the review of files and administrative data suggests that the contribution in reaching new priority groups has been modest to date. With respect to the fifth formal objective – establishing NCPC as a centre of excellence/expertise – the consensus is that this has not yet been achieved, even though a foundation has been laid with the crime prevention expertise of NCPC staff across the country.

Based on the mostly qualitative evidence gathered in this evaluation, it is reasonable to conclude that progress has been made toward the Phase II expansion objectives, as discussed above, but it is not possible to draw precise conclusions about the incremental contribution of the Strategy’s efforts and stakeholders’ involvement to these formal objectives.

Increased Awareness/Understanding of Crime Prevention

The evaluation findings indicate that the work of the Phase II expansion (e.g., delivery of workshops, distribution of information kits, conferences, public forums, research studies, NCPC networking efforts, making information available on the NCPC website and virtual library) has contributed to increasing awareness/understanding of community safety and crime prevention among partners and stakeholders. This includes an increase in understanding of the root causes of crime (demonstrated, for example, by the increasing quality of proposals for project funding) and of what is required to promote and support community mobilization in response to crime, though there may be a need for more specific guidelines on this matter. In addition, there is some evidence of increased awareness of best practices in CPSD and of other community-based approaches to crime prevention (e.g., the use of culturally appropriate approaches).

Findings from the file review and key informant interviews also suggest that public awareness and acceptance of crime prevention, including CPSD approaches, have been increased particularly in communities reached by Strategy projects. In addition, public opinion research commissioned by the Department of Justice (polls from July 2000 and November 2003) indicates that the Canadian public is generally aware and supportive of crime prevention through social development initiatives. For instance, Canadians correctly identify a number of CPSD root causes as having an impact on crime and rate a number of CPSD approaches, which are supported by the Strategy, as being effective for reducing crime. In addition, Canadians are twice as likely to select crime prevention than law enforcement as the most cost-effective way to reduce the economic and social costs of crime, and the majority rates the funding and support of local crime prevention programs in communities as a very appropriate role for the federal government. However, conclusive evidence linking the efforts of the Strategy to the generally favourable opinions of the Canadian public regarding CPSD and federal government efforts in crime prevention is not available.

Identification/Adoption of Successful Crime Prevention Approaches

The evaluation evidence suggests that the NCPS has identified a range of crime prevention approaches. Findings from the file review and document review indicate such models as: the Peer Education Model, involving youth in trouble informing others of actual and potential crimes to both prevent crime and to turn around their lives; the Drug Treatment Court, bringing law enforcement and treatment agencies together as an alternative means of dealing with drug crime; a Prevention through Education approach to reducing abuse against youth on the Internet; and encouraging youth and their parents to deal with problems together as an alternative means of counselling. In general, the involvement of multiple partners in these projects is seen as contributing to their success.

Key informants are split on how effective the NCPS has been in identifying effective crime prevention approaches. NCPC managers say the Strategy has been successful in this regard, but further success has been limited by budget cuts and high staff turnover. Regional Directors have observed an increase in the degree to which successful crime prevention approaches are being shared across regions and in the degree to which information on best crime prevention practices is being sought by schools, police agencies and health organizations. Experts too have mixed opinions: some see the Strategy’s approach as being flexible in meeting needs at the community level whereas others see the need for consideration of crime prevention approaches beyond just CPSD.

Evidence of the actual adoption of crime prevention approaches, identified and funded by the NCPS, is more limited than for the identification of such approaches.

Increased Community Capacity to Respond to Crime

The Strategy has been successful in contributing to community capacity in dealing with crime. Numerous examples were provided by key informants or identified in the document review.

As for impacts of the Strategy on knowledge development in communities, the file review suggests that most projects have in some way increased knowledge of crime prevention approaches. Key informants are generally split on this question, however. Some key informants see greater knowledge exchange across communities, while others see a lack of dissemination of NCPS research findings and insufficient use of all the knowledge that has been produced under the Strategy.

The file review indicates that in about half the projects, partnerships lasted or are expected to endure beyond the period of project funding. Similarly, the review indicates that in about half the projects, project activities or some community involvement continued after funding ended, an observation confirmed by the documentation. The sustained involvement of the private sector, however, is substantially less common.

Enhanced Policy Planning and Development in Crime Prevention

The evaluation findings suggest that the activities of the Phase II expansion have made some contribution to policy planning and development in the area of crime prevention at the federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal levels.

At the federal level, key informants highlight increased communications on crime prevention involving different departments (e.g., Canadian Heritage, Human Resources and Skills Development, the RCMP), collaboration on initiatives related to Aboriginal persons, street gangs and benefits fraud, the Strategy’s participation in 16 federal initiatives (e.g., Family Violence Initiative, Homelessness Initiative, National Drug Strategy and RCMP Youth Strategy) and advancements to policy such as the federal Aboriginal agenda as illustrations of this contribution.

Turning to the provincial and territorial government level, a similar increase in communications and collaboration between NCPC representatives and provincial/territorial officials is observed, which has in turn yielded benefits for policy planning and development (e.g., development of provincial or territorial programs modeled on the federal approach, changes in provincial youth and correctional programs, use of NCPS funds to implement crime prevention initiatives in provinces and territories).

At the municipal level, most (though not all) key informants observe that there have been policy-related benefits due, for example, to the participation of municipalities in some funded projects, exchange of information between NCPC representatives and mayors, and participation of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. One concrete example of an influence on municipal policy comes from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside where the protocols related to the sexual exploitation of women prostitutes were altered to reflect a more restorative, proactive social development approach.

Although these contributions and improvements to information exchange have helped to improve the integration of knowledge among the three levels of government (e.g., through Comprehensive Community Initiatives, Joint Management Committee meetings, and the Vancouver Agreement), a number of key informants suggest that more work needs to be done to fully achieve such integration.

In addition, there is some evidence to indicate that the activities and outputs of the Phase II expansion have facilitated progress toward enhanced policy and programming within the NCPS. Examples include: greater collaboration between the NCPC and provinces/territories, which may lead to more informed programming (e.g., the development of a policy instrument — the Sustainability Toolkit — in cooperation with FPT Working Group members); the Centre’s “mining” studies (e.g., of anti-bullying projects) which have provided recommendations for NCPS policy on future research needs and areas of concentration for anti-bullying projects; and the increased collaboration of NCPC Regional Directors with a wider range of stakeholders.

Strengths, Weaknesses and Lessons Learned

Key informants identify an assortment of strengths, weaknesses and lessons learned about the NCPS Phase II expansion approach, but with no particular patterns by type of respondent. Partnerships are frequently identified as a strength of the NCPS, particularly in terms of involving isolated communities and organizations, especially those who would not otherwise have access to crime prevention resources. The existence of Regional Directors and other staff is considered instrumental in this regard. Additional strengths include the social development approach and the work in communities enabled by the additional funding.

Regarding weaknesses, several key informants identify challenges around the evaluation of funded projects, the paper burden associated with accountability requirements, and lack of knowledge about project results. (With respect to the dissemination of project results, however, it should be noted that the NCPC has devoted considerable effort to the mining of funded projects — related to school-based anti-bullying programs and projects for Aboriginal children and youth— and the posting of research and project results on its website.) Concerns are also raised about budget cuts and NCPC staff shortfalls, particularly as they contributed to a number of the identified weaknesses, including insufficient administrative support, reduced operating budget, uncertainty over long-term funding, and lack of a Research Director to develop a crime prevention research agenda. Another weakness cited concerns the broad-based nature of the Strategy, which increases the risk of staff losing sight of its key objectives and having difficulty focusing their efforts. Insufficient involvement of the private sector is also noted.

A number of areas for improvement concern the processing of the large amount of knowledge produced by the Strategy. Specific suggestions put forward by key informants (noting that the NCPC has been engaged in some of them) include: conducting more systematic, comprehensive research on project outcomes and on what works; and sharing best practices among communities.

Another group of suggestions concerns the image of the Strategy. Specifically in this regard, key informants suggest having a consistent crime prevention philosophy across the regions; convincing people that participating in community crime prevention activities is often more effective than simply spending on communities; and developing more communications and publication strategies such as traveling road shows.

Four main lessons learned are as follows:

The regional model of decentralized decision-making is an effective approach to funding projects that reflect the unique needs of regions and communities, but care must be taken that there are sufficient accountability controls in order to ensure that the money is spent furthering the interests of the Strategy, and not just the individual communities.

Short-term funding is not a realistic or an effective means of establishing sustained relationships and partnerships. More emphasis should be placed on long-term projects.

Attention must be paid to developing tools/templates enabling the collection of performance measurement data by project sponsors/funding recipients and entering these data into the administrative data system. Only through the collection and maintenance of such information consistently across projects can the value and impact of the Strategy be truly measured and demonstrated.

Greater effort still needs to be placed into raising public awareness of the Strategy and its successes, as a means of demonstrating the need for and value of the CPSD approach.

Recommendations

On the basis of the evaluation findings, the following recommendations are made to the NCPC:

Enhancing Performance Measurement

Continue to develop standard report templates for project sponsors to gather performance data on their projects, encouraging sponsors to gather pre- and post-project measures. Ensure that this information is entered into the administrative data system (GCIMS) so that there is real performance data in the system, and not just information on expected outcomes.

In this vein, consideration should be given to responding to the mid-term evaluation recommendation of gathering baseline data and setting measurable results targets of specified objectives of the Strategy, in order to be better able to measure performance.

Synthesizing/Disseminating Knowledge

Continue efforts to synthesize and package lessons learned and replicable models from funded projects and disseminate such information as widely as possible. Much knowledge has been developed through funded projects and commissioned research under the NCPS, and it is only through the distillation of that knowledge and its wider dissemination that the expected outcomes of adoption of crime prevention models and the eventual reduction in crime can be realized.

Ensure that more of such information is made available on the NCPS website in user-friendly forms.

Measuring Awareness and Usage

Continue efforts to raise awareness of CPSD and its potential benefits, not only via the website, but also through communications campaigns and traveling road shows.

Continue efforts to measure awareness of CPSD and measure the role played by CPSD. While past public opinion polling efforts have determined that there is a high degree of support for the concept of CPSD, no link has been made between the high awareness levels and the NCPS/NCPC. Accordingly, it is suggested that questions be incorporated into an updated public opinion poll explicitly asking respondents about their awareness of the NCPS and CPSD and the role the former may have played in awareness of the latter.

There would be merit in sponsoring a survey of law enforcement agencies to gather views on CPSD and other approaches to preventing crime.

Continue efforts to measure usage of NCPC and Strategy products. While the NCPC tracks requests for its products, it would be useful to be able to measure the degree to which the products have been found useful and have contributed to program development and increased efforts to prevent crime and ultimately to reduce crime. Towards this end, it is suggested that a pop-up survey be installed on the NCPS website to solicit the views of users with regard to the utility of the products obtained.

Increasing Private Sector Involvement

Take steps to increase the level of involvement of the private sector in crime prevention projects. For instance, develop a clear strategy and guidelines to engage the private sector, and if feasible provide additional resources for these efforts.

Managing Decentralization

While there was general support for decentralization as means of making funding more reflective of regional needs, ensure that funded projects reflect the interests of the wider Strategy.

Ensure that there is a consistent philosophy and message across the Regions in order to maintain the image of the Strategy as a national initiative.

Focusing on Strategic Long-term Project Funding

Reconsider the practice of funding large numbers of small projects as is currently done through the CMP which dominates NCPS funding, as was suggested in the mid-term evaluation. Providing small amounts of funding to numerous small communities may not be as effective a means of building up a base of knowledge and replicable models of crime prevention, as focusing funds on strategic long-term projects. Nor is short-term funding always an effective means of establishing sustained relationships and partnerships necessary for truly addressing the root causes of crime. Long-term funding of comprehensive initiatives at the community level should be given more emphasis in future project funding.

1. Introduction

This report presents the evaluation findings for the Summative Evaluation of the Phase II Expansion of the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS). The NCPS is a federal initiative of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC), designed to prevent crime and victimization in communities through the coordination of partners, facilitation of community-based solutions to crime and increased public awareness of effective social development approaches. Phase I of the Strategy was implemented in 1994, Phase II in 1998, and the expansion of Phase II in 2001. A mid-term evaluation of Phase II was conducted in the summer of 2000 and a number of recommendations were made to improve the effectiveness and delivery of the NCPS. A summative evaluation of Phase II was completed in December 2002. Later, a mid-term evaluation of the expansion of Phase II was completed in December of 2003.

1.1 The National Crime Prevention Strategy

The National Crime Prevention Strategy is based on the principle that the surest way to reduce crime is to focus on the factors that put individuals at risk. The Strategy aims to reduce crime and victimization by addressing crime before it happens. Specifically, the objectives of the NCPS are:

The NCPS is based on the principle of crime prevention though social development (CPSD). CPSD is based on the philosophy that there is a need to balance law enforcement and corrections approaches to crime prevention, and to promote the reduction of victimization with social development approaches that recognize and address root causes of crime and victimization. CPSD involves identifying and addressing risk factors that are associated with criminal activity.

Risk factors include, for example, difficulties with parenting, social and economic instability, child abuse and sexual exploitation, violence, and drug/alcohol abuse. The CPSD approach provides communities with the ability to address these risk factors through social development of areas pertaining to early childhood education, parental skills training, literacy/basic skills training, and school-to-work transition programs to assist in the prevention of crime. Other areas for support include the development of capacity in communities to assist in the building of skills, knowledge and resources to identify and address risk factors. Investment in these CPSD activities is intended to build and reinforce strong communities where risk factors are present and to reduce criminal behaviour and victimization associated with these risk factors.

The CPSD philosophy is that conventional responses to crime (e.g., policing, incarceration) are not sufficient to solve issues pertaining to crime and victimization and that attention must be focused on knowledge, skills and resources around the root causes of crime and victimization.

1.2 Priority Groups of the NCPS

The NCPS is focused on four priority groups considered at particular risk with respect to crime and victimization — children, youth, Aboriginal peoples (and their communities), and women and girls.

a) Children

When provided environments that support nurturing families and a safe community environment, children are more likely to develop into law-abiding citizens that are also at a lower risk of being victims of crime. The National Crime Prevention Strategy helps communities and families to develop strategies, obtain support, and assist in reducing or eliminating known risk factors in children's lives, such as abuse, poverty, and drug and alcohol abuse.

b) Youth

Providing supports for youth addresses risk factors related to the underlying causes of crime and victimization, such as child abuse, difficulties with parenting, social isolation, uncontrolled anger, bullying behaviour and poor academic achievement. Research by Statistics Canada (2003) 2 indicates that children subjected to risk factors, such as those noted above, are at higher risk of inappropriate behaviours that may later manifest as criminal offences as adults.

Establishing high quality relationships with adults and peers is seen as an effective way of reducing the risk of crime among children and youth exposed to these risk factors.4

c) Aboriginal Peoples

Aboriginal peoples experience disproportionately higher rates of violence, victimization and poverty than non-Aboriginal communities. Reflecting the NCPS’s particular niche, the National Crime Prevention Centre (the organization responsible for the delivery of the NCPS) focuses on crime prevention through social development in Aboriginal communities. The NCPC conducts its work in partnership with others to provide a comprehensive response to the needs of Aboriginal people.

d) Personal Security of Women and Girls

Research indicates that one half of Canadian women have reported at least one incident of violence since the age of 16 (Statistics Canada, 1993).6 Crime and the pervading fear of crime prevent women from fully participating in community life, employment and education, and reinforce gender inequality.

e) Other Groups

In addition, the NCPS has broadened its work to address other at-risk groups. These groups are as follows:

1.3 Phase I of the National Crime Prevention Strategy

The Government of Canada launched Phase I of the National Strategy on Community Safety and Crime Prevention in 1994 (which was renamed the National Crime Prevention Strategy in 2002). It provided a framework for federal efforts to support community safety and crime prevention, encouraged federal, provincial and territorial cooperation, and emphasized the mobilization of Canadians to take action at the community level to prevent crime.

Phase I involved the creation of the National Crime Prevention Council (1994-1997), made up of 25 individuals that included child development experts, community advocates, academics, social workers, lawyers, police officers, doctors, and business people who volunteered their time to develop a plan to deal with the underlying causes of crime.

Promoting CPSD, the former Council focused on children and youth and developed models for dealing with the early prevention of criminal behaviour. These models showed that children need adequate care throughout their early lives, even while they are in the womb. Above all else, children need good parenting. At the same time, there is a need to eliminate, to the extent possible, known risk factors in children's lives, such as abuse, poverty, and drug and alcohol abuse (NCPC, 2004).7

1.4 Phase II of the National Crime Prevention Strategy

In 1998, Phase II of the National Crime Prevention Strategy was launched with Barbara Hall as the acting chair of the Strategy from 1998-2002. With an initial investment of $32 million per year, Phase II has enabled broadened partnerships and aid to communities that has designed and implemented innovative and sustainable ways to prevent crime and victimization.

Building on the work of the National Crime Prevention Council, Phase II of the NCPS aims to increase individual and community safety by equipping Canadians with the knowledge, skills, and resources they need to advance crime prevention efforts in their communities. The overall objectives of Phase II are as follows:

1.5 Phase II Expansion of the National Crime Prevention Strategy

In May 2001, the federal government announced the expansion of Phase II. At that time, the NCPS was comprised of three components – the National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC), the Safer Communities Initiative, and Promotion and Public Education. Two major changes occurred as a result of the expansion: the implementation of a fifth Safer Communities funding program, the Crime Prevention Strategic Fund (SF or Strategic Fund); and the implementation of an additional component to the Strategy, the Crime Prevention and Public Safety Initiative (CPPSI).

The expansion of Phase II also included an additional investment of $145 million over four years (2001-2005). This additional funding was to provide more support for community projects, a strengthened infrastructure, and greater reach into every part of the country. The rationale underlying such a strategic investment is to reduce the burden of the traditional criminal justice system on taxpayers by stopping crimes before they occur. More specifically, the expansion was to allow the NCPS to do the following:

Over the course of the Phase II expansion, a variety of departmental and organizational changes have occurred. For instance, the NCPS and NCPC were originally under the direction of the Department of Justice, and later changed to the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC) during a reorganization of certain federal government departments. Furthermore, prior to the transfer of the Strategy from Justice to PSEPC, there was a hiring freeze the last two years while the Strategy was under the Department of Justice. In addition, NCPC has seen two Executive Directors come and go over the course of the expansion, and a third Executive Director came into the position in April 2005.

1.6 NCPS Programs

The overall program design of the NCPS is reflected in the four key components including the National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC), the Safer Communities Initiative, the Promotion and Public Education Program (&PE), and the Crime Prevention and Public Safety Initiative (CPPSI).

a) National Crime Prevention Centre

First, the National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC) is responsible for overall management and implementation of the NCPS and is the principal administrator of the NCPS. The NCPC activities include policy and strategic planning, coordination of activities within the federal government and between the federal and provincial/territorial governments, research and evaluation, and administration of funding programs (under the Safer Communities Initiative). Overall responsibility for the Centre rests with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

The NCPC serves as the federal government’s crime prevention policy centre. Though housed within the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the NCPC is a separate organizational unit with its own funds administration.

b) Safer Communities Initiative Funding Programs

The second component of the NCPS, the Safer Communities Initiative, is administered by the NCPC and consists of grants and contributions funding programs. The Safer Communities Initiative is designed to assist Canadians in undertaking crime prevention activities in their communities through the development and implementation of programs — the Community Mobilization Program (CMP), the Crime Prevention Partnership Program (CPPP), the Business Action Program on Crime Prevention (BAP), the Crime Prevention Investment Fund (CPIF), and the Crime Prevention Strategic Fund (SF). These programs fund communities and organizations to develop, implement and evaluate CPSD models. All of these programs are overseen by a Director, Program Development and Delivery who then reports directly to the NCPC Executive Director.

Community Mobilization Program (CMP)9

The CMP helps communities develop comprehensive and sustainable approaches to crime prevention and undertake activities that deal with the root causes of crime in their communities.

The objectives of the CMP are as follows:

The CMP is intended to complement activities that are already under way within communities in every province and territory. To do this effectively, the NCPC has established a Joint Management Committee in each jurisdiction. Membership on this committee varies from one jurisdiction to the next, but usually includes representatives of the provincial or territorial government, the federal government, and other partners and/or community members who share an interest in crime prevention.

The CMP is not intended to duplicate or replace work already taking place in communities. Rather, the CMP invests in people and communities by building on government, voluntary, and private sector initiatives.

To prevent crime and victimization effectively, each community has to identify its assets and needs. Communities also have to mobilize a variety of players, including those providing services in areas such as housing, social services, public health, policing, community sports and recreation, schools, and other socio-cultural organizations such as those serving women, children, or youth.

Communities may need support to undertake a wide range of activities, including the assessment of their assets, capacity, and needs; planning; training; the dissemination of information; skills building; conflict resolution; consensus building; and the evaluation of crime prevention initiatives.

To qualify for CMP funding, these activities must be based on collaborative approaches that have clear objectives and measurable results using a crime prevention through social development approach.

Crime Prevention Partnership Program (CPPP) 10

The CPPP aims to support the involvement of organizations that can contribute to community crime prevention activities through the development and dissemination of information, tools, and resources that assist in community participation in all phases of crime prevention. These tools and resources can consist of needs assessments, development of plans, implementation and evaluation that can be used across the country.

While national in scope, to ensure program flexibility and the ability to respond to issues identified at the regional level, the CPPP can consider projects that are regionally based.

The objectives of the CPPP are to:

Support the development of information, tools and resources for communities to use in implementing community-based crime prevention solutions;

Encourage organizations to enhance networks at the national, regional, and local levels in order to develop, share and build on tools and resources available to communities;

Inform and enhance community-based crime prevention initiatives through the dissemination of crime prevention tools and resources developed by other communities of interest across Canada; and

Build strong and integrated national partnerships between organizations and others across Canada working to implement crime prevention initiatives.

Business Action Program on Crime Prevention (BAP) 11

The BAP invites the private sector to become an active partner, leader, and resource in crime prevention. The networks of private sector organizations throughout Canada can help communities prevent crime, share information, and encourage community mobilization.

The objectives of the BAP are to:

The BAP is guided by the Business Network on Crime Prevention (BNCP), a group of professional associations working together to build safer communities. The BNCP meets as needed to review project proposals and recommend them for approval to PSEPC. Although still in operation, the BNCP has not been very active recently because there have been no solicitations of BAP proposals in the last two years by design.

A key objective of the BNCP is promoting the involvement of the private sector in contributing to the reduction of crime and victimization in communities across Canada. Using the BAP, the BNCP works through business and professional associations to:

The three organizational components of BAP are:

Crime Prevention Investment Fund (CPIF) 12

The CPIF supports promising and innovative crime prevention through social development demonstration projects in high-need areas across the country. Support for the implementation and independent evaluation of these programs is aimed at determining the key components of successful programs and the potential for these new approaches to be replicated in other settings across the country.

The objectives of the CPIF are to:

The CPIF responds to the need to fill knowledge gaps about the key elements of effective social development approaches to the prevention of crime and victimization in Canada. The CPIF demonstration projects already underway are serving to increase our understanding of the impact and effectiveness of community-based social development strategies that support the specific needs of children, families, and communities at risk of crime and victimization.

The fiscal year 2001-2002 marked the beginning of Cycle II of CPIF funding activity under the National Crime Prevention Strategy. Distinct from Cycle I, this second cycle gives special attention to proposals focusing on selected regions of the country according to predetermined priorities. These priorities were established through consultations with federal, provincial, and territorial partners and stakeholders across the country.

Successful applicants are awarded contribution funding for a period of three to five years, not exceeding $500,000 per year (most projects receive funding for less than the maximum period and amount). Once a demonstration project has been approved for funding under the CPIF, a Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued to solicit proposals from third parties for an independent evaluation. Each demonstration project supported by the CPIF must undergo a rigorous process and outcome evaluation, including the development of a theory of change model and the collection of project costing data, carried out by independent third-party researchers contracted directly by the NCPC.

Crime Prevention Strategic Fund (SF)

The Crime Prevention Strategic Fund (SF), a fifth Safer Communities funding program, is designed to support pilot projects that demonstrate the movement from independent and sometimes isolated crime prevention projects to more strategic broad strategies that will contribute to knowledge and action on sustainable crime prevention through social development; to support crime prevention activities that fall between the other four funding programs; and to facilitate, at the community level, the horizontal management of crime prevention initiatives among other federal departments, with other federal initiatives and with other levels of government.

Project Funding Levels for Safer Communities Programs

Administrative data on the funding levels for projects under the five Safer Communities programs over the four years of the NCPS Phase II expansion period are presented in Table 1.1. CMP projects have clearly played a dominant role in the Phase II expansion, accounting for 89 per cent of all funded projects and 53 per cent of all funding dollars. The average funding amount for CMP projects was the smallest of all five programs – just $33,005. CPIF projects are also noteworthy due to their large funding amounts (an average of $530,263 per project) – accounting for 25 per cent of all funding.

A regional breakdown of project funding for the Phase II expansion period is provided in Table 1.2. The project activity appears to be roughly proportional to the population in each region. Most project activity under the five Safer Communities programs has taken place in Ontario (which was allocated 27 per cent of all projects and 32 per cent of all funding) and Quebec (23 and 24 per cent, respectively). On the other hand, the lowest level of project activity was in the Northern Region – five per cent of all projects and four per cent of all funding.

Table 1.1 Project Funding Levels by Program
 (Projects Started or Ended May 2001 – March 2005)


Program Number of Projects Distribution of Projects (%) Average Funding Committed per Project Distribution of Funding (%)
CMP 2,320 89 $33,005 53
BAP 67 3 $112,562 5
CPIF 69 3 $530,263 25
CPPP 132 5 $146,304 13
SF 31 1 $174,476 4
Total 2,619 100 $55,525 100

Source: Project Control System data, as of March 2005.

Table 1.2 Project Funding Levels by Region
 (Projects Started or Ended May 2001 – March 2005)


Region Number of Projects Distribution of Projects (%) Average Funding Committed per Project Distribution of Funding (%)
Atlantic 443 17 $36,470 11
Quebec 609 23 $56,637 24
Ontario 709 27 $64,592 32
Prairies 401 15 $56,746 16
BC 331 13 $61,353 14
Northern 126 5 $46,942 4
Total 2,619 100 $55,525 100

Source: Project Control System data, as of March 2005.

c) Promotion and Public Education Program

The third major component of the NCPS is the Promotion and Public Education Program (PPEP). The Promotion and Public Education Program has been created to increase public awareness about the National Crime Prevention Strategy. It has the following goals:

The Communications, Promotion, and Public Education Team coordinates the Promotion and Public Education Program and is responsible for media relations, public events and announcements, the production and distribution of NCPS publications and multimedia tools, the NCPS Web site, and the resource centre.

d) Crime Prevention and Public Safety Initiative

The CPPSI is in place to strengthen and build capacity in the areas of policing and corrections to address the root causes of crime. To attain this objective, the implementation of four crime prevention and public safety related elements will support innovative initiatives that will work to build capacity and address particular issues that need greater attention. These include crime and victimization issues in Aboriginal and remote/isolated communities, substance abuse awareness and prevention, addressing the risks associated with children and families of offenders, and developing strategies to deal with youth at risk.

1.7 Purpose and Organization of the Report

The purpose of this report is to present the evaluation findings and conclusions, based on the key informant interviews, project file review, administrative data review and documentation review conducted for the evaluation of the NCPS Phase II expansion. In Chapter Two, the evaluation context, objectives and issues are presented. Then, the evaluation methodology is described in Chapter Three. The evaluation findings related to each issue are presented in Chapter Four. Finally, the conclusions and recommendations are presented in Chapter Five.

2. Evaluation Objectives and Issues

2.1 Evaluation Objectives and Context

The overall objective of this evaluation was to support PSEPC’s inherited commitment to accountability for and evaluation of the expansion of Phase II of the NCPS. The evaluation focused on the achievements of the former Department of Justice component of the expansion of Phase II. The scope of the evaluation included the four years of the Phase II expansion (2001-02 to 2004-05) and all NCPS programs, with the exception of the Crime Prevention and Public Safety Initiative (CPPSI), which was evaluated separately as this was the responsibility of the former Solicitor General of Canada.

The evaluation primarily addressed success and achievement issues, given that the mid-term evaluation concentrated on design and delivery issues. The focus was on impacts, in particular, on what has been accomplished since the mid-term evaluation. In addition, the evaluation assessed the strengths and weaknesses, challenges faced and lessons learned by the NCPS, and provided recommendations related to the renewal of the Strategy.

It should be noted as context that the NCPC has faced a variety of operational challenges, which have caused delays and hampered the implementation of the Phase II expansion of the NCPS. These challenges have included: overworked staff for the past two years due to budgetary constraints on staffing; the lack of a Director, Research and Evaluation for the past two years (the position has been vacant); and an overall climate of uncertainty as to the future of the NCPS, including the uncertainty associated with the end of the expansion sunset funding, which has led to high staff turnover. Moreover, the NCPS and the NCPC have shifted from the Department of Justice to the new Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC). The transition and adjustment to a new organizational environment and departmental culture clearly takes time. In assessing the progress and impacts of the Phase II expansion, these factors needed to be taken into account.

2.2 Evaluation Issues and Questions

The summative evaluation of the expansion of Phase II focused on assessing the degree to which the expansion has made progress toward and achieved its objectives/intended outcomes. A matrix linking the evaluation issues/questions with indicators and data sources/methods is provided in Appendix A.

The evaluation issues/questions are as follows:

Broader Participation in Crime Prevention:

To what extent has the expansion of the NCPS Phase II resulted in broader participation in community safety and crime prevention initiatives by:

Increased Awareness/Understanding of Crime Prevention:


Identification/Adoption of Successful Crime Prevention Approaches:

Increased Community Capacity to Respond to Crime:

Enhanced Policy Planning and Development in Crime Prevention:

Strengths and Weaknesses:

Lessons Learned:

3. Methodology

3.1 Overview

The evaluation issues/questions presented in the previous chapter were examined through the collection and analysis of information from the following sources/methods:

A matrix linking the evaluation issues with indicators and data sources/methods is provided in Appendix A. The data collection instruments are provided in a separate document. The methodological approach for the evaluation is described in detail in the remainder of this chapter.

3.2 Document and File Review

The work on this component of the evaluation was divided between a review of NCPS documentation (e.g., background documentation, recent internal and external studies, and consultation materials) and individual project files. As significant work had already been done (e.g., in recent audits) regarding the effectiveness of processes and resources for project development, implementation and monitoring, this type of data collection was not repeated in the present evaluation. Still, there was a need to gather some information related to the evaluation issues in a file review.

a) Review of Documentation

A complete list of the documents reviewed is provided in Appendix B. The review included the following types of documentation:

In addition, in conjunction with interviews conducted with NCPC Regional Directors, documentation on successful and innovative projects (highlighted by the Regional Directors) in each Region was reviewed in a qualitative fashion. An examination of documentation on these projects, coupled with the interview and questionnaire responses of Regional Directors (see Appendix E), provided information on successful/innovative projects and best practices in each Region.

b) Project File Review

The overall objective of the project file review was to obtain information on a range of projects in order to provide a greater understanding of NCPS implementation, reach and impacts. A representative sample of 133 project files 13 with Final Reports was reviewed on-site at the NCPC. Data on each project were entered online into an electronic version of the file review guide. The 133 projects selected for review were as follows:

Aside from a Final Report or evaluation report/template, a number of the files also included other useful information such as financial statements (76 per cent or files), letters of support (74 per cent), tools/resources developed (49 per cent), and news articles (26 per cent). Virtually all of the project reports included some anecdotal data/evidence related to project outputs or outcomes (99 per cent), and some also reported some qualitative or quantitative data (29 per cent and 18 per cent, respectively).

Data collected in the review of project files were both quantitative and qualitative, depending on the nature of the indicators. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of these data were carried out as appropriate.

3.3 Administrative Data Review

A review of administrative data was also conducted, utilizing program/project delivery data from the Project Control System (PCS). This component of the evaluation provided a descriptive analysis of the Strategy and some evidence on the types of partners participating in and groups affected by funded projects. Specifically, the data enabled us to measure total and per-project average funding levels for the Safer Communities funding programs, their province/Region, project activities, the types of partner organizations, as well as the priority groups addressed by these projects. The focus was on projects funded during the Phase II expansion timeframe (2001-2002 to 2004-2005). Tables of administrative data are provided in Appendix C.

3.4 Key Informant Interviews

Interviews with 20 key informants were conducted, including NCPC Ottawa office managers, NCPC Regional Directors, key Strategy partners, and external experts in community safety and crime prevention (e.g., academic researchers in the field). Specific contacts and the distribution of these 20 interviews were determined in consultation with the Project Authority and Summative Evaluation Advisory Committee. The interviewees are listed in Appendix D.

A bilingual letter of introduction was used when contacting each potential interview respondent. This letter briefly introduced the evaluation and provided a contact number for anyone who wished to verify the legitimacy of the interviews. The executive summary of the mid-term evaluation of the NCPS Phase II expansion was sent as background with the letters.

Semi-structured interview guides, tailored to the different groups of key informants, were utilized for the key informant interviews. All groups of key informants were asked for their views on all of the evaluation issues, with the exception of the external experts who were questioned only about the overall success of the NCPS approach, the identification and adoptation of successful crime prevention approaches, and the Strategy’s strengths, weaknesses, and lessons learned.

Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes, though interviews with Regional Directors were more in-depth, lasting 90 to 120 minutes. In addition, the Regional Directors were first sent a brief questionnaire (e.g., asking them to specify what has been going on in their Region that supports the Strategy’s objectives) and asked to provide written responses. Their responses provided important details and examples of NCPS initiatives in all regions across the country (see Appendix E for a summary of these responses). In the subsequent key informant interviews, the Regional Directors were asked to elaborate on their written responses as well as respond to the formal interview questions.

A copy of the introductory letter, background material and interview guide were sent to all key informants in advance of their interview, to provide them with an opportunity to prepare for the interview. Interviews were conducted by phone or in-person (if desired, by key informants in the National Capital Region). All key informants were interviewed in the official language of their choice.

Summaries of the individual interviews were prepared for internal use following each interview and organized by evaluation question for purposes of analysis.

3.5 Integrated Analysis

Following the completion of all data collection for the evaluation of the NCPS Phase II expansion, the results of each methodological component were analyzed. The findings from the various lines of evidence were then integrated and organized by the evaluation issues. In the integrated analysis, the evidence from different sources was triangulated to identify the issues on which the evaluation findings converged and also to help reconcile any incomplete or contradictory findings. The integrated evaluation findings are presented in Chapter Four.

4. Findings

4.1 Broader Participation in Crime Prevention

a) Broader Participation of Stakeholders

Overview: The extent to which the NCPS Phase II expansion has resulted in broader participation in community safety and crime prevention initiatives by various stakeholder groups is addressed in this section. Evaluation findings from the key informant interviews and review of documentation, administrative data and project files indicate that the Phase II expansion has helped to broaden the participation of non-governmental organizations, community groups, the police and high-risk communities, but there have been lower levels of participation by community correctional agencies and the private sector. The comparatively low level of participation from community corrections is not necessarily a negative finding, given that this stakeholder group is a primary focus of the CPPSI component of the Strategy, which was not examined in this evaluation. Regarding the participation of municipalities (beyond municipal police agencies), the evaluation findings are mixed suggesting that municipal involvement has not been uniformly strong in all areas of the country (e.g., regional/municipal government partners are least common in the Northern Region). Still, there are numerous examples of relevant participation by some municipalities. More detailed findings are presented below.

The project file review provides an overall indication of the types of participants in funded projects, including the sponsoring organizations, project partners and priority groups served. As illustrated in Exhibit 4.1, project sponsors are most often non-profit volunteer organizations, associations, etc. (71 per cent) or non-profit professional organizations/associations (14 per cent). Regarding the specific sector of project sponsors, these organizations are most frequently from social services (79 per cent), education (30 per cent), health (20 per cent), crime prevention (19 per cent), or housing services (11 per cent). Among the projects reviewed, very few sponsors were from the business sector (seven per cent), though only eight BAP projects were included in the file review sample.

EXHIBIT 4.1

Partnerships that have been formed are wide ranging, with the top five types of organizations being provincial/territorial governments (46 per cent), regional/municipal governments (44 per cent), nongovernmental organizations (42 per cent), non-profit organizations (31 per cent), and private enterprises (24 per cent). In addition, in a notable proportion of the projects reviewed, partnerships were formed with the federal government (22 per cent), individuals (21 per cent), associations (15 per cent), band/tribal councils (14 per cent) and communities (11 per cent).

While in-kind (94 per cent) and financial contributions (80 per cent) are most common, project partners also contribute with networking and mobilization to assist with community safety and crime prevention issues (38 per cent), and networking to help disseminate information, tools and resources (38 per cent). These file review findings are illustrated in Exhibit 4.2.

In the file review sample, the average value of funding from Strategy programs is $44,229 and the average value of in-kind/financial contributions amounts to $67,288. These contributions/funds (i.e., beyond those provided by NCPS programs) primarily come from non-governmental organizations (47 per cent), provincial/territorial (44 per cent) and municipal governments (39 per cent). Non-profit organizations (29 per cent) and private enterprises (23 per cent) round off the top five sources of additional funding.

EXHIBIT 4.2

To supplement the project file review, an analysis was conduced of administrative data from the NCPC’s Project Control System (PCS) database, which provides a comprehensive profile of the types of partners/contributors for all projects funded under the five Strategy programs for full the Phase II expansion period (May 2001 to March 2005). As indicated in Table 4.1 below, and generally consistent with the file review findings, the major types of contributing partners are as follows:

TABLE 4.1: Percentage of Projects in Each Program by Contributor (Partner) Type*
(Projects Started or Ended May 2001 – March 2005)


Contributor Type Total (n=1,838) CMP (n=1,687) BAP (n=44) CPPP (n=62) CPIF (n=20) SF (n=25)
Provincial/territorial gov’t 36 38 9 21 45 8
Regional/municipal gov’t 31 32 14 13 30 12
Community 20 21 0 0 35 4
Aboriginal government 2 2 0 0 5 0
Band/Tribal Council 9 10 0 0 0 0
NGO 53 56 23 18 40 8
Foundation 10 11 5 6 15 4
Association 9 9 9 6 0 0
Professional association 3 3 7 2 0 0
Service club 2 2 0 0 0 4
Individual 5 5 0 3 0 4
Private enterprise 11 11 14 3 10 0
For-profit 3 3 5 0 0 0
Other 21 20 11 55 50 36

* More than one type of contributor was identified for several projects, which is why percentages add to more than 100 per cent in some cases. For some projects, however, the federal government is the sole contributor, which is why percentages add to less than 100 per cent in other cases. (As the federal government is a contributor in all projects, it is not shown in the table.)

Source: Project Control System data, as of March 2005.

A breakdown of the types of contributing partners by Region is presented in Appendix C (Table C.1). Some key regional differences are as follows:

Turning to the priority groups served by funded projects (see Exhibit 4.3), the file review indicates that youth from 13 to 17 years old (63 per cent) and children up to the age of 12 (35 per cent) are by far the most common groups served. A substantial proportion of projects also focus on Aboriginal peoples and communities (20 per cent), the general population as a whole (20 per cent) and the personal security of women (10 per cent). Priority groups less commonly served by projects include seniors aged 55 or older (five per cent), ethno-cultural communities (five per cent), the personal security of girls (four per cent), the gay and lesbian community (two per cent), and persons with disabilities (two per cent). “Other” groups (served by 16 per cent of projects) include families (eight per cent), offender populations, sex trade workers, and the homeless.

EXHIBIT 4.3

The types of priority groups reached by projects were also examined in the administrative data review, for all projects funded under the five programs of interest for the entire Phase II expansion period (see Table 4.2). Similar to the file review findings, the most common target groups are:

In addition, other at-risk groups are being reached by a small proportion of funded projects — seniors (five per cent), persons with disabilities (three per cent), ethno-cultural communities (three per cent) and gay and lesbian people (one per cent).

TABLE 4.2: Percentage of Projects in Each Program by Priority Group*
(Projects Started or Ended May 2001 – March 2005)


Affected Group Total (n=2,381) CMP (n=2,110) BAP (n=64) CPPP (n=122) CPIF (n=57) SF (n=28)
Main Group
Communities 54 54 77 43 33 79
Justice system 2 2 0 2 9 0
Family and children 16 17 0 11 19 4
Family and youth 12 13 2 5 7 0
Priority Group
Aboriginal 19 19 9 6 37 25
Children (0-12) 25 25 3 25 46 11
Youth (13-17) 48 51 39 25 35 25
Women and girls 12 12 6 11 24 18
Seniors 5 4 3 10 0 11
Persons with disabilities 3 3 0 3 0 0
Gay and lesbian 1 1 0 0 0 0
Ethno-cultural 3 4 3 1 0 4

* More than one group was identified for several projects, which is why percentages do not add to 100 per cent.

Source: Project Control System data, as of March 2005.

A regional breakdown of the priority groups reached by all funded projects is provided in Appendix C (see Table C.2). It is noteworthy that projects reaching Aboriginal people are by far most common in the Northern and Prairie Regions (59 and 47 per cent of projects, respectively) and those reaching persons with disabilities are also most common in the Northern Region (13 per cent).

Of particular interest for this evaluation is the degree of participation of the stakeholder groups listed in Exhibit 4.4. The majority of the projects in the file review involve the participation of NGOs and community groups (85 per cent), followed by municipalities (49 per cent) and high-risk communities (41 per cent). Lower levels of participation were observed for the private sector (29 per cent) and police and community corrections (23 per cent). With respect to the latter finding, it should be noted that building capacity in policing and community corrections is a primary focus of the CPPSI component of the Strategy, which is not included in this evaluation. From this perspective, the participation of police and community corrections in roughly one-quarter of the projects reviewed is a positive finding.

EXHIBIT 4.4

In the key informant interviews, respondents were asked for their views on the degree of participation of these same types of stakeholders. Generally, key informants observe that there has been broad participation in community safety and crime prevention initiatives by NGOs and community groups, the police and high-risk communities during the Phase II expansion. However, in their view there has been less involvement by municipalities (aside from local police departments), the private sector and community corrections.

More details on the observations of key informants along with some supporting evidence from the documentation are presented below.

Non-Governmental Organizations and Community Groups:

Senior managers at the NCPC Ottawa office, Strategy partners and Regional Directors provide an almost unanimous view that NGOs and community groups have been more engaged in the NCPS Phase II expansion. Some of the Regional Directors report that there are almost no other organizations available in the regions that deliver community crime prevention initiatives, with one Regional Director stating that “ [we are the] only show in town”.

The NCPC managers and Strategy partners cite examples of increased NGO and community group involvement, ranging from increased partnerships and the delivery of many community-based workshops, to the participation of an approximate 2,400 not-for-profit organizations across Canada. Regional Directors also provide a variety of examples of NGO/community group participation, including the involvement of ethno-cultural, Aboriginal and women’s groups. One Regional Director adds that participation of NGOs and community groups is broad, including health, housing, education, social development and economic development organizations.

Findings from the documentation review provide additional evidence that the NCPC Phase II expansion has contributed greatly to the engagement of non-governmental organizations and community groups, across all regions – confirming many of the key informant and file review observations.

Some examples include communities that have partnered with schools to provide bullying programs for students, either in the school or within the community, by providing positive role models and programs for children and youth that enable a constructive use of free time.16

Municipalities:

Regional Directors and NCPC managers/Strategy partners appear divided regarding municipal involvement. Even within key informant groups, there appears to be a lack of consensus as to the extent to which municipalities are engaged. While some regions report significant municipal involvement, other regions indicate that municipal government engagement is not at the point desired.

Some NCPC senior managers and Strategy partners state that while they see little activity in the area of municipal involvement, others see strong and important partners from municipal agencies. For instance, some senior NCPC managers as well as some Regional Directors report significant involvement with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, as well as municipal involvement in Comprehensive Community Initiatives (CCIs). Regional Directors are more likely to indicate activities such as community needs assessments and municipal representation at conferences and workshops, as ways municipalities are being engaged. Examples of municipal involvement provided by Regional Directors include the crystal methamphetamine project in Smithers, British Columbia, and projects in Cowichan Valley, British Columbia involving the collaboration of 14 communities working on crime prevention strategies (see more details in Section E.2 of Appendix E).

The review of documents provides some evidence to indicate the engagement of municipalities. Examples include engaging a variety of municipalities in Quebec. For example, in a number of at-risk neighbourhoods in Montreal, a project supported the mobilization of various partners to develop alternatives to graffiti and vandalism. 18 In addition, the partnership that developed out of the Strategy’s support for the implementation of the provincial crime prevention policy in Quebec led to cooperation on numerous initiatives, including the mobilization of municipalities to address crime prevention (see Section E.1, Appendix E).

On the other hand, some documentary evidence also indicates a somewhat low participation rate of municipalities in Aboriginal children/youth projects: “15 per cent of projects with partners included partners from a municipal government”.19 This appears to substantiate the view held by some key informants that there is relatively low involvement of municipal agencies, but is inconsistent with the overall file and administrative data review results.

Private Sector:

Generally, key informants report that there is little involvement of private sector partners and that this is an area that needs to be addressed. The limited success of the Strategy in partnering with the business sector was also noted by some respondents in the fall 2004 partner/stakeholder consultations for the renewal of the NCPS.20 One Regional Director points out that it is sometimes difficult to engage the private sector over issues that do not necessarily pertain to them (i.e., crime prevention). Some Regional Directors also note that it has been difficult for the Strategy to engage the private sector as a result of being under-resourced due to financial constraints, explaining that this would require more and permanent staff. Lastly, one Regional Director is unaware of exactly what mechanisms/methods are available in order to engage the private sector.

However, some senior NCPC managers indicate that work is being done with the private sector, primarily through the Business Action Program, but at the same time noting that more needs to be done. Some examples of private sector involvement provided by the Regional Directors include Sears Canada, Telus, Alcan and Umbrella Arts organizations in the BC Region; and the Quebec Region places certain conditions for funding projects involving the private sector in order to encourage a CPSD approach (e.g., with the Chamber of Commerce of Montreal and the Canadian Tire Foundation).

The document review provides some additional evidence of private sector involvement with the Strategy, for instance, the securing of contributions from a wide range of sources, “including not only provincial and federal partners, but also the corporate/private sector in Manitoba”,23 and a project in New Brunswick where community organizations collaborated with corporate partners to form the Family Violence and Workplace Advisory Committee.

Police and Community Corrections:

In key informant interviews, the police are reported as being the most engaged partner. Some Regional Directors indicate that approximately 60 per cent to 95 per cent of funded projects include the involvement of a police partner. Involvement can range from simply providing in-kind donations to direct and highly active involvement – either from the local police force or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. According to the file review results presented earlier (see Exhibit 4.4), the participation of the police and/or community corrections is evident in just 23 per cent of the projects reviewed. This apparent contradiction with the interview findings may be explained by the fact that only direct, formal participation by the police was recorded in the file review and this review was limited to a sample of projects in the past two fiscal years for which Final Reports had been submitted.

With regard to community corrections, the predominant view is that there has been little involvement – although two Regional Directors report working with offenders being released from federal correctional facilities in order to reduce recidivism rates. As noted earlier, however, increased participation of community corrections (and policing) would be expected to result primarily from the CPPSI component of the Strategy, which was not part of this evaluation.

The document review provides an abundance of confirmatory evidence of police involvement in the Strategy. Police involvement ranges from “police and other criminal justice organizations [being] the most frequent anti-bullying project partners”,27

Documentary evidence of community corrections involvement in the Strategy is limited, but does include some examples from Ontario including: an exploratory study examining the impact of maternal incarceration on children, which involves the collaboration of federal and provincial correctional authorities;29

High-risk Communities:

The majority of key informants observe that the NCPS Phase II expansion has contributed greatly to an increased engagement of high-risk communities.

Some Regional Directors note that the Phase II expansion dollars have provided the funding needed to reach these communities, which are often quite isolated from main urban centres. The primary high-risk communities involved are northern and isolated, as well as Aboriginal communities.

NCPC managers and Strategy partners also agree strongly that high-risk communities have been engaged. Examples provided in interviews include that 90 per cent of funding in Manitoba is being directed toward high-risk communities, and there are targeted activities directed at high-risk communities in major urban centres. One Strategy partner criticizes the label “high-risk communities”, however, noting that this language is problematic for small rural communities where a label of “high-risk” could be detrimental to that community.

The documentation provides evidence of high-risk communities being engaged by the NCPS. For example: four downtown Montreal communities engaged in addressing issues related to prostitution;32

b) Contribution to NCPS Phase II
Expansion Objectives

Overview: In this section, findings are presented on the degree to which and in what ways the involvement of stakeholder groups has contributed to the achievement of the objectives of the NCPS expansion. The evaluation evidence indicates that the Strategy’s efforts over the Phase II expansion period, including the broadened participation of stakeholders, have made some contribution toward the objectives of the NCPS expansion, though it is not possible with the available evidence to draw precise conclusions about the incremental contribution to these formal objectives. There has been progress in facilitating citizenship engagement and public education, offering a continuum of supports/models for communities, and undertaking development work needed in high-need, low-capacity communities, but more work needs to be done on all fronts. In addition, key informants believe that a contribution has been made in expanding the scope of relationships with non-traditional partners and deepening efforts in priority areas (e.g., seniors, persons with disabilities, the gay and lesbian community, and ethno-cultural communities); however, the review of files and administrative data suggests that the contribution in reaching new priority groups has been modest to date. With respect to the fifth formal objective – establishing a centre of excellence/expertise (which presumably refers to the NCPC) – the consensus is that this has not yet been achieved, even though a foundation has been laid with the crime prevention expertise of NCPC staff across the country. Staffing and resource constraints have probably hindered the Centre’s progress in this regard.

The file review findings on objective achievement are summarized in Table 4.3. The review indicates that 57 per cent of projects have undertaken some development work that is required to make a difference in high-need, low-capacity communities – including inner-city, rural, remote and Aboriginal communities. Furthermore, 66 per cent of projects indicate offering a continuum of supports and crime prevention models for communities that require a range of programming interventions, while fully 81 per cent of projects provide some indication that they facilitated citizen engagement through broad, enduring public education efforts and informed discussions – with an emphasis on high-risk, high-needs/low-capacity communities and a focus on the sharing of best practices.

The administrative data review of all funded projects provides a similar profile of project activities that may potentially contribute to public awareness (see Tables C.3 and C.4 in Appendix C). Just over half of all projects (54 per cent) are categorized as focusing on information sharing, in particular, projects funded under the CMP (57 per cent), BAP (47 per cent) and CPPP (41 per cent). Key types of activities in this category include public awareness activities (31 per cent of projects), workshops (30 per cent), meetings (17 per cent) and conferences (13 per cent). In addition, there are substantial proportions of pilot projects focused on training and education (29 per cent) and outreach (19 per cent).

On the basis of this file review, there has been much less progress on the two remaining Phase II expansion objectives. Specifically, only 14 per cent of the projects reviewed provide evidence of expanding the scope of relationships with non-traditional partners and deepening the range of efforts to priority areas such as seniors and people with disabilities. The relatively small contribution to this objective is further indicated by the file review results presented earlier (Exhibit 4.3) that very few projects served seniors (five per cent), ethno-cultural communities (five per cent), the gay and lesbian community (two per cent) or persons with disabilities (two per cent). Given that these are new partners and groups the Strategy is trying to reach, however, a contribution from 14 per cent of the projects reviewed does not necessarily indicate poor progress.

Lastly, the contribution of projects to the objective of establishing a centre of excellence/expertise and learning to work on crime prevention projects, research, policy and practice was assessed in the file review. Note, however, that one aspect of this objective (establishing a centre of excellence/ expertise) would appear to relate most directly to the NCPC, so individual funded projects would not be expected to make a significant contribution in this regard. In this light, it is not surprising that just 11 per cent of projects provide some evidence of this type of contribution.

TABLE 4.3: Contribution to NCPS Phase II Expansion Objectives


Is there evidence that the involvement of the stakeholder groups in this project contributed to any of the following NCPS objectives for the Phase II expansion?
Yes
Facilitating citizen engagement through broad and enduring public education efforts and informed discussion, with an emphasis on high-risk, high-needs/low-capacity communities, and with a focus on sharing the best practices and success stories that can spur like-minded initiatives 81%
Offering a continuum of supports and crime prevention models for communities that require a range of programming interventions 66%
Undertaking development work required to make a difference in high-need, low-capacity communities, including inner-city, rural, remote, and Aboriginal communities 57%
Expanding the scope of relationships with non-traditional partners and deepening the range of efforts to priority areas, such as seniors, and persons with disabilities 14%
Establishing a centre of excellence, expertise, and learning to work on crime prevention projects, research, policy, and practice 11%

Source: Review of NCPS Project Files (2003-04 to 2004-05), 2005
n=133

Key informants are almost unanimous in the view that efforts of the NCPS Phase II expansion, including the involvement of various stakeholder groups, has contributed to the expansion’s formal objectives, though the majority of key informants indicate that progress has been better for some objectives than others. The views of key informants are generally compatible with what was observed in the project file review, though for one objective – expanding the scope of relationships with non-traditional partners and deepening the range of efforts in priority areas – the key informants perceive more of a contribution than is indicated in the project files reviewed. More details on key informants’ observations for each of the five objectives are as follows:

Undertaking development work required to make a difference in high-need, low-capacity communities, including inner-city, rural, remote, and Aboriginal communities:

The Regional Directors and the NCPC managers/Strategy partners all report that there has been a great deal of work and success on this objective – primarily in the area of rural, remote and Aboriginal communities. One example is the crime prevention work in Huntington, Quebec (see Section E.3 in Appendix E). This small town was faced with its youth getting out of control and becoming involved with vandalism and other such issues. One method the town used to deal with these problems was the implementation of a curfew for youth, but this was seen as a “band-aid solution” that did not really address the source of the problem. The NCPC provided support to a local committee that was formed to open up dialogue and provide longer-term solutions to the problems in Huntington.

Another example from the BC Region involves work with the Urban Native Youth Association. Aboriginal youth engage in leadership activities while at the same time contributing to an environment that provides alternatives to possible high-risk behaviour. In addition, collaborative work conducted with the Centre for Criminal Justice Statistics has provided some developmental work/research at the inner-city level. A research study examining the neighbourhood characteristics and distribution of crime in Winnipeg discovered that crime is not evenly dispersed across the city, but rather is often concentrated in specific areas of the city. Results of this study indicate that in Winnipeg crime occurs in areas that have reduced access to social and economic resources. These areas are primarily economically disadvantaged and have a less educated population, more single female parent families, Aboriginal residents, and/or recent immigrants.33

Some Regional Directors note that additional funding provided for the Phase II expansion has contributed greatly to progress on this objective (e.g., by allowing staff to go directly into communities to provide assistance) and that there are more of the partners that represent these communities “sitting at the table” for funded projects.

Offering a continuum of supports and crime prevention models for communities that require a range of programming interventions:

Many key informants note that this objective is still a work in progress. For very high-need communities, it can be difficult to provide sufficient support particularly if a specific NCPC Region is receiving insufficient project funding to provide the necessary support.

Beyond the issue of insufficient project funding, many key informants feel that the key to achieving this objective is to engage people directly at the community level, rather than taking a more regional approach. For instance, some Regional Directors recommend that community crime prevention should be organized in a way that communities themselves have more autonomy over addressing their problems, rather than being prescribed directives from the NCPC regional and/or Ottawa offices. In addition, some Strategy partners indicate that the development of formal models of crime prevention is very challenging, or in some cases not feasible, for short-term projects with limited funding.

NCPC managers appear more optimistic in terms of the progress made regarding supports and prevention models developed, with some stating that this objective is being achieved through the delivery of more projects that reach more people.

Facilitating citizen engagement through broad and enduring public education efforts and informed discussion, with an emphasis on high-risk, high-needs/lowcapacity communities, and with a focus on sharing the best practices and success stories that can spur like-minded initiatives:

The consensus is that a lot of work has been done on citizen engagement and public education, but many respondents feel that more could and should be done. One Regional Director suggests that a more systematic process be implemented to facilitate public education and communications, while several Regional Directors indicate that more funding should be provided for a much broader public education initiative. Some key informants also note that there is too much reliance on tools that do not target the general public sufficiently, such as the NCPC website. More tools are required to reach a broader public.

Expanding the scope of relationships with non-traditional partners and deepening the range of efforts to priority areas, such as seniors and persons with disabilities:

Regional Directors and the NCPC managers/Strategy partners are almost unanimous in reporting that there is a broad engagement of non-traditional partners. Each NCPC Regional Director presented evidence of working with non-traditional partners and priority groups, including in some cases gay and lesbian groups, seniors, and persons with disabilities. NCPC managers and Strategy partners provide similar examples of non-traditional partners that have been engaged by the NCPS, and add that ethnocultural communities have also been involved.

Documentation also indicates that work is being conducted with non-traditional groups. For instance, the NCPC has funded research into working with women offenders and their children.34 This work has provided important findings, such as: “separation because of maternal incarceration is more destabilizing for children than paternal incarceration”; “mothers released from prison face more parenting challenges than fathers”; and, “most incarcerated women are socially and economically marginalized”.

Establishing a centre of excellence, expertise, and learning to work on crime prevention projects, research, policy, and practice:

Most key informants report that the objective of establishing a centre of excellence and expertise in crime prevention is far from being attained. Although many NCPC managers, Strategy partners and Regional Directors feel that the foundation has been laid for such a centre, there is still much to be accomplished in this regard; a formal centre of excellence (e.g., at the NCPC) does not yet exist. No doubt, the constraints on the NCPC noted earlier (i.e., budgetary constraints on staffing, staff turnover, and the lack of a Director, Research and Evaluation for the past two years) have hindered the Centre’s progress in this respect. Still it is suggested that NCPS staff members constitute an informal centre of excellence/expertise. In the words of one Regional Director, “the Region and the staff are becoming a centre of excellence or expertise on crime prevention”, rather than a formal centre per se.

4.2 Increased Awareness/ Understanding of Crime Prevention

a) Contribution to Partner/Stakeholder Awareness and Understanding

Overview: Evaluation findings on the extent to which the Phase II expansion of the NCPS has increased stakeholder and partner understanding of community safety and crime prevention are presented in this section. The findings indicate that the work of the Phase II expansion (e.g., delivery of workshops, distribution of information kits, conferences, public forums, research studies, NCPC networking efforts, making information available on the NCPC website and virtual library) has contributed to increasing awareness/understanding of community safety and crime prevention among partners and stakeholders. This includes an increase in understanding of the root causes of crime (demonstrated, for example, by the increasing quality of proposals for project funding) and of what is required to promote and support community mobilization in response to crime, though there may be a need for more specific guidelines on this matter. In addition, there is some evidence of increased awareness of best practices in CPSD and of other community-based approaches to crime prevention (e.g., the use of culturally appropriate approaches).

There is evidence from the file review that projects contributed to increased partner/stakeholder awareness of a number of aspects of community safety and crime prevention issues (see Exhibit 4.5). Specifically, 76 per cent of files provided evidence of increased awareness of the root causes of crime and 68 per cent of what is required to promote/support community mobilization. On the basis of the file review, there was less contribution to awareness of “what works” and best practices in CPSD 35 (24 per cent of projects) and of “other” effective community-based approaches to crime prevention (16 per cent). Note, however, that only 27 per cent of projects had a stated objective to raise awareness of crime prevention through social development approaches.

EXHIBIT 4.5

In the view of key informants, the Phase II expansion has contributed to increased awareness/ understanding of community safety and crime prevention among partners and stakeholders in the following ways:

Awareness of the Root Causes of Crime:

The consensus among key informants is that there has been an increase in awareness and knowledge of the root causes of crime. Workshops and public forums have contributed greatly to educating people on the root causes of crime.

Many of the Regional Directors report that the quality of proposals from organizations seeking funding has increased substantially and that proposals demonstrate a much better understanding of the root causes of crime. In addition, a Strategy partner reports an important increase in media coverage on crime prevention and the root causes of crime, related to projects funded by the NCPS, while other NCPC managers/Strategy partners perceive that there has been general success in increasing awareness of the root causes of crime.

Understanding of What is Required to Promote And Support Community Mobilization In Response To Crime:

With few exceptions, key informants report that the Phase II expansion dollars contribute to delivering the necessary information to promote and support community mobilization. For instance, several Regional Directors as well as a Strategy partner point to workshops and research that examined group networking and sustainability as ways in which the NCPS has been able to promote and support community mobilization.

However, in the view of one Strategy partner, there is still a need for the NCPS to identify more precisely what is required for community mobilization. This key informant explains that there “is no real process manual as to how to get things moving” (i.e., no standard method of how to support community mobilization).

Awareness/Understanding of Crime Prevention Through Social Development (CPSD) Approaches, Including “What Works” and Best Practices In CPSD:

Key informants generally state there has been an increase in awareness and understanding of CPSD and other crime prevention approaches. Increased proposal quality is given as an example to illustrate how the understanding of CPSD has improved. Many Regional Directors as well as a Strategy partner state that proposals are more elaborate and exhibit a much better understanding of CPSD and crime prevention approaches, and that traditional crime prevention organizations such as the police are working on a more integrated and collaborative approach to crime prevention by using CPSD with the NCPC.

In addition, there is a general acceptance of the CPSD approach in communities where Strategy projects have been implemented, although there can be resistance to this approach in the beginning when first presented to communities, in the view of some Regional Directors. Over time, and with education, communities are increasingly more open to the idea of CPSD and alternative forms of crime prevention, says one Regional Director.

Awareness/Understanding of Other Effective Community-Based Approaches to Crime Prevention:

The general consensus of key informants is that there is a greater awareness and understanding of effective community-based approaches to crime prevention.

NCPC managers, Strategy partners and Regional Directors state that CPSD is more than just one approach – it is eclectic. One Regional Director describes an effective strategy as “[requiring] a balanced approach to working with communities”, indicating that an effective strategy relies on more than one approach. A senior manager also describes “other” effective community-based approaches to crime prevention that include culturally specific approaches and youth involvement in order to respond appropriately to situations and community needs.

Furthermore, another Regional Director indicates that many partners may not consider that they are engaging in crime prevention, and may even report that they have no relationship with crime prevention, when they are involved, for example, in literacy and employment programs – both of which can be regarded as plausible components of effective community-based approaches to crime prevention.

When asked to specify what the Strategy’s role has been in increasing awareness/ understanding among stakeholders and partners, key informants report a wide variety of NCPS activities and roles that contribute to this outcome. For instance, the NCPC shares information on crime prevention with the general population through methods such as conferences, networks for information exchange, and regional staff’s approaching of community organizations to spread the message of CPSD. In addition, the NCPC’s efforts at establishing networks and contacts between organizations are regarded as particularly important for increasing awareness.

A number of examples of awareness-raising activities that the NCPC has undertaken were described in the documentation reviewed. Nationally, examples include a comprehensive website and a virtual library making available a great deal of the information the NCPC has produced, as well as a toll-free information line. In Quebec, the NCPS has sponsored awareness-raising events such as a conference designed to initiate dialogue between organizations and professionals regarding street gangs; other conferences where the NCPC provided a speaker to talk about CPSD issues; and a forum delivered to stakeholders on young women and gang violence. In the Northern Region, the NCPS funded a family violence conference in which information kits were distributed to a large number of conference participants, which were said to increase awareness of the issues.36

In addition, documents indicate that there is a great deal of interest in the NCPC. For instance, reports indicate that 2,000 phone calls and 2,000 e-mail messages are received by the NCPC per year and that the virtual library has more than 475,000 visitors annually.38

b) Contribution to Public Awareness and Acceptance

Overview: In this section, findings are presented on the extent to which the expansion of Phase II of the NCPS has increased public understanding of community safety and crime prevention. Evidence from the file review and key informant interviews suggests that public awareness and acceptance of crime prevention, including CPSD approaches, have been increased particularly in communities reached by Strategy projects. In addition, public opinion research commissioned by the Department of Justice (polls from July 2000 and November 2003) indicates that the Canadian public is generally aware and supportive of crime prevention through social development initiatives. However, conclusive evidence linking the efforts of the Strategy to the generally favourable opinions of the Canadian public regarding CPSD and federal government efforts in crime prevention is not available.

In the file review a majority of projects (72 per cent) provide some evidence of increased public understanding and acceptance of CPSD approaches.39 The methods and activities used by projects to address crime prevention are diverse and extensive. The most common activities are workshops aimed at the sharing of information (40 per cent), public awareness activities (39 per cent), outreach projects (29 per cent), training and education projects (20 per cent), and projects aimed at early intervention (19 per cent).

The administrative data review of all funded projects provides a similar profile of project activities that may potentially contribute to public awareness (see Tables C.3 and C.4 in Appendix C). Just over half of all projects (54 per cent) are categorized as focusing on information sharing, in particular, projects funded under the CMP (57 per cent), BAP (47 per cent) and CPPP (41 per cent). Key types of activities in this category include public awareness activities (31 per cent of projects), workshops (30 per cent), meetings (17 per cent) and conferences (13 per cent). In addition, there are substantial proportions of pilot projects focused on training and education (29 per cent) and outreach (19 per cent).

Similarly, NCPC senior managers, Strategy partners and Regional Directors generally report that the Phase II expansion has contributed to public awareness and acceptance of CPSD and crime prevention, though Strategy partners and NCPC managers are somewhat more skeptical about the Strategy’s degree of success in this respect and some note that more work needs to be done.

The majority of Regional Directors perceive there has been an increase in public awareness and acceptance of CPSD approaches due to a variety of factors, including a change in the political landscape, from a more punitive approach to crime prevention (i.e., boot camps, more prisons), to a more restorative and proactive approach, such as addressing the causes of crime (i.e., CPSD). Other factors include more media coverage of NCPC-CPSD initiatives, which may contribute to a greater public understanding and acceptance of CPSD.

Public opinion research 40 commissioned by the Department of Justice (and reported in the mid-term evaluation of the Phase II expansion) indicates that the Canadian public is generally aware and supportive of crime prevention through social development initiatives. A survey of 1,515 Canadians conducted in November 2003 finds that as a priority for the government, crime prevention is fourth in the list of priority issues presented – falling behind health care, environmental and poverty issues.

Regarding public awareness, Canadians correctly identify a number of CPSD root causes as having an impact on crime (e.g., 88 and 74 per cent, respectively, identify alcohol/drug abuse and a stable home environment as having a strong impact on crime). Furthermore, a majority rates a number of CPSD approaches, which are supported by the Strategy, as being effective for reducing crime – including the expansion of youth literacy and training programs (65 per cent), increasing early childhood intervention programs (58 per cent), expanding parenting programs (58 per cent), expanding youth recreational activities (57 per cent), and the development of public education programs (55 per cent). Traditional law enforcement approaches involving hiring more police officers (32 per cent) and expanding prisons to allow for longer sentences (18 per cent) are rated as the least effective approaches and poorest investment for crime reduction. These results are very similar to those from an earlier poll conducted in July 2000.

Public acceptance is indicated by Canadians’ support for crime prevention programs. For example, roughly one-half of survey respondents see crime prevention programs as being very effective, with an additional one-third rating them as somewhat effective. Among a list of possible goals for the criminal justice system, the most frequently endorsed main goal is prevention (41 per cent), followed by punishment (23 per cent), a trend very similar to that observed in July 2000. Similarly, Canadians are twice as likely to select crime prevention than law enforcement (66 versus 33 per cent) as the most cost-effective way to reduce the economic and social costs of crime. The proportions in July 2000 were 71 per cent and 28 per cent, respectively. Finally, the majority (78 per cent) rates the funding and support of local crime prevention programs in communities as a very appropriate role for the federal government.

The above results from public opinion research indicate that there is a fairly high degree of public awareness and acceptance of CPSD approaches, though it is not possible to gauge the precise impact of the NCPS in influencing public awareness and acceptance. Similar conclusions were drawn in the summative evaluation of the pre-expansion Strategy and in the mid-term evaluation of the Phase II expansion.

4.3 Identification/Adoption of Successful Crime Prevention Approaches

a) Identification of Effective Crime Prevention Approaches

Overview: This section of the report presents findings on the extent to which the Phase II expansion has contributed to the successful identification of effective approaches to crime prevention. The evaluation evidence from the document and file review suggests that the NCPS has identified a range of crime prevention approaches/models (e.g., the Peer Education Model involving youth in trouble, the Drug Treatment Court which brings law enforcement and treatment agencies together as an alternative means of dealing with drug crime, and a Prevention through Education approach to reducing abuse against youth on the Internet). In general, the involvement of multiple partners in these projects is seen as contributing to their success. However, as noted by some key informants and experts, the Strategy’s success in identifying effective crime prevention approaches may have been limited by budget cuts, staff shortages and its focus on only CPSD approaches.

Evidence from the project file review indicates that the majority of projects (77 per cent) helped to increase knowledge of effective crime prevention approaches. In addition, almost one-quarter of projects (23 per cent) involved the development of a crime prevention model, and some evidence of the effectiveness of the model was provided in 24 of these 30 project files. These findings are impressive, considering that it is probably quite optimistic (or even unrealistic) to expect a formal “model” to be developed and assessed in short-term projects with limited funding, as would be the case for projects funded under the CMP, which comprised the majority of the file review sample.

In related findings from the file review, evidence indicates that projects have contributed to the identification of effective crime prevention approaches or models.41 Of the 133 projects reviewed, 37 projects (28 per cent) provided some evidence of identifying an effective approach or model, whereas the remaining 72 per cent provided no such evidence. Examples of the approaches/models identified by these 37 projects include the following:

The Missing project takes a prevention through education approach to reducing victimization of youth on the Internet, whereby youth are taught, through the use of an interactive computer game developed under the project, not to reveal key pieces of personal information about themselves when they are online. The results of an evaluation of this project indicated that youth who participated in the game were more interested in finding out, and better able to write guidelines, about safe Internet practices, which ultimately should lead to reduced incidence of Internet crime against youth (Source: Gail Crombie and Anne Trinneer (February 2003) “Children and Internet Safety: An Evaluation of the Missing Program”.)

In the Drug Treatment Court program, begun as NCPS-funded pilot projects in Toronto and Vancouver, criminal justice agencies work closely with the substance abuse treatment community and other social institutions to design and operate the program, relying on strong collaboration between the judiciary, the prosecutor, the duty counsel (and related agencies such as probation, police, and corrections) as well as its partnership with treatment services and other community organizations. Major strengths of the approach, as identified by DTC participants, are: its client-centered, non-punitive treatment approach to rehabilitation; the judicially monitored and structured nature of the program (regular court appearances, attendance at treatment, regular/random urinalysis); and collaborative partnerships between judicial, treatment, and community components. Indicators of DTC success include: a reduction in substance use and criminal activity; acceptance of personal responsibility for behaviours and situations; improved social functioning; and willingness to address substance use. (Also see work on the DTC in Winnipeg, described in Section E.3 of Appendix E.)

Under the peer education model employed in a number of NPCS projects, young people who have been in trouble with the law, experienced substance abuse and/or dropped out of school go into classrooms to share their life experiences with other young people who may be at risk of similar difficulties. These programs motivate young people in trouble, or at risk of getting into trouble, to turn their lives around. The peer educators are given training in making public presentations, as well as emotional and financial support to allow them to return to school and get their lives back on track. A success factor in these projects is the sponsorship and involvement of a number of youth serving agencies, to ensure easy access to services needed by the peer educators and the young people they connect with.

The Savannah Family Institute (SFI) model involves the delivery of parenting and family intervention programs. The model aims to reduce the waiting list and length of intervention in traditional counselling programs. The model involves parents and youth working together, which is different from traditional approaches to counselling services. The course is now recognized in the City of Ottawa parent resources center as one of the core parenting programs for the city. The course material is also used in presentations to educate parent groups, schools, and social workers. The program is offered as part of the Youth Services Bureau for continued care and there are plans to have it integrated in holistic school-based approaches to school based prevention and intervention efforts (Source: file review summary).

The NCPS contributed to The Early Years, Making a World of Difference Conference, which was put on by the Early Childhood Development Association of PEI in partnership with PEI's Premier Council on Healthy Child Development, and the Government of PEI (http://www.ecda.pe.ca/history.php). The conference provided the opportunity for local and national participants to share experiences and lessons learned around how they supported community development in the area of protecting children against abuse, exploitation and violence through poster displays, informal networking and workshop sessions. One interesting session focused on MIKE (Measuring and Improving Kids’ Environments), an approach by which indicators are developed and information collected for purposes of measuring the quality of centres where children are placed. By linking community-based and government resources, MIKE benefits from a mix of knowledge, experience and talent. The program, which started as a pilot project, and is now present throughout the province, builds on the skills of early childhood educators, as well as excellent Canadian research to provide higher quality services for all children within their programs, which is expected to lead to reduced incidence of crime among youth.

NCPC mangers and Strategy partners are divided on the degree of success of the NCPS in identifying successful crime prevention approaches. While some managers state that the work through projects, dissemination of knowledge and general mining for information have all contributed to the identification of effective approaches, others suggest that external factors such as the turnover of NCPC staff and Executive Directors have inhibited the Strategy’s progress in identifying these approaches.

On the other hand, there is more agreement among Regional Directors that the Strategy has contributed to the identification of effective crime prevention approaches. Some Regional Directors indicate that they have stopped working in isolation and now connect people and organizations, enabling greater identification of new approaches. They also observe a general “appetite” for information on best practices in crime prevention from schools, police agencies and health organizations.

Experts have mixed views on the Strategy’s degree of success in identifying effective crime prevention approaches. Although some experts state that the NCPS’s approach is flexible to the needs of communities and that this flexibility facilitates success in identifying crime prevention approaches, others perceive that the Strategy’s approach is too closed-minded and does not allow for innovation. For instance, one expert suggests that since the NCPS is “not strict and allows movement and flexibility” this contributes to a more comprehensive and broader identification of crime prevention approaches, while another expert notes that there is too much focus on CPSD approaches and that the Strategy should consider other forms of crime prevention in order to identify more effective approaches. Similar to this latter point, in the fall 2004 partner/stakeholder consultations for the renewal of the NCPS, some respondents noted that, in addition to the emphasis on primary prevention and CPSD, the Strategy should also utilize a holistic or comprehensive approach that could include secondary and tertiary crime prevention measures.42

Evidence from the documentation indicates that a large number of tools and procedures have been developed to identify or implement crime prevention approaches, including:

In addition, the NCPC has commissioned much research to identify effective crime prevention approaches. First, it sponsored the development of an inventory of effective crime prevention approaches across Canada, with a view to increasing awareness, understanding and adoption of effective CPSD practices.48 The product is a compendium of 39 key crime prevention strategies, practices, resources, and tools supported by each of the federal, provincial and territorial governments of Canada. The focus was on CPSD, particularly efforts building community partnerships. The compendium serves several potential audiences, including crime prevention and health and social assistance practitioners; policy makers; community safety and crime prevention researchers; and non-government organizations and individuals interested in addressing crime and victimization issues in their community.

Crime prevention approaches showcased in this compendium were selected from among those suggested by members of the Federal/Provincial/Territorial (FPT) Working Group on Community Safety and Crime Prevention as noteworthy crime prevention tools and strategies used in their particular jurisdictions. Selection criteria for inclusion of a particular practice or tool in the final report included the existence of evidence of the approach’s effectiveness, its plausibility, its practicality for implementation, its acceptability to various community contexts, and the existence of partnerships. In all cases, the crime prevention practice or approach is described, but how effective the crime prevention practice or tool has been is not always detailed; however, contact information is provided to enable the user to obtain additional information on it.

Other NCPC work aimed at increasing the identification and adoption of effective crime prevention approaches is a mining exercise to extract lessons learned from evaluations that were funded by the NCPS Crime Prevention Investment Fund (CPIF).49 Findings presented in the study report were based on an examination of CPIF-funded evaluations of 27 CPIF-funded demonstration crime prevention projects that were completed or would be completed by the end of the 2003-04 fiscal year.

The study and report primarily serve to identify effective crime prevention interventions, speaking to the knowledge development aim of the Strategy. The information presented can inform communities about promising approaches to CPSD, as well as which aspects of these approaches work and which do not. Information on effective approaches is presented both in the form of outcome findings and conclusions drawn from the evaluations, and in the form of lessons learned relating to project implementation. Lessons learned are identified in the areas of staffing of projects, communications, preparation work, success factors and partnerships/sustainability, and specifically with regard to youth, cultural issues and alternative courts.

Related to the preceding study, some of the work that was reported contributed to a related effort to draw conclusions regarding the implementation of CPIF projects and the design of the Program.50 Program and NCPC evaluation staff considered recommendations from this exercise, along with other knowledge gained from a review of documents and discussions, to come up with a set of recommendations for the implementation of CPIF projects. Areas where suggestions were made included: two-phased projects, strategic funding, links to other NCPS funding programs, funding of fewer projects to provide staff with more time to work with projects, taking advantage of synergy within NCPC, enhanced communications, making knowledge development the focus, providing long-term funding, and developing tools and guides from funded projects.

b) Adoption of Effective New Crime Prevention Approaches

Overview: This section of the report presents findings on the extent to which the Phase II expansion has contributed to the successful adoption of effective crime prevention approaches. There is limited evidence to indicate that crime prevention approaches, identified and funded by the NCPS, have actually been adopted. Examples include the adoption of some NCPS projects or products/resources by municipalities and law enforcement and the continuation of successful CPIF projects in communities.

Of the 133 projects reviewed, only 17 projects (13 per cent) provided some evidence that an effective crime prevention approach or model, which had been identified, was formally adopted (e.g., the Savannah Family Institute model was delivered in one community). As noted earlier, however, it is probably not realistic to expect a typical short-term project with limited funding (e.g., CMP projects) to develop and facilitate the adoptation of a successful crime prevention model.

Senior managers at the NCPC Ottawa office, Strategy partners, Regional Directors and experts all appear divided as to the extent to which effective new crime prevention approaches are being adopted. For instance, while the NCPC managers/Strategy partners see little evidence of the adoption of effective new crime prevention approaches (e.g., in the words of one interviewee, “I don’t see it happening”), the Regional Directors have a more optimistic perspective, regarding this as a “work in progress”.

These differing perspectives may be explained in part by differences of opinion among key informants as to whether or not CPSD constitutes a “new” approach. Some of the Regional Directors seem to be indicating that while the elements that compose CPSD are not new, the model and formal application of CPSD is in fact new. Some experts appear reluctant to conclude that the Strategy has led to the adoption of effective new models because in their view CPSD is not a new form of crime prevention. For example, one expert states that the adoption of effective crime prevention approaches has not occurred to “any great degree”, while another observes that “new more innovative ways that complement CPSD appear to have emerged”.

All key informants are almost unanimous in the belief that municipalities and law enforcement have adopted NCPS crime prevention projects/products. Examples are numerous. NCPC managers/ Strategy partners cite the Waterloo Regional Police Council’s adoption of a program (now self-sufficient) originally funded by the NCPS and the development of a CPSD training module by the RCMP. Regional Directors note that the province of British Columbia is in talks regarding the adoption of a model funded by the Strategy in Jasper, and that there has been extensive law enforcement cooperation in Montreal on a number of projects. The City of Montreal has developed a crime prevention initiative, which it intends to roll out in all its boroughs with the help of the NCPS. In addition, various crime prevention tools (e.g., Vers le Pacifique, QES developed by the Université de Montréal) have been formally adopted by schools and school boards (see Section E.4, Appendix E).

Experts also provide many examples of NCPS projects being adopted at other sites, including police departments’ use of training materials and publications created by the NCPC as well as those generated by funding recipients in order to engage communities. Another example is the model municipal drug prevention strategy, funded through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which was sponsored by the NCPS.

Further supportive evidence is available from the documentation. A finding of the previously mentioned CPIF mining exercise is that effective crime prevention approaches are being adopted.51 The examination revealed that eight of the 12 CPIF projects completed at the time of the study were sustained beyond the end of funding, partially or in their entirety, in their respective communities. This suggests that the NCPS is contributing to the adoption of effective crime prevention approaches. The report also points out that CPSD initiatives are long-term approaches but that the fact that projects are already showing some positive results and being sustained in some communities is a positive sign and an indictor of potential long-term success.

4.4 Increased Community Capacity to Respond to Crime

In this section, evaluation findings are presented on the degree to which the Phase II expansion of the NCPS has contributed to community capacity to respond to local crime and victimization. The first sub-section addresses contributions to community capacity-building in general, while the subsequent sub-sections focus on specific indicators of community capacity (i.e., knowledge development in communities, sustained partnerships, private sector involvement and community involvement).

a) Contribution to Community Capacity-Building

Overview: The evaluation evidence indicates that the Strategy has been successful in contributing to community capacity in dealing with crime and victimization. Numerous examples were provided by key informants or identified in the document review.

All key informants report a great deal of success regarding the Phase II expansion’s building of community capacity. The Regional Directors emphasize that the additional funding has provided a significantly greater capacity for reaching communities. In addition, some report that this additional funding has contributed to more evidence-based projects and provided evidence of increased community capacity. Examples provided by the Regional Directors include a program in collaboration with the Nova Scotia Aboriginal Justice Branch that addresses the issues revolving around Aboriginal involvement in the criminal justice system and methods of resolving these issues. Another example is the gang-related crime prevention work being conducted in Toronto communities – it is noted that if the additional funding dollars had not been provided, it would have been impossible to engage 10 Toronto communities in capacity-building to the extent they have been.

Strategy partners and NCPC managers also provide evidence of community capacity-building. For example, one Strategy partner states that there is more direct contact with NCPC staff and “the people on the ground in local communities”, with this increase in work and contact being attributed to the expansion dollars. As an illustration of capacity-building, a partner refers to a project in the town of Waywayseecappo, Manitoba that addressed family and youth violence. This program involved the mobilization of approximately 70 to 80 people from the community and the formation of a basic resource group.

Some NCPC managers note that the time required to build community capacity is often underestimated (e.g., by senior officials who do not work directly with communities). Community capacity-building takes a great deal of time, effort and resources, and may take a longer period of time to be realized than originally anticipated.

This observation about the challenges associated with the development of partnerships and community capacity is supported by previous studies/evaluations that were reviewed, for example: “It is acknowledged that partnerships take time and resources to develop, but the tremendous challenges community groups face when developing partnerships is not often fully considered. The challenges that groups face are sometimes unthinkable”;53

Additional documentary evidence supports the Strategy’s progress in building community capacity. For example, research findings on the Community Mobilization Program in Manitoba indicate “increases in all areas [of community involvement] from 1998-2000 to 2000-2003… For example, skill/personal development increased from seven per cent to 20 per cent… [This] shows that Manitoba CMP projects are improving on the CMP aim of increased community capacity”. 56

b) Contribution to Knowledge in Communities

Overview: The evaluation evidence indicates that the Phase II expansion has made some contribution to knowledge development in communities, though there is room for improvement. Findings from the file review suggest that most projects have in some way increased knowledge of crime prevention approaches. Key informants are generally split on this question, however. Some key informants see greater knowledge exchange across communities, while others see a lack of dissemination of NCPS research findings and insufficient use of all the knowledge that has been produced under the Strategy.

In the project file review, files were reviewed for evidence of whether or not funded projects helped to increase knowledge of effective crime prevention strategies. The majority of projects reviewed (77 per cent) did provide some indication of increased knowledge of effective crime prevention strategies.

Key informants are, however, divided on whether the Phase II expansion has increased knowledge of effective crime prevention. This difference of opinion is seen even within the groups of Strategy partners, NCPC managers and Regional Directors who were interviewed.

Regional Directors who believe that there has been success in knowledge development in communities note, for example, that when receiving funding applications, they will try to link the funding applicant with other organizations that have been funded to do similar work, thus contributing to an exchange of knowledge, and that communities are engaging in proactive learning as a result of the knowledge being transmitted to them through funded programs and activities. Another example (described in Section E.3 of Appendix E) is the Women’s Social Justice Forum, partially funded by the Strategy, which brought together their funded projects in Manitoba to learn lessons and plan future work to create safer/healthier communities for women. On the other hand, those Regional Directors who do not see an increase in knowledge assert that knowledge is not growing at a sufficient rate, noting that there have been problems with disseminating research findings to other organizations. One Regional Director states, “we have a wealth of information that we have not paid attention to yet”. NCPC staff shortages and turnover, as noted earlier, may partially account for a lack of progress on knowledge development and dissemination.

As previously noted, Strategy partners and NCPC managers are also divided as to how much the NCPS has been able to increase knowledge of effective crime prevention strategies. Those who feel there has been a contribution to knowledge argue, for example, that the NCPS provides direction and assistance to communities (which may be stagnant and unable to solve problems in isolation) by establishing networks of partners that enable these communities to see “outside their problems”. Those who do not see an increase in knowledge note that there is a concern that the “message is [not] large enough for people who don’t have direct contact with the NCPS to do anything on their own”, and that “word of mouth is not enough”. One Strategy partner emphasizes that the NCPS has to develop a more effective approach for exchanging and disseminating knowledge, noting that “the Internet and website isn’t enough”.

Similarly, in the fall 2004 partner/stakeholder consultations for the renewal of the Strategy, many respondents noted that “the knowledge gained from research, evaluations and project development and delivery is not getting out to the people and communities that need it”, and the “lack of a mechanism in place for information sharing and dissemination” was frequently cited as an issue that the Strategy needs to address. 57 In the view of some respondents in these consultations, however, the Strategy’s efforts and funds would be best spent on the development of knowledge dissemination capacities at the community level.

c) Sustained Partnerships and/or Private Sector Involvement

Overview: Evaluation findings from the project file review indicate that in just over half of the projects, partnerships lasted or are expected to endure beyond the period of project funding. The continued involvement of the private sector is, however, observed much less frequently.

For the projects reviewed, 59 per cent of project partnerships in the community have lasted or are expected to be sustained beyond the NCPS funding period (see Exhibit 4.6). The sustained involvement of the private sector is, however, substantially less common (only eight per cent of projects). It is important to note that the extent of partnership sustainability may be underestimated, as project files often did not indicate whether projects and partnerships will continue upon the completion of NCPS funding.

EXHIBIT 4.6

The file review evidence is supported by the views of the vast majority of the Regional Directors and NCPC managers, who state that there have been sustained partnerships and some private sector involvement in communities. However, the Strategy partners are less likely to see this type of sustained involvement.

Regional Directors provide numerous examples of lasting partnerships, including the Black Business Persons Association and Sears Canada among the projects funded by the Business Action Program. One Regional Director states that “[we] went back to projects after two years, to see what was going on, and overwhelmingly, partnerships that had been developed between organizations, systems and people had been maintained and had moved forward”. In the view of a senior manager, the Phase II expansion has contributed greatly to the sustainability of these relationships.

Some Strategy partners, however, are less certain about the contribution of the Strategy to sustained partnerships and private sector involvement, explaining that “it’s hard to do this [sustain relationships]” and that it is difficult to attribute enduring partnerships directly to the NCPS because prior relationships between organizations and other factors may have contributed more than the interventions by the Strategy.

d) Sustained Community Involvement and Programming

Overview: With respect to the Strategy’s contribution to sustained community involvement or programming in crime prevention, the evaluation findings from the file review indicate that in about half the projects, project activities or some community involvement continued after funding ended, an observation confirmed by the documentation.

Evidence from the file review indicates that the Phase II expansion has facilitated sustained community involvement/programming to some degree. Of those project files reviewed, half indicate that the project activities or some community involvement have continued or will likely continue beyond the period of NCPS funding (see Exhibit 4.6).

Turning to the key informant interviews, opinion is divided on the extent to which there has been sustained community involvement or programming – with differing views again observed within the same groups of interviewees. The observations of Regional Directors vary considerably in terms of the sustainability seen in each of the regions. On the one hand, some state that “[there] are tons of them [examples]” and “we see this almost without exception”. For instance, in Sutherland, British Columbia, the NCPS provided funding for the Youth Entrepreneurial Sutherland Training Economic Development Association, which resulted in a number of business partnerships being established. On the other hand, one Regional Director reports that “[we] have not really seen this” and “when your project is done — it’s done”; in other words, projects have a defined beginning and end, and are therefore not expected to continue.

Evidence found in the document review lends support to the finding from the file review and some key informant interviews that sustained community involvement is being achieved. A number of examples are provided in the documentation. For instance, a report on the Community Mobilization Program in Manitoba (between 1998 and 2003) provided an analysis of how the NCPC, through the framework of CPSD, has been fulfilling the role of crime prevention and of how CMP projects have been contributing to crime prevention in communities. It was found that [in Manitoba] a number of projects indicated that they had identified alternative sources of funding, [and that] according to a regional health authority, [there is evidence] that 55 of 78 groups found alternative funding. 60

A similarly high degree of sustained community involvement was observed in a Northern Region study which examined CMP projects funded between 2001 and 2003. In this study, follow-up interviews were conducted to learn if and how projects were having long-term impacts in communities. It was found that “95 per cent of respondents said that partnerships or relationships that developed or improved as part of the CMP project continued in some way”.62

The NCPC has commissioned further research into community sustainability, with a view to improving community capacity to implement sustainable and effective crime prevention practices. First, it commissioned research to identify lessons learned from communities that have been able to sustain CPSD activities over time 63. Six diverse communities from across Canada were studied, including: two urban neighbourhoods; two “communities of interest” within urban areas; several rural communities in close proximity and sharing a similar cultural heritage, and one northern First Nations community.

A number of common elements associated with sustainability of crime prevention activities were identified. These include a commitment to issues of local concern, an iterative process in addressing issues, an investment in capacity building, the involvement of leaders, collaboration and linkages, realized outcomes and sufficient resources. Another finding is that communities need to take certain actions to achieve an appropriate balance between local needs/capacity and broader-level government policies and initiatives. These actions include ensuring dialogue within communities for identifying problems and solutions; applying an integrated approach; appropriate communication and coordination mechanisms for facilitating integrated approaches; sharing knowledge and developing knowledge; investing in community capacity; and recognizing the value of volunteers.

Related to this, the NCPC commissioned a study to review the general literature on the sustainability of social development activities and apply lessons learned from the research to crime prevention policy and practice 64. The paper identifies, among other things, a number of challenges to achieving sustainable community development with respect to crime prevention. These include consideration of the roles of criminal justice players such police and corrections; recognition of diversity and the conflict that might bring; the need to balance collective community concerns with individual rights and costs; and the need for considerable community time and resources to build capacity and implement practices. Issues of concern to policy makers interested in community-based sustainable development were also identified, including the complexity of the concept of community as a policy instrument; incorporating uncertain timeframes in policy measures; defining the role of the state and the delineation of responsibility among various levels of governments; and developing tools, techniques and best practices sensitive to local needs.

As well, a finding of the previously mentioned CPIF mining exercise is that effective crime prevention approaches are being sustained 65. The examination revealed that eight of the 12 CPIF projects completed at the time of the study were continued beyond the end of funding, partially or in their entirety, in their respective communities. This suggests that the NCPS is being at least somewhat successful in enabling communities to sustain crime prevention activities.

4.5 Enhanced Policy Planning and Development in Crime Prevention

a) Contribution to Federal Policy Planning and Development

Overview: Findings on the extent to which the activities of the expansion have contributed to policy planning and development in the area of crime prevention at the federal level are presented in this section. The evaluation evidence indicates that there has been progress in this respect. As illustrations of contributions to federal policy planning and development, key informants point to increased communications on crime prevention involving different departments (e.g., Canadian Heritage, Human Resources and Skills Development, the RCMP); collaboration on initiatives related to Aboriginal persons, street gangs and benefits fraud (i.e., Employment Insurance and Canada Pension Plan benefits); the Strategy’s participation in 16 federal initiatives (e.g., Family Violence Initiative, Homelessness Initiative, National Drug Strategy and RCMP Youth Strategy), which in turn facilitates policy development at the federal level; and advancements to policy such as the federal Aboriginal agenda.

With few exceptions, the predominant view among senior officials at the NCPC Ottawa office, Strategy partners and Regional Directors is that the Phase II expansion of the Strategy has contributed to policy planning and development at the federal government level. For some respondents this means that different departments are attending meetings or involved with councils, or that there is increased communication on crime prevention matters at the federal level. Many key informants describe collaborations taking place among departments on specific initiatives, for example, related to: Aboriginal persons; street gangs (i.e., a collaboration with the Department of Canadian Heritage’s Multiculturalism Program); and Employment Insurance and Canada Pension Plan benefits fraud (i.e., crime prevention advice was provided by the Strategy to HRSDC).

The majority of Regional Directors state that there have been more relationships built with other federal departments, and that these relationships have contributed to a broader array of topics and communities being reached by the NCPS. Many of the Strategy partners and managers also state that there have been some significant advancements in federal policy, especially for the federal Aboriginal agenda, as well as the extensive work taking place with the RCMP.

Representatives of the NCPC’s Policy Unit note that they participate in 16 federal government initiatives, which in turn fuel policy development at the federal level. These federal initiatives include:

b) Contribution to Provincial/ Territorial Policy Planning and Development

Overview: The evaluation findings indicate that there has been an increase in communications and collaboration between NCPC representatives and provincial/territorial officials, which has in turn yielded benefits for policy planning and development at the provincial and territorial government level (e.g., development of provincial or territorial programs modeled on the federal approach, changes in provincial youth and correctional programs, use of NCPS funds to implement crime prevention initiatives in provinces and territories).

Just as there has been a great deal of work done at the federal policy planning and development level, senior managers at the NCPC Ottawa office, Strategy partners and Regional Directors generally agree there has been a similar contribution at the provincial/territorial level. The NCPC managers and Strategy partners describe a very positive working relationship with the provinces and territories, and note that these positive relationships are contributing to the development of provincial/territorial crime prevention programs modelled after the federal approach. Furthermore, some partners and managers describe how the collaboration between provinces/territories and the federal government contributes to policy enhancement between the two government entities.

Some Regional Directors go further in describing the contribution of the NCPS to provincial/territorial governments. For instance, some note direct changes in the area of youth programs and some provincial departments of correctional services, as a result of the relationship between the NCPC and provincial/territorial agencies. In addition, some interviewees observe that the Phase II expansion dollars have enabled the creation of positions for provincial managers who are solely responsible for working with provincial/territorial jurisdictions and who provide information on crime prevention work being done across the country back to the province.

Turning to evidence from the documentation, examples supporting success in this area include press releases indicating that a number of provincial governments have been using NCPS funding to prevent crime in their particular provinces. For example, the province of British Columbia is using NCPS funding to get youth involved in community-level crime prevention programs, while in Quebec, the Strategy has made it possible for the ministère de la Sécurité publique to implement its provincial policy on crime prevention. 66

Additional examples of contributions made to provincial/territorial policy planning and development include the Honourable David Hancock, Alberta’s Minister of Justice, attending a public announcement of the evaluation results for a study funded by the NCPS where he stated: “The results of the study are very encouraging. There are clearly measurable differences in the reoccurrence of domestic violence”. 68

In the Pacific Region, British Columbia Solicitor General Rich Coleman stated that the province is working to get youth involved in crime prevention programs at the community level with crime prevention funding of $481,628 provided to British Columbia communities by the NCPS. Also, Jamie Muir, the Nova Scotia Attorney General and Minister of Justice, acknowledged that community involvement at the grassroots level is fundamental to successful crime prevention, and that putting more project control into the hands of the people who have identified their own local issues means that the issues can be addressed in a more meaningful way. The Federal Solicitor General announced over $2.4 million for 49 crime prevention projects across Nova Scotia. 69 (Note: A complete profile of NCPS project funding by Region for the Phase II expansion is provided in Table 1.2 in Chapter One.)

c) Contribution to Municipal Policy Planning and Development

Overview: The activities of the Phase II expansion have made some contribution to policy planning and development in the area of crime prevention at the municipal level. Most (though not all) key informants observe that there have been policy-related benefits due, for example, to the participation of municipalities in some funded projects, exchange of information between NCPC representatives and mayors, and participation of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

The majority of senior managers at the NCPC Ottawa office and Regional Directors perceive that there has been an impact on municipal policy planning and development. Regional Directors describe municipalities as either heavily targeted for NCPS initiatives, or having already participated extensively. For instance, there have been a number of activities conducted in major urban centres, including Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton and Vancouver, as well as smaller more rural communities, including Red Deer and remote northern communities throughout Canada. In contrast, most Strategy partners do not believe there has been a contribution at the municipal policy level, with the exception of one partner who has observed some strong municipal involvement (e.g., the city council in Waterloo).

An example of a direct impact on municipal policy planning and development includes changes in protocols around sexual exploitation of women working as prostitutes in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, and taking a more restorative, proactive social development approach to dealing with this problem, rather than a traditional law enforcement approach (see more details in Section E.3 of Appendix E).

Examples of concerted efforts to address the root causes of crime in high-risk communities include:

d) Integration of Knowledge among Levels of Government

Overview: Although the Strategy’s contributions and improvements to information exchange have helped to improve the integration of knowledge among the three levels of government (e.g., through Comprehensive Community Initiatives, Joint Management Committee meetings, and the Vancouver Agreement), a number of key informants suggest that more work needs to be done to fully achieve such integration.

When asked to discuss the degree to which the Phase II expansion has contributed to improved integration of knowledge among federal, provincial, territorial and municipal partners, most key informants respond positively, but with some reservations. Though many observe that there has been improved information flow and collaboration, there still appears to be room for improvement.

NCPC managers/Strategy partners are somewhat more divided on this issue than the Regional Directors. Those NCPC managers and Strategy partners who feel there has been improved integration of knowledge state that projects such as workshops and JMC meetings contribute to integrating knowledge. However, those who feel there has been less progress in this regard state that more “nurturing” needs to be done to fully achieve integration and that although knowledge may be communicated between partners, there is a lack of integration of this knowledge.

Most Regional Directors, on the other hand, identify a general strength regarding integrating knowledge, stating that the Phase II expansion has enabled a greater sharing of knowledge with organizations and partners. Examples that illustrate exactly how knowledge integration is being achieved include the Vancouver Agreement and Comprehensive Community Initiatives (CCIs). The Vancouver Agreement is an alliance in which all three levels of government collaborate on projects and disseminate information among one another. CCIs also provide for more comprehensive community involvement that contributes to information sharing by actively involving communities together. The CCI initiative in Quebec began with NCPS support and will, after four years of implementation and evaluation, hopefully be a model for other regions.

However, some Regional Directors also acknowledge that “more work could be done” and that there are challenges associated with trying to secure the participation of and coordinate all three levels of government.

e) Contribution to NCPS Policy and Programming

Overview: In this section, evaluation findings on the extent to which the Phase II expansion activities have resulted in (or facilitated progress toward) enhanced policy and programming within the NCPS are presented. There is evidence to indicate that the activities and outputs of the Phase II expansion have facilitated progress toward enhanced Strategy policy and programming to some degree. Examples include: greater collaboration between the NCPC and provinces/territories, which may lead to more informed programming (e.g., the development of a policy instrument such as the Sustainability Toolkit in cooperation with FPT Working Group members); the Centre’s “mining” study of school-based anti-bullying programs which has provided recommendations for NCPS policy on future research needs and areas of concentration for anti-bullying projects; and the Strategy’s review and synthesis of work related to Comprehensive Community Initiatives (CCIs), with a view to improving policy planning and development.

Most key informants report that the activities and outputs of the Phase II expansion have facilitated progress toward enhanced policy and programming within the NCPS. This has been accomplished particularly through increased funding and better collaboration, for example, with the provinces and territories. While the Community Mobilization Program is co-managed with the provinces/ territories and regional priorities are discussed at JMCs, policy for the NCPS is not set systematically in conjunction with the provinces/territories. Despite this, some interesting policy documents have been created with provincial and territorial partners. The Sustainability Toolkit is one example of a policy instrument that was possible under the expansion of the Strategy. It was created in cooperation with FPT Working Group members.

In addition, the NCPC has undertaken “mining” exercises of funded projects to glean knowledge that has led to further action on the part of the Centre. For example, a study was conducted by NCPC staff of school-based anti-bullying programs. The study had two parts – a review of academic research to identify promising practices and a review of projects supported by the NCPS over the period 1998-2003. The study provided an enhanced understanding of relevant research and an increased understanding of previous funding trends and lessons learned from NCPS-sponsored projects. The report concluded with a number of recommendations for NCPS policy on future research needs and areas of concentration for bullying prevention projects. A similar study is underway to review interventions addressing crime and victimization issues for Aboriginal children and youth. Some respondents suggest, however, that there is still more to be done. More lessons need to be integrated, but unfortunately due to NCPC staffing shortages, work on this front has been limited.

All interviewees agree that linkages between the NCPS and provincial/territorial priorities have improved. There is more collaboration with a wider range of stakeholders; for example, one respondent describes how the Strategy now works with many provincial bodies rather than just one. Another province had a roundtable on bullying and invited an NCPC Regional Director to the table. In another province, the federal government added certain provincial priority groups to the original four.

Evidence from the documentation review indicating that the NCPC is involved in efforts that are contributing to the Strategy’s policy and programming can be found in the area of Comprehensive Community Initiatives (CCIs). The 2003-04 PSEPC Performance Report 70 indicates that the NCPC has made “a strategic shift to develop and support such initiatives in urban and northern communities in collaboration with government and non-governmental partners”. These activities comprise, among other things, taking stock of funded projects, a literature review and the implementation of the approach in a community, as well as data gathering (see below).

CCIs involve a whole community approach to preventing crime and victimization. This approach enables complex horizontal issues to be effectively addressed and attracts a broader range of partners than some previous approaches. This is achieved through collaboration and coordination of citizens of a community, as well as the voluntary, private and public sectors in the community. This work is carried out through the use of diagnostic tools to identify and target problem areas at the neighbourhood level, so that evidence-based responses to problems can be implemented.

The NCPS commissioned a review and synthesis of the relevant literature on comprehensive community initiatives, with a view to improving policy planning and development in preventing crime. 71 The focus of the review was on multi-sectoral and community-based CPSD interventions, with a particular emphasis upon approaches involving children and families living in high-risk environments. Among other things, the paper found that the challenge of developing comprehensive approaches to solving multi-faceted problems faced by communities requires the coordination of various levels of government, community stakeholders, and other relevant partners. It also found limited evidence of the effectiveness of community-based prevention initiatives. Still, there is evidence of effectiveness where the initiatives are focused on building protection and/or reducing risk, which offers the prospect of “joined up” solutions to “joined up” problems, in addition to the development of a synthesized knowledge base of what works or does not work, for whom, and in which contexts.

Among the attributes of the CCI approach identified are the following: 72

The 2003-04 PESPC Performance Report 74 The information was seen as valuable for improving crime analysis and prevention strategies and testing community-level theories of crime and delinquency.

4.6 Strengths and Weaknesses

a) Strengths

Based on the views of key informants as well as other findings in this summative evaluation, there are a variety of key strengths of the approach taken in the Phase II expansion to support federal involvement in community safety and crime prevention. They include the following:

b) Weaknesses

On the other hand, a number of weaknesses are identified as well. Several key informants mention challenges around evaluation and accountability, such as excessive paper burden and lack of knowledge about project results. The effects of NCPC staffing changes/shortages are also noted. Other weaknesses raised by interviewees include:

c) Suggested Improvements

A wide variety of suggestions for improving the implementation and success of the Phase II expansion are made, including:

4.7 Lessons Learned

Key informants describe some useful lessons learned from the Phase II expansion that may be transferable to other similar initiatives (e.g., programs of the Department of Justice, PSEPC or RCMP). Many respondents discuss the increased regional involvement in this context. For example, some respondents highlight the importance of starting in communities and being flexible to their needs. On the other hand, it is also suggested that if the communities are to be involved, it has to be in a way that does not just let communities “run with the money” and do what they want to advance their own interests. Rather, an approach must be taken that permits more analytical and thorough understanding of community issues/ needs.

Other key lessons that are noted by interviewees include:

4.8 Progress Since Mid-Term Evaluation

It is difficult to assess precisely the progress of the Phase II expansion since the time of the mid-term evaluation, including the response to the mid-term recommendations, because the summative evaluation included no explicit evaluation issues on this progress. Moreover, it is not clear that there has been sufficient time for the Strategy to address these recommendations given that they were made in early 2004 and not finalized until September 2004, and the data collection for the present evaluation took place in late 2004 and early 2005. Nevertheless some evidence was gathered in the current evaluation to indicate that some progress has been made in following up on the mid-term evaluation suggestions. As well, many of the mid-term recommendations remain as good suggestions for the Strategy and will be re-iterated at the end of the report.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Summary and Conclusions

Conclusions related to each evaluation issue are presented below.

a) Broader Participation in Crime Prevention

Evaluation findings from the key informant interviews and review of documentation, administrative data and files indicate that the expansion of the NCPS Phase II (and the associated additional funding) has helped to broaden the participation of various stakeholders in community safety and crime prevention initiatives, though participation is much greater from some groups than others. In particular, non-governmental organizations and community groups, the police and high-risk communities have participated significantly (i.e., as project sponsors, partners or participants) whereas there have been lower levels of participation by community correctional agencies and the private sector. The comparatively low level of participation from community corrections is not necessarily a negative finding, given that this stakeholder group is a primary focus of the CPPSI component of the Strategy, which was examined in a separate evaluation. Possible reasons for the lack of private sector involvement include NCPC staff/resource constraints, which make it difficult to expend the effort to engage the private sector; a lack of interest on the part of the some private sector organizations unless the crime prevention effort is clearly linked to business concerns; and the lack of clear procedures/mechanisms for the Strategy to attract private sector participation.

Regarding the degree of participation of municipalities (beyond municipal police agencies), the evaluation findings are mixed suggesting that municipal involvement has not been uniformly strong in all areas of the country. Nevertheless, there are numerous examples of relevant participation by some municipalities and through Comprehensive Community Initiatives as well as the involvement of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

The Strategy’s efforts over the Phase II expansion period (2001-02 to 2004-05), including the broadened participation of stakeholders, have made some contribution toward the objectives of the NCPS expansion. In particular, the evaluation findings suggest that there has been progress in facilitating citizenship engagement and public education, offering a continuum of supports/models for communities, and undertaking development work needed in high-need, low-capacity communities, though more work needs to be done on all fronts. In addition, key informants believe that a contribution has been made in expanding the scope of relationships with non-traditional partners and deepening efforts in priority areas (e.g., seniors, persons with disabilities, the gay and lesbian community, and ethno-cultural communities); however, the review of files and administrative data suggests that the contribution in reaching new priority groups has been modest to date. With respect to the fifth formal objective – establishing a centre of excellence/ expertise (which presumably refers to the NCPC) – the consensus is that this has not yet been achieved, even though a foundation has been laid with the crime prevention expertise of NCPC staff across the country.

Based on the mostly qualitative evidence gathered in this evaluation, it is reasonable to conclude that progress has been made toward the Phase II expansion objectives, as discussed above, but it is not possible to draw precise conclusions about the incremental contribution of the Strategy’s efforts and stakeholders’ involvement to these formal objectives.

b) Increased Awareness/Understanding of Crime Prevention

The evaluation findings indicate that the work of the Phase II expansion (e.g., delivery of workshops, distribution of information kits, conferences, public forums, research studies, NCPC networking efforts, making information available on the NCPC website and virtual library) has contributed to increasing awareness/understanding of community safety and crime prevention among partners and stakeholders. This includes an increase in understanding of the root causes of crime (demonstrated, for example, by the increasing quality of proposals for project funding) and of what is required to promote and support community mobilization in response to crime, though there may be a need for more specific guidelines on this matter. In addition, there is some evidence of increased awareness of best practices in CPSD and of other community-based approaches to crime prevention (e.g., the use of culturally appropriate approaches).

Findings from the file review and key informant interviews also suggest that public awareness and acceptance of crime prevention, including CPSD approaches, have been increased particularly in communities reached by Strategy projects. In addition, public opinion research commissioned by the Department of Justice (polls from July 2000 and November 2003) indicates that the Canadian public is generally aware and supportive of crime prevention through social development initiatives. For instance, Canadians correctly identify a number of CPSD root causes as having an impact on crime and rate a number of CPSD approaches, which are supported by the Strategy, as being effective for reducing crime. In addition, Canadians are twice as likely to select crime prevention than law enforcement as the most cost-effective way to reduce the economic and social costs of crime, and the majority rates the funding and support of local crime prevention programs in communities as a very appropriate role for the federal government. However, conclusive evidence linking the efforts of the Strategy to the generally favourable opinions of the Canadian public regarding CPSD and federal government efforts in crime prevention is not available.

c) Identification/Adoption of Successful Crime Prevention Approaches

The evaluation evidence suggests that the NCPS has identified a range of crime prevention approaches. Findings from the file review and document review indicate such models as: the Peer Education Model, involving youth in trouble informing others of actual and potential crimes to both prevent crime and to turn around their lives; the Drug Treatment Court, bringing law enforcement and treatment agencies together as an alternative means of dealing with drug crime; a Prevention through Education approach to reducing abuse against youth on the Internet; and encouraging youth and their parents to deal with problems together as an alternative means of counselling. In general, the involvement of multiple partners in these projects is seen as contributing to their success.

Key informants are split on how effective the NCPS has been in identifying effective crime prevention approaches. NCPC managers say the Strategy has been successful in this regard, but further success has been limited by budget cuts and high staff turnover. Regional Directors have observed an increase in the degree to which successful crime prevention approaches are being shared across regions and in the degree to which information on best crime prevention practices is being sought by schools, police agencies and health organizations. Experts too have mixed opinions: some see the Strategy’s approach as being flexible in meeting needs at the community level whereas others see the need for consideration of crime prevention approaches beyond just CPSD.

Evidence of the actual adoption of crime prevention approaches, identified and funded by the NCPS, is more limited than for the identification of such approaches.

d) Increased Community Capacity to Respond to Crime

The Strategy has been successful in contributing to community capacity in dealing with crime. Numerous examples were provided by key informants or identified in the document review.

As for impacts of the Strategy on knowledge development in communities, the file review suggests that most projects have in some way increased knowledge of crime prevention approaches. Key informants are generally split on this question, however. Some key informants see greater knowledge exchange across communities, while others see a lack of dissemination of NCPS research findings and insufficient use of all the knowledge that has been produced under the Strategy.

The file review indicates that in about half the projects, partnerships lasted or are expected to endure beyond the period of project funding. Similarly, the review indicates that in about half the projects, project activities or some community involvement continued after funding ended, an observation confirmed by the documentation. The sustained involvement of the private sector, however, is substantially less common.

e) Enhanced Policy Planning and Development in Crime Prevention

The evaluation findings suggest that the activities of the Phase II expansion have made some contribution to policy planning and development in the area of crime prevention at the federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal levels.

At the federal level, key informants highlight increased communications on crime prevention involving different departments (e.g., Canadian Heritage, Human Resources and Skills Development, the RCMP), collaboration on initiatives related to Aboriginal persons, street gangs and benefits fraud, the Strategy’s participation in 16 federal initiatives (e.g., Family Violence Initiative, Homelessness Initiative, National Drug Strategy and RCMP Youth Strategy) and advancements to policy such as the federal Aboriginal agenda as illustrations of this contribution.

Turning to the provincial and territorial government level, a similar increase in communications and collaboration between NCPC representatives and provincial/territorial officials is observed, which has in turn yielded benefits for policy planning and development (e.g., development of provincial or territorial programs modeled on the federal approach, changes in provincial youth and correctional programs, use of NCPS funds to implement crime prevention initiatives in provinces and territories).

At the municipal level, most (though not all) key informants observe that there have been policy-related benefits due, for example, to the participation of municipalities in some funded projects, exchange of information between NCPC representatives and mayors, and participation of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. One concrete example of an influence on municipal policy comes from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside where the protocols related to the sexual exploitation of women prostitutes were altered to reflect a more restorative, proactive social development approach.

Although these contributions and improvements to information exchange have helped to improve the integration of knowledge among the three levels of government (e.g., through Comprehensive Community Initiatives, Joint Management Committee meetings, and the Vancouver Agreement), a number of key informants suggest that more work needs to be done to fully achieve such integration.

In addition, there is some evidence to indicate that the activities and outputs of the Phase II expansion have facilitated progress toward enhanced policy and programming within the NCPS. Examples include: greater collaboration between the NCPC and provinces/territories, which may lead to more informed programming (e.g., the development of a policy instrument — the Sustainability Toolkit — in cooperation with FPT Working Group members); the Centre’s “mining” studies (e.g., of anti-bullying projects) which have provided recommendations for NCPS policy on future research needs and areas of concentration for anti-bullying projects; and the increased collaboration of NCPC Regional Directors with a wider range of stakeholders.

f) Strengths, Weaknesses and Lessons Learned

Key informants identify an assortment of strengths, weaknesses and lessons learned about the NCPS Phase II expansion approach, but with no particular patterns by type of respondent. Partnerships are frequently identified as a strength of the NCPS, particularly in terms of involving isolated communities and organizations, especially those who would not otherwise have access to crime prevention resources. The existence of Regional Directors and other staff is considered instrumental in this regard. Additional strengths include the social development approach and the work in communities enabled by the additional funding.

Regarding weaknesses, several key informants identify challenges around the evaluation of funded projects, the paper burden associated with accountability requirements, and lack of knowledge about project results. (With respect to the dissemination of project results, however, it should be noted that the NCPC has devoted considerable effort to the mining of funded projects — related to school-based anti-bullying programs and projects for Aboriginal children and youth— and the posting of research and project results on its website.) Concerns are also raised about budget cuts and NCPC staff shortfalls, particularly as they contributed to a number of the identified weaknesses, including insufficient administrative support, reduced operating budget, uncertainty over long-term funding, and lack of a Research Director to develop a crime prevention research agenda. Another weakness cited concerns the broad-based nature of the Strategy, which increases the risk of staff losing sight of its key objectives and having difficulty focusing their efforts. Insufficient involvement of the private sector is also noted.

A number of areas for improvement concern the processing of the large amount of knowledge produced by the Strategy. Specific suggestions put forward by key informants (noting that the NCPC has been engaged in some of them) include: conducting more systematic, comprehensive research on project outcomes and on what works; and sharing best practices among communities.

Another group of suggestions concerns the image of the Strategy. Specifically in this regard, key informants suggest having a consistent crime prevention philosophy across the regions; convincing people that participating in community crime prevention activities is often more effective than simply spending on communities; and developing more communications and publication strategies such as traveling road shows.

Four main lessons learned are as follows:

5.2 Recommendations

On the basis of the evaluation findings, the following recommendations are made to the NCPC:

a) Enhancing Performance Measurement

b) Synthesizing/Disseminating Knowledge

c) Measuring Awareness and Usage

d) Increasing Private Sector Involvement

e) Managing Decentralization

f) Focusing on Strategic Long-term Project Funding

Appendix A: Matrix of Evaluation Issues, Indicators and Data Sources

1. Broader Participation in Crime Prevention

Evaluation Issue Indicators Methods/Data Sources
To what extent has the expansion of the NCPS Phase II resulted in broader participation in community safety and crime prevention initiatives by:
  • Non-Governmental Organizations and Community Groups;
  • Municipalities;
  • Private Sector;
  • Police and Community Corrections; and
  • High-Risk Communities?
In what ways has the involvement of these groups contributed to the achievement of the objectives of the NCPS expansion?

Source of information requests (NGOs, private sector, municipalities, police, community corrections, and high-risk communities) suggesting broadened interest in CP

Level/type of participation of identified groups (NGOs, private sector, municipalities, police, community corrections, and high-risk communities) in funded projects (distribution of projects by these groups, and by Region)

Number of funded projects and/or partnerships that continued beyond funding provided by NCPS

Opinion on contribution of broader participation to achievement of objectives of the expansion of the NCPS

Key informant interviews

Review of administrative data

Review of files
  • Project evaluations

Review of documents
  • Internet site and 1-800 number
  • Public opinion survey results
  • Minutes/reports of meetings/consultations with committees, partners, stakeholder groups
  • Benchmark study
  • Consultation material

2. Enhanced Policy Planning and Development in Crime Prevention

Evaluation Issue Indicators Methods/Data Sources

To what extent have the activities of the expansion contributed to policy planning and development in the area of crime prevention at the federal, provincial/territorial and municipal levels?

To what extent have these activities resulted in enhanced policy and programming within the NCPS?

Number of grants, contributions and contracts for policy and program development at various levels of government, and results of these projects

Extent of federal coordination and integration of crime prevention-related policy

Reference to NCPS research, evaluation and policy frameworks in relevant provincial/territorial and municipal CPSD policies and background materials
  • Degree to which NCPS outputs figure in policy/program/priorities development in various levels of government

Reference to NCPS research, evaluation and policy frameworks in internal (NCPC and PSEPC) planning and programming materials and enhancements
  • Degree to which NCPS outputs figure in policy/program development at NCPC

Perceptions of improved linkages

Perceptions of NCPS contribution to policies/programs, at all three levels of government 		Review of files
  • Project evaluations

Review of documents
  • Planning, policy and research files/documents, including minutes
  • Consultation reports and papers
  • Provincial/territorial websites, including policy and program announcements

Review of administrative data

Key informant interviews

3. Increased Awareness/Understanding of Crime Prevention

Evaluation Issue Indicators Methods/Data Sources
To what extent has the expansion of the NCPS increased public, stakeholder and partner understanding of community safety and crime prevention? Funded projects focused on raising awareness of CPSD, and results these projects

Availability and distribution of information to key stakeholders on CPSD and effective community-based approaches to crime prevention

Nature and number of requests by stakeholders to NCPC for information on CPSD and other effective community-based approaches to crime prevention

Nature and number of requests by the public to NCPC for information on CPSD and other effective community-based approaches to crime prevention

Increased awareness of the root causes of crime

Common and comprehensive understanding, including by the general public, of what is meant by CPSD

Increased awareness of “what works” and “best practices” in the area of CPSD

Evidence of linkages between increased public, stakeholder/ partner awareness and understanding and work conducted and/or supported by the NCPS

Perceptions of increased stakeholder understanding of what is required to promote and support community mobilization in response to crime, and NCPS’s role in that

Perceptions of increased stakeholder awareness of effective CP approaches, and NCPS’s role in that

Perceptions of increased public understanding and acceptance of CPSD, and NCPS’ role in that 		Review of documents
  • CP literature
  • Communications, promotion and public education files/documents
  • Reports of consultations
  • NCPC website
  • Public opinion polls
  • Internet site and 1-800 number

Review of files
  • Project evaluations

Key informant interviews

4. Identification/Adoption of Successful Crime Prevention Approaches

Evaluation Issue Indicators Methods/Data Sources
To what extent has the expansion contributed to the successful identification and adoption of effective approaches to crime prevention? Identification:
Successful/innovative CP approaches/models identified in funded projects
  • Nature and quality of projects funded
  • Effectiveness of interventions
  • Quality of evaluation plans and project evaluations

Extent to which tools and procedures developed to identify or implement CP approaches
  • Awareness and utilization of NCPS information/reports in the crime prevention community
  • Extent to which tools have been utilized in generating other knowledge of new CP approaches
  • Extent to which tools have been utilized in implementing CP approaches

Perceptions of NCPS’s role in identification of new CP approaches

Adoption:

Extent to which funded CP projects are sustained beyond funding

Nature and quality of CP approaches emerging in the crime prevention community

Increase in the number of CP practices implemented across Canada
  • Extent to which the NCPS information and resources cited in development/implementation of crime prevention practices
  • Funded best practice CP models replicated in Canadian communities

Perceptions of use of NCPS projects and products in CP approaches that have been adopted, by municipalities and law enforcement 		Review of files
  • Evaluations of projects

Review of administrative data

Key informant interviews

Review of documents
  • NCPS products
  • Benchmark study
  • The literature and citation analysis
  • Reports of consultations with stakeholders, particularly law enforcement

5. Increased Community Capacity to Respond to Crime

Evaluation Issue Indicators Methods/Data Sources
To what extent has the expansion of the NCPS contributed to community capacity to respond to local crime and victimization?

Funded projects focused on community and increasing community capacity

Level of support for and ownership of crime prevention by communities

Increased knowledge of effective crime prevention strategies

Evidence of problem-solving approaches to crime prevention

Evidence of crime prevention models being adopted at other sites

Alternative sources of funding being sought/acquired for crime prevention

Complementary programming introduced

Sustained partnerships/private sector involvement

Sustained involvement in crime prevention (beyond funding period)

Perceptions of increased capacity to respond to crime and role played by NCPS

Review of files

Key informant interviews

Review of documents

6. Strengths and Weaknesses

Evaluation Issue Indicators Methods/Data Sources
What have been the strengths and weaknesses of the NCPS approach taken to support the federal involvement in crime prevention and community safety? Identified strengths and weaknesses of the approach
  • High level of involvement by partners/stakeholders in guiding the development and implementation of the expansion?
  • Knowledgeable/efficient staff?
  • Effective partnerships formed?
  • Cost-effective delivery of NCPS activities and outputs?
  • Evidence of ability to leverage funds from other, alternative sources of funding/investment?

Review of files

Review of documents

Key informant interviews

7. Lessons Learned

Evaluation Issue Indicators Methods/Data Sources
What lessons have been learned as a result of the expansion of the NCPS Phase II? Lessons learned that are transferable to other similar initiatives or ongoing programs within DOJ, PSEPC and the RCMP, and within the crime prevention community Key informant interviews

Appendix B: List of Documents Reviewed

Previous Evaluations/Audits:

National Documents:

Pacific Region:

Prairie Region:

Ontario Region:

Quebec Region:

Atlantic Region:

Northern Region:

Policy Development, Strategic Planning and Research Unit:

Evaluation:

Additional Documents:

Appendix C: Administrative Data Tables

TABLE C.1: Percentage of Projects in Each Program by Contributor (Partner) Type*
(Projects Started or Ended May 2001 – March 2005)


Contributor Type Total (n=1,838) Atlantic (n=288) Quebec (n=502) Ontario (n=356) Prairies (n=316) BC (n=284) Northern (n=92)
Provincial/territorial gov’t 36 41 58 23 22 24 36
Regional/municipal gov’t 31 27 39 37 24 23 16
Community 20 17 42 14 10 6 11
Aboriginal government 2 0 1 2 4 1 1
Band/Tribal Council 9 8 2 6 20 11 18
NGO 53 66 43 55 50 65 24
Foundation 10 9 6 16 11 14 3
Association 9 15 4 9 11 5 16
Professional association 3 8 1 2 3 4 4
Service club 2 4 0 2 3 2 0
Individual 5 5 2 5 3 10 8
Private enterprise 11 12 12 12 7 12 9
For-profit 3 2 1 9 1 1 3
Other 21 19 20 22 34 13 18

* More than one type of contributor was identified for several projects, which is why percentages add to more than 100 per cent in some cases. For some projects, however, the federal government is the sole contributor, which is why percentages add to less than 100 per cent in other cases. (As the federal government is a contributor in all projects, it is not shown in the table.)

Source: Project Control System data, as of March 2005.

TABLE C.2: Percentage of Projects in Each Region by Priority Group*
(Projects Started or Ended May 2001 – March 2005)


Affected Group Total (n=2,381) Atlantic (n=396 ) Quebec (n=564) Ontario (n=584) Prairies
(n=388)		 BC (n=326) Northern (n=123)
Main Group
Communities 54 54 43 50 60 68 64
Justice system 2 4 1 2 2 4 3
Family and children 16 19 15 15 18 12 21
Family and youth 12 15 8 12 16 10 15
Priority Group
Aboriginal 19 11 7 8 47 20 59
Children (0-12) 25 27 25 24 27 18 33
Youth (13-17) 48 48 47 48 55 46 45
Women and girls 12 11 11 8 20 13 13
Seniors 5 5 7 2 4 5 5
Persons with disabilities 3 3 1 2 3 4 13
Gay and lesbian 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
Ethno-cultural 3 3 2 4 5 4 0

* More than one group was identified for several projects, which is why percentages do not add to 100 per cent.

Source: Project Control System data, as of March 2005.

TABLE C.3: Percentage of Projects in Each Program by Type of Activity*
(Projects Started or Ended May 2001 – March 2005)


Activity** Total (n=2,369) CMP (n=2,094) BAP (n=64) CPPP (n=124) CPIF (n=57) SF (n=30)
Pilot Projects 60 61 55 38 46 77
Training/education 29 31 14 18 4 20
Early intervention 24 26 11 10 5 13
Outreach 19 20 9 2 11 40
Information Sharing 54 57 47 41 21 23
Public awareness 31 33 25 8 12 13
Workshops 30 32 13 13 2 0
Meetings 17 19 13 2 2 0
Conferences 13 14 5 9 0 0
Resource Materials 31 31 17 54 2 10
Reports 11 12 8 2 0 0
Research 28 28 25 23 23 27
Needs assessment 16 18 6 3 0 3
Data collection 14 14 20 13 5 7
Networking/Coalition 22 24 6 6 0 33
Service Delivery 2 2 0 1 7 0
Crime Control 1 1 0 0 0 0

* More than one activity was identified for several projects, which is why percentages do not add to 100 per cent.

** Under each main activity area, only more frequently occurring specific activities (≥10% of projects) are shown.

Source: Project Control System data, as of March 2005.

TABLE C.4: Percentage of Projects in Each Region by Type of Activity*
(Projects Started or Ended May 2001 – March 2005)


Activity** Total (n=2,369) Atlantic (n=390 ) Quebec (n=569) Ontario (n=570) Prairies (n=390) BC (n=327) Northern (n=123)
Pilot Projects 60 55 58 70 65 42 42
Training/education 29 29 17 38 33 22 38
Early intervention 24 16 31 35 24 7 11
Outreach 19 20 1 31 28 15 26
Information Sharing 54 63 39 59 67 49 54
Public awareness 31 43 14 39 41 20 25
Workshops 30 36 19 31 41 24 28
Meetings 17 23 5 26 25 7 10
Conferences 13 14 6 17 18 12 8
Resource Materials 31 36 21 38 36 28 15
Reports 11 18 4 16 14 5 5
Research 28 31 27 31 33 20 12
Needs assessment 16 18 12 19 22 13 2
Data collection 14 16 14 18 16 6 7
Networking/Coalition 22 34 7 29 39 10 7
Service Delivery 2 2 0 2 4 3 2
Crime Control 1 1 0 0 1 0 1

* More than one activity was identified for several projects, which is why percentages do not add to 100 per cent.

** Under each main activity area, only more frequently occurring specific activities (≥10% of projects) are shown.

Source: Project Control System data, as of March 2005.

Appendix D: List of Interviewees


Name Position Phone Number E-mail
NCPC Ottawa Office Managers and Strategy Partners (n=9)
Chantal Bernier ADM - Community Safety and Partnerships (613) 993-4325 chantal.bernier@psepc.gc.ca
Eleanor King Executive Director, NCPC (613) 957-9639 eleanor.king@psepc.gc.ca
Wayne Stryde Director, Program Development and Delivery (613) 954-1099 wayne.stryde@psepc.gc.ca
Ed Buller Director, Aboriginal Corrections Division (613) 991-2832 ed.buller@psepc.gc.ca
Chantal Marion Senior Policy Analyst, PLEIB (613) 990-2717 chantal.marion@psepc.gc.ca
Graham Robinson RCMP (613) 998-6108 graham.robinson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Jil Lightwood FPT Working Group on Crime Prevention (902) 368-4583 jlightwood@gov.pe.ca
Edgar Macleod President, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (902) 563-5095 eamacleod@cbrmps.cape-breton.ns.ca
NCPC Regional Directors (n=6)
Guenther Laube Regional Director - North (867) 920-6703 guenther.laube@psepc.gc.ca
Jim Ellsworth Regional Director - Atlantic (506) 452-3726 jim.ellsworth@psepc.gc.ca
Suzanne Perron Regional Director - Quebec (514) 283-7790 suzanne.perron@psepc.gc.ca
Jayne Kingsbury Regional Director - Ontario (416) 802-4723 jayne.kingsbury@psepc.gc.ca
Marion Cook Regional Director - Prairies (403) 299-2753 marion.cook@psepc.gc.ca
Vera Lagasse Regional Director - BC (604) 666-5705 vera.lagasse@psepc.gc.ca
External Experts (n=5)
Dr. Rick Linden University of Manitoba (204) 474-8457 rlinden@cc.umanitoba.ca
Dr. Donald Clairmont Atlantic Institute of Criminology (902) 494-6749 Donald.Clairmont@Dal.ca
Linda Baker London Family Court Clinic (519) 679-7250 Linda.Baker@lfcc.on.ca
Dr. Tulio Caputo Professor, Carleton University (613) 520-2600 X 2617 tulio_caputo@carleton.ca
Jack Calhoun Former Director, National Crime Prevention Council (USA) (703) 442-0318 hopematters@cox.net

Appendix E: Regional Initiatives: Summary of Regional
Directors’ Responses

E.1 Successful Regional Crime Prevention Initiatives

The Regional Directors all report that they have successfully taken actions that have had a positive, lasting impact on the development and implementation of crime prevention programs/policies in their Region – initiatives involving municipal, provincial, federal, and private sector partners. In addition, they report being very successful in community engagement. These activities are focused on a wide variety of different crime prevention issues, including addictions, sexual exploitation, bullying, victimization of women and girls, and Aboriginal crime prevention. Some key examples of these activities ranged from a roundtable on human trafficking and sexual exploitation, to CPSD workshops, to the hiring of an Aboriginal crime prevention support person. These and more examples of these initiatives and other actions taken or planned to advance crime prevention efforts in each Region are presented below.

BC:

BC Region has been very successful in establishing partnerships and relationships with various stakeholders, community organizations, police, and other federal organizations and agencies.

A Comprehensive Community Initiative (CCI) has been developed for the BC Region, which includes plans to systematically address crime prevention within 5 to 7 communities.

The BC Region, NCPC, and the BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General have worked jointly on a number of initiatives including: a Human Trafficking Roundtable and Sexual Exploitation Research Roundtable (November 2004), Sexual Exploitation of Youth Forum (March 2003, March 2004), Union of BC Municipalities Forum on Crime Prevention (November 2003, November 2004), Annual BC Crime Prevention Association Training Symposium, and Western Summit on Methamphetamine (November 2004).

The NCPC is a member of the Safe Communities Working Group, which is a partnership of key provincial organizations in BC that contribute to public safety by supporting initiatives that lead to reduction of crime and victimization. The Group is chaired by the BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and meets bimonthly to review proposals, identify priorities within BC, plan initiatives such as Crime Prevention Week, share information and network.

The Regional Director and Communications Officer co-lead with the Director of NCPC Communications, an internal Public Education Strategy (identified as one of the National Crime Prevention Centre’s Strategic Priorities). The results shape existing promotional strategies and dissemination of knowledge in policy development.

The Western Summit on Methamphetamine, sponsored by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and funded by NCPC and the province of BC in November 2004, will develop a Consensus Statement and policy document on Methamphetamines for use by all sectors. The Summit raised awareness about prevention, treatment, community response, enforcement, etc.

The Human Trafficking Roundtable brought about 30 stakeholders from the province together for the first time to discuss the problem in BC. In follow-up, the RCMP in BC is proposing another Roundtable with up to 150 stakeholders to develop policies, protocols, and better coordination to address this issue on a province-wide basis.

The BC Region worked with a contractor to develop a Compendium of Interactive Exercises to promote crime prevention through social development (CPSD) at workshops and training events. The exercises are being used by BC Region staff during CPSD and proposal writing workshops.

The BC Region hosted a focus group in August 2004 with crime prevention practitioners to pilot a sustainability toolkit. The toolkit provides information on strategies to enhance sustainability of crime prevention activities that should be considered at the very beginning of projects.

The BC Region has provided support to a number of projects addressing personal security of women. In May 2004, four of these projects received a Women’s Safety Award, out of 12 recipients from across Canada. The awards were designed to reward good practices and policies relating to women’s safety and the improvement of women’s sense of safety. The four NCPC-funded groups who received awards in BC included: What’s Age Got To Do With It? Submitted by the BC/Yukon Society of Transition Houses; Women and Violence: Education is Prevention submitted by the Saltspring SWOVA Society; Project Respect submitted by the Victoria Women’s Sexual Assault Centre; and Cowichan Valley Safer Futures Program submitted by the Cowichan Women Against Violence Society.

Awareness of the National Strategy/CPSD was promoted by targeting community newspapers/media, developing a media experts list, e.g., on bullying, CPSD and policing, and undertaking regional outreach, e.g., NCPC and OCIPEP continuum of public safety kit.

Knowledge dissemination was supported by sharing information about the Crime Prevention Investment Fund Knowledge Development and results from other project funding streams. Understanding of strategic priorities and specific interventions, risk factors, as well as success stories and best practices, among key audiences and stakeholders, was promoted.

A CCI Communications Strategy was developed by the BC Communications Officer to: increase awareness of the National Strategy’s commitment to supporting comprehensive community-based initiatives; disseminate CCI as a more strategic evidence-based priority being undertaken by the Government of Canada; and engage key stakeholders, with access to critical networks and audiences.

The BC Region has prepared Regional Fact Sheets on Aboriginal People and Seniors, to provide relevant information to community organizations on crime prevention efforts in BC.

Prairie:

Social development language was not initially common in crime prevention. When the Strategy was first established it was common in other areas — child development, health, poverty reduction, environment — although there was not always development and work occurring across these sectors. With the expansion phase of the Strategy, resources were added and focus was placed on linking sectors and on taking leadership to build more comprehensive approaches to crime and victimization issues.

In Saskatchewan, through staff involvement, project funding and partnership building, NCPC has been a strong advocate for action on the inclusion of youth in all work related to them. “Youth Friendly” engagement and youth inclusion generally is now an adopted policy across the continuum and has had a big impact on the Department of Saskatchewan Learning. This inclusion policy has also had a significant impact on how HRSD organized the Urban Aboriginal Strategy (UAS) in Saskatoon. Partners involved in this work on inclusion and policy are youth, the Joint Management Committee (JMC), Provincial Regional Interdepartmental Committees (RICs), other federal departments and committees and community mobilization projects.

In 2000 in Alberta (before the Phase II expansion period), recognizing the demand and interest in many communities around developing programs premised on the asset development approach, two “Think Tanks” were spearheaded which brought together key stakeholders province-wide to discuss this approach and its merits. The result was the development of a provincial, community-based organization called “YES-Alberta” (Youth Enjoying Success) which continues to provide leadership and support to this approach. As well, Resiliency Canada was born out of recognition in the think tanks that asset development required critical review. Through the Strategic Fund, an organization is currently being funded to pilot this approach in four distinct communities. This will inform knowledge about what elements of the asset development approach are effective and how a community mighty replicate, in practical terms, crime prevention outcomes.

In Alberta in 2001, a Letter of Intent process was introduced for the express purpose of increasing the accessibility of Community Mobilization Program funding to rural, remote, and Aboriginal communities. By making the application process easier for organizations and enabling opportunities for NCPC to provide more directed support to applicants, the number and quality of applications from these communities has increased. This practice has been adopted by the Alberta Solicitor General in the administration of their provincial crime prevention funding and is being considered by other funders.

In Alberta in 2002, an idea was brokered with the RCMP “K” Division, the Yellowhead Tribal Community Corrections Society and the Alberta Community Crime Prevention Association that brought the three organizations together for the first time and resulted in the hiring of an Aboriginal Crime Prevention Support person. Housed in the RCMP, this person facilitates strategic partnerships and coordinated crime prevention action among RCMP detachment members and the Aboriginal communities they police. This idea has attracted significant attention and is well supported. The RCMP is considering an expansion of this model.

In 2003, recognizing the need to enhance awareness and communication among the full continuum of provincial crime prevention organizations in Alberta (approximately 15 organizations), they were brought together for a day-long session. This emerged into the development of the Alberta CommUNITY Safety Group, a coalition of loosely affiliated provincial crime prevention organizations. This group has met four times to date. Meetings are coordinated by the community-based organizations.

Through extensive work in Manitoba to meet the needs of women’s and girls’ victimization and safety issues, the Region was able to influence provincial program policy to engender their Lighthouses Program. More specifically, the Lighthouses Youth Program, which supports the ongoing after-school activities of youth throughout the province, is now prioritizing new programs specifically for girls’ engagement as well as raising awareness on how existing programs can engender their programs to engage girls more meaningfully.

The Community Capacity Assessment Grid and the Community Needs and Analysis Assessment, which are designed to measure needs, capacity, and community readiness, are now embedded into program policy to better meet the needs of community safety in Manitoba.

In consultation with the Joint Management Committee, an analysis was conducted of how the recommendations from the Manitoba Aboriginal Justice Inquiry relate to the National Strategy and Community Mobilization Program in Manitoba in practical applications.

Diverse networks have been developed with people from many sectors, organizations, environments and mandates within the Region’s provinces. In order to take these networks to another level, issues that cut across the Region are being identified, such as those related to the sex trade and sexual exploitation, and regional frameworks are being built for how the Region can work with others to put a focus on these issues in order to understand and change the systemic issues that lead to crime and victimization.

Working with Saskatchewan Learning, youth and other partners, the Region is examining policies and approaches to issues like truancy and behavioural problems where punitive approaches are currently common, and working toward a greater emphasis on family engagement to keep children in school with support. Similarly, discussion/work on policies and practices to prevent and decrease bullying is underway.

Regional involvement is being increased, as much as resources allow, in the horizontal work through UAS, Federal Council, the Federal Council Policy Committee, the Federal Managers Community and Municipal based committees. Stronger linkages with people working in evaluation and academic research and in areas such as health policy are being developed. Collaboration with the policing community and Aboriginal community as well as the provincial justice and corrections community on the response to the Justice Commission Report is taking place.

In two weeks, the RCMP “K” Division, the Alberta Community Crime Prevention Association, the Alberta Solicitor General department, and the regional office will engage in a joint work planning session for the first time. This will affect the coordination and connectivity of each organization’s respective work and yield opportunities to leverage the work of each.

Training and support is being provided to the RCMP as they endeavour to train police and community members across Alberta in crime prevention through social development. Through a Train the Trainer approach, the police/community member pairs will facilitate further education and action in their home communities.

Comprehensive Community Initiatives are being piloted in Manitoba, which are designed to take a more holistic approach to all the factors and policies that contribute to crime and victimization.

An example of steps to be taken in the future is to continue the partnership with people working in the criminal justice system to establish a Drug Treatment Court in Winnipeg and to meet with provincial officials to discuss ways to work together to change housing and welfare regulations that directly influence the factors that put people at risk of becoming involved in the criminal justice system.

Northern:

Crime Prevention Conferences/Workshops were held in the Yukon each year from 2000-2003 with themes such as Youth Asset Building, Domestic Violence, and Sexual Assault. These events were well received and brought together many Non-profit Organizations, various levels of Government, and coalitions from across the North to increase awareness and find solutions to these issues. They were hosted in partnership with Yukon Justice, RCMP, Crime Prevention Yukon, Health and Social Services.

The Region is working closely with Community Justice Committees and Restorative Justice coordinators in all three Territories, as part of an Integrated Program Delivery model with the Aboriginal Justice Strategy, to enhance their knowledge of crime prevention through social development approaches.

There are ongoing collaborative efforts with Federal Councils, Canadian Rural Partnerships, and other Federal Departments by undertaking research projects on “program effectiveness in Aboriginal communities”, and “underlying social issues of alcohol abuse”.

Crime Prevention through Social Development workshops have been delivered to RCMP officers and community members. This is a joint initiative with the RCMP and Territorial Departments of Justice.

Ontario:

Meetings take place on a regular basis with municipal government officials to share knowledge, focus and resources related to crime prevention funding practices at the community level.

Multi-sectoral partnerships including those that involve the private sector and policing are consistently encouraged and endorsed.

Workshops are delivered to non-traditional crime prevention actors, including religious groups and school officials, as well as to non-traditional social development actors such as police and private security firms.

Provincial and municipal government officials were invited to funding announcements.

Other examples specific to project funding include the Hamilton Bullying Strategy — NCPC Ontario was part of the process both as a facilitator and supporter of two projects with a coalition of organizations interested in the issue of bullying; NCPC helped to guide process issues of how the strategy could roll-out in the Region. Partners involved include 40 organizations — government, private sector and the voluntary non-profit sector.

In addition, in Prescott a Region-wide youth strategy, still in development and including all of the above sectors (private, public and voluntary), is supported.

There is an increase in corporate visibility within funded projects and inter-governmental activities.

Quebec:

The National Strategy works in close collaboration with the province of Quebec in the area of crime prevention. The arrival of the Strategy in 1999 contributed to the province deciding to take a stronger lead in the area of crime prevention which it did by launching its Departmental Crime Prevention Policy, Making our communities safer for everyone, in 2001. The province recognizes that it could not have attempted the implementation of this policy without the support of the National Strategy.

The partnership that developed out of the Strategy’s support to the implementation of the province’s crime prevention policy led to cooperation on dozens of other initiatives, such as:

For instance, NCPC actively supported the province’s proceeds of crime funding program, which addressed bullying (2002-03) and street gangs (2004-05).

The Strategy also developed a partnership with the City of Montreal in order to help with the implementation of their Programme montréalais de soutien à l’action citoyenne en sécurité urbaine dans les arrondissements. As with the support to the provincial crime policy, it is felt that the Strategy’s role is contributing to the sustainability of crime prevention by ensuring governmental buy-in.

Atlantic:

The actions taken that have had a positive and lasting impact are diverse. Three examples are: Safe community workshops were held across NS in partnership with the RCMP, the Office of the Solicitor General and the Nova Scotia Crime Prevention Society. The workshops broadened the make up of local and provincial crime prevention partnerships, while broadening and heightening focus of crime prevention efforts.

The Atlantic Summer Institute on safe and healthy communities attracted crime prevention, social development and health promotion practitioners from across Canada and police from as far away as Washington D.C. The institute focused on practical models and tools for advancing and sustaining the integrated pursuit of community safety, health and well-being.

The PEI department of corrections is working in partnership with NCPC in training six former youth corrections workers in working at the front end of the justice system by serving the community as social development resources.

E.2 Collaborative Efforts of Organizations in Communities

Regions have also seen some increased collective involvement of organizations, which have traditionally had a mandate related to single issues (e.g., literacy, child care, substance abuse and so on), to deliver their core mandate in order to strengthen community and individual resiliency to crime and victimization. Regional representatives spoke of “concerted efforts” to link social issues together and acknowledgement of the overlap between these issues in the context of strengthening communities. Organizations related to literacy, homelessness and FASD are among those cited by the regions as getting involved. Examples of what collaboration between organizations can achieve include a domestic violence court pilot project and the development of a community wellness plan. Further examples of this type of engagement in each Region follow.

BC:

The Cowichan Women Against Violence Society, through its initial work on safety audits addressing women’s safety, has been working with local governments and planning institutes to work collectively on crime prevention and victimization, as well as creating an awareness of gender mainstreaming.

Literacy BC, through its New School at Surrey project, has developed a model curriculum to help youth at-risk stay in school, improve their reading and other academic skills, enhance their self-esteem, enable them to develop and maintain positive social relationships, and reduce their likelihood of committing crimes in the future. The project represents a partnership between NCPC, the National Literacy Secretariat (HRSDC), the Surrey School District, and the Vancouver Foundation. The model has been so successful that it is now being supported solely by the Surrey School District and has been replicated for Aboriginal students, and is being considered for use by other literacy organizations (e.g., in the NWT). Although the original intent was to improve literacy levels, the results have been far more wide ranging, and relate directly to crime prevention through social development.

The Cowichan Valley FAS Action Society has sponsored a number of projects to increase community awareness about fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), with the intention to better support individuals in the community with FASD and prevent them from re-offending. The Society has developed an audit tool, which has been applied to a local college, the RCMP watch, a camp, and various service providers in the community, who would not be considered traditional stakeholders in the field of crime prevention. In Burns Lake, the College of New Caledonia has been working with Babine Forest Products to promote awareness of the needs of individuals with FASD, in order to provide appropriate opportunities for training and possibly employment of this disadvantaged group.

The Early Childhood Educators of BC have been funded to provide training to Early Childhood Educators and to Family Child Care Providers on how to utilize the “Let’s Talk About Touching” toolkit. This resource is used to teach children from three-and-a-half to six years of age about appropriate and inappropriate touching, in order to prevent child sexual abuse. The resource was originally funded through a CMP grant to the Vancouver School Board.

The Boys and Girls Clubs of BC have been supported through several NCPC grants to provide training to communities throughout BC on asset building for youth. This approach is based on research that indicates there are 40 developmental assets critical to positive youth development. The asset building approach is a CPSD approach, as it is based on addressing risk and protective factors in the lives of young people. The approach is not prescriptive. It allows each community to enhance developmental assets in a unique way that is appropriate to the community. The approach has been applied to a number of successful initiatives in BC and these are identified in a special issue of the Asset Networker, which was funded through the Community Mobilization Program. A copy can be made available upon request.

The Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre developed a Safe Spaces Preschool Bullying Prevention Training Project to encourage young children along a pathway to positive relationships through their lifetime. To deliver the training throughout BC, the WCCRC will utilize the partnerships of Success By Six, including all of the United Ways of BC, 33 credit unions with 275 branches, and the provincial Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Prairie:

The community of Okanese in Saskatchewan is a very good example of this. Prior to the work with other federal departments, provincial representatives and people in the community, crisis level issues in policing, youth, mental health, crime and victimization, education and child welfare were rampant in the community. This played out in extreme violence, fear and overall chaos in the social fabric. As a result of a concerted effort to link the issues together and see the overlap and need for comprehensive and holistic approaches that require changes in how government and community members work, an overarching Community Wellness Plan, coordinated funding and action from different departments and levels of government and visibly increased community safety and participation are developing.

In Alberta, through CMP and Strategic Fund funding, the Jasper Community Team has formed and has been sustained.

The Calgary Block Watch Council, engaged in its conventional crime prevention mandate of supporting block watch for many years, is now bringing together adults and at-risk youth to implement neighbourhood projects.

HomeFront, a pilot domestic violence court in Alberta supported through the Investment Fund is an excellent example of community collaboration by a variety of organizations who typically do not work outside their own mandates.

United Way of Winnipeg has taken a comprehensive city-wide approach for the past decade in all of its activities and is now working actively with NCPC to embed safety into its continuing city-wide vision for a safe, healthy and vibrant Winnipeg.

Another example is a CMP funded project: Lake Manitoba Health Centre that is working with community partners to develop and sustain safety initiatives.

Northern:

Through the Region’s support, organizations are beginning to extend their reach along the social justice spectrum by embarking on projects that explore the problems associated with offender addictions, the correlation between low literacy and criminal behaviour in a unique cultural environment, issues within a newly developed addictions treatment centre, suicide prevention, and the linkages between economic development and social development.

Ontario:

NCPC staff support organizations in moving to a position of multi-sectoral collaboration.

The Fred Victor Centre – Homeless shelter in the downtown core of Toronto used CMP to develop an internal safety committee that, as recommended by a NCPS project officer, included a community police officer and representatives of local businesses and residences. This has resulted in greater neighbourhood safety as shelter-users have strengthened trust/relationship with police, and business owners have decreased fear/distrust of street-level homeless persons.

Another example includes the Hoops Unlimited — Basketball program for at-risk youth, which developed a partnership with the local police division that has led to increased volunteer retention (including off-duty officers) and stronger relationships between older residents, youth and police.

Quebec:

An example from Quebec is the Montreal Chamber of Commerce. With the intense involvement of the National Strategy, this organization, traditionally geared to commerce, business, and the private sector, became intimately involved in a major crime prevention initiative. A three-year school drop out prevention program was embarked upon in partnership with some key players such as the Department of Education, schools, and businesses. The Strategy supported the evaluation aspect of this initiative in the hope of ensuring its sustainability. American studies show that this type of program can reduce serious delinquency by about 50 per cent (Greenwood, Model, Rydel and Chiesa, 1996).

Pointe-à-la Croix/Restigouche is another amongst many examples. An organization solely involved in recreation and another involved only with First Nations issues came together through an NCPC project to mobilize their respective communities in order to reduce and prevent racism and violence among the youth.

Atlantic:

As organizations are discovering interrelationships and barriers to sustainability, they are learning to bundle up catalysts, outputs and outcomes within comprehensive initiatives. In practice, this means using a variety of policy instruments (i.e., regulatory, economic and stewardship) to address a mutually reinforcing package of factors (i.e., poverty, crime, illiteracy and substance abuse).

E.3 NCPS’s Role in Facilitating Coordinated Community Action

Regional Directors agree that the NCPS has at least to some degree established a reputation for being a facilitator of coordinated community action. Provincial, territorial and community involvement were all described. A number of the Directors referred to previously-mentioned projects such as roundtables and large crime prevention initiatives such as Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside Project as examples of how the Strategy has achieved its reputation. Regional staff have also been invited to participate in activities sponsored by these other stakeholders. Many more examples illustrating the role of the NCPS in facilitating coordinated community action and the Strategy’s reputation in this regard are described in this section.

BC:

In May 2004, the BC Region invited representatives of other federal departments, 3 provincial Ministries, and the Union of BC Municipalities, to a meeting to explore approaches and interest in development of a Comprehensive Community Initiative for BC. Since then, the NCPC has been working closely with the provincial government and the BC Crime Prevention Association to develop the CCI proposal for funding. Our next step will be to approach key stakeholders including the local government of 5 to 7 communities to be directly involved in applying the CCI approach to their communities.

The Human Trafficking Roundtable, co-sponsored by NCPC and the provincial government, and held in November 2004, was intended to bring relevant stakeholders together to begin to explore coordinated approaches to addressing the issue. The fact that the Superintendent of the RCMP Border Integrity Program for BC has requested a follow-up Roundtable with 150 people means that the initial Roundtable served as a catalyst. One of the goals of the next event (planned for April or May 2005) is to launch a Pacific Region Strategy for Prevention of Human Trafficking, protection of victims of human trafficking and prosecution of criminals involved in human trafficking.

The Downtown Eastside Project of the City of Vancouver serves as a good example of the NCPS facilitating coordinated community action. These quotations come from the Evaluation Report to the Project. “The ability of the community to work together and with government to address the complex issues that lead to crime and victimization increased as a result of this project.” (page 10). “The project was successful in facilitating the involvement of marginalized groups in planning and priority setting with respect to initiatives that address the root causes of crime.” (page 8). In addition, the Vancouver Courier newsletter included the following information in its September 15, 2004 issue: “On Tuesday, city project manager Wendy Au, presented a report to council stating the five-year Downtown Eastside Crime Prevention Project had mobilized the community and improved the city’s ability to deal with crime.”

Another Investment Fund Project, with Prostitution Alternatives Counselling and Education (PACE), has supported initiatives to provide alternatives for persons involved in or at risk of the sex trade. Specifically, project staff have trained peers to make presentations and deliver workshops on working with persons involved in the sex trade, provided presentations for training of police officers, and developed a video for specific populations to prevent youth from getting into the sex trade. The project has also supported outreach to youth and women involved in the sex trade and developed a manual for service providers to provide more appropriate outreach and services.

Prairie:

The fact that the NCPS has built a solid reputation with the Prairie provinces and communities as a facilitator of coordinated community action is evident in most of the responses and examples already provided. The very foundation of the Strategy and its mandate leads to requirements for coordinated action at many levels — community, provincial, municipal, interdepartmental. These requirements are backed up by philosophical beliefs, values and evidence about what works and this leads to a focus on comprehensive and coordinated community action that permeates everything the Region does.

At the very practical level, it is the staff that builds the reputation. The NCPS gives some of the tools in terms of requirements for funding etc., but it is the people who deliver the NCPS who build the reputation. The Region operates with an amazingly lean staff component, with three people assigned specifically to manage the work in each of the Prairie provinces. Five others’ job responsibilities include work in all three provinces. It would be physically impossible to accomplish anything alone beyond the values and principles that the Region maintains regarding working in partnership with others and the mandate of the Strategy which is based in social development — and fundamentally partnership-based. This has led the Region to hire staff that bring and constantly develop skills and experience in facilitating coordinated action. Evidence of their reputation lies in the invitations staff receive to be part of collaborative tables, requests staff receive for advice on building partnerships in communities, requests for staff to provide workshops and speeches at events, and the depth and breadth of the networks built and maintained across the Region.

Coordinated community action is a priority policy of the Saskatchewan Joint Management Committee and this policy direction has moved project applicants and other stakeholders to collaborate at the community planning process. The NCPS funding requirements for working toward and demonstrating coordinated community action and the assistance of NCPC staff to do this has led to most projects funded through the Strategy in Saskatchewan somehow demonstrating coordinated action. In addition, the RICs who represent multiple provincial departments and community representatives provide input on proposals to the NCPC and this adds further assurance of coordinated action.

The Region has come to develop and enjoy a truly exceptional relationship with provincial counterparts. On most provincial work that either office engages in, they partner at a collaborative level. They co-present at conferences, co-chair meetings and events, coordinate the CMP and the provincial crime prevention funding to leverage and complement one another. While the province co-chairs the Alberta Joint Management Committee (JMC) in accordance with the formal Partnership Agreement, the Region sits as an active member on the provincial funding committee. They also contribute to decision-making across the provincial government related to police and funding decisions. As examples of coordinated action with the province, they have co-facilitated the development of the CommUNITY Safety Group discussed above and they have worked closely with Alberta’s Francophone community as well as Aboriginal communities to support crime prevention outcomes.

In Manitoba, NCPC took the lead in working with the province and community groups in coordinating all projects dealing with women’s and girls’ safety issues to come together to build on each other’s strengths and knowledge and provide a network of support.

NCPC, together with federal and provincial funding partners, was very involved in the design and implementation of the Women’s Social Justice Forum, which brought together their funded projects throughout Manitoba to learn from one another and determine priorities for future work to create safer and healthier communities for women. This has resulted in a jointly funded project to further the recommendations to reduce sexual violence against Aboriginal women in Manitoba.

Involvement with the small working group to examine the feasibility of The Winnipeg Drug Treatment Court has resulted in a broader comprehensive approach to better meet the needs of the people coming into the criminal justice system because of their addictions. NCPC took the lead in coordinating the community services support portion of the DTC, engaging Aboriginal, non-Aboriginal communities, front-line service providers, provincial policy makers, housing, income security, childcare and a broad range of treatment providers.

Northern:

As an enabler rather than facilitator, the NCPS has succeeded in spawning numerous projects across the country through the sharing of knowledge, research findings, and capacity building. Evidence of sustainable community action can be found in many projects.

Ontario:

There have been some successes at generating such a reputation, but the Region has to build a “solid” one largely due to a lack of resources. Increased demands and requests for support related to funding projects has shifted NCPS Ontario more towards the role of a traditional “funder” than as a facilitator for community change. Hence, many of the examples or actions that strengthened the Region’s reputation as a facilitator are related to funding decisions (i.e., conditions attached to funding requests, skills-building/training as directly related to funding applicants) rather than strategic action.

The relationship with the province and with municipalities is good, but collaboration could be improved. Currently, it is done ad hoc wherever possible due to the fact that there are many activities going on throughout the province and human-resource wise the Region cannot possibly be involved in them all. Examples of where they are involved include: Toronto, Hamilton, London, Windsor, and Waterloo.

Quebec:

The Region works with a network of social service and health organizations, as well as with academics, universities and businesses. As for community organizations, their ability to function is largely dependant on our ability to provide front-line assistance.

There is anticipation that new programs will enable the Strategy in this Region to be much more visible on the forefront, and better respond to the needs of organizations. There have been several activities carried out over the years, for example: support for the establishment of local prevention strategies, which were established in five municipalities and seven districts in Montreal, that are recognized as very significant contributions to community capacity in preventing criminal activity. The Region seeks to increase the opportunities to meet with Aboriginal communities, as well as rural and remote.

The NCPC has created several intra-ministerial committees that benefit from the interactions with other organizations, such as Correctional Services Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and Aboriginal law enforcement agencies. In conclusion, the reputation of the NCPC and the NCPS in Quebec is excellent and improves yearly.

Despite minimum resources, staff visit all parts of the province to provide support and training in order to help organizations mobilize their communities.

The Region has been effective and proactive in many areas, one being when a crisis broke out in the rural municipality of Huntington, Quebec. The mayor declared a curfew to keep adolescents off the streets after 10 pm at night. NCPS facilitated community action to help diffuse tempers and open up dialogue in the community.

Atlantic:

The Strategy’s reputation is as more of a facilitator and a supporter of facilitators, rather than “the” facilitator. The Region cultivates the facilitative leadership of others. They are also gaining recognition for content knowledge mined from the thousands of research, action and capacity building projects funded across the country. The feedback received from provinces, territories and community organizations during the recent National Strategy Renewal Consultations speaks volumes on the reputation of NCPC.

E.4 Contribution of Regional Efforts to NCPS Phase II Expansion Objectives

Regions see considerable progress towards the NCPS expansion objectives of sustainable community action, knowledge development and sharing, and coordination of multi-level support for crime prevention efforts. A “high degree of interest” in sustainability was described, and a variety of projects have continued on their own, such as train-the-trainer projects and community crime prevention teams. Projects, in general, are encouraged to achieve sustainability. Development and sharing of knowledge about crime prevention strategies is taking place through a variety of activities, such as making pilot tools nationally available and regional staff making appearances in many communities to talk about effective strategies. Fewer examples of how the Regions are working towards coordinating multi-level support were provided, and concerns were raised about how to better achieve the objectives, such as through better funding and more work in isolated, rural and Northern communities. Contribution to all of these objectives in each Region is illustrated more fully below.

BC:

Increasing Sustainable Community Action

The BC Region hosted a focus group to pilot a Sustainability Toolkit, in August 2004. An Inventory of Funding Sources was also developed in BC, to assist groups in identifying other sources of support.

One of the groups that has been successful in sustaining its efforts and community capacity is the Summerland Asset Development Initiative and the Summerland Chamber of Economic Development and Tourism.

The model of sustainability and positive youth development is being replicated in three other communities in BC, and has received financial support from three provincial Ministries, Sears Canada, and Telus.

Developing and Sharing Knowledge of Crime Prevention Strategies

BC NCPC staff sit on the planning committee for the annual BC Crime Prevention Association Conference. At the September 2004 Conference, more than half of all the presentations/workshops featured activities that had received funding through the NCPS. The focus was much more CPSD-based than in previous years.

A Gender Mainstreaming tool for crime prevention practitioners is being piloted in BC and will be made available nationally to communities to assist in the development of CCI projects throughout Canada to provide more responsive strategies.

Coordinating Multi-level Support for Crime Prevention Efforts

One example is the Train the Trainer DISC project. This project involves the Children of the Street Society and the Vancouver Police Department in an initiative to increase awareness amongst the corporate sector, particularly hotel and motel owners in Vancouver, about sexual exploitation of children and youth, and how they can assist in preventing it.

In 100 Mile House, the South Cariboo Chamber of Commerce has been working with the South Cariboo Safer Communities Society to provide youth, especially those at-risk, with positive opportunities to build bridges between youth and businesses. With a Strategic Fund grant, the groups also established a youth community resource centre, which serves 500 youth per month and is soliciting support for continuation from various sectors in the community.

The Union of British Columbia Municipalities Crime Prevention Forum, held in November 2004 in Richmond, represented an initiative supported by NCPC, the RCMP, provincial government, and Justice Institute, with participation of 120 local government representatives from 80 communities in BC, many of them remote and rural. Feedback on the forum, which focused on harnessing the power of youth in communities, was very positive.

Prairie:

Increasing Sustainable Community Action

There is a high degree of interest in sustainability of community action in the Region and across the NCPS and other government initiatives. Sustainability remains a concept that is not understood in the same way by most people and that is often unachievable in the strict sense of requiring community organizations and people to demonstrate they will be able to continue the activities beyond our funding. The Region has worked with Joint Management Committees (JMCs) and with colleagues to think and talk and be real about sustainability. Risk assessment is important and often, even if it is not likely particular activities will continue due to lack of funding, some benefits — including the impacts of people working together in communities where they have not done that before, the impacts of putting new systems in place, and the impacts of people experiencing something they would not have if not for work we are supporting — are fully sustainable without further funding. The Region participated in the FPT Working Group study on Sustainability by providing projects for study and by talking with the researchers. Discussions about sustainability are built into proposal development work with community members and they work to find ways to define sustainability beyond project activities continuing after the funding.

In Saskatchewan, the NCPC has worked toward and achieved a greater degree of leveraging other funding with theirs and of building multiple funders into projects. For example, they are working with First Nations Women on work related to sexual exploitation. The issues are of importance to Status of Women and to the HRSDC Homelessness Initiative and through the NCPC’s discussion and development work with them, they will be providing funding for work beyond Strategy funding.

They have worked and achieved more phased funding approaches where the levels of funding decrease as the community builds the systems and shifts resources to take over project components and then supports the ongoing costs through their own fund raising. The Kelsey project in Saskatchewan is very good example of this.

They have worked to build networks and coalitions that result in cross jurisdictional planning and implementation. Often, the more partners involved, the more chances there will be resources in the right place at the right time. Examples of this are the Regina Coalition on sexual exploitation and the New North project on community ownership of ending victimization.

Contributions in Alberta around enhancing the skills, knowledge, and resources in communities working toward sustainable crime prevention action are immeasurable. The Region has physically attended meetings and spoken in more than 100 different communities — many of them multiple times – and worked with hundreds of organizations and thousands of Albertans. They have assisted and encouraged people to work together so that they can realign resources, join forces to build strong projects and programs, and be creative and successful in their ongoing efforts.

The Jasper Community Team, the Edmonton Police Service Neighbourhood Empowerment Team, the Drayton Valley Family and Community Support Services Crime Prevention project, and numerous other projects in Alberta started with seed funding from the NCPS and continue today. Often the shift in sustainable support came from the opportunity granted through CMP funding to demonstrate a project to a local school, town or city council. They have, in turn, committed to support the ongoing operational cost of the project.

Based on the national Logic Models that were developed for NCPS projects, which indicate the immediate and intermediate outcomes, Manitoba projects were able to demonstrate sustainability by achieving not only immediate outcomes but intermediate outcomes as well. For example: decreasing negative activities/behaviours related to risk factors; improving psychosocial development of participants in CMP projects; and increasing engagement of target groups/participants in their community and empowerment.

Also, among projects surveyed in Manitoba that were able to sustain their activities, the majority were located in urban centres where partnerships and access to other resources are more readily available.

There is more work to do in more isolated, northern and rural communities in Manitoba.

Developing and Sharing Knowledge of Crime Prevention Strategies

The Region has had much involvement in the NCPC Strategic Plan Priority on Developing Knowledge in Focus Areas. The Region provided leadership for this work in terms of project management and coordination, communication and research/evaluation skills.

The Region looks at all work from the perspective of how is this going to contribute to knowledge? What are we going to learn from this? Is there something we need to learn that we are not finding? How can we do that?

They work from a value base that knowledge comes in many shapes and forms and that one of their key roles is to really listen and learn from what community people are saying and to develop a give-and-take relationship that allows for mutual learning.

In Saskatchewan, the expansion supported more leadership and presence at tables responsible for social development of community safety planning. By being at more of these tables, the NCPC was able to share their expertise on crime prevention strategies in ways that make it more likely crime prevention will be integrated at a policy level. It takes a leadership presence to move crime prevention from being a motherhood issue to a policy that overarches all quality of life issues and priorities like the children’s agenda, the Aboriginal agenda, the cities renewal agenda and the voluntary sector agenda.

In addition to responses provided above around the numbers of organizations, people and communities that the NCPC has worked with in Alberta, the Region sees its role as a broker of knowledge and resources. The NCPC has provided research material to organizations to inform their work, constantly facilitates new relationships among communities that have something to learn from one another, and has developed resources and promoted particular knowledge.

In Manitoba, the NCPC formulates and evaluates community knowledge in user-friendly, accessible public products.

Coordinating Multi-level Support for Crime Prevention Efforts

In Saskatchewan, the NCPC works toward multi-level support for pretty much everything it does. They have built relationships with HRSDC, Health Canada, Justice Canada, RCMP, SWC Aboriginal Northern Justice Initiative and Saskatchewan Justice. They sit at the Saskatchewan Federal Council and work with Police services, municipal governments and Aboriginal organizations. They have many relationships with the voluntary sector and with academics and researchers. As per earlier examples, the NCPC is always involved in coordinating multi-level support for crime prevention efforts.

Turning to Alberta, the NCPC has promoted the value of crime prevention councils, as per the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) 2000 Primer. In addition to promoting and presenting this document to local interest-groups, they presented on it at the Alberta Association of Municipal, Districts and Counties Conference in 2002. This audience was comprised of over 700 elected officials. This has contributed to the development of a crime prevention investment fund ($2.2 Million) by City of Calgary Council, the Central Alberta Regional Crime Prevention Council initiated by the current City of Red Deer Mayor, and the Edmonton Regional Crime Prevention Society initiated through Edmonton’s Safer City’s agenda.

As a member of inter-governmental and inter-departmental committees, including the Rural Team Alberta, they have also provided a voice to crime prevention through social development in a number of other arenas. For example, the BSE crisis in Alberta leaves many Alberta farming families destitute and at greater risk of crime and victimization due to increased family stress, violence, poverty, substance abuse and suicide. This is an agenda that they are working with a number of provincial and federal departments, as well as community organizations, to address.

The NCPC has also promoted CPSD among police organizations and among the Alberta Association for Police Governance (AAPG). Recognizing police as key, credible spokespeople in local crime prevention action, they have encouraged their involvement while recognizing their reticence to “drive” such action.

In Manitoba, multi-level support is a key strategy in how they do their work. They are consistently seeking partnerships and are part of numerous coalitions, e.g., Funders Network, advisory boards for projects, federal horizontal initiatives, and the Winnipeg Committee for Safety.

Northern:

Increasing Sustainable Community Action

There has been a moderate increase in sustainable community action, particularly when the Territorial Governments get involved and respond with policy frameworks around a particular issue, i.e., the Government of the NWT developed Territorial-wide legislation/policy on family violence in part from the recommendations that came out of a crime prevention funded project.

Developing and Sharing Knowledge of Crime Prevention Strategies

The Yukon Government has a Crime Prevention Trust Fund, which complements the Programs. They also share a database that captures the various crime prevention initiatives and provides information useful for future analysis of crime trends and related emerging crime issues.

Coordinating Multi-level Support for Crime Prevention Efforts

Coordinated effort is steadily increasing as interest and understanding of the NCPC’s work grow in the Northern Region.

Ontario:

Increasing Sustainable Community Action

By emphasizing the project-nature of NCPS funding, and offering tools/resources that assist communities and groups sustain their initiatives, the Region has been largely successful in helping communities develop sustainable action. The sustainability study recently undertaken by the NCPS seemed to indicate that (nationally) 60 per cent of CMP projects were sustained beyond expiration of CMP funding; given the wealth of the Region, Ontario’s average is probably closer to 70 per cent. However, all efforts to achieve this objective have been hampered by three factors:

Developing and Sharing Knowledge of Crime Prevention Strategies

There has been reasonable success in achieving the objective of developing and sharing knowledge, albeit in an indirect/organic fashion. For example, within the Greater Toronto Area, they are now operating in an environment where municipal, regional, and provincial officials, coupled with high-ranking officials within police services, are openly acknowledging the importance of addressing the “root causes” of crime and victimization. However, a lack of human resources aimed at public education and awareness, coupled with reactive funding practices, has limited ability to achieve this objective.

Coordinating Multi-level Support for Crime Prevention Efforts

Again, due to low NCPC human resource levels and the heavy requests for funding, most successes in the arena of coordinating multi-level support for crime prevention efforts have been met with leveraging additional sources of funding/contributions from other levels of government and sectors.

Quebec:

Increasing Sustainable Community Action

The objective of increasing sustainable community action is one that the Region always aims for regardless of project duration. Since 2001, they have asked the organizations to submit projects in relation to three phases:

It is believed that projects that are longer in duration (e.g., 2-3 years) have a greater chance of sustaining themselves. Some examples of sustainability attained through NCPS support are as follows: projet Cible Famille Brandon, Premier Arrêt, and various tools that have been formally adopted by schools and school boards (e.g., Vers le Pacifique and QES developed by the Université de Montréal).

Developing and Sharing Knowledge of Crime Prevention Strategies

With respect to developing and sharing knowledge of crime prevention strategies, the lack of human resources limits capacity regarding this objective. However, they are still making progress and are going in the right direction. In fact, programs provide opportunities to develop and test tools (and share knowledge), for instance:

Coordinating Multi-level Support for Crime Prevention Efforts

Regarding the objective of coordinating multi-level support for crime prevention efforts, two examples that reflect NCPS involvement in Quebec are as follows. NCPS staff have supported and are active members of a multi-sectoral committee involved with the Projet de développement des actions intersectorielles pour améliorer la sécurité des victimes de violence conjugale. This group (composed of representatives of the police, parole board, corrections, etc.) is developing new approaches to dealing with violent partners in a relationship. Similar involvement takes place in other spheres such as in the creation of an Observatoire de la sécurité et de la prévention dans les milieux de vie for the province. It is an institute that would gather, analyze, evaluate and share data and information relating to crime prevention and security.

Atlantic:

Increasing Sustainable Community Action

There is much more understanding of and support for sustained community action.

Developing and Sharing Knowledge of Crime Prevention Strategies

There has been a large contribution to the objective of developing and sharing knowledge. People come to workshops looking for knowledge more than project funding.

Coordinating Multi-level Support for Crime Prevention Efforts

There has also been a large contribution to the coordination of multi-level support for crime prevention efforts. There are expanding levels of funding going into local projects and a growing diversity of sources of that support.

E.5 Support for Integrated, Community-Based Initiatives

a) Support for NCPC’s Emphasis on More Integrated Community-Based Initiatives

All the Regional Directors support the Strategy’s emphasis on implementing and moving towards more integrated community-based initiatives. Integration is greatly valued for a number of reasons, such as the interrelated nature of social factors in crime prevention, the need for greater ability to respond to complex social phenomena, and the value of cooperation among stakeholders. More specific regional views on the importance of integration are presented below.

BC:

This Region supports the move towards more integrated initiatives. This direction promotes the need for more horizontal coordination and partnerships, including greater community participation in the development and implementation of prevention strategies.

Prairie:

Overall there is strong support in the Region for moving towards more integrated community-based initiatives. This is in many ways a continuation and natural evolution of the way they have been working since the Strategy began. This is the next logical step in the evolution of crime prevention in communities. Given the dynamic interplay of risk and protective factors, augmented by the sheer number of organizations often serving the same population(s), it only makes sense that a more comprehensive, multi-disciplinary, coordinated, resource leveraging approach be supported.

They have learned that they need to understand and acknowledge how much skill and resources it takes to move to really integrated approaches. Communities need to be ready, they need to have the skills, resources and tools and willingness to work in more integrated ways. There need to be resources dedicated to the roles and functions of coordinated and integrated approaches. The Region needs to be able to support people along a continuum of integration and not expect everyone to be integrated before they can be supported.

The necessary changes they make in this more integrated approach are really entrenched in public policy and public viewpoints. The Strategy’s challenge in this more integrated approach will be to navigate and influence both public policy and public viewpoints.

This approach calls for a serious commitment as the Region decides to move to a public safety agenda that has its solutions in numerous social policies held by other levels of government. Comprehensive, integrated approaches do not happen without dedicated and skilled support. It will be necessary to explore and learn roles vis à vis other partners and community members. It is an exciting direction that makes intuitive and evident sense. NCPC representatives are definitely up for the challenge and are inspired by it in this Region.

Northern:

Yes, especially when social issues are often inextricably linked, requiring an integrated approach at all levels.

Ontario:

The Region supports this emphasis for several reasons: a) it allows for greater strategic use/distribution of existing resources; b) this facilitates a stronger ability to respond to complex social phenomena; c) it reinforces commonalities while reducing divisive conflict amongst all stakeholders; and d) it facilitates the necessary groundwork for reduction in social ills and prevention of their future occurrence.

Quebec:

The province has been working towards this objective over the past few years. This integrated approach was chosen as one of the NCPS’s strategic objectives in 2001. The Quebec Region is collaborating with the Quebec government and the city of Montreal to help achieve this goal. Although Quebec does not define integrated community approaches in the same way as the rest of the country, the end result that they are looking to achieve is the same. Regional staff is intensely involved in the integrated approaches (comprehensive community approaches) being experimented both at the national and regional levels. This ensures cooperation and continuity in experimenting with these new and innovative approaches to crime prevention.

Atlantic:

This Region supports the emphasis on integrated initiatives on a continuum:

b) Provincial/Territorial Interest in a More Integrated Approach that Includes
 Crime Prevention

Provincial and territorial interest in an integrated approach that includes/could include crime prevention is quite evident in the examples provided by the Regional Directors. For instance, some provinces are making efforts to implement crime prevention policies that reflect the principle of integration. Various provincial initiatives, aimed at CPSD issues, also follow an integrated model. More of these are expanded on below.

BC:

The Comprehensive Community Initiative is definitely supported by the province, both in principle, and through financial and in-kind support.

The recent support of the province in co-sponsoring the Human Trafficking Roundtable is also an indication of its interest in promoting more integrated approaches to addressing crime and victimization.

Prairie:

All three of the Prairie provinces have demonstrated their interest in exploring and supporting more integrated approaches that include crime prevention. In addition to those listed below, the Manitoba Government has developed and is working to get approval for a crime prevention policy that is founded on an integrated approach across multiple departments. The Alberta Government recently completed a province-wide round table process to build the knowledge for an integrated approach to addressing issues of family violence and bullying in the province. The Province of Saskatchewan has a long history of working across departments and mandates to achieve their goals and they are strong supporters of the NCPS.

Beyond the province-by-province picture, there is also interest emerging for cross-jurisdictional approaches that integrate work on issues very relevant to crime prevention. As mentioned earlier, sexual exploitation, particularly as it involves and affects Aboriginal women and girls, has been identified as a topic that cuts across the Region. It goes beyond the Region as well and they have begun to build their knowledge base, coordinate knowledge, support community members to meet and talk with one another, and build a multi-funder approach to supporting some work. This is an approach that will demonstrate how they can play a unique federal role in bringing together different jurisdictions around issues of common concern.

At the provincial level in Saskatchewan, there is a lot of work around family violence and youth that is evolving all the time and shows good potential for including crime prevention.

The Justice Commission Littlechild Report and the recommendations and building of coordinated responses require an integrated approach and have direct implications for crime prevention work in Saskatchewan.

At a provincial level in Alberta, there are inter-ministerial committees born out of the recognition that a compartmentalized, silo approach is not effective and that a more integrated and comprehensive approach is essential to effective service delivery and sound fiscal management. Moreover, the provincial government has committed funding to crime prevention issues including family violence prevention, bullying prevention, methampheptamine use prevention, restorative justice, and crime prevention – including social development. In addition, through provincial lottery funding, the provincial government has more than $30M annually which is positioned to support crime prevention outcomes, among others. There is an interest to enhance the level of coordination among these various funds and increase the opportunities for communities to develop longer range, more comprehensive approaches to crime and victimization concerns.

In Manitoba, there is Neighbourhoods Alive, which the Region is currently partnering with, Lighthouses Youth Program, which includes crime prevention, and the Healthy Child Initiative that is included at the CCI meetings. They would like to do more work in prevention of child sexual abuse and exploitation, which has not been done provincially. The province has an intervention strategy that deals with children who are already sexually exploited. NCPC has invested in some prevention work, which could be further expanded.

Northern:

Developments at the territorial level include:

Ontario:

The Province of Ontario has recently struck an Interministerial Working Group with the expressed objective of collaboration to create “safe and healthy communities”.

Quebec:

This is not a new concept in the province of Quebec. There are a number of initiatives already in place that support a more integrated community approach. However, as noted earlier, Quebec’s definition of an integrated approach is slightly different from that of the other provinces. Quebec’s approach is said to be inspired by a European model, where the elected locals are the ones who initiate the process and are also the ones who are responsible for the coordination of the multi-sectoral efforts for their respective territories/regions. NCPC is supporting the Quebec approach as a promising model that could be adapted all across the country.

Atlantic:

There are strategic provincial and regional efforts underway in support of advancing integrated or comprehensive approaches. These include:

c) Interest in Municipalities/Cities and/or Rural and Remote Communities in
 a More Integrated Approach that Includes Crime Prevention

The Regional Directors also cited many examples of actions on the part of municipalities/cities and/or rural and remote communities that suggest a strong interest in integrated approaches. One Region emphasized the potential for an integrated approach to alleviate difficult dynamics between rural and off-reserve Aboriginal communities. Among the promising activities mentioned are municipal crime reduction strategies, regional relationships with organizations such as the local United Way, a community safety advisory panel and a group of mayors collaborating on youth issues. These and other examples are further elaborated on in this final section.

BC:

The November 2004 “Harnessing Youth Power and Perspectives in Local Government” forum was co-sponsored by the Union of BC Municipalities. The fact that this represented the second forum addressing crime prevention, with an expression of interest by local government delegates to hold another forum, indicates there is an interest in integrated crime prevention approaches. One of the recommendations of the forum was to include more youth and more police at the next forum. This is a positive direction, as it implies more inclusiveness of people in the community affected by crime and victimization.

Prairie:

In addition to the information on each province provided below, the development of the New Deal for Cities and Communities is going to provide some very interesting opportunities for NCPC to explore and build support for integrated approaches that include crime prevention. There is interest in safety issues in the context of the New Deal and it will be necessary to watch closely and take opportunities to build in to this work as it evolves.

The Rural Secretariat and Rural Teams across the country also provide good opportunities for NCPC to build crime prevention, victimization and community safety issues into a more integrated approach.

Comments specific to each province in the Region follow:

Saskatchewan

Alberta

Manitoba

There are currently relationships with the following groups that lend themselves to this kind of integrated work:

There has also been initial contact with the Aboriginal Policing Directorate, Health Canada – First Nations and Inuit Health Branch and NCPC around safety in Aboriginal Communities.

The Women’s Social Justice Committee and Winnipeg Drug Treatment Court continue to move toward a more integrated approach; and

There are also more opportunities to partner with Aboriginal self-governments as well as private foundations such as the Winnipeg Foundation.

Northern:

Nunavut Tungavik Incorporated (NTI), an organization that oversees the interests of Inuit communities, has expressed an interest in taking an integrated approach with other Departments on community safety and wellness.

The Government of the NWT is piloting an integrated community wellness initiative in eight communities under the auspices of its social agenda mandate.

Ontario:

In 2004, the City of Toronto established the Mayor’s Community Safety Advisory Panel composed of representatives from all levels of government, local schools, communities, and universities. This panel was intended to provide strategic policy direction and advice related to community safety and crime prevention. What has yet to be demonstrated is that this will lead to a more integrated delivery model.

Under the Urban Aboriginal Strategy in Thunder Bay there is a multi-sectoral project, which is attempting to address issues related to children and families. NCPC Ontario is a partner in this initiative.

Quebec:

NCPS is currently supporting and evaluating an integrated approach to crime prevention in five localities (municipalities and boroughs). Each is supported to mobilize citizens under the leadership of a designated elected official, do a diagnostic assessment of security issues, develop and implement an action plan, and evaluate the process.

Within the next three years, if the initiatives from the five pilot sites have successful results, there is a strong possibility that the Quebec government will implement this approach throughout the rest of the province.

Atlantic:

A few examples:

The Mayors and Wardens of Annapolis County have come together and are partnering with voluntary sector and private sector partners in addressing youth issues.

Mayors and First Nations Chiefs have come together in Cape Breton to address youth issues.

The Innu Healing strategy is very much an integrated approach to community safety, health and well-being.

The Cape Breton Strategy to combat the abuse of prescription drugs is an integrated initiative of academic, government, voluntary sector and private sector partners.

Report to the Treasury Board Secretariat

Evaluation of the Expansion of Phase II on the National Crime Prevention Strategy

Management Action Plan

National Crime Prevention Centre

December 14th, 2005

Foreword

This report is to respond to the June 2005 Treasury Board Secretariat decision regarding the Renewal of the National Crime Prevention Strategy, specifically the direction that:

“TBS receive and approve a management-endorsed action plan, by the end of September 2005, responding to the recommendations/findings of the Summative Evaluation (Expansion of Phase II of the NCPS). The action plan will address such matters as the criteria used to select communities for funding of crime prevention activities (e.g. capacity, employment rates, levels of youth and violent crime, etc.). The criteria would be the basis of on-going monitoring and performance reporting in following impacts of the funded activities.”

ACTION PLAN

Criteria for Selection of Funding Recipients (Communities)

Besides responding to the Summative Evaluation’s recommendations, Treasury Board directed that this Action Plan address the criteria to be used to select communities for funding, and that these criteria would underpin subsequent monitoring and performance reporting.

First and foremost, the NCPC is committed to supporting the institutionalization of comprehensive crime prevention planning and action with a focus on measurable results at the city-wide level in Canada’s 10 urban centers with the highest crime. This work requires the participation of three levels of government, with each committing to use its respective levers (be they expertise, resources, alignment of programs, policies), and working with diverse communities at the local level, including the private sector. Accordingly, discussions have begun and will continue in earnest this fall with P/T officials to secure a commitment to a concentration of effort in a more limited number of cities/northern/remote – and Aboriginal communities, with the first criterion being high crime, and a second being a commitment to proceed in a systematic way, consistent with internationally agreed upon principles and approaches – partnership, multiple sectors, evidence-base, clear accountabilities of all partners, results-focused (United Nations Guidelines on Crime Prevention (2002). In aid of this work, the Centre has financed work by Statistics Canada to support this city-wide crime prevention planning. This analysis, called geo-coding, contributes to key baseline data for individual cities, permitting identification of priority areas, vulnerable groups, crimes, etc., and has been strongly endorsed by other federal departments as a tool to aid in greater federal collaboration nationally and locally, and by Chiefs of Police, academics, the NGOs. This work has been completed for Winnipeg, and is underway in 5 other urban centers including Montreal and Regina.

In addition to concentrating efforts in a more limited number of cities and northern communities that are experiencing higher crime, the Centre will also be narrowing the focus with a concentration on groups at high risk of offending and victimization: aboriginal communities, women, and children and youth. For example, children under the age of criminal responsibility (12 years in Canada) who are coming into conflict with police and school authorities are a key group for the Centre, and work is underway to synthesize the considerable body of knowledge that that exists and the Centre has contributed to, and to engage with P/T in the development of models for responding to this high risk population. The work on this particular high-risk group is highly complementary to the comprehensive, city-wide crime prevention work outlined above, as any city with high crime, including youth crime, has a feeder population. Other salient issues the Centre is going to narrow its focus on are security for aboriginal communities, family and sexual violence and ethnic tensions.

The NCPC has established a Solicitations and Priorities Working Group to identify specific high-level national crime prevention issues and to establish priority areas and groups. More specifically, these issues and priorities will be based on an analysis of the present overall crime and victimization picture in Canada (e.g. prevalence and gravity) as well as other key sources of data and information: demographic and socio-economic data; results from the NCPC’s 2004 External Consultation; NCPC existing policy frameworks and those currently under development; __________________ and directives from the Treasury Board Secretariat.

This working group has already developed a set of key principles which will serve as a first “test” of crime prevention funding decisions. These principles do not comprise the complete criteria that Treasury Board has asked for, but is driving their development:

By mid-fall 2005, this working group is to submit the recommended issues and priorities to the NCPC Management Team for discussion and approval. These national priorities will be used to guide the development of more specific funding priorities needed for program development and delivery. While retaining enough flexibility to address emerging problems, issues or needs as they arise at the local, regional or national levels, the NCPC is committed to identifying a limited number of national priorities.

The resulting targeted approach to project funding will open the way to mining and analysis of clusters of projects, and will provide more favorable ground for monitoring and performance reporting of funded activities.


[i] Welsh, Brandon C. (2005). Evidence-Based Crime Prevention: The Scientific Basis, Trends, and Results, with Implication for Canada. A report prepared for the National Crime Prevention Centre.

Rosenbaum, Dennis (2003). Concluding Remarks, in Standard Conceptual Framework for the Description and Exchange of Good Practices. European Union Crime Prevention Network, France Editions DIV (Délégation Interministérielle à la Ville), p.202-04.

Heal, Tony (2003) Introduction, in Standard Conceptual Framework for the Description and Exchange of Good Practices. European Union Crime Prevention Network, France Editions DIV (Délégation Interministérielle à la Ville), p176-90.

Farrington, David P. and Painter, Kate A. (2004) Gender differences in offending: implications for risk-focused prevention, RDS Online Report 9/04. London: Home Office.

MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN (MAP)

Summative Evaluation of the Expansion of Phase II of the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS), covering 2001-2005 (Final report, PSEPC: April 2005)

Recommendation Action Action By Deliverables & Date
Enhancing Performance Measurement (a)
“Continue to develop standard report templates for project sponsors to gather performance data on their projects, encouraging sponsors to gather pre- and post project measures.” In order to prepare for the launch of to its new program platform in October 2005, and building on the program delivery experience of the Expansion years, the NCPC set up a Program Transition Committee in June 2005. This committee has developed standard templates and tools for each of its three new funding streams including application guides, reporting templates, project evaluation grids, model contribution agreements and risk assessment tools. Several of these standard templates have been designed to assist communities in gathering performance data on their projects. For example, the application and reporting templates developed for the Crime Prevention Action Fund (CPAF) have been designed in accordance with the in-house Evaluation Training that program staff recently received, and in accordance with the Evaluation Training resource package that will shortly be made available to funding applicants through the NCPC website.

It should be noted that community groups cannot be expected to put in place a stronger project evaluation component overnight. They need to be supported. Concrete steps have been taken to build the program staff's evaluation capacity and to transfer this knowledge to funding applicants (train the trainer model). Through this process, the NCPC expects to bring community groups’ capacity to gather performance data on their projects to a basic level.

At a broader level, the move towards more comprehensive, city-wide approaches and a commitment to engage in systematic and evidence-based crime reduction efforts that include an assessment of the situation, the articulation of priorities, targeted interventions, a clear accountability regime, and ongoing monitoring and evaluation, is expected to generate more robust performance data. In support of this work, the Centre has developed a draft assessment tool which it has shared with experts in Canada and internationally to ensure that it provides the direction communities need to create the foundation of data and knowledge upon which a solid prevention strategy can be based. By way of example, in provinces such as Quebec and British Columbia which have embraced a provincial strategy to implement comprehensive approaches in 5 cities, the scale of involvement by both federal and provincial partners also contributes to greater standardization and the development of the range of competencies to enhance performance management.		 Program Development and Delivery Section

Policy, Research and Evaluation Section		 Revised Application Guides
Done

Standard Reporting Templates
Done

Standard Contribution Agreement Template
Done

Evaluation Training manual
Done

Evaluation Training of Program staff
Done

Web-based Evaluation Resource
Package

December 2005 Evaluation Training of Community Groups and Partners
Ongoing (Begun in May 2005)

Summative Evaluation of the Expansion of Phase II of the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS), covering 2001-2005 (Final report, PSEPC: April 2005)

Recommendation Action Action By Deliverables & Date
Enhancing Performance Measurement (b)
“Ensure that this information is entered into the administrative data system (GCIMS) so that there is real performance data in the system, and not just information on expected outcomes.” The Program Transition Committee mentioned above also paid great attention to the need of gathering performance information. In addition the development of clearly evaluation-oriented program tools and resources, the committee is currently identifying the necessary logistical updates to the Grants and Contributions Information Management system (GCIMS) with the goal of having an electronic data system amenable to enhanced performance measurement by the beginning of fiscal 2006-2007.

A committee comprised of knowledge development officers, evaluation analysts, program officers and IT personnel has been established to determine the additional information that needs to be captured in order to produce real performance data. Once these fields have been identified, technical updates will be made to the GCIMS database. Information sessions will be held with all relevant staff to: a) emphasize the importance of gathering data; and b) explain how information should be entered into GCIMS.

The development of standardized templates will also help the NCPC in its data collection efforts. For example, the CPAF application form and final report template have been designed so that the information requested from project applicants matches GCIMS fields.

In order to rank funded projects according to their effectiveness, the NCPC’s has also developed an Evaluation Strength Assessment Scale and a Project Effectiveness Scale, both of which will be integrated into GCIMS and applicable to projects funded under all three funding streams.

The overall goal is to have all staff enter the relevant data into a fully operational and robust administrative data collection system (GCIMS) by the end of this fiscal year.		 Program Development and Delivery Section

Policy, Research and Evaluation Section		 Updating of GCIMS
May to December 2005

Testing of newly integrated fields
December 2005 to March 2006

Summative Evaluation of the Expansion of Phase II of the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS), covering 2001-2005 (Final report, PSEPC: April 2005)

Recommendation Action Action By Deliverables & Date
Enhancing Performance Measurement (c)
“In this vein, consideration should be given to responding to the mid-term evaluation recommendation of gathering baseline data and setting measurable results targets of specified objectives of the Strategy, in order to be better able to measure performance.” The gradual shift from small, short-term interventions to comprehensive, integrated crime prevention initiatives at the city/community wide level provides new and exciting possibilities with respect to the collection of baseline data. The NCPC is working closely with Statistics Canada to develop detailed and sophisticated situational assessments in 6 urban centres. These 6 urban centres are on the list of the 10 urban centres with the highest crime rates. The NCPC will hire Statistics Canada to conducted similar assessments in the remaining 4 urban centres. These data will enable the NCPC to set targets and measure progress over time. The NCPC has already collected some baseline data on specific issues such as partnerships, sustainability and public knowledge/recognition of the NCPS. Follow-up studies will be undertaken to measure progress in these specific areas. As another line of evidence of performance, the NCPC will integrate baseline data collection on public sense of safety as well as community-level crime and victimization rates in specific and targeted communities where NCPC has made a major investment. The NCPC will also demonstrate results by:
  • examining a variety of data sources rather than a standard set of indices (Rosenbaum, 2003);
  • completing impact evaluations only of projects showing promise (e.g., demonstration projects) and having a sound theoretical basis (Heal, 2003);
  • completing process/implementation evaluations of for those projects where the primary objective is not research or evaluation, but rather community action, capacity building or partnership development;
  • evaluating the impact of short-term projects by focusing on the risk factors that are targeted (Farrington & Painter, 2004).
As a way of overcoming the timing issue related to the relatively short life span of funded activities (maximum of 5 years), the NCPC will conduct follow-up evaluations of selected demonstration projects that have proven to be particularly promising.		 Policy, Research and Evaluation Section

Program Development and Delivery Section		 Development of Overall Performance Measurement Strategy October 2005 to March 2006

Impact evaluation of demonstration projects Ongoing

Follow-up on partnership Study 2007-2008

Follow-up on Sustainability Study 2007-2008

Identification of selected high profile initiatives October 2005 to March 2006

Collection of baseline data April 2006 and ongoing

Summative Evaluation of the Expansion of Phase II of the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS), covering 2001-2005 (Final report, PSEPC: April 2005)

Recommendation Action Action By Deliverables & Date
Synthesizing/Disseminating Knowledge
“Continue efforts to synthesize and package lessons learned and replicable models from funded projects and disseminate such information as widely as possible. Much knowledge has been developed through funded projects and commissioned research under the NCPS, and it is only through the distillation of that knowledge and its wider dissemination that the expected outcomes of adoption of crime prevention models and the eventual reduction in crime can be realized.” The NCPS Accountability, Risk and Audit Framework (ARAF), developed in May 2005, identifies Knowledge as one of the three Strategy’s pillars, along with Community Action and Partnerships.

The new organizational structure that will come into effect on October 3, 2005, includes the creation of specific Knowledge Management and Transfer Unit within the Policy, Research and Evaluation Section, which will be responsible to develop a thorough Knowledge Strategy. Supported by 2 dedicated FTEs, by a funding stream specifically focusing on research and knowledge development (RKDF), by an in-house resource centre, and closely tied to a strategic research and evaluation agenda, this Knowledge Strategy is intended to assist NCPC in synthesizing, packaging and disseminating knowledge and information gained through funded crime prevention activities.

Together with PSEPC’s Communications Division, this unit will develop a knowledge dissemination plan which will result in products like fact sheets, thematic analysis, or evaluation tools and other crime prevention resources reaching various audiences including the public, other federal/provincial departments, academia, crime prevention practitioners, communities and local, national and international partners. 		Policy, Research and Evaluation Section – Knowledge Management and Transfer Unit

Program Development and Delivery Section		 Development of Knowledge Strategy: Gap analysis December 2005

Knowledge generation plan March 2006

Knowledge translation plan March 2006

Knowledge transfer and exchange plan March 2006

Knowledge usage/application plan March 2006
“Ensure that more of such information is made available on the NCPS website in user-friendly forms.” The NCPC website is a key vehicle for disseminating information about lessons learned, effective crime prevention models and promising practices. The NCPC website is being integrated into a redesigned PSEPC website scheduled to be launched in October 2005. In redesigning the website, efforts have been made to present information in a user-friendly manner.

A good illustration of what this will lend to is the mining process undertaken in 2004-2005 with the multi-year demonstration projects funded under the Crime Prevention Investment Fund (CPIF) that had come to an end. This first wave of mining resulted in the production of Project Evaluation Summary Fact Sheets which highlight the results and the lessons learned from the rigorous and independent evaluation of those crime prevention initiatives. Those are soon to be posted on NCPC website, while a second wave of mining is already underway. The work done to develop this mining exercise, including a communication plan, will result in standardized processes and tools that will be applied to all CPIF ongoing projects, as well as to all demonstration projects to be funded under the new RKDF program.		 Policy, Research and Evaluation Section – Knowledge Management and Transfer Unit

PDD Section		 Redesign of NCPC website Summer 2005 and ongoing

Summative Evaluation of the Expansion of Phase II of the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS), covering 2001-2005 (Final report, PSEPC: April 2005)

Recommendation Action Action By Deliverables & Date
Measuring Awareness and Usage
“Continue efforts to raise awareness of Crime Prevention through Social Development (CPSD) and its potential benefits, not only via the website, but also through communications campaigns and traveling road shows.” The above mentioned Knowledge Strategy will be instrumental in raising awareness of CPSD and its potential benefits through the dissemination of results, lessons learned and replicable crime prevention models to various audiences including the public, PSEPC, other federal/provincial departments, academia, crime prevention practitioners, communities and partners. As part of this feature, the NCPC will also seek to enhance partnerships with academics, crime prevention researchers and practitioners to promote and support the advancement of effective prevention approaches, especially CPSD. Regarding communications campaigns and traveling road shows, they are most certainly envisioned to be key ingredients of NCPC Knowledge Strategy. Their scope, reach and frequency will be dictated by the availability of O&M dollars. Policy, Research and Evaluation Section – Knowledge Management and Transfer Unit

Program Development and Delivery Section		 Development of communication campaign June 2006
“Continue efforts to measure awareness of CPSD and measure the role played by CPSD. While past public opinion polling efforts have determined that there is a high degree of support for the concept of CPSD, no link has been made between the high awareness levels and the NCPS/NCPC. Accordingly, it is suggested that questions be incorporated into an updated public opinion poll explicitly asking respondents about their awareness of the NCPS and CPSD and the role the former may have played in awareness of the latter.” As suggested, NCPC will follow-up on previous public opinion polls, this time integrating explicit questions about awareness of the NCPS and its achievements, and the role the Strategy might have played in awareness of CPSD and its benefits. The scope, reach and complexity of such an opinion poll will be dictated by the availability of O&M dollars. Policy, Research and Evaluation Section Follow-up opinion poll 2007-2008
“There would be merit in sponsoring a survey of law enforcement agencies to gather views on CPSD and other approaches to preventing crime.” The NCPC will work towards exploring law enforcement agencies (especially policing agencies) views and their role regarding crime prevention. The scope, reach and complexity of such a survey will be dictated by the availability of O&M dollars. Policy, Research and Evaluation Section Survey with law enforcement agencies 2007-2008
“Continue efforts to measure usage of NCPC and Strategy products. While the NCPC tracks requests for its products, it would be useful to be able to measure the degree to which the products have been found useful and have contributed to program development and increased efforts to prevent crime and ultimately to reduce crime. Towards this end, it is suggested that a pop-up survey be installed on the NCPS website to solicit the views of users with regard to the utility of the products obtained.” Through the Knowledge Strategy’s dissemination plan, distribution lists will render possible the surveying of usage of NCPC product users. Along with PSEPC Corporate Communications, NCPC is committed to actively explore the implementation of a popup survey on the NCPC website, which appears to be a low cost but effective means to measure usage of NCPC and Strategy products. Policy, Research and Evaluation Section – Knowledge Management and Transfer Unit Development of Knowledge Strategy: Knowledge usage/application plan March 2006

Survey about usage of NCPC products 2007-2008

Summative Evaluation of the Expansion of Phase II of the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS), covering 2001-2005 (Final report, PSEPC: April 2005)

Recommendation Action Action By Deliverables & Date
Increasing Private Sector Involvement
“Take steps to increase the level of involvement of the private sector in crime prevention projects. For instance, develop a clear strategy and guidelines to engage the private sector, and if feasible provide additional resources for these efforts.” The NCPC is currently working on a strategy to increase the private sector’s involvement in crime prevention efforts. The NCPC is working on a Canadian Private Sector Engagement (CPSE) Strategy based on a public-private partnership model. Under this approach, the NCPC would put in place:

  • an Executive Leadership Team comprised of well-known Canadians to provide publicly promote and advocate for greater business involvement in crime prevention initiatives at the national, regional and local levels. This Team would meet with the PSEPC Deputy Minister twice a year.
  • a Business Advisory Team, to provide community access to business, community agencies, civic associations, foundations and community leaders via a communication portal.
  • An evaluation framework to establish baseline data and measure progress.
With the recent reductions to NCPC’s operating budget, it remains to be seen whether sufficient resources will be available to proceed with this initiative. 		Executive Director

Policy, Research and Evaluation Section

Program Development and Delivery Section		 Development of CPSE Strategy September 2005 - March 2006

Implementation of CPSE Strategy March 2006 and ongoing

Summative Evaluation of the Expansion of Phase II of the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS), covering 2001-2005 (Final report, PSEPC: April 2005)

Recommendation Action Action By Deliverables & Date
Managing Decentralization
“While there was general support for decentralization as means of making funding more reflective of regional needs, ensure that funded projects reflect the interests of the wider Strategy. Ensure that there is a consistent philosophy and message across the Regions in order to maintain the image of the Strategy as a national initiative.” NCPC’s new organizational structure will be fully implemented by March 2006. As of October 2005, it will include a direct report from all regional managers to the Director of Program Development and Delivery, based in Ottawa. This will lay the foundation for greater coordination and integrated strategic planning.

On another front, specific high-level national priority groups and areas are currently being developed by NCPC’s Solicitations and Priorities Working Group. While retaining enough flexibility to address emerging problems, issues or needs as they arise at the local, regional or national levels, the NCPC is committed to identifying a limited number of national priorities.		 Executive Director

Policy, Research and Evaluation Section

Program Development and Delivery Section		 Implementation of new organizational structure October 2005 – March 2006

National Priorities identification May 2005 – January 2006
Provincial and territorial government representatives have been invited to a meeting in Ottawa on October 18, 2005 at which priorities will be discussed. The Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Partnerships and the Executive Director, NCPC, will be in attendance. Discussion will focus on how to give effect to these national priorities in different parts of the country. Discussions will also be held with the members of the Joint Management Committees in each province and territory. FPT meeting October 2005
The current fiscal year will also see the renegotiation of the protocols of agreement with the provinces and territories. It is felt that the now well established partnerships with the provinces and territories have reached a level of maturity that will militate in favor of a more tightened national crime prevention agenda, thus contributing to maintain the image of the Strategy as a national initiative.

External communication materials are being developed for field staff to ensure consistent messaging in their communications with partners and project applicants.		 Executive Director

Program Development and Delivery Section with regional managers		 Renegotiation of protocols of agreement with provinces and territories September 2005 – March 2006

Summative Evaluation of the Expansion of Phase II of the National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS), covering 2001-2005 (Final report, PSEPC: April 2005)

Recommendation Action Action By Deliverables & Date
Focusing on Strategic Long-term Project Funding
“Reconsider the practice of funding large numbers of small projects as is currently done through the CMP which dominates NCPS funding. Providing small amounts of funding to numerous small communities may not be as effective a means of building up a base of knowledge and replicable models of crime prevention, as focusing funds on strategic long-term projects. Nor is short-term funding always an effective means of establishing sustained relationships and partnerships necessary for truly addressing the root causes of crime. Long-term funding of comprehensive initiatives at the community level should be given more emphasis in future project funding.” The NCPC has already started to move from small, one-off projects involving a small number of groups to large, multi-year, comprehensive and integrated crime prevention initiatives involving several federal government departments, two or more levels of government, the public and/or non-profit sectors and a wide array of local actors. It has funded comprehensive community initiatives in 6 urban centres and is poised to fund another four.

The NCPC has also streamlined its program platform from 6 to 3 funding streams. The terms and conditions of the Community Partnership Action Fund (CPAF), the program that will be replacing the Community Mobilization Fund (CMP), will permit funding of longer-term projects.

The renewal of the NCPS has resulted in a vote 5 split that will see the NCPC fund a significantly larger number of projects through contribution agreements than grants. This is expected to result in the generation of larger and longer-term projects with a more robust evaluation component.

In the months and years ahead, the NCPC will strive to increase its focus on strategic long-term projects with a view to establishing sustained relationships and building a base of knowledge of effective crime prevention models.		 Executive Director

Program Development and Delivery Section

Policy, Research and Evaluation Section		 October 2005 and ongoing

1 NCPC (2004). taken from the NCPC website at the time of drafting this report.

2 Statistics Canada (2003). The National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. Industry Canada. Ottawa: ON, Canada.

3 Applied Research Bulletin (1999). A Special Edition on Child Development. ISSN: 1483 2862. Human Resources Development Canada. Hull: QC, Canada.

4 NCPC (1996). The Dollars and Sense of a Comprehensive Crime Prevention Strategy for Canada: A Report of a Seminar on the Effectiveness of Crime Prevention through Social Development. Department of Justice Canada. Ottawa, ON: Canada.

5 NCPC (1996). Statistics Canada (1993). The Violence Against Women Survey. Department of Industry Canada. Ottawa: ON, Canada.

6 Statistics Canada (2000). The General Social Survey – Victimization. 89F0115XIE. Department of Industry Canada. Ottawa: ON, Canada.

7 NCPC (2004). taken from the NCPC website at the time of drafting this report.

8 NCPC (2004). taken from the NCPC website at the time of drafting this report.

9 NCPC (2004). taken from the NCPC website at the time of drafting this report.

10 NCPC (2004). taken from the NCPC website at the time of drafting this report.

11 NCPC (2004). taken from the NCPC website at the time of drafting this report.

12 NCPC (2004). taken from the NCPC website at the time of drafting this report.

13 The original sample for the file review included 140 projects (115 CMP projects and 25 projects funded under the other four programs), but seven project files were unavailable because they were being used by NCPC staff at the time of the file review. Given the tight timelines for the evaluation, it was decided that a sample of 133 project files would be sufficient and would not compromise the accuracy of the findings.

14 NCPC. Bullying – Main Report: Results, Recommendations and Next Steps.

15 NCPC (2004). Second Draft Report on the results of the internal mining of the Aboriginal Children and Youth projects.

16 Ibid.

17 Projets exemplaires ou intéressants, Prévention sud-ouest – Coalition Grafitis.

18 Association Sportive et Communautaire du Centre-Sud Inc. CCSE Maisonneuve, La Prévention par l’appropriation de son quartier.

19 NCPC (2004). Second Draft Report on the results of the internal mining of the Aboriginal Children and Youth projects.

20 NCPC (2004). Summary of Consultations on the National Crime Prevention Strategy — Future Directions, September - October 2004. Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

21 NCPC (2003). Manitoba Community Mobilization Program Impact Survey, 2000-2002, September, 2003.

22 Yellowknife Youth Action Committee (2004) Final Report: YYAC Conference Against Bullying.

23 NCPC. Bullying - Main Report: Results, Recommendations and Next Steps.

24 NCPC. Bullying - Main Report: Results, Recommendations and Next Steps.

25 NCPC (2004). Second Draft Report on the results of the internal mining of the Aboriginal Children and Youth projects.

26 Yukon RCMP CPSD Training Package.

27 Homefront: Stop it where it starts, October 15, 2004.

28 Waiting for Mommy: Giving a Voice to the Hidden Victims of Imprisonment.

29 Cunningham, Alison (June, 2002). One Step Forward: Lessons Learned from a Randomized Study of Multisystemic Therapy in Canada, PRAXIS: Research from the Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System.

30 Projets exemplaires ou intéressants, Alerte Centre-Sud, Intervention concertée en prostitution de rue.

31 Manitoba – 1998-2003 CMP report.

32 Jamaican Canadian Association - strategic plan for transformation of Toronto’s African Canadian community.

33 Fitzgerald, R., Wisener, M.& Sovoie, J. (2004). Neighbourhood characteristics and the distribution of crime in Winnipeg.

34 Cunningham, A.& Baker, L. (2003). Waiting for Mommy: Giving a Voice to the Hidden Victims of Imprisonment. The Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System. London Family Court Clinic.

35 In the file review, reviewers searched for direct statements indicating that the funded project raised awareness of Crime Prevention through Social Development. Although a relatively low proportion of files provided formal, explicit evidence of raising awareness of CPSD, almost all files provided an indication of raising awareness of crime prevention approaches – even though these were not specifically labelled as CPSD.

36 Status of Women Council of NWT (2004). Final Report: NWT Action Plan on Family Violence: Implementation and Public Awareness.

37 PSEPC Performance Report, 2004.

38 Urchin Software Corporation, 2004.

39 Although projects do not always explicitly state there is an increase in public understanding and acceptance of CPSD, the majority of projects provide evidence of some increase in understanding or acceptance of crime prevention – without using the formal term CPSD.

40 NCPC (2003). Canadian Attitudes Towards Crime Prevention. Taken from Canadian Attitudes Towards Crime Prevention: Tracking Perceptions, Report submitted by EKOS Research Associates to the National Crime Prevention Centre, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

41 In the file review, the identification of crime prevention approaches/models was assessed. The review indicates that many projects identified or developed effective crime prevention approaches, but not necessarily in the form of a formal model.

42 NCPC (2004). Summary of Consultations on the National Crime Prevention Strategy — Future Directions, September-October 2004. Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

43 NCPC. Bullying - Main Report: Results, Recommendations and Next Steps.

44 Ibid.

45 NCPC (2003). Neighbourhood Characteristics and the Distribution of Crime in Winnipeg.

46 Cunningham, A. & Baker, L. (2003). Waiting for Mommy: Giving a Voice to the Hidden Victims of Imprisonment. The Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System. London Family Court Clinic.

47 Stokes & Ryan (2003). The National Crime Prevention Strategy.

48 Jamieson, Wanda & Hart, Liz (June 2003). Compendium of Promising Crime Prevention Practices in Canada. Calendon Institute of Social Policy for the NCPS.

49 Scott, Carolyn & Bressan, Jessica (August 2004). Project Findings and Lessons Learned: An Analysis of Crime Prevention Investment Fund Evaluation Files from the National Crime Prevention Strategy. Submitted to the CPIF Knowledge Development Subcommittee, NCPS.

50 Bourdages, Antoine et. al. The Crime Prevention Investment Fund – Next Generation: Recommendations from the CPIF-HG Sub-committee. (Internal NCPC document)

51 Scott, Carolyn & Bressan, Jessica (August 2004). Project Findings and Lessons Learned: An Analysis of Crime Prevention Investment Fund Evaluation Files from the National Crime Prevention Strategy. Submitted to the CPIF Knowledge Development Subcommittee, NCPS.

52 Manitoba. 1998-2003 CMP report.

53 Ibid.

54 NCPC (2004). Manitoba Community Mobilization Program Evaluation 2000-2003, August, 2004.

55 NCPS (2004). Yukon CMP Stories.

56 NCPC. Bullying – Main Report: Results, Recommendations and Next Steps.

57 NCPC (2004). Summary of Consultations on the National Crime Prevention Strategy – Future Directions, September – October 2004. Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

58 Manitoba, 1998-2003 CMP report.

59 Ibid.

60 Ibid.

61 NCPS (2004). Yukon CMP Stories.

62 NCPC. Bullying – Main Report: Results, Recommendations and Next Steps.

63 Caputo, Tulio, Kelly, Katherine, Jamieson, Wanda & Hart, Liz (April 2004). Portrait of Sustainable Crime Prevention in Selected Canadian Communities. Report prepared for the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group on Community Safety and Crime Prevention.

64 Caputo, Tulio & Kelly, Katherine (2003). Discussion Paper on the Sustainability of Social Development Activities in Canada: Some Implications for Crime Prevention. Paper submitted to the NCPC.

65 Scott, Carolyn & Bressan, Jessica (August 2004). Project Findings and Lessons Learned: An Analysis of Crime Prevention Investment Fund Evaluation Files from the National Crime Prevention Strategy. Submitted to the CPIF Knowledge Development Subcommittee, NCPS.

66 Comprehensive Planning and Action: Building Safer Cities and Communities.

67 Homefront: Stop it where it starts, October 15, 2004.

68 NCPC (2004). Media Announcement.

69 NCPC (2004). News Release.

70 http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/publications/
corporate/2004-dpr_e.asp

71 Hicks, David C. (April 2004). Comprehensive Community Initiatives:
Search for Strategic Direction over Swampy Terrain. Research report prepared for NCPC.

72 McBeth, G. & Leanord, L. (2005). Comprehensive Community Crime Prevention Initiatives: A Presentation to the National CCI Review Group, NCPC. Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

73 http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/publications/corporate/
2004-dpr_e.asp; for full paper, see Statistics Canada:
http://www.statcan.ca:8096/bsolc/english/
bsolc?catno=85-561-MIE2004004.

74 Statistics Canada (2004).
Neighbourhood Characteristics and the Distribution of Crime in Winnipeg.

Date modified: