2015-2016 Evaluation of the Policy Development Contribution Program - Final Report

2015-2016 Evaluation of the Policy Development Contribution Program - Final Report PDF Version (477 KB)
Table of contents

Executive Summary

The Program

The Policy Development Contribution Program (PDCP) is a $362,000/year transfer payment program administered by Public Safety Canada. The Program funds three types of projects: communication and information exchange, innovation and research and training and skills development. It is open to a wide range of eligible recipients including provinces and territories, not-for-profit and national voluntary organizations, Indigenous organizations, and local non-governmental organizations.

The Portfolio Affairs and Communications Branch has functional authority for the PDCP and supports the governance bodies. Individual contribution agreements are managed by Branches responsible for the relevant policy area. The Program is governed by the Director General Portfolio Policy Committee, which reviews proposals assessed by the Branches and makes recommendations for ratification by the Assistant Deputy Ministers and approval by the Deputy Minister.

Why it is important

This report presents the results of the Public Safety Canada's 2015-2016 evaluation of the PDCP, covering the period 2012-13 to 2015-16. It is consistent with the Government of Canada's practice of undertaking a systematic collection and analysis of evidence on the outcomes of programs for the purpose of making judgments about their relevance and performance and alternative approaches to achieve the same results.

The last evaluation of the Policy Development Contribution Program was completed in 2011. Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation and Section 42.1 of the Financial Administration Act require that all ongoing programs of grants and contributions be evaluated every five years to support policy and program improvement, expenditure management, Cabinet decision making, and public reporting.

What we examined

The evaluation assessed the relevance and performance of the PDCP over the period 2012-13 to 2015-16. It examined: 1) continued need, 2) alignment with PS strategic outcome, 3) alignment with federal roles and responsibilities, 4) progress towards achievement of intended outcomes, and 5) efficiency and economy. It also looked at changes to the callout and assessment process introduced in fiscal year 2015-16.

What we found

Relevance

Consultation with funding recipients allows the Department to tap into their practical front-line experience, knowledge and expertise to formulate policy and build relationships. In particular, applied research or pilot projects are areas best undertaken outside government as they build knowledge, stakeholder engagement and foster broad collaboration within communities. Notwithstanding the small amounts of funding available, the PDCP serves to build stronger, more productive relationships with stakeholders.

The PDCP's broad Terms and Conditions allow it to fund projects that otherwise might not be funded. It is seen as complementary to other more narrowly focused grants and contributions programs within Public Safety.

Performance – Effectiveness

Although the PDCP has funded a variety of projects and stakeholders across three branches, its flexible nature makes it difficult to identify any specific gap. That being said, there has been no funding to provinces, which are eligible recipients, during the period under examination. In addition, interviewees noted that the discrepancy between the $6M in funding requests for 2015-16 and the available budget represents a funding gap.

There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the achievement of the Program's intended objectives. Moreover, the PDCP's objectives and its limited funding make it challenging to establish causal relationships between activities and outcomes, which in most cases, are likely the result of multiple factors. Therefore, the evaluation reports on project-specific results that are drawn from a sample of project reports reviewed and from interviews.

With respect to immediate outcomes, funding recipients in the criminal justice and corrections field were of the view that the PDCP had contributed to increased knowledge and understanding through public forums, joint meetings of criminal justice and corrections organizations and pilot projects. The PDCP has frequently funded meetings, conferences and workshops that have contributed to the dissemination of information. Examples extracted from project reports include a land use planning workshop attended by planners, hazard and disaster management professionals, a policing conference focusing on the economics of policing and a First Nations emergency management network meeting. Interviewees indicated that improved collaboration and service delivery requires both the sharing of information and the development of partnerships. Applied research projects funded by PDCP test new approaches that may contribute to the policy discussion and, in the long term, may increase community capacity. Interviewees mentioned a feasibility study for a healing lodge in Toronto and a pilot project to develop a victim impact curriculum to help inmates understand the impact of their actions on others as examples.

At the level of intermediate outcomes, PDCP projects are typically small and narrowly focussed and, thus, unlikely to make a significant contribution to policies and legislation or to noticeably improve public education or public confidence. The Program appears to be most successful in increasing community capacity to work with victims, offenders, families and local officials such as police and emergency first responders. Interviewees identified several pilot projects that they saw as increasing community capacity. The Mi'kmaw Native Friendship Centre and the 7 Sparks Program focused on the transition of inmates into the community; Tending the Fire Leadership Program helped Indigenous men involved in the justice system deal with the underlying cause of their behaviour; and the Hub, a multi-sectoral collaboration in Saskatchewan, looked at innovative policing methods. The project reports identified training on culturally adapted evidence-based counselling interventions/techniques for the Indigenous population and funding to offer support and advocacy to Metis reintegrating back into the community.

The consolidation of earmarked and general funds under the PDCP and the subsequent decrease in funding was described as “too many interests competing for a small pot of money”. Interviewees noted that at current levels the funding is spread too thin making it difficult to produce results. The amalgamated fund was also seen as decreasing funding predictability and making planning and priority setting within the branches difficult.

Performance – Efficiency and Economy

Interviewees considered the governance structure implemented in May 2012 to be too heavy relative to the overall amount of funding ($362,000) and the dollar value of individual projects. Moreover, the approval process was deemed to be too slow, requiring approvals at the Deputy Minister level for projects that fell within branch authorities. Since most interviewees were unaware of the Performance Measurement Strategy, approved in 2014, it has not been systematically used to gather and report program information.

While the new call for proposals and assessment process, introduced in 2015-16, was seen by interviewees to be fairer and more transparent than the previous process of directed calls, it was described as labour intensive. The failure of the call to specify the funds available and the possibility of multi-year funding led to a large response (approximately $6M) for limited funds, unmet expectations and unnecessary costs incurred by potential recipients who had little chance of success. A late call for proposals (May 2015), tight timelines for the branches to assess the proposals, and a lengthy approval process made it difficult for some recipients to receive funding and complete their project within the fiscal year. Some interviewees felt the rating criteria disadvantaged some groups, which were not proficient in proposal writing or knowledgeable about the Department by requiring them to make linkages to departmental priorities rather than requiring this linkage to be made by the branch assessors.

The costs of administering the program are high. The Program's administration ratio was calculated at 8.2% in the 2010-11 evaluation. In the two years before the new call for proposals and assessment process, the administration ratio had increased to 28%. This speaks to the cost of administering a small program over multiple branches. With the introduction of the new call for proposals in 2015-16, the administration ratio rose to 49%. The change appears to be the increase in resources associated with processing more than double the number of proposals received in the previous fiscal year.

Improvements or Alternative Approaches to the PDPC

Interviewees suggested a number of improvements related to the call for proposals and assessment process, the approval process, Program scope and eligibility criteria, and Program funding. The call for proposals could be improved by an earlier call out, by indicating the level of funding available, by stating the availability of multi-year funding, by providing more information on departmental priorities, and by requiring applicants to articulate only project outputs and outcomes with Public Safety Canada determining contribution to departmental priorities during the assessment process. It is noted that the 2016-17 call for proposals occurred earlier (in March rather than May) and specifies the funding available.

In recognition of the limited funding available, interviewees suggested focusing the Program scope by adopting a yearly theme or priority and/or narrowing the organizations eligible for funding. Interviewees also suggested that once the Director General Portfolio Policy Committee had met to select projects, formal approval should align with delegated financial authorities, i.e. at the Director level in most cases. It was also suggested that PDCP funding be allocated to branches improving predictability and allowing branches to count on project funding in their planning and priority setting.

Recommendations

The Internal Audit and Evaluation Directorate recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Portfolio Affairs and Communications Branch, in collaboration with the branches responsible for the policy areas:

Management Response and Action Plan

Management accepts all recommendations and will implement an action plan.

1. Introduction

This report presents the results of the Public Safety Canada's (PS) 2015-2016 evaluation of the PDCP, covering the period 2012-13 to 2015-16.

It is consistent with the Government of Canada's practice of undertaking a systematic collection and analysis of evidence on the outcomes of programs for the purpose of making judgments about their relevance and performance and alternative approaches to achieve the same results.

The last evaluation of the Policy Development Contribution Program (PDPC) was completed in 2011. The Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation and Section 42.1 of the Financial Administration Act require all ongoing programs of grants and contributions to be evaluated every five years to support policy and program improvement, expenditure management, Cabinet decision making, and public reporting.

2. Profile

2.1 Background

The PDCP is a transfer payment program administered by Public Safety (PS). The Program's Terms and Conditions state that it contributes to the achievement of departmental legislative, policy development and consultative objectives in public safety, national security and emergency management by supporting:

The Program provides funding to three categories of projects:

The PDCP is open to a wide range of eligible recipients including Canadian provinces and territories, public and private non-profit organizations, Indigenous governments, local non-governmental organizations and national voluntary organizations.

Between 2013-14 and 2015-16, the PDCP had an annual budget of approximately $362,000Note 1. Project approval documents for 2015-16 indicate 11 funded projects for the fiscal year, with the majority of funding ($225,000) for projects managed by the Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch (CSCCB). The remainder of the funds was split between the projects managed by the Emergency Management and Programs Branch (EMPB) for $86,600 and the National and Cyber Security Branch (NCSB) for $50,000.

The Program is governed by the Director General Portfolio Policy Committee (DGPPC) and Assistant Deputy Ministers (ADMs). The DGPPC is responsible for reviewing proposals, screened by the branches, and making recommendations for ratification by ADMs and approval by the Deputy Minister (DM). Once approved, funds can be released to the branch responsible for the policy area for dispersal to recipients.

As the organizational unit with functional responsibility for PDCP, the Portfolio Affairs and Communications Branch (PACB) manages the call for proposals and the assessment process. The first public call went out in May 2015.Note 2 PACB receives the proposals and does an initial screening, sends the proposals to the branches for assessment, sends rejection letters to unsuccessful applicants and works with branches to allocate residual funds for unexpected project costs (such as translation costs), if required. PACB chairs DGPPC and communicates with the ADMs and the DM on matters related to PDCP.

During the review period, there were three branches that administered individual PDCP contribution agreements: CSCCB, NCSB, and EMPB. They were responsible for assessing submissions to DGPPC, developing the Recommendation for Project Approval Form, entering data into the Public Safety Information Management System (PSIMS), preparing contribution agreements, and managing project budgets and monitoring performance, including the receipt and review of reports from recipients.

2.2 Program Objectives

The overall objectives of the PDCP are to increase cooperation among various levels of government and stakeholders and to contribute to departmental objectives. The intended outcomes of the Program are:

Immediate Outcomes

Intermediate Outcomes

2.3 Logic Model

The logic model for the PDCP is shown in Figure 1. It is a visual representation linking what the Program is funded to do (activities) with what it produces (outputs) and what it intends to achieve (outcomes). It is the basis for developing the evaluation matrix, which provides a framework for the evaluation.

Figure 1 – Policy Development Contribution Program Logic Model

Image description

The program activities are: Make linkages across the Portfolio and research organizations; innovative and research projects – pilot project design and evaluation; communications and information exchange projects- establishment and Promotion of Partnerships with Stakeholders; Training and skills development projects- Knowledge acquisition and translation into action.

The outputs (as result of activities) are: Consultations, Research Studies, Project Evaluations, Innovative approaches, and lessons learned and best practices documents; meetings, Conferences, and Forums; educational models/tools; skills and resources development.

The outputs lead to the following immediate outcomes: Increased Knowledge and Understanding of public safety and emergency management systems; enhanced dissemination/ increased awareness of available information; improved inter-sectoral/ inter-disciplinary collaboration and service delivery.

The immediate outcomes lead to the following intermediate outcomes: well informed recommendations and decisions to modify policies and legislation; increased Public Education and Confidence in Canada's Criminal Justice, emergency management and national security systems; increased community capacity to work with victims, offenders, families, and local officials such as police and emergency responders.

The intermediate outcomes lead to the ultimate outcome: A safer, more secure, and resilient Canada.

3. About the Evaluation

3.1 Objective

The evaluation provides an evidence-based, neutral assessment of the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the PDCP.

3.2 Scope

The evaluation covered the period from 2012-13 to 2015-16. In 2015-16, a new process to request and assess proposals was introduced rendering the previous process obsolete. The evaluation has, therefore, included an examination of the new process in order to assess its effects on efficiency and effectiveness.

The evaluation assessed the relevance and performance of the PDCP and examined the five core evaluation issues identified in the Directive on the Evaluation Function, i.e.: 1) continued need, 2) alignment with PS strategic outcomes), 3) alignment with federal roles and responsibilities, 4) progress towards achievement of intended outcomes, and 5) efficiency and economy. It was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Policy on Evaluation.

3.3 Methodology

The risk associated with the PDCP is considered to be low. The Program and its predecessorNote 3 have been in existence since 1983 with little change. Its annual budget, at $362,000/year is small. In order to use evaluation resources effectively, the level of effort for the evaluation has been calibrated to reflect the low program risk.

3.3.1 Evaluation Core Issues and Questions

In accordance with the Directive on the Evaluation Function, the evaluation examined the following issues and questions:

Relevance

Performance—Effectiveness

Performance—Efficiency and Economy

3.3.2 Lines of Evidence

The methodology for the evaluation included the following lines of evidence:

Document and Literature Review

Relevant documents such as Speeches from the Throne, Budget documents, and Reports on Plans and Priorities were reviewed to assess the alignment of the PDCP with PS strategic outcomes. An internet search was conducted to identify relevant literature to assess the need for the Program. A list of documents reviewed is provided in Annex A.

Key Informant Interviews

A total of 22 interviewees were consulted to collect information on the PDCP's success in achieving its intended objectives, the need for the Program, and efficiency and economy.

Sixteen Program staff participated in the interviews including:

Two current members of the DGPPC were interviewed and two Directors from branches responsible for the policy areas, who had participated in this committee, also provided views. In addition, four representatives of organizations receiving funds under PDCP were interviewed.Note 4

All interviews were conducted face-to-face or by phone using a standard interview guide sent to interviewees in advance. In general, throughout the report PS interviewees are referred to as interviewees and funding recipients as stakeholders.

Comparison of PDCP with other Contribution Agreement Programs

Six PS Contribution Programs (CPs) with funding under $5M and three with funding over $5M were compared to the PDCP with respect to subject matter, eligible recipients and types of projects. See Annex B.

Analysis of Program Performance Data and Financial Information

In order to understand how the Program was used and by whom, projects approved between 2013-14 (the year in which funding stabilized at $362,000) and 2015-16 were analyzed by the branch responsible for the policy area, project type and stakeholder group. These data are presented in Annex C for illustrative purposes.

A sample of 12 project reports was reviewed to assess the achievement of expected outcomes. In selecting projects, the criteria took into consideration branches responsible for the policy area,Note 5 project types, dollar value and projects completed between 2012-13 and 2014-15.Note 6 See Annex D.

Program financial information was used to assess efficiency with a focus on fiscal years 2013-14Note 7 to 2015-16. Data from 2015-16 were included in the analysis in order to assess the effect, if any, the new call for proposals and assessment process had on efficiency. See Annex E.

3.4 Limitations

Overall there were several challenges in assessing outcomes. First of all, changes in the branch organizational structure and personnel made it difficult to identify program staff with the knowledge of, and experience with the PDCP to comment on the program's performance over the evaluation period. Only a few funding recipients were interviewed and their views on Program outcomes were even more limited. Generally, they could only speak to the specifics of their own projects.

Secondly, program-level performance data are not systematically gathered, tracked and reported. Furthermore, project reports, many in hard copy, are kept by Program staff responsible for the policy area and were not easily located.

Finally, establishing a causal relationship between activities and outcomes is difficult in any evaluation because outcomes are usually influenced by multiple factors. The Program's broad nature and objectives and its limited funding contributed to this challenge. Similar problems locating reports and outcome-based performance data and making linkages between activities and outcomes were identified in the previous evaluation.Note 8

In assessing Program need, the evaluation relied heavily on interviews since the literature search produced limited results.

3.5 Protocols

This report was submitted to Program managers and to the responsible Assistant Deputy Ministers for review and acceptance. A Management Response and Action Plan was prepared in response to the evaluation recommendations. These documents were presented to the PS Departmental Audit Committee for consideration and for final approval by the Deputy Minister of Public Safety.

4. Findings

4.1 Relevance

4.1.1 Is the PDCP Still Needed?

Statistics Canada reports relatively little research and development spending in public safety and emergency management. Research confirms that Indigenous corrections is an area of growing concern given that one quarter of federal inmates are Indigenous.Note 9 Interviewees confirmed the lack of funding in this area and the importance of supporting practitioners, academics, and stakeholders who deliver programs, advance research and bring new ideas to Public Safety.

Public Safety interviewees indicated a need for a flexible G&C program with Terms and Conditions broad enough to fund good projects that might otherwise “fall between the cracks”, although this is not necessarily the PDCP. In many domains, knowledge and expertise is largely outside government and PS needs to have a way to access it and to work with and support stakeholder organizations. Interviewees also noted that applied research projects to test new approaches and service delivery models are best done outside government by organizations with front line service delivery experience.

Interviewees noted that even minimal funding brings stakeholders and government to the table and improves communication and collaboration. Interviews with funding recipients confirmed they wanted the opportunity to contribute and could do a lot through small dollar value projects. Without this funding there would be a loss of vitality, and small, innovative projects and testing of ideas would not happen. However, one organization noted that PDCP funding is not something they count on because project funding is uncertain.

Prior to 2015-16, calls for proposals were directed to stakeholders by the branches, taking into account the funds available. In 2015-16, an open call for proposals on the PS website resulted in 70 proposals representing almost $6MNote 10 in requests for support suggesting an unmet demand for projects under the PDCP.

4.1.2 How Does the PDCP Relate to Public Safety's Strategic Outcomes?

The PDCP supports projects in priority areas to address public policy issues of strategic importance to the Department. Contributions to enhanced public safety and emergency management are directly related to departmental priorities. The Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP) 2015-16 identifies the PDCP as supporting the activity and sub-activity areas of national security (1.1), cyber security (1.1.3), countering crime (1.3), corrections (1.3.3), emergency management (1.4) and emergency prevention/ mitigation (1.4.1).

Ahead of the Curve: A Strategic Policy Framework for the Public Safety Portfolio notes that partnerships are premised on the recognition that the federal government cannot act alone and that it is by working together that the best outcomes for Canadians are achieved. The PDCP supports collaboration by working with the broad range of stakeholders eligible for funding including provinces and territories, public and private non-profit organizations, Indigenous governments, local non-governmental organizations and national voluntary organizations.

4.1.3 Is the PDCP Consistent with Federal Roles and Responsibilities?

Owing to the size of the Program, its linkages to federal roles and responsibilities are marginal.

4.1.4 Does the PDCP Duplicate or Complement Other PS and Federal Government Initiatives?

The evaluation examined six small Contribution Programs (CP), under $5M,Note 11 and three large CPsNote 12 identified in the 2016-17 Report on Plans and Priorities.Note 13 See the Table presented in Annex B.

Interviewees saw the PDCP as complementary to other CPs in the Department, with Terms and Conditions broad enough to allow funding of projects that would otherwise not be funded by other contribution programs. The comparison of CPs indicates that the PDCP's flexibility comes from the Program's broad objectives and subject matter areas, i.e. national security, countering crime and emergency management, the generic nature of the projects that can be funded, and the inclusive list of eligible recipients. However, this flexibility appears to be limited by the funding level.

The areas addressed by the other CPs examined are more limited than those of the PDCP, which supports three of the four major activity areas identified in the Department's Program Alignment Architecture.Note 14 Each of the other CPs supports a single activity and sub-activity and focusses on a specific topic within these areas.

The types of projects funded under the Program, i.e. communications and information exchange, innovation and research and training and skills development, also provide considerable flexibility.

The PDCP also supports an extensive list of eligible recipients. Recipients for contributions under the other CPs can also receive funding under the PDCP except for the for-profit organizations (eligible under the Kanishka Research Initiative and the Cyber Security Cooperation Program).

Notwithstanding the overlap in areas and recipients with other PS CPs, the evaluation did not find duplication. Interviewees indicated that in reviewing proposals under the PDCP, one of the considerations was whether or not the proposal could be funded under a different program. In those cases, the proposal would be referred elsewhere. A project related to human trafficking that seems to be related to the Combat Child Sexual Exploitation and Human Trafficking CP was funded under the PDCP for FY 2015-16 but it is not possible to conclude whether this is duplication or merely funding a project that might otherwise have gone unfunded.

4.2 Performance—Effectiveness

4.2.1 Has the PDCP Reached its Intended Target Audience?

Information from interviews and analysis of Program funding approvalsNote 15 by branch, stakeholder group and project type were used to identify how the funding was applied and by whom as well as to identify gaps. While the analysis found variations in funding among branches, types of projects and stakeholders, it is not possible to conclude whether these variations constitute gaps in the Program. One possible indication of gap could be the discrepancy between “asks” and available funding.

The information presented below and in Annex C is for illustrative purposes only. The figures used are estimates, based upon funds approved, at the start of each fiscal year. Actual projects and funds approved may have changed as the fiscal year progressed.

The data from 2013-14 to 2015-16 suggest that the PDCP was an important source of funding for CSCCB. During this period, the majority of funding (71%) went to projects managed by CSCCB, as the majority of proposals received were related to corrections, policing and countering crime. Projects managed by EMPB (22%) and NCSB (7%) received less funding.

In terms of the types of project, funds are fairly equally divided between training and skills development (44%) and communications and information (41%) projects with a smaller amount going to innovation and research (15%). Without any stated direction or goals related to how PDCP funding should be divided, it is not possible to identify gaps. Interviewees suggested that certain types of projects are less effective unless there is multi-year funding available, which may have influenced the distribution of funding by project type.

The Terms and Conditions (Ts&Cs) for the PDCP specify a wide range of eligible recipients including provinces, territories, public and private non-profit organizations, Indigenous governments, local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and national voluntary organizations (NVOs). Over the three year period reviewed, the majority of PDCP funds went to correctional and justice organizations (36%), other NGOs/NVOs (19%) and Indigenous groups (24%). Policing organizations received 9% of the funds, academic organizations received 12%, and there was no funding to other levels of government.

Representatives from all branches acknowledged the important contribution of stakeholders, as they operationalize policy by providing services on the ground; generate practical knowledge as they develop and test new service delivery models; and develop relationships and knowledge through working with communities.

The discrepancy between the almost $6M of “asks” in 2015-16 versus available funding may suggest that there is an unmet need for PDCP funding in general. This gap was identified by interviewees who indicated that the amount of money available under the PDCP was insufficient for the breadth of subject areas and range of eligible stakeholders and insufficient to allow individual funded organizations to make significant contributions.

Interviewees also noted that the target audience for PDCP is too broad given the available funding. Individual interviewees suggested that there are instruments other than the PDCP that can be used to work with academia and other levels of government such as contracts and federal/provincial/territorial agreements. It was also suggested that well-funded organizations, such as police associations, should not be funded under PDCP. Others disagreed on the basis that these stakeholders were important in forwarding their organization's goals and those of PS and providing even minimal support gave government a stronger voice and enhanced relationships. One interviewee noted the need for additional funding for emergency management research, a field in which Canada is very weak and which is evolving and where stakeholders need assistance. A few interviewees noted the importance of PDCP as a funding mechanism for corrections, justice and victim's rights organizations which have few other sources of support.

4.2.2 Achievement of Expected Outcomes

Similar to the 2010-11 evaluation, it was not possible to assess the achievement of PDCP outcomes conclusively because of the lack of outcome data and the difficulty in establishing causal linkages. The findings rely on interviews and specific examples of outcomes drawn from a sample of available project reports that cannot be generalized across the Program.

Owing to these limitations, the evaluation presents findings related to outcome groups, i.e., immediate outcomes and intermediate outcomes, rather than the individual outcomes identified in the logic model.

a) Extent PDCP has achieved immediate outcomes

The immediate outcomes are:

While most interviewees were unable to comment on the achievement of immediate outcomes, it was noted that PDCP funding had been used to conduct research and publish results as well as fund meetings, conferences and workshops to facilitate information dissemination. Stakeholders were of the view that the PDCP had contributed to increased knowledge and understanding through public forums and their [stakeholder's] work with the media as well as through pilot projects funded by the Program. In addition, it was noted that PS's Corrections Roundtable and meetings of the National Associations Active in Criminal Justice have provided an opportunity for stakeholders to report on their research and share findings.

A number of examples of PDCP projects contributing to dissemination of information were identified in the review of project reports including: 1) the Justice Institute of British Columbia Risk Based National Land Use Planning Workshop attended by planners and hazard and disaster management professionals; 2) The Vancouver Police Evolution of Policing Conference attended by participants from BC law enforcement agencies and policing agencies across Canada and the USA; 3) the Canadian Association of Police Governance 25th Annual Conference focusing on the economics of policing; 4) the Assembly of First Nations Emergency Management Network meeting to share knowledge and experience; and 5) the St. Leonard's Society of Canada workshop on Advancing Social Enterprise in Canada.

Research projects funded by the PDCP are frequently applied research, i.e. community-based pilot projects to test approaches. Interviewees noted that this type of research is not something that can be undertaken by PS or by academia and provides a valuable contribution to policy discussions. In cases where pilot projects are successful and picked up by other funders, they contribute to increased community capacity. PDCP projects identified during the review of project reports included: 1) a project by the Toronto Aboriginal Support Services Council to assess the feasibility of establishing a S. 81 Healing Lodge in Toronto; and 2) a project by the Church Council on Justice and Corrections to pilot a Victim Impact curriculum at Collins Bay Institution intended to provide inmates with tools and language to understand better the physical, financial, emotional, and spiritual impacts of their crimes on primary and secondary victims. Interviewees also noted a John Howard Society social enterprise partnership with Canadian Tire to provide training opportunities for inmates and eventual employment, and St. Leonard's Society Klink Coffee social enterprise initiative both of which received PDCP funding in the pilot stage.

Interviewees indicated that improved collaboration requires both the sharing of information and the development of partnerships. Some stakeholders stated that PDCP funding had supported connections with community partners such as mental health and addictions organizations by funding pilot projects that included engaging partners. Projects contributing to collaboration included: 1) the Justice Institute of British Columbia Risk Based National Land Use Planning Workshop that developed a plan to disseminate a risk-based land use guide to municipal, provincial and national governments; and 2) the Assembly of First Nations Emergency Management Network meeting that allowed participants to develop a better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of different government agencies with respect to emergency management.

b) Extent PDCP has achieved intermediate outcomes

The intermediate outcomes are:

Stakeholders observed that PDCP projects are typically small and narrowly focused and thus unlikely to make a significant contribution to policy decision-making. Nevertheless, interviewees identified some projects that may inform policy: 1) the work of the Church Council on Justice and Corrections to develop empathy in offenders; 2) two projects on policing reform (2015-16); and 3) recent research by the Canadian Families and Corrections Network on the emotional, cognitive and mental-health effects of incarceration on families of offenders. In addition, the review of project reports identified four recommendations (resolutions) made by the PDCP-funded Canadian Association of Police Governance 25th Annual Conference to federal and provincial government ministries in 2014.

PS interviewees were of the opinion that PDCP projects are too small to contribute to improvements to public education or public confidence. However, stakeholders from organizations involved in corrections and criminal justice commented that PDCP-funded projects have contributed to building public knowledge of the criminal justice system, in particular by fostering a better understanding of different points of view and by promoting new ideas. Public forums funded by the PDCP were felt to have contributed to promulgating such information.

Interviewees uniformly agreed that the PDCP has contributed to increased capacity to work with victims, offenders, families and local officials, most significantly by funding pilot projects. Successful pilot projects that are picked up by other funders were seen to make a significant long-term improvement to community capacity. Some notable examples of projects included: 1) the Mi'kmaw Native Friendship Centre and the 7 Sparks Program focusing on transitioning prisoners from institutions to community, reintegration support and skills training, employment readiness and cultural connections; 2) the Prairie Spirit Connections, Tending the Fire Leadership Program, providing a holistic approach to personal healing and change leadership training to meet the needs of the Indigenous community with emphasis on life skills and employment readiness; and 3) the Hub, a multi-sectoral collaboration in Saskatchewan looking at new and innovative policing methods. Other projects that have contributed to increased community capacity included: 1) training on three culturally adapted, evidence-based counselling interventions/techniques, provided to staff and others by the Indigenous Engagement and Outreach unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; and 2) funding provided to the Metis Justice Institute of the Manitoba Metis Federation to maintain and enhance capacity to offer support and advocacy to individuals who are reintegrating back into the community.

c) Changes to Program Structure and Funding

The Program has undergone significant structural and funding changes since the 2010-11 evaluation. At the time of the last evaluation PDCP comprised four initiatives earmarked for specific branchesNote 16 and general funding available to all branches. In 2009-10, one of the earmarked funds, the National Strategy for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation on the Internet, was removed from the PDCP and a separate contribution program was created.Note 17 In April 2010, a decision was made to change the PDCP into a single integrated program. This meant that by April 2011, funds formerly used for the Aboriginal Community Corrections Initiative (ACCI), the Enhancing Community Corrections Infrastructure (ECCI) and the National Anti-Drug Strategy were consolidated under general funding and open to all branches.

One of the most significant changes has been the decrease in Program funding from an average of $2 million per year during the previous evaluation to the current budget level of approximately $362,000. Decisions taken under Strategic Review and the Deficit Reduction Action Plan reduced funding for PDCP by $260,000 in 2012-13 and by $515,000 in 2013-14 and beyond.

The consolidation of earmarked and general funds under the PDCP and the subsequent decrease in funding was described by Program interviewees as leading to “too many interests competing for a small pot of money”. The 2010-11 evaluation reported that the budget in the years 2005-06 to 2009-10 funded approximately 43 projects yearly with 70% of the funding coming from the earmarked funds.Note 18 The average number of funded projects over the 3-year period from 2013-14 to 2015-16 decreased to 10 projects per year with an average budget of just under $25,000.

Interviewees noted that, at current levels, the funding is spread too thinly making it difficult to produce results. An amalgamated fund was also viewed as decreasing funding predictability. Branches could no longer take into account a guaranteed amount of money, i.e. earmarked funding, in their planning and priority setting; rather they competed for a smaller pot of money and priorities were set at the time projects were selected by DGPPC for ratification by the ADMs.

4.3 Performance—Efficiency and Economy

4.3.1 Have the Recommendations of the Previous Evaluation Been Implemented?

The 2010-11 evaluation recommended three changes to strengthen decision-making and governance, all of which have been implemented.Note 19

The first recommendation, to transfer functional responsibility from Corporate Management Branch (CMB) to the Strategic Policy Branch (SPB), now PACB, to clarify governance and strategic oversight, was completed in January 2012. Interviewees viewed PACB as an appropriate unit for functional responsibility because of the horizontal nature of the Program and PACB's perceived neutrality. Although PACB consults with branches responsible for the policy area to avoid funding lapses, some interviewees indicated that accountabilities are unclear in this area given that it is the branches responsible for the policy area that have responsibility for managing project budgets.

In response to the second recommendation to strengthen the decision-making mechanism, SPB tabled a new governance structure in May 2012. Under the new structure, the Contribution Review Committee (CRC) was replaced by the DG Portfolio Policy Committee, which assumed responsibility for reviewing PDCP proposals assessed by the branches and making recommendations to the ADMs for ratification and approval by the Deputy Minister. Interviewees agreed the DGPPC, with representation from all branches and the portfolio agencies, is the only committee that allows for cross-portfolio discussion, bringing transparency and a strategic perspective to the PDCP discussion.Note 20

The recommendation from the 2010-11 evaluation to strengthen governance was premised on the need to strategically manage a much larger, amalgamated fund open to all branches. Since the new structure was implemented, the funding for the PDCP has been significantly reduced. Interviewees considered the governance and approval process to be slow and cumbersome with too many layers of approval for low dollar value projects, largely in the approval authority of the branches responsible for the policy area. They also indicated that that too many minor decisions, such as funding new projects to replace something that did not go ahead, required Deputy Minister (DM) approval. Interviewees also said that it takes too long to go from application to approval and that by the time contribution agreements are signed, it is too late in the fiscal year for some recipients to implement their projects. Documentation confirmed that for 2015-16, it took just over three months from the start of the application process (May 2015) to receipt of approval (August 2015). At the time of the interviews (January/February 2016), some interviewees were still waiting to finalize contribution agreements for the 2015-16 fiscal year.

The third recommendation, the development of a Performance Management Strategy (PMS), was approved in 2014. The PMS matrix identifies the branches responsible for the policy area as responsible for data collection for outcome measures but does not identify any organization responsible for integrating and reporting data across the branches. It is unlikely that this instrument will be systematically used to gather and report information since most interviewees were unaware of the PMS. Both the 2010-11 evaluation and this evaluation noted that outcome information was difficult to find given the decentralized nature of the Program and branch responsibility for monitoring projects, including receiving and saving reports, which were not always readily accessible.

4.3.2 What is the Effect of 2015-16 Process Changes on Efficiency?

In 2015-16, PACB introduced a new call for proposals and assessment process. The changes were introduced to improve transparency,Note 21 fairness, consistency and rigour. PACB also hoped to introduce more efficiency into the process by ensuring that only eligible applications were reviewed, making it easier to compare proposals and by accelerating final approvals.

The new process included an open call for proposals posted on the departmental website to provide a greater opportunity for more stakeholders to submit Program proposals than was the case under directed calls. Furthermore, the application form was standardized and submitted to PACB rather than the branches responsible for the policy area. Under the new process, PACB did a first level screening for basic eligibility and developed a list of potential proposals for review by branch program areas. PACB also identified the most likely subject matter experts and made linkages across branches. The more formal assessment process, with specified rating criteria, was intended to ensure greater consistency in assessment and facilitate comparison of projects. To assist the branches to understand the new process, PACB developed a flow chart of the steps and a narrative explanation and arranged training for branch analysts through the Grants and Contributions Centre of Expertise.

Interviewees had a mixed reaction to the new process. Although they agreed that the process was fairer, more transparent and more rigorous, they found the assessment process labour intensive and inefficient, vis-à-vis the available funding.

Program and stakeholder interviewees indicated that the call for proposals went out too late in 2015-16 (May 2015) to allow recipients to receive funding and complete their projects within the fiscal year. Approval by the DM in late August suggests that most contribution agreements would not be ready before the end of Quarter 2 or later. Interviewees suggested that in order to give recipients as much time as possible to implement their projects, the call for proposals and assessment process would need to start much earlier.

Program staff found the timeline to complete the assessment (approximately 10 days) tight, especially for branches receiving a large number of proposals. The timelines for the 2016-17 call suggest that the branches will have 14 calendar days to review applications.Note 22

Interviewees believed the failure to specify the funds available for projects in 2015-16 and the limited opportunities for multi-year funding created unrealistic expectations and led to disappointment among the many stakeholders who dedicated scarce resources to prepare proposals, most of which were not successful. The most recent call for proposals does specify the available funding.

The rating criteria for the proposals were related to broad objectives and stakeholders were required to make the linkage between their proposed project and the department's priorities. Some interviewees were positive about the rating criteria and found it helped those PS employees who were new to PDCP to screen the proposals. Others felt that requiring stakeholders to make these linkages was not advisable because those stakeholders, who were not proficient in proposal-writing or sufficiently knowledgeable about Departmental priorities, were disadvantaged even if their projects were sound. These interviewees suggested that making the linkages between the project and departmental priorities should be the role of PS and not stakeholders. Stakeholders themselves noted that if they had a better understanding of PS priorities they would be in a better position to propose projects that addressed the department's interests.

4.3.3 Have the Resources Used to Deliver the PDCP Been Minimized?

The evaluation calculated the administration ratio for three fiscal years, from 2013-14 to 2015-16 (See Annex E). This period begins with the first year in which funding reached its current level of $362,000. In addition, changes in the department's organizational structure and personnel made it difficult to go back farther. The introduction in 2015-16 of the new process to increase efficiency made it important to include in this evaluation. The ratio is based upon estimates provided by four branches, PACB, CSCCB, NCSB and EMPB.Note 23

The costs of administering the PDCP are high and speak to the costs of administering a small program over several branches. From 2013-14 to 2014-15, the average administration ratio for PDPC was 28%. This is high in comparison to the Program's average administration ratio of 8.2% reported in the last evaluation. With the new process, the administration ratio has risen to 49%. While any new process takes time to be fine-tuned, the main driver appears to be the increase in resources associated with processing the large number of proposals received.

In 2015-16, there were 70 proposals with “asks” totalling almost $6M, while in the previous fiscal year there were 31 proposals with “asks” under $2M. Some directorates had more than 20 proposals to review and set up internal review processes to deal with the volume of proposals and the time lines. Since the actual number of funded projects has remained relatively unchanged over the previous two fiscal years (2014-15 - 12 projects; 2015-16 - 11 projects), the increase in resource use can be largely explained by the effort expended in processing proposals and administering the public call out.

4.3.4 Are There Improvements to Achieving Intended Outcomes?

Interviewees suggested a number of improvements related to:

Call for Proposals

Interviewees unanimously suggested that the call for proposals should be issued earlier. The current timing which occurs over the summer months means that organizations may have only six months or less to complete a project planned to take one year. Interviewees suggested that the call for proposals be issued so that contribution agreements can be completed early in the new fiscal year. For 2016-17, the call for proposals was made in March 2016, two months earlier than in the previous year.

Interviewees also suggested that the call for proposals indicate the level of funding available, whether or not multi-year projects would be considered, and provide information on departmental priorities. Clarity around the level of funding is expected to reduce the number of proposals and result in more realistic proposals. In the previous year, proposals were submitted that had budgets well above what could be expected as a share of the Program funding. More information on departmental priorities would help ensure that organizations do not expend time and effort into preparing proposals that are unlikely to be successful. The 2016-17 call for proposals clearly specified the available funding ($259,000) and the likely number of projects (10-15) that could be funded.

Proposal Assessment Process

While the criteria currently used to review proposals were generally considered to be effective, some changes were suggested. Interviewees indicated that they would appreciate an opportunity to review and comment on the criteria. They also suggested that the criteria should focus more on the policy relevance of proposed projects and contribution to branch objectives rather than on the quality of the proposal itself. The current criteria expect the applicant to demonstrate linkages between their project and PS priorities. It was suggested that the applicant should be responsible for articulating project outputs and outcomes but that it should be the responsibility of PS to determine whether projects contribute to departmental priorities in the process of assessing proposals. More guidance to reviewers on the application of the criteria was also suggested as a method of increasing the consistency of the rating of proposals.

Approval Process

Interviewees questioned the need for DM approval of projects. It was suggested that once the DG Portfolio Policy Committee had met to select projects, formal approval should be in line with delegated financial authorities, i.e. at the Director level in most cases.

Program Scope and Eligibility Criteria

Interviewees suggested that the scope of the PDCP was too broad given the amount of money available. It was suggested that the scope could be reduced by adopting a theme related to a different PS priority each year. Another suggestion was to narrow the eligibility of organizations applying for funding so that only those organizations most in need of funding and with the fewest alternative sources of revenue are considered. A third suggestion was for the Program to fund only applied research projects, generally pilot projects. Interviewees were of the opinion that organizations outside government and academia are in the best position to undertake such projects. Interviewees also believed that these projects produce the best outcomes and value for money. In the past, they have contributed significantly to increased community capacity as well as informing policy.

Program Funding

Interviewees suggested that PDCP funding be allocated to branches, e.g. through earmarked funding. Guaranteeing a certain amount of funding to each branch would improve predictability and allow branches to count on access to project funding in setting priorities and in their planning process. Greater certainty on the availability of funding would allow branches to use the Program to make progress on their objectives. It was also suggested that the Program investigates the possibility of using funds in other G&C programs that are expected to lapse.

5. Conclusions

5.1 Relevance

There is a continued need for the PDCP to support projects in the areas of public safety and emergency management. Through ongoing consultation with funding recipients, the Department can tap into the recipients' practical, front-line experience, knowledge and expertise to help formulate policy and build relationships. In particular, applied research projects, i.e. pilot projects, which are best undertaken outside government, build knowledge, stakeholder engagement and foster broader collaboration within communities, leading to improved services.

Funding, even in the small amounts available under the PDCP, serves to build stronger, more productive relationships with stakeholders.

The PDCP is aligned with PS priorities. The PDCP supports projects in priority areas to address public policy issues important to the Department.

Public Safety's strategic policy framework, Ahead of the Curve, also recognizes the need to work with stakeholders in achieving the Department's objectives. Funding, even in the small amounts available under the PDCP, serves to build stronger, more productive relationships with stakeholders.

The PDCP complements other PS grants and contributions programs. PDCP's support of multiple activity and sub-activity areas and its broad terms and conditions, project types and eligible stakeholder base allow worthy projects to go ahead that might otherwise not be funded by other programs. PS's other grants and contributions programs are more narrowly focussed in terms of activity and sub-activity area, objectives, types of projects, eligible recipients.

5.2 Performance—Effectiveness

Given the flexibility of the Program, there are no guidelines on how funding should be allocated and, therefore, it was not possible to identify specific gaps. That being said, there has been no funding to provinces, which are eligible recipients, during the period under examination. In addition, interviewees noted that the discrepancy between the $6M in funding requests received in 2015-16 and the available budget represents a funding gap.

There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the achievements of the Program's intended outcomes. Moreover, the Program's broad nature and objectives and its limited funding make it challenging to draw causal relationships between activities and outcomes. Therefore, the evaluation reports on project-specific results drawn from a sample of project reports reviewed and from interviews.

The indications of the achievement of immediate outcomes are, as follows:

Some indications of the achievement of intermediate outcomes have also been identified, as follows:

The consolidation of earmarked and general funds under the PDCP and the subsequent decrease in funding was described by the Program interviewees as leading to “too many interests competing for a small pot of money”. The average number of projects funded has decreased to ten (from 43/year during 2005 to 2010), with an average annual budget of just under $25,000 (2013-14 to 2015-16).

Interviewees noted that, at the current level, the funding is spread too thin which makes it difficult to produce results. The amalgamated fund was also viewed as decreasing funding predictability. Branches can no longer count on money to advance their priorities, i.e. through earmarked funding, but instead proposals responding to their priorities must compete for a share of a smaller pot of money.

5.3 Performance—Efficiency and Economy

The 2010-11 evaluation recommended three changes, all of which have been implemented. Functional responsibility was transferred from the Corporate Management Branch to the Strategic Policy Branch (now the Portfolio Affairs and Communications Branch) in January 2012. In May 2012, a new governance structure was tabled with the Director General Portfolio Policy Committee assuming responsibility for reviewing proposals assessed by the branches and making recommendations to the Assistant Deputy Minister Portfolio Policy Committee. A Performance Measurement Strategy was approved in 2014.

Interviewees considered the new governance to be burdensome relative to the overall amount of funding and the dollar value of individual projects. Moreover, the approval process was deemed to be too slow, and approvals at the DM level questioned as many of the projects that fall within branch authorities. Most interviewees were unaware of the Performance Measurement Strategy so it is unlikely that this instrument has been systematically used to gather and report information. The lack of readily accessible performance information was noted as an issue in both the 2010-11 evaluation and in this evaluation.

In terms of the impact of the new 2015-16 process, interviewees agreed that it was fairer and more transparent. However, they also described the assessment process as labour-intensive and inefficient. The main criticisms were: 1) the failure of the call to specify the funds available, resulting in a large response for limited funding and leading to unmet expectations, disappointment and increased costs among stakeholders; 2) tight timelines for branches to complete their proposal assessment; and 3) the late issue for the call for proposals (May 2015) and the lengthy approval process, making it difficult for recipients to receive funding and complete their projects within the fiscal year.

While the current criteria used to review proposals were generally considered to be effective, some interviewees felt that the requirement for stakeholders to make the linkages between their projects and the broad objectives of the Program and the Department disadvantages those who were not proficient in proposal-writing or did not have a good understanding of PS priorities.

The costs of administering the PDCP are high and speak to the costs of administering a small program over several branches. In 2013-14, the average administration ratio was 28%. This is high when compared to the Program's average administration ratio of 8.2% reported in the last evaluation. With the introduction of the new process, the administration ratio has risen to 49%. The main cause appears to be the increase in resources associated with processing proposals. In 2015-16, there were 70 proposals with “asks” totalling almost $6M, while in the previous fiscal year there were 31 proposals with “asks” of less than $2M.

Interviewees suggested a number of improvements related to the call for proposals, the assessment process, the approval process, the Program scope and eligibility criteria, and Program funding.

Recent changes to the Program have already addressed some of the suggested improvements. The call for proposals for 2016-17 occurred earlier (March instead of in May for 2015-16) and specified the funds available for new projects ($259,000) and the average number of projects funded per year (10-15).

6. Recommendations

The Internal Audit and Evaluation Directorate recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Portfolio Affairs and Communications Branch, in collaboration with the branches responsible for the policy areas:

7. Management Response and Action Plan

We have reviewed and agreed with the recommendations. PACB will work with Branches administering PDCP projects to establish a mechanism whereby results from PDCP projects are validated and disseminated and reported to the DG Portfolio and Internal Policy Committees. PACB will also continue to work with lead to work with lead Branches, and the Corporate Management Branch, to streamline the PDCP process to ensure the overall cost of administering the program is reduced. This includes exploring options for adopting a thematic focus for annual PDCP call-outs to limit the number of program areas reviewing applications. PACB will also begin launching the PDCP call-out in advance of the fiscal year(s) that proposed projects would commence in order to limit operational pressures placed on Branches due to tight timelines for putting agreements in place, and completing projects.

Management Response and Action Plan

Recommendation

Management Response

Action Planned

Planned Completion Date

Establish a mechanism to ensure responsible branches validate that expected results are achieved and results are disseminated to support policy and program development.

Accept
  • DGs from lead branches to validate, and disseminate, results from projects and report to DG Porfolio Policy Committee.
  • PACB to present an annual consolidated overview of results achieved from PDCP projects, and efforts to disseminate and integrate this knowledge.

May 2017

July 2017

Continue to identify ways to streamline the PDCP process to ensure the overall costs of administering the program are reduced.

Accept
  • Work with partners to develop an approach that further streamlines the PDCP governance and approvals process.
  • Conduct PDCP call-out in January well in advance of the fiscal year of which funding is sought in order to limit operational pressures placed on Branches due to tight timelines for putting agreements in place, and completing projects.

January 2017

January 2017

Annex A: Documents and literature Reviewed

Annex B: Comparison of Contribution ProgramsNote 26

Comparison of Contribution programs

Policy Development Contribution Program

Kanishka Research Initiative

Cyber Security Cooperation Program

Combat Child Sexual Exploitation and Human Trafficking

Combat Serious and Organized Crime

Funding

$362K

$1.5M

$300K

$2.0M

$2.55M

Subject matter
  • national security,
  • countering crime,
  • emergency management
  • terrorism and counter-terrorism
  • cyber security
  • child exploitation & human trafficking
  • organized crime primarily tobacco smuggling

Eligible recipients
  • non-profits
  • academia
  • governments
  • police services
  • international NGOs
  • non-profits
  • academia
  • private sector
  • owners and operators of critical infra-structure
  • not-for profit industry groups
  • non-profits
  • academia
  • governments
  • police services
  • international NGOs
  • Mohawk Council of Akwesasne
  • Mohawk Council of Kahnawake

Types of projects
  • communications & information exchange (C&I)
  • innovation & research (I&R)
  • training & skills development (T&S)
  • C&I
  • I&R
  • T&S
  • C&I (private sector awareness)
  • I&R (cyber security assessments & best practices)
  • T&S
  • I&R
  • Cybertip.ca
  • creating or reinforcing partnerships
  • facilitating cooperation & collaboration
  • developing/ implementing policies, procedures & legislation
  • collection of intelligence
  • participation in joint operations
Comparison of Contribution programs

Aboriginal Community Safety

International Association of Firefighters

National Crime Prevention Strategy

National Disaster Mitigation Program

Search and Rescue New Initiatives Fund

Funding

$700K

$500K

$43M

$33M

$6.7M

Subject matter
  • safety in Aboriginal communities
  • hazardous material emergencies
  • communities at risk
  • prostitution
  • northern and Aboriginal communities
  • youth gangs
  • recurring floods
  • Search and Rescue (SAR) prevention and effectiveness

Eligible recipients
  • Indigenous organizations/ governments
  • International Association of Firefighters Canada
  • community organizations
  • governments
  • academia
  • provincial & territorial governments
  • federal SAR departments
  • provincial & territorial SAR authorities
  • SAR volunteer organization
  • academia
  • private sector

Types of projects
  • C&I
  • I&R
  • capacity building
  • implementation readiness
  • implementation
  • T&S
  • C&I
  • I&R
  • capacity building
  • security infrastructure improvements
  • direct interventions
  • developing linkages
  • risk assessment
  • flood mapping
  • mitigation planning
  • non-structural & small scale structural mitigation
  • interoperability & coordination
  • information management & data standardization
  • prevention
  • supporting volunteers

Annex C – Funding By Branch, Project type and Stakeholder group

Contribution Agreements and Funding Approved by fiscal year for the period 2013-14 to 2015-16

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

Total

Percent

New Projects

#

$

#

$

#

$

#

$

#

$

Overall Budget

$362,000

$312,000

$361,000

Branch

CSCCB

6

$102,260

11

$201,083

9

$225,356

26

$528,699

87%

71%

EMPB

1

$45,000

1

$35,920

1

$86,570

3

$167,490

10%

22%

NCSB

0

$0

0

$0

1

$50,000

1

$50,000

3%

7%

Total

7

$147,260

12

$237,003

11

$361,926

30

$746,189

100%

100%

Project

C&I

4

$72,260

6

$75,000

4

$157,720

14

$304,980

47%

41%

I&R

2

$65,000

2

$32,000

1

$14,187

5

$111,187

17%

15%

T&S

1

$10,000

4

$130,003

6

$190,018

11

$330,021

37%

44%

Total

7

$147,260

12

$237,003

11

$361,925

30

$746,188

100%

100%

Stakeholder

Police assoc

2

$15,000

3

$30,000

1

$22,500

6

$67,500

20%

9%

Correctional/ justice

2

$37,260

7

$117,920

6

$114,456

15

$269,636

50%

36%

other NGO/NVO

1

$10,000

1

$44,483

1

$86,570

3

$141,053

10%

19%

Indigenous

2

$85,000

1

$44,600

1

$50,200

4

$179,800

13%

24%

Academia

0

$0

0

$0

2

$88,200

2

$88,200

7%

12%

Federal/Provincial

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0

$0

0%

0%

Total

7

$147,260

12

$237,003

11

$361,926

30

$746,189

100%

100%

Note:

Annex D: Examples of Achievement of Program Outcomes Note 27

  1. Justice Institute of British Columbia, Risk Based National Land Use Planning Workshop Jan 21 & 22, 2015, Emergency Management and Programs Branch, $35,920, 2012-13

    Increased knowledge & understanding of Public Safety & Emergency Management systems

    Eight case studies, four related to flooding and four related to other hazards, namely debris flows, landslides, train derailments and earthquakes increased participants' knowledge of how to handle these hazards.

    Enhanced dissemination & increased awareness of available information

    Project was supported by PS and Natural Resources Canada and was attended by 34 planners, hazard and disaster management professionals representing federal, provincial and municipal governments as well as representatives of universities and the public and private sectors.

    Participants reviewed existing risk-based land use practices and policies and discussed a draft risk-based land use guide (related to flooding) and its dissemination and implementation on municipal, provincial & national levels, using case studies, small break-out groups and plenary discussions. Changes were made to the guide based upon the learning and discussions from case studies. The updated guide was submitted to Natural Resources Canada and made available online to workshop participants and other registered users.

    Case study presentations and discussions of other hazards (debris flows, landslides, train derailments and earthquakes) were used to identify how the guide could be broadened to encompass these issues.

    Improved inter-sectoral/interdisciplinary collaboration & service delivery

    The workshop identified 30 individuals and 70 organizations as potential users of the guide and made suggestions for disseminating the Guide at professional meetings, conferences and workshops, through social media, and by introducing the guide into the curricula of Canadian planning schools and real estate training courses.

  2. Vancouver Police, Evolution of Policing Conference, Sept 24-16, 2012, Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch, $5,000, 2012-13

    Enhanced dissemination & increased awareness of available information

    155 registered participants from BC law enforcement agencies, policing agencies across Canada and the USA and academics met to hear 14 speakers on the subject of the challenges in modern policing while reflecting on the modern role of female law enforcement professionals in Canada.

  3. Canadian Police Association Executive Board Meeting, April 22, 23, 24, 2013, Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch, $7,500, 2013-14

    Enhanced dissemination & increased awareness of available information

    150 delegates from 75 police associations as well as members of the RCMP. Most of the AGM dealt with administration and association business. There was a panel on parole reform and 3 representatives of Parliamentarians spoke to the delegates to discuss their specific viewpoints with respect to policing and the challenges facing the sector.

  4. Canadian Association of Police Governance 25th Annual Conference, 2014, Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch, $7,500, 2014-15

    Enhanced dissemination & increased awareness of available information

    The focus of the conference was the Economics of Policing (a PS priority). The conference shared information and best practices through the speakers, panel discussions and question an answer sessions. Of particular focus were issues related to mental health and policing, change and working with the community. There was also a session on First Nations Police Governance, also a PS priority.

    Concurrent workshops provided opportunities for learning around several themes including:

    • Nova Scotia (NS) Serious incident Response Team(SIRT) - how NS uses SIRT to independently investigate all serious incidents arising from police action in NS with a comparison between jurisdictions with and without such teams as well as the difference between police investigating police and independent teams.
    • Managing the Mental Health of the Community - a project in which Carleton University worked with the police service, healthcare and community agencies to evaluate current processes and determine where change could be made.
    • A Nice neat Little Package called High Risk for Lethality - describes the High Risk Case Coordination Protocol, a coordinated community response, in NS that addresses cases of serious domestic violence. High risk cases are managed and coordinated by service providers (police, victim services, child welfare & woman's services & info is shared with police boards province-wide).
    • Process is Your Friend - Practical Advice on making Your Board Successful.

    Improved inter-sectoral/interdisciplinary collaboration & service delivery

    The resolutions put forward by the Canadian Association of Police Governance(CAPG) recognize the need for police personnel to deal more effectively with persons experiencing mental health crises as well as concerns around the use made by US Border officials of information on mental health issues shared on the Canadian Police Information Centre. Many of the speakers talked about how the police are trying to work more closely with the community in general as well as in partnership with other people and agencies (legal system, emergency room physicians, psychiatric doctors, nurses, politicians, social workers, corrections & probation staff, front line community mental health workers, crisis intervention teams etc.) when dealing with people who have mental health and addiction issues. Working with academia was another theme of the speakers, some of whom were themselves academics.

    Informed recommendation & decisions to modify policy & legislation

    Resolution 2014-01 recommends the federal and provincial governments ensure common standards related to the use of de-escalation techniques; mandatory training for all police agencies; common practice of reporting to the governing body use-of-force incidents.

    Resolution 2014-2 requests the Minister of Health to implement a formal process to consult with local police authorities prior to granting or extending a licence to produce marihuana and to advise them when a licence has been issued.

    Resolution 2014-3 urges the Government of Canada to improve the safety of Canada's roadways by approving a drug screening tool to enhance investigation and prosecution of drug impaired driving.

    Resolution 2014-4 urges the Minister of Public Safety to review the issue of the sharing of mental health information placed on the Canadian Police Information Centre by Canadian policing authorities and the use being made of such info by US border officials to ensure such information is not being used improperly.

  5. Assembly of First Nations Emergency Management Network (EMnet) Project, Emergency Management and Programs Branch, $75,000, 2012-13

    Enhanced dissemination & increased awareness of available information

    Approximately 20 First Nations professionals representing each region came together with over 10 representatives of government and about 10 representatives of representatives from academia and international and non-governmental organizations from October 16 to 18, 2012 to share knowledge and experiences and to identify First Nations' priorities and needs with respect to emergency management. Going forward the EMnet agreed to develop a terms of reference, formalize the network structure and establish networking tools to enable sharing of information. An EMnet online portal was also created to facilitate information sharing.

    Improved inter-sectoral/interdisciplinary collaboration & service delivery

    The forum allowed participants to develop a better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of different government agencies through presentations by representatives of the various agencies.

  6. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch, $49,483, 2013-14

    Increased community capacity to work with victims, offenders, families, and local officials such as police & emergency responders

    The Aboriginal Engagement and Outreach unit at the Centre provided training to 172 CAMH and non-CAMH staff on three evidence-based counselling interventions/techniques culturally adapted to the Aboriginal population.

  7. St. Leonard's Society of Canada, Workshop on Advancing Social Enterprises in Canada, final report, Jan. 15, 2015, Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch, $5,000, 2013-14

    Enhanced dissemination & increased awareness of available information

    A workshop was held on November 26, 2014 to discuss reports and evaluations of five Federal Horizontal Pilot Projects supported by the Employment and Social Development Canada. A synthesis of evaluations of the five projects was presented to the attendees and highlighted common findings and recommendations. The presentation provided background for discussions on how to address common issues and avenues for overcoming difficulties associated with the dichotomy between non-governmental social service and business-oriented activities inherent in social enterprise. Leadership, recruitment and sustainability were identified as key factors. Notes from the workshop were compiled and distributed to participants.

  8. Metis Justice Institute of the Manitoba Metis Federation, Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch, $99,975 2010-11, $99,767 2011-12, $99,971 2012-13, $49,986 2013-14; also received funding in 2008-09 and 2009-10

    Increased community capacity to work with victims, offenders, families, and local officials such as police & emergency responders

    A December 8, 2008 proposal from the Metis Justice Institute of the Manitoba Metis Federation requested $100,000/year from Aboriginal Corrections Policy and $60,000/year from Manitoba Justice for 5 years for a program to assist men and women in conflict with the justice system as they reintegrate into the community. The program was established in 2000 and serves Metis, Non-status and Inuit community members that have been remanded, have been released or have received community disposition.

    The Metis Justice Institute of the Manitoba Metis Federation requested funding to maintain and enhance capacity to offer support and advocacy to individuals who are reintegrating back into the community. More specifically, the funding was used to increase staffing levels, train staff, provide referrals to other services as required, complete intake procedures and needs assessments; develop and maintain a policy manual; establish working relationships with other service providers, provincial and federal correctional facilities, the community and others in the justice system such as probation officers, expand programming to include cultural programming and life skills; enhance case management; conduct evaluation and assess the need for expanding the programs into other regions.

  9. Prairie Spirit Connections "Tending the Fire Leadership Program", Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch, $100,00 2011-12, $100,00 2012-13, $66,677 2013-14; also received funding in 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10

    Increased community capacity to work with victims, offenders, families, and local officials such as police & emergency responders

    A 2007 proposal from Prairie Spirit Connections requested $100,000/year for five years for the Tending the Fire Leadership Program. The Program helps Aboriginal men who have been involved with the justice system to deal with the underlying root causes of their behavior. The total cost of the project was $2.4M with other funding coming from Heritage Canada, the Province of Saskatchewan, and the Carry-the-Kettle First Nation.

    The pilot project provided a holistic approach to personal healing and change leadership training to meet the needs of the Aboriginal community focusing on: 1) life skills training and employment opportunities geared to long-term self-sufficiency; and 2) a spiritual and culturally based leadership program for Aboriginal men who have been involved with the justice system. The program included the use of sacred fire, sweat lodges, Elder teachings, sun dances and other cultural activities while retaining a focus on employment readiness. Counselling and support services were offered to clients as well as to their families and victims if appropriate.

  10. Toronto Aboriginal Support Services Council, S. 81 Thunder Woman Healing Lodge Research Project, Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch, $80,000, 2014-15

    Increased knowledge & understanding of Public Safety & Emergency Management systems

    The project assessed the feasibility of s. 81 Healing Lodge for female federal offenders released in the Toronto area and included a needs assessment; a mapping of existing services and potential partners; identification of staffing, training and infrastructure requirements; and an assessment of legislative and policy requirements for a Healing Lodge and the steps to ensure compliance. The Interim Report concluded that there is a need for a Healing Lodge in Toronto and there is support at the legislative, community, organizational and institutional levels. The report identified gaps in the research and recommended expanded consultation, hiring of a project manager and research manager, and development of an action plan leading to an application for a s.81 Healing Lodge.

  11. Canadian Families and Corrections Network (CFCN), Forgotten Victims: the Mental Health and Well-being of Families Affected by Crime and Incarceration in Canada, Research Report, Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch, $15,000, 2014-15

    Increased knowledge & understanding of Public Safety & Emergency Management systems

    The research assessed the emotional, cognitive and mental-health effects of incarceration on families of offenders and included looking at both the short and long-term effects of crime on adults and children, the availability of resources and support systems, as well as addiction and criminal justice related involvement among family members. Research activities included an anonymous, Canada-wide survey of family members with a loved one in the criminal justice system with follow-up interview with a sample of survey respondents. The study used the ALERT Mental Wellness Assessment scale and found that families with a loved one incarcerated experienced more distress on average than the general population and in fact scored closer to people seeking psychological treatment or counselling for mental distress than to the general population. Survey respondents' mental health concerns increase over time while their help-seeking declined. Respondents did report seeking professional and peer support but also adopted negative coping strategies such as smoking, increased use of alcohol, eating disorders, prescription drug misuse, use of street drugs and suicide attempts. The research led to: 1) the development of a family mental health resource entitled “Coping Over Time” which outlines best practices, positive coping strategies, successful treatment options and beneficial approaches for families affected by crime; 2) a CFCN Families and Corrections Journal issue focusing on mental health; 3) a speaking engagement presentation promoting public awareness of incarceration, mental health and the effects of the criminal justice system on families; and 4) suggestions for further research.

  12. Church Council on Justice and Corrections (CCJC), Enhancing Empathy by Understanding Victim Impact Project, Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch, $25,000, 2014-15

    Increased community capacity to work with victims, offenders, families, and local officials such as police & emergency responders

    With PDCP funding, the CCJC adapted the Victim Impact curriculum that had been delivered at the former Pittsburgh Institution in Kingston in 2012 and ran a pilot of the modified program at Collins Bay Institution in the winter of 2015. Twenty-two inmates participated in the pilot. The program is intended to provide inmates with tools and language to understand better the physical, financial, emotional, and spiritual impacts of their crimes on primary and secondary victims. By increasing understanding of these impacts, the course is expected to ameliorate inmates' deficits in empathy and, over the long term, result in improved relationships and enhanced community safety. The project included an evaluation of the pilot for the purpose of identifying the effects on pilot program participants as well as identifying lessons learned in the delivery of the pilot in order to improve the program for the future. The evaluation noted that the curriculum was modified during the course of the pilot, for example by adding sessions on self-care and the hierarch of offending, and it also identified a number of lessons learned. The evaluation concluded that the tools used to assess the impact on the inmates were unable to detect neither a change in understanding of victim impact nor a change in cognitive empathy among the inmates. The evaluation recommended more research on the link between victim impact courses and empathy and the development of a validated measure of empathy.

Annex E: Program Administration Ratio

The amounts below represent the total estimated cost to the federal government.Note 28 The values are in dollars.

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION COSTS

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

Program Staff - up to the level of Director

Salaries

-

42,388

48,360

73,622

Operations and Maintenance

-

-

-

-

Subtotal

-

42,388

48,360

73,622

DG's office

Salaries

8,001

8,771

21,123

Operations and Maintenance

-

-

-

Subtotal

-

8,001

8,771

21,123

TOTAL PROGRAM COST

-

50,389

57,131

94,745

Internal Services

Salaries

-

20,156

22,852

37,898

Operations and Maintenance

-

-

-

-

Subtotal

-

20,156

22,852

37,898

Employee Benefits Plan
(20% of Salary Expenditures)

-

14,109

15,997

26,528

PSPC Accommodation Allowance
(13% of Salary Expenditures)

-

9,171

10,398

17,244

TOTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION COST

-

93,824

106,378

176,414

TRANSFER PAYMENTS (Vote 5)

Budget

617,000

362,000

362,000

362,000

Contribution paid
(Forecast for 2015-16)

613,250

361,221

361,999

362,000

Budget minus Contribution

3,750

779

1

0

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION RATIO

Annual

-

26%

29%

49%

Notes:

  1. Salaries for PS program staff and the Director General's Office of PACB, CSCCB, EMPB, and NCSB were estimated based on the percentage of time spent by each resource per year.
  2. Salaries for internal services were estimated to be 40% of the total estimated salaries.
  3. The 2015-16 figures are estimates; final figures have yet to be released.

Notes

  1. 1

    The annual budget dropped from about $1.5M in 2010-11 to $617,000 in 2012-13 and has stabilized at approximately $362,000 since 2013-14.

  2. 2

    Prior to 2015-16, Branches issued directed calls for proposals to their stakeholders.

  3. 3

    The precursor to the PDCP, the Departmental Contribution Program, was created in 1983 under the former Solicitor General of Canada. After inception, the Program was separated into two entities, the PDCP and the Grants Program to National Voluntary Organizations (NVO). NVO is also being evaluated.

  4. 4

    These funding recipients had also received grants under the Grant Program for National Voluntary Organizations and were interviewed in conjunction with the interviews conducted for the NVO Evaluation.

  5. 5

    The evaluation did not identify any NCSB contribution agreements during this period.

  6. 6

    Some of the higher dollar value projects were multi-year and started before 2012-13.

  7. 7

    2013-14 was the first year Program funding had reached its steady state of $362,000 following cuts.

  8. 8

    2010-11 Evaluation of the Policy Development Contribution Program, Final Report.

  9. 9

    Adult Correctional Statistics in Canada, 2013/2014 http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14163-eng.htm#a8

  10. 10

    One project proposal for $37M was non-eligible and was removed from the analysis to avoid skewing.

  11. 11

    Small CPs: Kanishka Research Initiative ($1.5M); Cyber Security Cooperation ($.3M), Combat Child Sexual Exploitation and Human Trafficking ($2M), Combat Serious and Organized Crime ($2.5M), International Association of Fire Fighters of Canada ($.5M) and Aboriginal Community Safety Development ($.7M).

  12. 12

    Large CPs: National Crime Prevention the Search and Rescue New Initiatives Fund ($6.7M).

  13. 13

    Grants programs and specific and targeted contribution programs were excluded from the analysis.

  14. 14

    The PDDP supports Program 1.1 National Security, 1.3 Countering Crime and 1.4 Emergency Management but does not support Program 1.2 Border Strategies.

  15. 15

    The analysis of Program funding is presented in Annex C and covers three fiscal years, starting with 2013-14, when the full funding cuts came into being.

  16. 16

    2010-11 Evaluation of PDCP, pg. 2, 3: Under Community Safety and Partnership Branch – Aboriginal Community Corrections, Enhancing Community Corrections Infrastructure; Under Law Enforcement and Policing Branch – National Strategy for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation on the Internet, National Anti-Drug Strategy.

  17. 17

    2010-11 Evaluation of PDCP, pg. 3, CP to Combat Child Sexual Exploitation.

  18. 18

    2010-11 Evaluation of the Policy Development Contribution Program, Final Report

  19. 19

    Follow-up on Recommendations to the Evaluation of PDCP, Update Fall 2013.

  20. 20

    Terms of Reference for Director General Portfolio Policy Committee (Draft). This document gives the DGPPC a mandate to provide a forum to discuss emerging issues and mandate initiatives and responsibility for supporting the development of the medium-to-long term policy agenda, including discussing opportunities to leverage resources, such as PDCP.

  21. 21

    In compliance with the Policy on Transfer Payments.

  22. 22

    Policy Development Contribution Program – Callout and application Process for 2016-17.

  23. 23

    The estimates provided by PACB include time spent at the DG committee meeting in 2015-16 for ten members.

  24. 24

    The Mi'kmaw Native Friendship Centre and 7 Sparks Program focused on transitioning prisoners into the community.

  25. 25

    The Hub is a multi-sectoral collaboration in Saskatchewan looking at innovative policing methods.

  26. 26

    Six small contribution programs under $5M, and three contribution programs over $5M identified in the 2016-17 Report on Plans and Priorities.

  27. 27

    A sample of available project reports was selected taking into consideration the dollar value of the contributing agreement, branch responsible for the policy area, fiscal year and project type. The reports reviewed were from fiscal years 2012-13 to 2014-15.

  28. 28

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

Date modified: