Final Report 2010-2011 Evaluation of the Youth Gang Prevention Fund Program

Final Report 2010-2011 Evaluation of the Youth Gang Prevention Fund Program PDF Version (841 KB)
Table of contents

Executive Summary

Canada's National Crime Prevention Strategy 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. This is done in part through Public Safety Canada's (PS) National Crime Prevention Center (NCPC), which oversees the planning, development, and implementation of policies and practices related to crime prevention and victimization.

In delivering the Youth Gang Prevention Fund (YGPF) Program, the NCPC focuses on social factors and conditions that contribute to gang membership, while recognizing a need to reduce immediate opportunities or situations in which crime and victimization can occur. This approach is based on research which shows that preventive as well as reactive (or suppressive) measures--the apprehension, sentencing, incarceration and rehabilitation of offenders--are necessary to prevent crime.

The YGPF invests in communities where youth gangs are an existing or emerging threat and supports initiatives that clearly target youth in gangs or at greatest risk of joining gangs. Total funding for the YGPF Program is $33,595,100 over five years beginning in 2006-2007. In choosing the projects under the YGPF Program, the NCPC worked within the context of the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group on Community Safety and Crime Prevention to identify municipalities and community-based groups that were tackling youth gang issues. The NCPC then worked with these municipalities and communities to develop and implement anti-gang prevention projects using directed funding in the form of contribution agreements. Consistent with the experimental nature of NCPC's work, these projects were based on promising or proven gang prevention practices. Each project hired an independent evaluator to assess youth participants' propensity towards gang involvement, based upon set risk factors upon intake to the project, as well as at each six month interval. These results are reported annually to the NCPC which then collects, analyzes, and disseminates results from funded projects and other sources of knowledge and information on youth gang issues. This enables the federal government to play a role in helping develop local solutions to youth gang issues.

YGPF Program inception documents note that the federal government has a leadership role to play in helping to build safer and healthier communities. The YGPF Program provides an opportunity for the federal government to show leadership by bringing together partners who have a role in preventing and reducing youth crime.

The outcomes of the YGPF Program as stated in inception documents, the YGPF Accountability, Risk and Audit Framework (ARAF) and the program logic model can be summarized as follows:

This document presents the evaluation of PS's YGPF Program. This evaluation was conducted between May and July 2010 in accordance with the Treasury Board of Canada Policy on Evaluation, which came into effect April 2009, and the 2007 Accountability, Risk and Audit Framework (ARAF) prescribed by the program. The objective of this evaluation is to provide an evidence based, neutral assessment of the relevance and performance of the program that is in its fifth year of operation. The scope of the research for this evaluation includes activities of the YGPF Program from its inception in October 2006 to March 31, 2010. It should be noted that the scope of the evaluation includes the YGPF Program, rather than just the activities of the funded projects. The YGPF Program refers to the results of the funded projects under the YGPF (the fund); the administration of related contribution funding; and the knowledge transfer activities of NCPC related to the youth gang issue.

The evaluation methodologies included document/literature review and Internet research; a review of the Grants and Contributions Information Management System; interviews with program management, funded recipients, project evaluators and subject matter experts; a provincial/territorial focus group; a review of NCPC's Annual Project Evaluation Reports; a comparative analysis; and a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Conclusions

1) Relevance

Is there a demonstrable societal need to address the issue of youth gangs in Canada?

There is a need to address the issue of youth gangs in Canada, as evidenced by an upward trend in the intensity of gang-related crime and youth gang membership; and the impact of youth gangs on society at various levels. The lack of a standard definition of youth gangs makes it difficult to track reliable trend information.

What aspects of the youth gang issue was the YGPF Program designed to address and does this response remain relevant?

The objectives of the program remain relevant due to the continued lack of research in the area of youth gangs and the continuing need to address the youth gang issue in general. The exploratory nature of the YGPF Program assists in filling this gap based on the development of knowledge through practice. For the most part, the YGPF Program has been able to distinguish itself from general youth delinquency programs by implementing projects in communities where there is a presence of youth at risk of delinquency and a threat of or presence of youth gangs. Demand for the program is high and there are emerging needs that the program has yet to address.

Is it within the federal role to deliver the YGPF Program?

It is within the federal role of PS to act as leaders in helping to build safer and healthier communities, and the federal government is demonstrating leadership in this regard through the YGPF Program. However, it cannot be determined whether there is duplication in this area. Further coordination is needed to categorize and delineate the many youth gang programs in existence, including other NCPC funds, and to strengthen the coordination and knowledge sharing among them.

Is there alignment between the YGPF Program objectives and i) federal government priorities and ii) the strategic outcomes of PS?

There is alignment between the YGPF Program objectives and federal government priorities. Although the federal agenda has shifted focus, it continues to be a federal priority to address youth crime. The YGPF Program is strongly aligned with the objectives of the NCPC and the strategic outcome of PS.

2) Performance--Effectiveness

To what extent has the YGPF Program progressed toward expected outcomes?

Knowledge Development and Transfer Outcomes: The body of knowledge on youth gangs has been augmented by the YGPF Program, but there is still work to be done to understand the nature of the youth gang phenomenon in Canada. It is not directly known if the knowledge level among provincial/territorial stakeholders and local communities has changed as a result of the YGPF Program. Knowledge among the funded project organizations has increased, but impacts on knowledge within the broader community remains unknown.

Community Outcomes: It cannot be determined whether there have been wider community impacts outside of the YGPF projects in terms of the community response to gangs. It is possibly too early to assess this outcome. Although YGPF projects are receiving community-based support (they are funded by about 30% from sources outside of YGPF), many projects may not continue in full without on-going federal support.

Participant Outcomes: Overall, YGPF projects have successfully engaged approximately 1,100 youth. The projects are at capacity and project services are being delivered. A few projects have seen moderate success in raising the knowledge and awareness of project participants, and there is evidence of behaviour change across some of the risk factors. Although the precise extent of behaviour change cannot be determined, the maximum potential impact is up to one-quarter of program participants. In terms of youth gang involvement, early success has been demonstrated with 81 participants exiting their gangs in two projects (or approximately three-quarters of participants in these projects).

Are there any challenges or unintended impacts as a result of the YGFP program?

The measurement of outcomes is particularly challenging due to a lack of evaluation expertise in the area of youth gangs in Canada; difficulties in finding control groups due to the nature of the target population; a lack of willingness of some participants to complete assessments; and the lack of standardized data collection instruments across projects that would enable cross-comparison and roll-up of data.

The scope of the YGPF Program did not include emerging issues related to rural communities and Aboriginal communities.

3) Performance--Efficiency and Economy

Is the contribution fund being administered efficiently?

The NCPC had difficulty administering the contribution fund in an efficient manner in the first two years of operation (2006-2007 and 2007-2008). Efficiency results have improved during the last two years of the program (2008-2009 and 2009-2010).

Have YGPF projects reached youth in a cost-efficient manner?

The cost per youth reached has gone down over the last two years suggesting improved efficiency, but no trend data is available so this result is inconclusive. The cost per participant for the Milwaukee Wraparound model is in line with other jurisdictions where this model has been implemented. Other models could not be compared.

Given early success, what is the potential return on investment?

At the project level, there is good potential for a return on the federal investment for those projects that are demonstrating early success. At the fund level, according to mathematical modelling, the program can break even if a success rate of between 15% and 35% is realized (with a mid-range value of 20%); or if a total of between 150 and 400 participants either exit their gangs, or are prevented from entering a gang, by the end of the program. Based in literature review, the potential return at the provincial and societal levels is high if models are implemented with fidelity meaning that close attention is paid quality control and adherence to original program designs.

Recommendations

Based on key findings and conclusions contained in this report, the Evaluation Directorate recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Partnerships Branch, ensure that the National Crime Prevention Centre address the following recommendations:

  1. Consult with stakeholders to define the term "youth gangs" with the purpose of arriving at a standard definition or to provide a core definition that can be varied to local circumstance. Collaboration and consensus building in this area will enable the youth gang phenomena in Canada to be more accurately tracked, analyzed, discussed and addressed.
  2. Ensure that future projects take into consideration:
    • emerging needs identified by existing projects;
    • sound analysis of the existing or emerging threat of gang activity in communities being considered; and
    • special needs of Aboriginal youth.
  3. Undertake a comprehensive environmental scan of existing youth gang programs/initiatives in Canada in order to strengthen coordination and knowledge sharing; identify synergies, duplication and gaps; and assess the sustainability of current projects. Particular emphasis should be placed on federal programs (e.g. YGPF, Crime Prevention Action Fund and Justice Renewal Fund's Guns, Gangs and Drugs Priority).
  4. Collect systematic performance information from:
    • funded recipients by ensuring implementation of consistent periodic measurement through the use of standardized data collection and measurement tools where possible (e.g. participant survey); collection of information on gang exits (and prevention of gang entry); and assessment of fidelity with the foundational model being tested;
    • other stakeholders that will provide feedback on NCPC information products; and
    • local communities regarding impacts of projects.

Management Response and Action Plan

The 2007 Accountability, Risk and Audit Framework (ARAF) for the Youth Gang Prevention Fund (YGPF) called for an evaluation of the initiative in 2010. The evaluation examined issues of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and economy. The draft final report was submitted by the Evaluation Directorate, Public Safety Canada in October 2010.

This Management Action Plan is the National Crime Prevention Centre's (NCPC) response to the recommendations contained in the draft 2010 final evaluation report of the YGPF. As NCPC is currently seeking renewal of the YGPF, the proposed responses and timelines provided below are contingent upon acceptance the renewal and approval of funding.

Recommendation 1 accepted. The NCPC will work closely with its stakeholders, provinces and territories, municipalities and police organizations, academics, as well as funding recipients, to develop a core definition that describes the nature and characteristics of youth gang phenomena. The definition will allow for taking into consideration regional and local differences. Discussions will also explore the possibility of using the definition for tracking and measurement purposes.

Timeline: Taking into consideration the multiple partners involved in this action, this work is expected to be completed by the end of year two of the renewed initiative.

Recommendation 2 accepted. The NCPC will take stock of internal and external evaluation studies of youth gang funded projects, research studies conducted in Canada, and information from key stakeholders, to inform future project development in this area.

Timeline: Final evaluation reports for currently funded YGPF will be completed by March 2011. An initial analysis of the report findings will be conducted by Fall 2011 with on-going research and stakeholder information contributing to the analysis on an on-going basis.

Recommendation 3 accepted. Should the initiative be renewed, the NCPC will work to document and analyze relevant programs and initiatives at federal and provincial/territorial levels in particular.

Timeline: The challenges of conducting a comprehensive scan of these programs and initiatives cannot be underestimated. So the NCPC expects to complete this task by December 2012.

Recommendation 4 accepted. The NCPC will implement a robust project-based information management system collecting as much consistent project based information as possible, taking into consideration the specificity of local projects as well as the adaptation of models to local circumstances and capacities.

Timeline: Development of the project-based information management system is currently underway and will be completed by March 2011.

1.0 Introduction

This document presents the 2010-2011 evaluation of Public Safety Canada's (PS) Youth Gang Prevention Fund (YGPF) Program. This evaluation was conducted between May and July 2010 in accordance with the Treasury Board of Canada Policy on Evaluation, which came into effect April, 2009 and the 2007 Accountability, Risk and Audit Framework (ARAF) prescribed by the program.

The YGPF Program refers to the results of the funded projects under the YGPF (the fund); the administration of related contribution funding; and the knowledge transfer activities of the National Crime Prevention Center (NCPC) related to the youth gang issue. Thus, throughout this document both the YGPF Program and the YGPF (fund alone) are referenced.

Evaluation assesses the extent to which a program, policy or initiative addresses a demonstrable need, is appropriate to the federal government, and is responsive to the needs of Canadians. It also studies the extent to which effectiveness, efficiency and economy have been achieved by a program, policy or initiative.

2.0 Profile

2.1 Background

To date, research on youth gangs in Canada has not been extensive; thus, the National Crime Prevention Center (NCPC)Note 1 has built its knowledge base mainly from research done in the United States. American studies indicate that youth gang members commit a disproportionate number of offences and commit serious and violent offences at a rate several times higher than youth who are not involved in gangsNote 2. This is especially the case in urban centres such as Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg and Montréal which have experienced an escalation in gang-related shootings in the past few years. The issue of youth gangs is a complex problem, with many factors that affect root causes. Despite the thousands of projects, programs and strategies that have been developed and implemented to date, one lesson is clear: the diversity and complexity of the youth gang problem defies an easy solution or single strategy.Note 3 Therefore, the issue requires comprehensive strategies designed to address the root causes of gang activity.

Canada's National Crime Prevention Strategy 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. This is done in part through the NCPC, which oversees the planning, development, and implementation of policies and practices related to crime prevention and victimization.

In delivering the YGPF Program, the NCPC focuses on social factors and conditions that contribute to gang membership, while recognizing a need to reduce immediate opportunities or situations in which crime and victimization can occur. This approach is based on research which shows that preventive as well as reactive (or suppressive) measures - the apprehension, sentencing, incarceration and rehabilitation of offenders - are necessary to prevent crime.Note 4

In choosing the projects under the YGPF Program, the NCPC worked within the context of the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group on Community Safety and Crime Prevention to identify municipalities and community-based groups that were tackling youth gang issues. The NCPC then worked with these municipalities and communities to develop and implement anti-gang prevention projects using directed funding in the form of contribution agreements. Consistent with the experimental nature of NCPC's work, these projects were based on promising or proven gang prevention practices. Funded projects were chosen according to the terms and conditions of the YGPF and were meant to invest in communities where there was an incidence or emerging threat of gangs. Each project hired an independent evaluator to assess youth participants' propensity towards gang involvement, based upon set risk factors upon intake to the project, as well as at each six month interval. These results are reported annually to the NCPC which then collects, analyzes, and disseminates results from funded projects and other sources of knowledge and information on youth gang issues. This enables the federal government to play a role in helping develop local solutions to youth gang issues.

2.2 Resources

Total funding for the YGPF Program is $33,595,100 over five years beginning in 2006-2007. Table 1 summarizes the funding distribution.

Table 1: YGPF Program Resources
  2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011
Vote 1 - salaries $313,300 $636,600 $636,600 $636,600 $636,600
Vote 1 - operating $344,700 $521,300 $521,300 $521,300 $521,300
Vote 5 (Contributions) $2,832,000 $6,132,000 $6,132,000 $6,132,000 $6,132,000
Program Budget $3,490,000 $7,289,900 $7,289,900 $7,289,900 $7,289,900
Employee Benefits Program $63,700 $127,300 $127,300 $127,300 $127,300
Public Works and Government Services Accommodation $41,400 $82,800 $82,800 $82,800 $82,800
Total Funding $3,595,100 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 $7,500,000

2.3 Expected Outcomes

YGPF Program inception documents note that the federal government has a leadership role to play in helping to build safer and healthier communities. The YGPF Program provides an opportunity for the federal government to show leadership by bringing together partners who have a role in preventing and reducing youth crime.

The outcomes of the YGPF Program, as stated in inception documents, the YGPF ARAF, and the program logic model (see Appendix A), can be summarized as follows:

Based on the program theory, it was expected that in the short term (i.e., one to three years) the YGPF funded projects would have successfully engaged youth that were in gangs; those at greatest risk of joining gangs; or those who wished to exit gangs by providing them with activities that responded to their needs. It was also expected and that, within this timeframe, youth would be taking advantage of the services offered by the projects.

The theory behind the YGPF is that addressing modifiable risk factors for gang involvement is the mechanism by which the ultimate outcome of decreased gang violence is achieved. Thus, in years four and five, it was expected YGPF funded projects would have had a positive impact on those specific risk factors that are linked to gang involvement (e.g. improved school attendance and achievement, increased involvement in pro-social activities). The funded projects were also expected to decrease the number of youth joining gangs and increase the number of youth exiting gangs. These changes were expected to ultimately be reflected in a decrease in gang-related crime in communities where gang prevention interventions were implemented.

At the same time, the knowledge development work within NCPC was expected to have resulted in the dissemination of information on gangs and gang prevention that would add to the Canadian knowledge base, and would be reflected in an improved community response to gangs in a larger number of communities across the country.

Results related to participant outcomes were only expected to be achieved in those communities where projects were funded. However, the research community; federal, provincial and territorial partners; other levels of government and local organizations involved in the issue of youth gangs were expected to benefit by the knowledge developed from these projects and their implications for future prevention initiatives.

2.4 YGPF Program Funded Projects

Since program inception, a total of 19 projects have signed contribution agreements under the YGPF Program in the amount of $31.7 million with an average value of about $1.7 million.

The YGPF Program projects implement evidence-based models, many of which have their foundation in youth gang work in the United States, and which have been adapted to the Canadian context. Included in the funded projects to date are seven main models, as summarized in Table 2. Further details on funded projects can be found at Appendix B.

Table 2: Summary of Foundational Project Models
Project Model Number of Projects Project Locations
Milwaukee Wraparound Approach 7
  • British Columbia (Surrey)
  • Alberta (Calgary)
  • Saskatchewan (Regina)
  • Ontario (Toronto, Hamilton)
Spergel Model 3
  • Manitoba (Winnipeg)
  • Ontario (Oshawa)
Principles by Brendtro, Brokenleg and Van Bockern 2
  • Saskatchewan (Prince Albert)
  • Manitoba (Winnipeg)
NCPC Risk Factors and Aboriginal Teachings 1
  • Manitoba (Winnipeg)
Melanie Nimmos "The Invisible Gang Member" 1
  • Manitoba (Winnipeg)
Gang Prevention through Targeted Outreach (GPTTO) Program 1
  • Quebec (Montréal)
Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) Program 1
  • Ontario (Niagara)
Others models, Comprehensive or Wraparound Approach, and the Youth Violence Reduction Partnerships Program (U.S.) 3
  • British Columbia (Vancouver)
  • Quebec (Montréal)
  • Nova Scotia (Halifax)

3.0 About the Evaluation

3.1 Objective

The objective of the 2010-2011 evaluation of the YGPF Program is to provide an evidence-based, neutral assessment of the relevance and performance of the program that is in its fifth year of operation.

3.2 Scope and Context of the Evaluation

The scope of the research for this evaluation includes activities of the YGPF ProgramNote 5 from its inception in October 2006 to March 31, 2010. It should be noted that the scope of the evaluation includes the YGPF Program, rather than just the activities of the funded projects.

The NRG Research Group, Vancouver-based research company, conducted an interim evaluationNote 6 of the YGPF Program between February and December 2009. The overarching goal of the interim evaluation was to determine if, and to what extent, the YGPF Program was being implemented as intended, and if it was making progress towards its long term outcomes. The conclusions and recommendations of the interim evaluation can be found in Appendix C.

3.3 Evaluation Issues and Questions

The questions for the evaluation were designed to focus on the continued relevance and performance of the YGPF Program, with linkages to the core issues of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) Directive on the Evaluation Function as notedNote 7 below:

Relevance

Performance - Effectiveness

Performance - Efficiency and Economy

3.4 Evaluation Methodology

The 2010-2011 evaluation was conducted in accordance with the TBS Standard on Evaluation for the Government of Canada. To assess the evaluation issues and questions, the evaluation team used an Evaluation Matrix (Appendix D), which prescribed multiple sources of information and lines of evidence, each of which are described in more detail below.

Document/Literature Review and Internet Research

Documents reviewed for the evaluation, included program inception documents, the interim evaluation of the YGPF Program, and studies and surveys produced by the NCPC and other research bodies. A list of documents reviewed is contained in Appendix E.

As part of the document review, internet research was also conducted to identify comparable initiatives/ organizations to be included in the comparative analysis (see section below).

Review of Grants and Contributions Information Management System

The Grants and Contributions Information Management System (G-CIMS) is a database that is designed to capture tombstone and financial information from the funded projects.

Interviews

As summarized in Table 3, a total of 23 interviews were conducted using interview guides tailored to the following four stakeholder groups. Interview guides are included in Appendix F.

Program Management: Semi-structured interviews were conducted, in person or by telephone, with representatives of the NCPC who are involved in the program delivery, including senior management. This group was interviewed primarily to gather information on relevance (i.e., alignment of objectives and departmental priorities).

Funded Recipients: Based upon an initial review of the 19 projects, 11 funded recipients were chosen for interviews. Since time and budget constraints did not allow the evaluation team to interview representatives of all projects, the list of interviewees was narrowed. The following criteria were considered in the selection of interviewees representing the projects (funded recipients and project evaluators):

Project Evaluators: All 19 projects have an independent project evaluator documenting their successes. Thus, for those projects where a funded recipient was interviewed, an interview was also undertaken with the project evaluator. Some project evaluators are engaged on more than one YGPF project, so there were fewer evaluator interviews than recipient interviews. These interviews primarily gathered information on the relevance and the success of the program.

Subject Matter Experts: Academics and experts in the field of crime prevention and youth gangs, including some of the project evaluators with extensive experience in the subject of youth and crime prevention, were interviewed to gather information on the relevance of the program as well as the cost effectiveness of crime prevention initiatives. These interviewees were identified by the NCPC. In cases where a project evaluator was also a subject matter expert, the interview guides were combined to include all questions.

Table 3: Summary of Interviews
Interview Group Number of Interviews
Program Management 4
Funded Recipients 11
Project Evaluators 4
Subject Matter Experts 2
Project Evaluators and Subject Matter ExpertsNote 8 2
Total 23

Provincial/Territorial Focus Group

YGPF projects were chosen and developed through consultation with the provinces and territories. Provinces and territories are a main target audience for the YGPF Program benefitting from knowledge transfer activities and from the YGPF funded projects located in their province or territory. In the absence of a broader consultation, the evaluation solicited feedback on the progress of the YGPF Program through a focus group with six members of the Working Group on Community Safety and Crime Prevention - Subcommittee on Youth Gangs. This subcommittee was established in October 2009 to encourage focused discussion on the youth gang issues outside of the wider forum of the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Community Safety and Crime Prevention Committee. The evaluation focus group had representation from five Canadian provinces and territories.

Review of Annual Project Evaluation Reports

The evaluation team received and reviewed Annual Project Evaluation Reports for 16 of the 19 funded projectsNote 9. These reports are produced by independent evaluators hired to assess the progress of each project funded through the YGPF. The latest reports were dated January 2010. The reports were analyzed in the context of a concurrent document, prepared by an external contractor, entitled Progress Evaluation of the Youth Gang Prevention Fund Projects: A Synthesis of 2010 Annual Evaluation ReportsNote 10.

Comparative Analysis

Based on information derived from the document review, internet research and interviews, attempts were made to identify other similar programs to the YGPF Program. Four programs for comparison were identified as follows:

Due to constraints with respect to the availability of information, it was not possible to conduct an in-depth comparative analysis (for more on this, see section 3.1. limitations).

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

The evaluation also included a cost-effectiveness analysis. The approach to this analysis is summarized below (see Appendix G for more detail on the methodology).

In order to assess efficiency, the evaluation examined the trend over time of the administration costs of the YGPF Program, and compared the cost per youth reached by the projects to other similar initiatives where possible. This analysis was supplemented by perceptions of the efficiency and suggestions for improvement.

The assessment of economy focused on a single indicator (i.e., the cost savings to the federal government associated with a "gang exit") to provide an assessment of the potential return on investment to the federal government. Using the data inputs and assumptions noted in Appendix G, a mathematical model was developed to calculate an estimated cost savings to the federal government by comparing the criminal behaviour of gang members and non-gang members and the associated costs (i.e., incarceration). For the analysis, a positive return on the federal investment was defined as cost savings lower than the project cost. The evaluation team undertook the analysis through a set of probabilities (e.g., determining the probability of committing a crime, the probability of jail time). The probability-weighted expense of federal jail time for both gang and non-gang members was compared to show potential cost savings resulting from the project intervention. Note that the average incarceration time for a youth gang member is not known with a great deal of precision. As such, a 95% confidence interval was calculated based on the likely incarceration range of between three and eightNote 11 years for a gang member, with a median value of six years.

The mathematical model was then used to predict the number of gang exits that would potentially be required to return the full federal investment in the YGPF projects.

Finally, to inform a discussion of cost effectiveness at the societal level, a literature review was conducted in order to draw conclusions on the degree to which similar programs can provide value-for-money.

3.5 Limitation of the Methodology

  1. A lack of standard methodology for collecting and reporting on project data contained in the Annual Project Evaluation Reports rendered a determination of overall program outcomes difficult. The evaluation team "normalized" the data to the extent possible in order to conduct a cross-project analysis.
  2. As noted, project implementation varied. Some projects have only been underway for a short time, thus outcome data is limited for these projects. It is noted that outcomes were not expected to be achieved by the projects until five years after project implementation; while the longest time that a single project has been in operation is two years. This limitation meant that, in the case of some outcomes, the evaluation team had to base conclusions on a limited number of reports that supplied information on the outcome.
  3. As part the of its data collection methods, the evaluation team conducted interviews to gather evidence. As much as possible, opinions gathered through interviews were supplemented through other lines of evidence.
  4. In several cases, the evaluation team interviewed funded recipients that were not the project delivery agents; thus, interviewees were "one step removed" from project activities. For the most part, these interviewees were able to provide comments. Missing information was completed by the perceptions of project evaluators.
  5. Time constraints did not allow for a survey or other means of gathering wider perceptions outside of funded projects (e.g. communities, police, municipalities, provincial/territorial representatives). The federal/provincial/territorial focus group was used in place of these mechanisms.
  6. Through the comparative analysis, attempts were made to compare four programs at a detailed level (comparison of indicators). Due to the unavailability of data, information and organizations, and time constraints, information was insufficient to render a detailed comparison. As such, in lieu of an in-depth comparative analysis, a listing of Canadian youth gang programs was compiled from documentation and interview responses (see Appendix I).

4.0 Findings

4.1 Relevance

The evaluation examined the following areas in order to assess the continuing relevance of the YGPF Program:

4.1.1 Need to Address the Youth Gang Issue in Canada

Recent research indicates that gang membership is one of the highest predictors of youth violence. Youth gang members are more than six times as likely to be engaged in a variety of criminal activities and are involved in three to seven times as many violent acts as non-gang related youthNote 12. The research also indicates that, generally, gang-related crime is increasing in intensity, meaning that crimes are being committed using hand guns as opposed to less lethal weapons; and that the use of firearms among youth is generally becoming more prevalent. This phenomenon is especially acute in larger urban areas such as Toronto, Vancouver and MontréalNote 13. In addition, "on-the-ground information" from about one third of the Annual Project Evaluation Reports reported an increase in youth gang membership in the project location.

Evidence gathered through the literature review and interviews found that youth gangs have an impact on youth themselves, on communities and on society in general. IntervieweesNote 14 noted that the impact on youth of not addressing youth gang issues can include the possibility of disengagement, violence, entry into multi-generational and cyclical gang patterns, and early morbidity, sometimes through suicide. They also believe that community members can experience fear, intimidation, and safety issues; and can incur increased costs related to the direct cost of crime (e.g., increased cost of home and auto insurance, decline in property values, relocation of businesses and families). At the societal level, impacts can include higher costs for social programs, policing, courts, incarceration and rehabilitation. Interviewees also noted that there are overall negative social implications of youth gang members being disengaged and living unproductive lives which threatens and undermines the social fabric and can cause significant emotional, physical and financial damage to society as a whole.

There is no standard definition of youth gang and no precise data is available on the number of youth engaged in gangs (i.e., this is not systematically tracked). Nonetheless, evidence suggests that youth gang membership in Canada is trending upward. According to the 2002 Canadian Police Survey on Youth GangsNote 15, at that time there were 434 youth gangs in Canada with more than 7,071 members. According to a study underway by the NCPC, as of 2009 it was estimated that there were approximately 20,000 street gang members across the country although it is unknown how many of these are youth versus adult gang membersNote 16. Although this does not provide definitive information that membership in youth gangs is increasing, it is likely that street gangs have a high proportion of youth members, suggesting that youth gang membership is trending upward.

4.1.2 Aspects of the Youth Gang Issue the YGPF Program was Designed to Address and Relevance of the Response

At inception, the YGPF Program was not designed to address the youth gang issue in its entirety but to demonstrate federal leadership, and to implement a social research and policy development initiative on the issue of youth gangs. According to an RCMP environmental scan, "the scale of [the projects'] intervention is small relative to the socio/economic/demographic factors and potential flow of youth into gangs."Note 17 Therefore, while some of the YGPF projects may be achieving success at the community level, the YGPF Program cannot be expected to solve the gang problem in Canada. Thus, the YGPF Program serves a more prescribed role and aims to provide directed funding to projects to test evidence-based youth gang prevention models within local communities in order to understand if the models are effective in the Canadian context and to increase the knowledge base on youth gang prevention.

According to the terms and conditions of the contribution fund, YGPF projects themselves were to be designed to achieve the following objectives:

Continued Relevance of the Response

The evaluation first assessed program demand in order to determine whether the response remains relevant; that is, to assess whether there is uptake for the YGPF Program. The evaluation found that all program funds are designated to projects and some projects are funded from other contribution funding sources. Also, projects are at capacity despite the fact that youth have been difficult to engage in projects; some projects have waiting lists.

The evaluation also examined whether there are gaps in the response provided by the two areas that the YGPF Program was designed to address, namely i) federal leadership and ii) research and knowledge transfer.

i) Federal Leadership

In terms of its federal leadership role, NCPC has been heavily involved in collaboration activities. For example, the NCPC co-chairs the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group on Community Safety and Crime Prevention, the mandate of which includes contributing to the achievement of objectives of the National Strategy on Community Safety and Crime Prevention. The Working Group created a subcommittee to discuss issues specifically related to gang prevention.

The NCPC also chairs the Interdepartmental Committee on Crime Prevention, which brings together 12 departments and agencies. The Committee's mandate includes promoting the development of effective crime prevention strategies at the federal level, exchanging information on departmental initiatives and ensuring high level coordination of federal efforts. The Committee is a forum where information on youth gang prevention initiatives can be shared. NCPC also co-chairs the Crime Prevention Committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, where information on youth gang initiatives can be shared with the policing community.

In terms of potential gaps in the leadership role of the NCPC, interviews and document review noted the absence of a standard definition of youth gangs that would enable more accurate tracking of trends. How a gang is defined will affect estimates of the extent of gang activity. Lack of universal definitions of youth gangs has implications for gang research and gang-related public policy. Furthermore, public policies and resource allocation are influenced by these estimates, whether for a nation or a single community.Note 19 Literature review also reveals that gang research has highlighted the importance of consistent definitions for gang affiliation and gang-related crime. Definitional questions have assumed greater significance in the wake of broad-ranging prevention and intervention strategies.Note 20 In the United States, "there is no single, generally accepted definition of a "gang".Note 21 However, in Europe, the Eurogang Project was able to reach consensus on a definitionNote 22.

NCPC indicates that while there is no agreed-upon definition in Canada, and though definitions can vary from one municipality to another, there are standard factors that could be considered in the development of a definition. These factors could include: identifying the minimum number of youth members required to form a gang; identifying the characteristics of youth gang members (i.e., crimes committed, visible identification); defining the length of membership in a gang to be considered a "member"; and identifying an age range to be considered a "youth" in a gang.

Despite the above-noted issues, the NCPC has made strides in attempting to define a youth gang as follows: Youth gangs typically consist of young people who: self-identify as a group (e.g. have a group name); are generally perceived by others as a distinct group; and are involved in a significant number of delinquent incidents that produce consistent negative responses from the community and/or law enforcement agencies. The NCPC has also held consultations with researchers in this regard.

There are noted challenges in developing a definition of a "youth gang". One of these is geographic area. In the United States, the characteristics and behaviours of gangs are exceptionally varied within and across geographical areas. Thus, state and local jurisdictions tend to develop their own definitionsNote 23. In Canada, it has been stated that there is "no single definition that can account for the pluralistic or heterogeneous gang/group phenomenon in contemporary Canadian society".Note 24 NCPC notes that youth gang-related crime is tracked at a municipal level by police organizations, each of which has a definition that fits with local circumstances. Furthermore, given the varying circumstances and characteristics of youth gangs across the country, and the commitment to be responsive to local realities, NCPC could not impose a standardized definition of youth gangs on potential funding recipients.

Defining a "youth gang" is further complicated by the fact that individuals, ranging from politicians and police officers to community workers, each try to define a youth gang through their own lens or based on their own experience. The U.S. National District Attorneys Association points out that a holistic and balanced approach is based on the development of a combination of definitions that will capture the suppression component of gang activity and the prevention/intervention component. It suggests that a process-based definition (why and how a gang is formed) can provide greater clarity in how to develop prevention and intervention programs, while a delinquency- or crime-based definition (whether or not a group of individuals are involved in more or less serious criminal activities) provides the opportunity to identify the nature and level of gang problems in the community and suppress gang activities.Note 25

ii) Research and Knowledge Transfer

In terms of the funded research, some emerging needs with respect to the YGPF Program were identified by intervieweesNote 26 as follows:

Another noted gap was that YGPF projects were only funded in urban areas. In the interim evaluation, the YGPF Program selection process was criticized by "some individuals [ ...] for focusing only on major urban centres and not considering rural areas in serious need of help with youth gang issues"Note 27. The issue of youth gangs in rural areas in Canada was also raised by intervieweesNote 28. One interviewee reported that regional NCPC offices were approached for funding by community organizations representing rural communities (after funding had been allocated), indicating interest from these communities. Evidence was found in documentation pertaining to the rural issue in the: "law enforcement agencies identify growing youth gang presence in rural areas, small cities and suburban environments: 4% of rural communities and 10% of small cities in the Unites States report persistent gang problems; 37% of rural communities and 44% of small cities in the Unites States report variable gang problems"Note 29. An NCPC document reports that although the youth gang problem (in Canada) appears to be primarily an urban phenomenon, some observers feel that gangs are not only a problem in Canada's major cities but are also an issue for smaller cities, suburban areas, Aboriginal reserves and rural townsNote 30. NCPC noted that the original decision to focus on urban areas was based on the lack of well-documented evidence relating to the presence of youth gangs in Canadian rural communities; the consultation work undertaken with provincial counterparts to identify priority areas; as well as limited resources. Capacity issues to implement large comprehensive projects in rural communities were also a concern. Implementation of these types of projects in urban settings, reaching a larger number of youth, was also deemed to yield greater positive results.

In terms of research related to risk and protective factors predictive of youth gang involvement, the evaluation found that more research is needed in the Canadian context. For the YGPF Program, the identification of at-risk youth was determined through risk and protective factors that were initially identified from projects based in the Unites States, although some of these risk factors were tailored to local Canadian communities. While there is a lack of research with respect to risk factors and entry into youth gangs, research to date demonstrates that early identification and intervention of youth who are at-risk of joining youth gangs is the most effective method of reducing the size and severity of the youth gang problem in Canada.Note 31

The evaluation found through a review of the Annual Project Evaluation Reports that it is unclear to what extent the risk and protective factors utilized by YGPF projects are relevant to the Canadian context since:

The evaluation also found a number of projects that identified emerging risk factors that are not currently being addressed by the YGPF Program, including:

The Program noted that these risk factors not only apply to youth gang involvement, but also to relate to delinquency in general. IntervieweesNote 34 also suggested that risk factors do not differ very much from those associated with delinquency. This suggests that youth gang prevention programs must have a particular focus on targeting areas where there is an existing or emerging threat of gang activity in order to distinguish them from youth delinquency prevention programs. In this regard, the evidence of gang activity in two funded communities warrants attention. These two projects are: the Youth and Adult Anti-Gang Program project located in Niagara, Ontario, and the Mini-Poste project, located in Montréal (Côtes-des-Neiges), Quebec. Originally the Niagara project was funded based on analysis that revealed gang activity in the region. However, the most recent Project Annual Project Evaluation report presents conflicting evidence of youth gangs in this community. The project in Côtes-des-Neiges appears to be located in a community with a low to moderate risk of gang involvement especially in comparison to the surrounding Montréal community.

It is also noted that existing international and Canadian research on delinquency risk factors is a work in progress. NCPC's review of current knowledge about youth gangs in Canada concludes that "most youth who join gangs have already been involved in crime, violence and illegal drug use."Note 35 Further studies also reveal that youths who identify being in criminal gangs also report significantly greater levels of criminal activity and violent offending.Note 36

4.1.3 Federal Role in the Delivery of the YGPF Program

The Constitution Act, 1867Note 37 indicates that the provinces have the primary responsibility for the administration of justice. That is, while the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to criminal law, including the procedure in criminal matters, only provinces may exclusively make laws in relation to the constitution, maintenance, and organization of provincial courts, as well as the imposition of punishment by fine, penalty, or imprisonment for enforcing any law of the province. Thus, enforcement of provincial laws is a provincial responsibility. Having said this, the YGPF Program and the work of the NCPC does not overstep this boundary as it is playing a supporting role in the administration of justice.

While provinces have the primary role in the area of the administration of justice, the federal government may exercise a leadership, coordination and knowledge-sharing role. Inception documents for the YGPF Program indicate that the federal government has a leadership role to play in helping to build safer and healthier communities and that better coordination within and among all levels of government is required to develop local solutions. The YGPF Program's role of providing federal leadership also falls within the PS mandate, as confirmed by the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act in Sections 4 and 6 as follows:

4. (2) The Minister is responsible for exercising leadership at the national level relating to public safety and emergency preparedness.

6. (1) In exercising his or her powers and in performing his or her duties and functions and with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories, the Minister may:

  1. b. cooperate with any province, foreign state, international organization or any other entity;
  2. c. make grants or contributions;
  3. d. facilitate the sharing of information, where authorized, to promote public safety objectives.

Thus, given that youth gangs are a public safety issue, the federal government has a leadership role to play and may cooperate with the provinces and provide contribution funds for projects. The YGPF Program provides an opportunity for the federal government to show leadership by bringing together partners who have a role to play in preventing and reducing youth crime through targeted and tailored anti-gang initiatives.

Other evidence gathered from the document review supports these findings. A recent workshop report, developed by the Institute for the Prevention of Crime (University of Ottawa), indicates that "most significant prevention actions and initiatives will be driven by local actors, and that other orders of government should get organized to support local action"Note 38. This translates to a distribution of responsibility among partners. Local actors (municipal, the justice system, non-governmental organizations and the volunteer sector) bring resources together to design and implement comprehensive initiatives. Provinces and territories manage the main risk factors associated with crime and victimization that fall within their constitutional responsibility; set standards and targets for performance, and provide supports to allow the delivery of effective evidence-based programming. The federal government has an appropriate role in focusing on evidence-based practices and investing in research and development in crime prevention and ensuring effective dissemination of lessons learned.

Other Initiatives

In terms of possible duplication of federal efforts, according to a 2006 RCMP studyNote 39, there are about 80 anti-gang programs in Canada. These include prevention and enforcement/suppression initiatives. However, the complete list of programs/initiatives that exist across Canada remains unknown. Limited evidence gathered from interviews and a review of documents suggests that while other programs addressing youth gangs exist (e.g., federal, provincial, municipal and non-governmental organizations), they are not duplicative with the YGPF Program. However, there may be further work required by the federal government with regards to coordination of these other programs, to confirm that no duplication exists. For example, inception documents indicate that the YGPF Program and the Department of Justice Canada Youth Justice Fund (Guns, Gangs and Drugs Component) were created to work in tandem. The Guns, Gangs and Drugs Component of the fund promotes the provision of community-based opportunities to youth involved in the justice system to allow them to make "smart choices" and resist gang involvement or exit gangs. It has a yearly budget of $2.5 million and had funded over 70 projects through 2009-2010 in areas such as youth skills development; peer-to-peer support and mentoring; spirituality, culture and ethnicity; and knowledge production and education.

The target audience for these programs was intended to differ in that, the Department of Justice Canada program was to be delivered to youth already involved in the youth criminal justice system, while the YGPF was to target at-risk youth with an aim to prevent them from entering the system. Given the high-risk population the YGPF is targeting, NCPC notes that in a minority of cases, some funded projects have youth participants that are involved in the justice system. In such cases, NCPC is expected to coordinate with the Youth Justice Fund to ensure there is no duplication.

NCPC also administers the Crime Prevention Action Fund (CPAF)Note 40. This fund provides time-limited contribution funding that supports the development and implementation of:

One of the CPAF's priorities is to respond to priority crime issues, such as youth gangs and drug-related crime. The fund has similar objectives and structure to the YGPF but is broader in that projects addressing the needs of children may also be funded. The interim evaluation noted that "the YGPF may not be sufficiently distinct from the Crime Prevention Action Fund, and an argument can be made for combining the two funds to reduce the costs of administration." Since inception in 2006, this fund has signed six agreements for gang-related projects in the amount of $9M. Projects include: an Effective Community Response to Immigrant Youth Gang Crime Project; and the Waterloo Regional Gang Prevention Project. The complete list is included in Appendix B.

4.1.4 Alignment with i) federal government priorities and ii) PS strategic outcomes

In terms of alignment with federal government priorities, there has been a high level of federal commitment to addressing youth crime and community safety over the duration of the YGPF Program. At the outset of the YGPF Program, the focus of the federal agenda was specifically on youth gang prevention. In 2008, the Conservative Party Platform addressed the issue of community safety, and youth at risk stating, "we will continue to make our communities safer by ending house arrest for serious and violent crimes, including home invasion and drug trafficking. We will help youth at risk of gang activity"Note 41. In recent years the federal focus has shifted to ensuring tougher criminal penalties and addressing at-risk youth, rather than specific mention of youth gangs. The 2010 Speech from the Throne commits to ensuring "the youth criminal justice system responds strongly to those few who commit serious and violent crimes, while focusing on the rehabilitation of all young offenders"Note 42.

When the fund was committed, there was strong alignment between the government budgets and the YGPF Program. The issue received less attention in 2008 and 2009 as the economic downturn became the focus of the federal budget.

In terms of alignment with the PS strategic outcome, the YGPF Program objectives are well aligned. It is also noted that there is strong alignment with the NCPC objectives as illustrated in Table 4.

Table 4: Alignment of Objectives and Outcomes
Objectives Outcomes
YGPF Program Objectives
  • Invest in communities where there is an incidence or emerging threat of gangs; and in initiatives targeting youth in gangs or at greatest risk of joining gangs to improve community safety and prevention of crime and victimization.
  • Address specific risk and protective factors associated with youth violence and gang membership to mitigate the risks of future gun violence and gang activity.
  • Provide alternatives to gangs in order to help youth develop pro-social competencies and attitudes.
  • Support knowledge and evidence-based community-based interventions that target gun violence and gang-related issues by tackling its root causes.
NCPC ObjectivesNote 43
  • Increase sustainable community action;
  • Develop and share knowledge of crime prevention strategies, and;
  • Coordinate multi-level support for crime prevention efforts.
PS Departmental Strategic Outcome
  • A safe and resilient Canada

4.2 Performance - Effectiveness

The evaluation examined the extent to which the YGPF Program has achieved intended outcomes over the past five years in three general streams as follows:

The assessment of outcomes in the sections that follow must be read bearing in mind that the projects have been in operation for a relatively short period of time. For example, all projects have been in operation (i.e., delivering services to participants) for less than two years. The actual time that the projects have been in operation varies as followsNote 44:

Project development, review and approval time, as well as elections and ministerial changes have been noted by the Program as having hindered timely achievement of outcomes. Key events related to YGPF project development and implementation are noted in the Table 5 in order to provide further information regarding the amount of time required for each of these activities.

Table 5: Key Events - YGPF Project Implementation
Timeframe Project Implementation Tasks
February 2006 to July 2007
  • Solicitation of proposals (development / review)
  • Project Joint Management Committee approval
  • NCPC / PS approval process (preparation of ministerial packages, accountability unit and Ministerial approval)
August 2007 to September 2007
  • Developmental phase - development of work plans, working committees, hiring staff, hiring evaluator; developing curricula; finalizing partnership agreements etc
October 2007 to July 2008
  • Project Start-up - secure project location and complete any of the development phase activities (as per comments and suggestions from the Project Advisory Committee or Evaluation Advisory Committee established for the project)
August 2008
  • Project Implementation and evaluation begins
Post-project
  • Three month wrap-up phase

As noted in Table 5 it can take over two years to reach project start-up. It is uncertain whether these timeframes met the timeframes that were expected at program inception.

4.2.1 Knowledge Development and Transfer Outcomes

As stated in inception documents, one of the intended outcomes of the YGPF Program was to increase understanding and knowledge of how to effectively address the issues related to youth gangs. More specifically, the NCPC intended to increase the body of knowledge related to youth gangs through their own activities and through the actions of funded projects which also aimed to add to the body of knowledge on evidence-based promising practices. These changes were expected, in turn, to change the knowledge level within local communities and among provincial and territorial stakeholders.

Changes in the Body of Knowledge on Youth Gangs

The NCPC has established plans for knowledge transfer activities to inform the stakeholders of the results of the YGPF projects. These plans identify information products, those responsible for producing these products and the target audiences. To date, 17 publications, as listed in Appendix J, have been produced and distributed and/or posted on the PS website. For instance, in 2008, the NCPC published Addressing Youth Gang Problems: An Overview of Programs and Practices which sought to promote a more comprehensive understanding of what works, what does not work, and what is promising in terms of addressing youth gang problems. The same year they also published Promising and Model Crime Prevention Programs which identified successful programs and the specific elements that were keys to their success. These models included those which are used in YGPF projects, as well as projects that address other crime prevention issues. As noted in the Interim Evaluation, the eight NCPC documents related to youth gangs at the time were a "substantial and significant contribution" to the available resources on the subject, as there were only 28 other Canada-specific articles found in an academic literature search on the topic.

To further disseminate the material, NCPC program staff have an e-mail distribution list of about 2,115 recipients (as of May, 2010) who are interested in youth gang issues. There were plans to develop a web page dedicated to youth gang issues, beginning in April, 2010, but this has yet to be launched.

Knowledge transfer by NCPC has also occurred through discussions at conferences and symposia and at internal and external network meetings. Seventy-seven participants attended the latest symposium, and networks have been established with funded recipients, federal/provincial/territorial stakeholders, and networks internal to PS. Feedback solicited at the March 2010 symposium indicated that funded recipients strongly agreed that the event helped them understand what others are doing and introduced them to others who they could contact for information and discussion on project issues. There was slightly less agreement that the information was practical and useful or that they would use new approaches and ideas when they returned to work.

In order to share information at the federal government level, the Executive Director of the NCPC also chairs the Interdepartmental Committee on Crime Prevention that consists of representatives of 12 departments and agencies interested in community safety, crime prevention and victimization issues. This committee meets formally twice per year and provides an ongoing forum for information sharing, consultation, collaboration, and coordination on crime prevention issues for initiatives linked to the work of the NCPC.

The overall reach of NCPC activities could not be determined. Nonetheless, the NCPC seems to be disseminating knowledge from the YGPF projects to interested stakeholders. Provincial and territorial stakeholders interviewed believe that funded projects are showing elements of success and are contributing to building the base of Canadian knowledge on youth gang issues.

Changes in the Knowledge Level of Local/Provincial Stakeholders

Beyond expanding the body of knowledge related to youth gangs and successful intervention mechanisms, the YGPF Program sought to engage local stakeholders so as ensure greater awareness of the youth gang phenomena and to promote the sustainability of the YGPF projects.

Close to half of projects reportedNote 45 on their knowledge transfer activities, indicating that they have reached approximately 4,300 people. These included presentations at schools or community organizations; attendance at conferences, seminars, or forums; public ceremonies for project graduates; publications and media reports; and DVD productions. It is unknown whether the knowledge of local communities has increased as a result though, because no direct feedback has been solicited from these stakeholders.

4.2.2 Community Outcomes

Through the YGPF Program, the NCPC also aimed to support communities and youth at risk through the implementation of local, targeted and tailored anti-gang initiatives. At the community level, the cascading effects of the YGPF Program were expected to translate to a more effective, evidence-based response to gangs within the wider local community.

Changes in the Community Response to Youth Gangs

The Accountability, Risk and Audit Framework for the YGPF Program prescribes that "evidence of effective crime prevention practices aimed at gang-related crimes in communities, including those without YGPF projects" Note 46 be tracked. No such evidence was supplied to the evaluation team suggesting that either this indicator is not being tracked or that there has been no change in community responses to gangs as a result of YGPF Program. However, it is noted that it may be too early to assess this outcome since funded projects and related knowledge transfer activities are still underway. Many intervieweesNote 47 and provincial/territorial partners indicated that awareness of the youth gang phenomena in their community has increased because of the YGPF projects. They noted that this has resulted in increased community support and engagement of municipal partners such as police and the school boards in their projects. Provincial/territorial focus group participants also believe that that project models could be adopted elsewhere.

Sustainability

The evaluation notes that the YGPF was intended to provide time-limited funding, and that sustainability was not an intended outcome of the YGPF Program. Having stated this, a sustainability plan was required in some cases to be eligible for funding under the YGPF. It is unclear whether any projects had to meet this requirement. However, given that YGPF funding is set to expire March 2011, and none of the projects has a sustainability plan in place, this has increasingly become a concern. Only about one third of intervieweesNote 48 believed that sustainable funding is assured for their projects. The remaining interviewees were unsure if their project would continue or were certain that the projects would not continue once federal funding ceased leaving recipients and the youth they serve in a vulnerable position.

The YGPF projects were funded from different sources potentially providing other avenues for sustainability. On average, projects received 70% of the total project funding from the YGPF and 30% from community and provincial sources. Interviewees most frequently cited their province, the municipality, the local police force and the community-at-large as possible sources of funding. Provincial and territorial representatives agreed, adding that federal support was often needed to leverage provincial funds.

4.2.3 Project Participant Outcomes

At the project level, the following participant outcomes were expected to be achieved:

It is important to note that the timeframe for the achievement of these outcomes was five years; however, at the time data was collected, the longest length of time that any of the projects has been serving youth is just under two years. Therefore, it is likely too early to determine whether these outcomes have been achieved.

Engagement of Youth and Access to Support Services

According to the Annual Project Evaluation Reports there are a total of 1,105 primary youth participantsNote 49 accessing services or resources provided through the YGPF projects. A total of 29 different types of services are provided by the projects. Primary examples of services include: life skills training and personal development; employment skills training, support and opportunities; and educational activities.

All of the projects are at capacity, which speaks to the success the projects have had in building trust among participants, engaging the local community, and offering attractive programming. Among the six projectsNote 50 that provided information regarding participant drop-out rates, the proportion varied considerably, from a low of 4% to a high of 37% since project inception. The average drop-out rate for all six projects was 13%. Generally, youth are not dropping out in large numbers and, in some cases, graduation or program completion is being noted by the projects. However, the Synthesis of Evaluation Reports noted that "the term 'graduates' is a difficult assessment for projects, because it is not always clear if a youth has left the program, or if he/she has left successfully."Note 51

Awareness and Knowledge of Project Participants

The YGPF projects sought to increase participating youths' awareness of the consequences of gang involvement and of other opportunities and supports available to them. Of the eight projects that reported on this measure in the Annual Project Evaluation Reports, most indicated a positive change such as an increased understanding of the negative consequences of gang involvement. This was consistent with the views of intervieweesNote 52, who indicated that there has been moderate or advanced success in increasing youth understanding, which has led to the adoption of less positive attitudes towards gangs and further motivation to change behaviour.

Behaviour Change

In the Annual Project Evaluation Reports, seven of the projects reported positive change across multiple risk factors. These positive changes were seen in risk factors related to anti-social attitudes, lack of attachment to jobs or school, substance abuse, and violent or criminal behaviour. Given that these seven projects served at least 277 individuals, it is possible that many youth experienced improvements in their behaviour. However, the exact percentage of successful participants within each project could not be determined from the information provided. Most intervieweesNote 53 perceived moderate or advanced success in youth behaviour change. For instance, many noted that the youth are now more engaged in school and or employment, corroborating the above-noted findings. However, a few felt it was too early to tell given that some of the projects were in early stages on implementation.

The Annual Project Evaluation Reports did not note much progress on risk factors related to peer association, changes in community and gang environment, and family situations. Several reports noted the difficulty of involving parents due to several factors: because the parents themselves may be dysfunctional, gang-involved or involved in substance abuse; because of stigma; or in the case of recent immigrants, because both parents may be working two jobs. It is noted that, for some more recent projects, it may have been premature for project evaluators to report on these risk factors.

Youth Gang Involvement

The overall objective for the YGPF projects is to encourage youth to either disengage from their gangs or to prevent youth from entering gangs. Three projects reported changes in the level of youth gang involvement in the Annual Project Evaluation Reports. Two projects demonstrated early success in terms of gang involvement noting that a total of 81 individuals had exited their gangs (72% for one project and 78% for the other). The third project was less successful, noting that 12 of 20 participants (60%) remain in their gangs and the others are at high risk of gang involvement. The 16 other projects were either: at too early a stage to report; were only involved in prevention activities; or did not report these results. IntervieweesNote 54 were more positive about the level of success in this area with about one third of interviewees suggesting that there has been decreased involvement in gangs due to the YGPF projects, whether through exits or preventing gang entry.

4.2.4 Challenges and Unintended Impacts

Most intervieweesNote 55 identified challenges as a result of the YGPF Program and its design. In most cases, interviewee responses focused on the nature of the challenges and possible solutions and did not explore underlying causes.

Evaluation, Assessment and Experimental Design

Document review noted that "rigorous evaluation of gang prevention initiatives is not highly developed in Canada, and this showed in the development of evaluation plans. NCPC required project sponsors to contract with third party evaluators who would develop the plans. Because this took place after project approval and often during active project development, the timing of evaluation and operational requirements was often not adequate. NCPC has subsequently changed its policy and is now requiring evaluators to be contracted directly by NCPC."Note 56

A number of projects experienced difficulties in finding an adequate control group for comparison due to the nature of the target population which may be transient, elusive, or unpredictable. Comparison between communities was also made more difficult by the fact that communities and their related gang issues can vastly differ.

Few of the projects had a sufficient number of participants complete their participant assessments to be able to report statistically significant findings. This is because of the nature of the target population and the short period of time that the projects had been in place.

There were also reliability issues identified with the assessment and screening tools used by projects. Evaluators for 10 of 16 projects identified problems with the initial risk assessment questionnaires administered to youth. Evaluators reported that "youth who have not yet established a trust relationship with their counsellor or case manager may present themselves through their responses in a falsely more positive light. They tend to be more truthful later on. This may bias the periodic 'repeated measures' used to assess progress."Note 57

In order to address some of these issues, intervieweesNote 58 suggested that the NCPC provide assistance in improving the evaluation tools used to evaluate projects. In this regard, NCPC has produced documents, such as the Evaluation Guidelines, that provide projects with support in developing successful gang prevention and intervention projects. In addition, since the interim evaluation, NCPC has organized regular meetings among YGPF project managers to improve communication.

While NCPC has worked with projects and their evaluators in this regard, it appears that further guidance in this area would be useful in order to provide the ability in future for performance information to be "normalized" as much as possible across projects. The evaluation team encountered challenges in comparing data contained within the Annual Project Evaluation Reports. For example, progress against risk factors was not standardized across projects and data collection instruments did not measure progress against outcomes in a comparable way. A standardized way of collecting information on progress against risk factors and a standard survey instrument to collect other outcome-based information such as gang involvement would assist in this regard.

Other Issues

Challenging working relationships (between project managers, community partners, project evaluators, the NCPC evaluation analysts and other stakeholders) were frequently mentioned. However, it was also recognized that many of these challenges are part of the normal process of establishing partnerships, and therefore tend to work themselves out over time. Nevertheless, the discrepancy between the project launch and the start of accepting participants did impact community momentum and recruitment of staff.

The program scope and sensitivity to the needs of specific Canadian communities were identified as a challenge. IntervieweesNote 59 suggested that the program should reconsider the types of communities targeted by the program (i.e. rural) and pay better attention to the needs of some community organizations (i.e. Aboriginal). There was also concerns regarding two of the projects which did not appear to be located in or dealing with high-risk communities.

4.3 Performance - Efficiency and Economy

The evaluation assessed efficiency (i.e., outputs are produced at minimum cost) and economy (i.e., outcomes are produced at a minimum cost) of the YGFP Program.

In order to provide context for this analysis, Table 6 illustrates the costs by outcome area of the YGPF Program.

Table 6: Costs by Outcome Area to March 31, 2010
Knowledge Transfer $0.9M
Participant Outcomes $17.4M
Total $18.3M

Costs of Community Outcomes could not be separated out in this analysis.

4.3.1 Efficiency

In order to assess efficiency, the evaluation examined whether the YGPF funding has been managed efficiently both in terms of administration costs and processing time and whether youth have been reached in a cost efficient manner by assessing the cost per participant against other programs.

Contribution Fund Administration Costs and Processing Time

Trends in the fund administration costs per project and administration costs as a percent of project expenditures are illustrated in Table 7.

Table 7: Administration Costs of the YGPF Program (dollar values in thousands)
  2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Total project expendituresNote 60 $0 $1,759 $5,300 $7,629
Total administration costsNote 61 $371 $743 $791 $791
Number of projects 0 14 17 19
Administration cost per project N/A $53.0 $46.5 $41.6
Administration costs as a % of total project expenditures N/A 42% 15% 10%

The downward trend in the administration cost per project and in the ratio of administration costs illustrated in the table show that administration of the contribution funding is becoming more efficient over time.

The interim evaluation indicated that the project approvals and funding transfer took longer than expected, which reduced available implementation time. "More than three-quarters of projects had approval processes that took more than four months, and one-third took more than six months, and that after the lengthy approval period, there were further delays in transferring funds to the projects"Note 62. In comparison, the approval of YGPF projects on average was about "one month faster than the average for the approval of other projects funded by the National Crime Prevention Strategy between 2005 and 2007"Note 63. Another comparison noted that Alberta's Safe Communities Innovation Fund, a $60 million three-year initiative that funds evidence-based projects with evaluation components was able to approve 30 projects in less than four months from the program's announcement.

The length of these processes appears to be due to several factors. The interim evaluation noted that the long approval process "appears to be rooted in the external review committee, with PS's accountability requirements, and the lack of clear direction to project contacts regarding how to complete the application in a manner that will minimize the time needed for approval."Note 64 Program managers noted challenges in this area indicating that the nature of the projects with an average contribution value of approximately $1.3 millionNote 65 made them more time consuming to review and develop than smaller, less complicated projects; that training was provided to funded recipients which took additional time; and additional time was needed to work with communities to build the capacity to develop the projects. Lengthy processes had been identified as a potential risk in the Risk Assessment and Management Summary of the YGPF Program ARAF.Note 66 Whether or not mitigating actions were taken is unclear, but the lack of timeliness suggests that the risk management approach be revisited. Suggestions for improvements from intervieweesNote 67 included streamlining management and/or bureaucracy and introducing a start-up or development phase prior to project implementation since a five-year time horizon is unrealistic for projects of this size and complexity.

Cost per Participant

The average cost per participant at the time of the interim evaluation (approximately two years ago) was $10,246Note 68. The average cost per participant from financial information for 2009-2010 was $9,240. This downward difference in cost per participant suggests that the projects have become slightly more efficient in the past two years.

The evaluation also examined the cost per participant based on the project models being tested by the YGPF projects and compared these results to the similar project models implemented elsewhere. Table 8 illustrates the models being implemented by YGPF Program and the associated cost per participant.

Table 8: Cost per Participant
Model Cost per Participant (Interim Evaluation)
Milwaukee Wraparound $14,955
Principles by Brendtro, Brokenleg and Van Bockern $13,165
Spergel $12,985
NCPC's risk factors and Aboriginal teachings such as "we are all related" $10,777
Melanie Nimmos "The 'Invisible Gang' Member" $9,571
Wrap-around process philosophy and a case management model $5,826
Gang Prevention through Targeted Outreach (GPTTO) $4,446

Internet research indicates that the cost of the Milwaukee Wraparound model is in line with wraparound models implemented in several Unites States locations, where costs range from about $14,400 to $48,000 per year depending on the level of intensity of the program. Cost per participant for other models could not be found. It is noted that the difference in cost per participant may be due to the differing intensity of the interventions related to each project model.

4.3.2 Economy

As illustrated in Figure 1, youth gang crime prevention has the potential to return cost savings at a number of levels of government and to society in general. In assessing the economy of the YGPF Program, the evaluation examined whether, given the early success of the YGPF Program, there is potential for return on the federal investment at two levels (the "project" levelNote 69 and the "fund" levelNote 70). The analysis focused on cost savings associated with a single quantifiable measure of success: "number of youth disengaged from gangs". While this single indicator did not fully represent YGPF Program, it was indicative and assisted in drawing conclusions on economy related to the changes in participant behaviour (i.e. gang exit). It should be noted that "the number of youth prevented from entering a gang" is a complementary way of measuring the desired outcome in that it will provide similar if not greater cost savings to the incarceration system as a gang exit; however, no information was provided on the number of youth prevented from entering gangs. Literature review notes that the effects of a youth at risk not entering a gang at all can return similar, if not greater, cost savings to the cost savings from a youth gang exit.

It is noted that possible wider cost savings within provinces or society in general were not calculated as part of the cost effectiveness analysis, but literature review provided supplementary information on potential cost savings at these levels.

It should also be noted that, although knowledge transfer outcomes related to the YGPF Program are very important, success of this outcome was not quantifiable and was therefore not included in the analysis. In order for this to be included in the analysis, a measure of knowledge change over time would be needed. Feedback mechanisms from stakeholders would be needed to capture this information on a consistent basis, possibly through surveys conducted at regular intervals. These results could then be compared against the cost of the knowledge transfer component (as illustrated in Table 6) in order to determine the economy of this component.

Figure 1 provides context for the approach to the cost effectiveness analysis. In the yellow circle, the success and cost of two YGPF projects are illustrated. The blue circle represents the federal investmentNote 71 in the YGPF funded projects over the years from 2006-2007 to 2009-2010 (first four years) and the projected investment over the full five year period to 2010-2011. Also noted are the potential types of cost savings, for example incarceration cost savings in federal correctional institutions that might be realized due to gang exits. The blue and yellow circles are the focus of the cost effectiveness analysis. The green circle represents potential savings at the provincial/municipal level, and the grey circle potential cost savings to society in general.

Figure 1: Potential Cost Savings Associated with Gang Exits

Potential Cost Savings Associated with Gang Exits

Image Description

There are four circles representing four levels of cost savings, the smaller circles are included in the larger ones. The four levels are described below from the smallest to the largest circle:

Project Level

Federal (fund) Level
Potential Cost Savings:

YGPF investments:

Provincial Level
Potential Cost Savings:

Societal Level
Potential Cost Savings:

It should be noted that the list of types of cost savings is not exhaustive; that is, there are likely further savings to be realized at all levels but it is clear from the diagram that provinces have good potential to realize cost savings from successful youth gang programs.

Potential Return on the Federal Investment at the "Fund Level"

As illustrated in Table 9, preliminary financial modeling indicates that there is a potential positive return on investment to the federal government at the "project level" for those projects that have demonstrated success. Data inputs and related assumptions used in the mathematical model can be found at Appendix H.

Table 9: Return on the Federal Investment at the Project Level
Project Gang Exits Federal Investment in ProjectNote 72 Potential Return on Investment
Project Level Total Per Disengaged Gang Member
1) Youth Alliance against Gang Violence, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan 59 $1.60M $6.4M $109,300
2) Regina Anti-gang Services, Saskatchewan 17 $2.09M $0.2M $13,400
Projects combined 1) and 2) 76 $3.69M $6.6M $87,900

As illustrated in Table 9, early success of the two projects shown, where 76 gang exitsNote 73 have been realized, have the potential to return correctional institution cost savings to the federal government. Individually, each project has the potential to provide a positive return. The project located in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, has a positive return on investment for a total of $6.4 million or $109,300 per gang member that has exited. The Regina project also returns a positive result returning $13,400 per gang member and $0.2 million for the project overall. It is noted that these projects are still underway and final results have not yet been reported.

As shown in Table 9, when the project results are combined, the $3.69 million federal investment in these projects can potentially be returned. Further, mathematical modeling calculates that the return on investment for these two projects combined is $6.6 million or $87,900 per gang member who has exited.

At the "fund level", the current success level (76 gang exits) does not support return on the federal investment of $17.4 million (to end of 2009-2010). The model indicates that about 130 gang exits would have been required to support this investment.

In addition, by the end of the YGPF Program funding cycle in 2010-2011, it is projected that approximately 200 gang exits or about 20% of current participants would be needed in order to return the projected total investment of $27.4 million. It is noted that the actual "break even" point can be higher or lower than this result since it is based on the mid-range assumption of the number of years a youth would spend incarcerated (six years). For example, the lower bound of this analysis is three years incarceration which returns a break even point of 400 gang exits or about 35% of current participants, and the upper bound is eight years which returns a break even point of 150 gang exits of about 15% of current participants. Since detailed life trajectory information was not available, the assumptions in the model are based incarceration times notes in literature.

Since no trend data is available on the number of gang exits, it cannot be predicted whether this result is achievable by the end of the funding cycle (March 31, 2011); however it is noted that the two projects demonstrating success are two of the longest running projects. It is therefore possible that other projects that have been in operation for shorter periods of time may produce results by the end of the funding cycle. Further, according to the project evaluators, results of some of the Winnipeg projects, in terms of gang exits may be available in the next reporting cycle.

Provincial/Societal Level

Although cost savings at the provincial and societal level could not be calculated within the time frame of the evaluation, studies conducted from 2004 to 2009 provide evidence that some prevention and early intervention programs for youth can give taxpayers a good return on investment. One study estimated that the present value of saving a 14-year-old high risk juvenile from a life of crime can range from $2.6 to $5.3 million.Note 74 In another example, project models that appeared similar to those implemented by the YGPF Program indicate crime reduction rates from about seven to 19% and benefit minus cost values of $18,000 and $89,000 per participant.Note 75

Literature stresses that there is a better likelihood of return if successful research-based programs are used; models are carefully evaluated and implemented with fidelity; and close attention is paid quality control and adherence to original program designs.

5.0 Conclusions

As a result of the findings, the evaluation team drew the following conclusions.

5.1 Relevance

Is there a demonstrable societal need to address the issue of youth gangs in Canada?

There is a need to address the issue of youth gangs in Canada, as evidenced by an upward trend in the intensity of gang-related crime and youth gang membership; and the impact of youth gangs on society at various levels. The lack of a standard definition of youth gangs makes it difficult to track reliable trend information.

What aspects of the youth gang issue was the YGPF Program designed to address and does this response remain relevant?

The objectives of the program remain relevant due to the continued lack of research in the area of youth gangs and the continuing need to address the youth gang issue in general. The exploratory nature of the YGPF Program assists in filling this gap based on the development of knowledge through practice. For the most part, the YGPF Program has been able to distinguish itself from general youth delinquency programs by implementing projects in communities where there is a presence of youth at risk of delinquency and a threat of or presence of youth gangs. Demand for the program is high and there are emerging needs that the program has yet to address.

Is it within the federal role to deliver the YGPF Program?

It is within the federal role of PS to act as leaders in helping to build safer and healthier communities, and the federal government is demonstrating leadership in this regard through the YGPF Program. However, it cannot be determined whether there is duplication in this area. Further coordination is needed to categorize and delineate the many youth gang programs in existence, including other NCPC funds, and to strengthen the coordination and knowledge sharing among them.

Is there alignment between the YGPF Program objectives and i) federal government priorities and ii) the strategic outcomes of PS?

There is alignment between the YGPF Program objectives and federal government priorities. Although the federal agenda has shifted focus, it continues to be a federal priority to address youth crime. The YGPF Program is strongly aligned with the objectives of the NCPC and the strategic outcome of PS.

5.2 Performance

5.2.1 Effectiveness

To what extent has the YGPF Program progressed toward expected outcomes?

Knowledge Development and Transfer Outcomes: The body of knowledge on youth gangs has been augmented by the YGPF Program, but there is still work to be done to understand the nature of the youth gang phenomenon in Canada. It is not directly known if the knowledge level among provincial/territorial stakeholders and local communities has changed as a result of the YGPF Program. Knowledge among the funded project organizations has increased, but impacts on knowledge within the broader community remains unknown.

Community Outcomes: It cannot be determined whether there have been wider community impacts outside of the YGPF projects in terms of the community response to gangs. It is possibly too early to assess this outcome. Although YGPF projects are receiving community-based support (they are funded by about 30% from sources outside of YGPF), many projects may not continue in full without on-going federal support.

Participant Outcomes: Overall, YGPF projects have successfully engaged approximately 1,100 youth. The projects are at capacity and project services are being delivered. A few projects have seen moderate success in raising the knowledge and awareness of project participants, and there is evidence of behaviour change across some of the risk factors. Although the precise extent of behaviour change cannot be determined, the maximum potential impact is up to one-quarter of program participants. In terms of youth gang involvement, early success has been demonstrated with 81 participants exiting their gangs in two projects (or approximately three-quarters of participants in these projects).

Are there any challenges or unintended impacts as a result of the YGFP program?

The measurement of outcomes is particularly challenging due to a lack of evaluation expertise in the area of youth gangs in Canada; difficulties in finding control groups due to the nature of the target population; a lack of willingness of some participants to complete assessments; and the lack of standardized data collection instruments across projects that would enable cross-comparison and roll-up of data.

The scope of the YGPF Program did not include emerging issues related to rural communities and Aboriginal communities.

5.2.2 Efficiency and Economy

Is the contribution fund being administered efficiently?

The NCPC had difficulty administering the contribution fund in an efficient manner in the first two years of operation (2006-2007 and 2007-2008). Efficiency results have improved during the last two years of the program (2008-2009 and 2009-2010).

Have YGPF projects reached youth in a cost-efficient manner?

The cost per youth reached has gone down over the last two years suggesting improved efficiency, but no trend data is available so this result is inconclusive. The cost per participant for the Milwaukee Wraparound model is in line with other jurisdictions where this model has been implemented. Other models could not be compared.

Given early success, what is the potential return on investment?

At the project level, there is good potential for a return on the federal investment for those projects that are demonstrating early success. At the fund level, according to mathematical modelling, the program can break even if a success rate of between 15% and 35% is realized (with a mid-range value of 20%); or if a total of between 150 and 400 participants either exit their gangs, or are prevented from entering a gang, by the end of the program. Based in literature review, the potential return at the provincial and societal levels is high if models are implemented with fidelity meaning that close attention is paid quality control and adherence to original program designs.

6.0 Recommendations

Based on key findings and conclusions contained in this report, the Evaluation Directorate recommends that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Partnerships Branch, ensure that the National Crime Prevention Centre address the following recommendations:

  1. Consult with stakeholders to define the term "youth gangs" with the purpose of arriving at a standard definition or to provide a core definition that can be varied to local circumstance. Collaboration and consensus building in this area will enable the youth gang phenomena in Canada to be more accurately tracked, analyzed, discussed and addressed.
  2. Ensure that future projects take into consideration:
    • emerging needs identified by existing projects;
    • sound analysis of the existing or emerging threat of gang activity in communities being considered; and
    • special needs of Aboriginal youth.
  3. Undertake a comprehensive environmental scan of existing youth gang programs/initiatives in Canada in order to strengthen coordination and knowledge sharing; identify synergies, duplication and gaps; and assess the sustainability of current projects. Particular emphasis should be placed on federal programs (e.g. YGPF, CPAF and Justice Renewal Fund's Guns, Gangs and Drugs Priority).
  4. Collect systematic performance information from:
    • funded recipients by ensuring implementation of consistent periodic measurement through the use of standardized data collection and measurement tools where possible (e.g. participant survey); collection of information on gang exits (and prevention of gang entry); and assessment of fidelity with the foundational model being tested;
    • other stakeholders that will provide feedback on NCPC information products; and
    • local communities regarding impacts of projects.

7.0 Management Response and Action Plan

The 2007 Accountability, Risk and Audit Framework (ARAF) for the Youth Gang Prevention Fund (YGPF) called for an evaluation of the initiative in 2010. The evaluation examined issues of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and economy. The draft final report was submitted by the Evaluation Directorate, Public Safety Canada in October 2010.

This Management Action Plan is the National Crime Prevention Centre's (NCPC) response to the recommendations contained in the draft 2010 final evaluation report of the YGPF. As NCPC is currently seeking renewal of the YGPF, the proposed responses and timelines provided below are contingent upon acceptance the renewal and approval of funding.

Recommendation 1 accepted. The NCPC will work closely with its stakeholders, provinces and territories, municipalities and police organizations, academics, as well as funding recipients, to develop a core definition that describes the nature and characteristics of youth gang phenomena. The definition will allow for taking into consideration regional and local differences. Discussions will also explore the possibility of using the definition for tracking and measurement purposes.

Timeline: Taking into consideration the multiple partners involved in this action, this work is expected to be completed by the end of year two of the renewed initiative.

Recommendation 2 accepted. The NCPC will take stock of internal and external evaluation studies of youth gang funded projects, research studies conducted in Canada, and information from key stakeholders, to inform future project development in this area.

Timeline: Final evaluation reports for currently funded YGPF will be completed by March 2011. An initial analysis of the report findings will be conducted by Fall 2011 with on-going research and stakeholder information contributing to the analysis on an on-going basis.

Recommendation 3 accepted. Should the initiative be renewed, the NCPC will work to document and analyze relevant programs and initiatives at federal and provincial/territorial levels in particular.

Timeline: The challenges of conducting a comprehensive scan of these programs and initiatives cannot be underestimated. So the NCPC expects to complete this task by December 2012.

Recommendation 4 accepted. The NCPC will implement a robust project-based information management system collecting as much consistent project based information as possible, taking into consideration the specificity of local projects as well as the adaptation of models to local circumstances and capacities.

Timeline: Development of the project-based information management system is currently underway and will be completed by March 2011.

Appendix A: NCPC Logic Model for the YGPF Fund

Potential Cost Savings Associated with Gang Exits

Image Description

The logic model is a visual representation that links activities, outputs and outcomes. It provides a systematic and visual method of illustrating the program theory and shows the logic of how YGPF is expected to achieve its objectives. A series of arrows point the sequential direction of the expected causal relationship from "activities", to "outputs", "immediate outcomes", "intermediate outcomes", "long term outcomes" and, finally, "NCPS outcome".

The activities are:

The activities lead to the following outputs:

The first set of outputs (i.e. community-based initiatives) lead to three levels of immediate outcomes, as follows:

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

The second set of outputs (i.e. resources, training sessions, etc.) lead to two levels of immediate outcomes, as follows:

Level 1

Level 2

The immediate outcomes lead to three intermediate outcomes, namely:

The intermediate outcomes lead to the following long term outcome:

The long term outcome leads to the following NCPS outcome:

Appendix B: Summary of Funded Projects

Summary of Funded Projects
Name Location # Months Serving Youth Foundational model Value
NCPC ContributionNote 76 Total Budget
Gang Prevention Strategy (GPS) Hamilton, ON 20 Milwaukee Wraparound $1,882,835 $2,123,910
Regina Anti-Gang Services (RAGS) Regina, SK 19.5 Milwaukee Wraparound $2,428,505 $2,979,218
Youth Advocate Program (YAP) Halifax, NS 18 Milwaukee Wraparound $1,927,175 $3,573,521
A Positive Alternative to Youth Gangs (PAYG) Toronto, ON 17 Wrap-around process philosophy and case management model $1,373,428 $1,515,623
Wraparound Surrey Surrey, BC 13 Milwaukee Wraparound $872,400 $1,277,873
Youth at Risk development (YARD) Calgary, AB 13 Milwaukee Wrap-around $1,004,309 $2,110,597
Preventing Youth Gang Activity in Toronto (PIT) Toronto, ON 1.5 Milwaukee Wraparound $4,932,954 $6,596,135
Just TV Pilot Project Winnipeg, MB 20 Spergel $560,000 $820,016
Project Oasis Winnipeg, MB 17 Spergel $392,850 $1,070,376
Early Intervention Program (DYGS) Oshawa, ON n/a Spergel $1,000,000 $1,531,523
Youth Alliance Against Gang Violence (YAAGV) Prince Albert, SK 21 Principles by Brendtro, Brokenleg & Van Bockern $1,738,877 $2,838,926
Circle of Courage Winnipeg, MB 16 Principles by Brendtro, Brokenleg & Van Bockern $595,470 $1,188,632
Turning the Tides Winnipeg, MB 17 NCPC risk factors & Aboriginal teachings (i.e. "we are all related") $632,329 $916,275
West Central Youth Outreach Project Winnipeg, MB 15 Melanie Nimmos "The 'Invisible Gang' Member $572,208 $733,471
Mini-Poste Project (formerly P'tit Police) Montréal, QC 6 Gang Prevention through Targeted Outreach (GPTTO) $748,333 $924,508
Youth and Adult Anti-Gang Program (YOS) Niagara, ON 23.5 Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) $1,699,597 $1,867,836
Creating Healthy Aboriginal Role Models (CHARM) Vancouver, BC n/a Model not known $1,234,365 $1,798,750
Programme de suivi intensif de Montréal - Gangs de rue Montréal, QC n/a Model not known $7,498,336 $18,251,486
Seeds of Change Halifax, NS n/a n/a $693,009.10 n/a
Youth Gang-Related Projects Funded through the Crime Prevention Action Fund:
Name Location NCPC Contribution
My Regent Park Toronto, ON $2,156,376.35
Effective Community Response to Immigrant Youth Gang Crime Calgary, AB $1,169,061.88
Project Abbotsford, BC $586,824.00
Abbotsford Community Services Waterloo, ON $3,354,048.73
Waterloo Regional Gang Prevention Project Winnipeg, MB $1,086,230.08
Linking Refugee Youth and Families to Positive Social Supports The Pas, MB $649,888.76

Appendix C: Key Findings from the Interim Evaluation

Conclusions on Relevance

Canada's youth gang problem has escalated and continues to escalate

In 2009, three years after it began, the objectives of the YGPF remain highly relevant and more important than ever before. The youth gang problem appears to be more severe than ever before. Canada's crime statistics indicate that youth are increasingly involved in crime and that their rate of violent offending and homicide is higher than ever before. Crime prevention researchers also attest that youth gang activity is a significant and growing problem, and has been for the past 10 years or more. These facts point to the need for continued service provision to at-risk youth and youth involved in gangs.

Youth are using the services offered through the YGPF

The number of youth that are being served by YGPF-funded projects also indicates that it continues to be relevant. Projects funded by the YGPF have provided service to almost 1000 youth since the program began, and many of the projects are at or near their capacity. The demand for services is high, considering that capacity was reached quite quickly.

YGPF is not duplicated by other levels of government

The YGPF plays a unique role in the social program arena, and its role is not duplicated elsewhere. The YGPF is a program with a wide and longer-term scope, and its efforts to fund youth gang prevention projects are not duplicated by other levels of government. There are also few other gang prevention initiatives that have started since 2006, reinforcing the fact that the YGPF is leading the way in gang prevention in Canada, and that its efforts are not duplicated elsewhere. Many of the youth gang prevention programs that are funded by the YGPF would probably cease to operate without NCPC funding, or would have significantly reduced scope of activities.

YGPF is in the scope of broad government objectives

The YGPF continues to be relevant to broader government objectives. The YGPF's objectives are in line with Public Safety's objectives as stated in its 2009-2010 Report on Plans and Priorities, were congruent with the Government of Canada's priorities stated 2006 and 2007, were mentioned in the Performance: The Government of Canada's Contribution reports in 2005-2006 and 2007, and are also in accordance with the RCMP's Strategic Priorities.

Finally, the YGPF is relevant and important to its stakeholders and project managers, who mostly espouse positive views of the federal government's role in youth gang prevention through the YGPF. There is strong support of the government's involvement because it is the only organization that can provide long-term funding for such projects.

Conclusions on Program Design and Delivery

The selection process was effective in identifying appropriate projects to fund

The selection involving the provincial representatives was very effective, since the provinces have more familiarity with the areas and programs in need of funds. The drawbacks about the selection process related to the fact that it excluded smaller communities, that funds were not allocated per jurisdiction, and that the "first come first served" selection model lead to projects seeking approval before they were ready.

NCPC's roles and responsibilities were defined, but not communicated

The roles and responsibilities of the NCPC were well defined, but the roles and responsibilities were not adequately communicated to the funded projects, which were not aware of the NCPC's definitions concerning its own role. The communication problems affected program officers, also. Their roles were not clear, forcing them to make up roles as the program progressed.

The application and approval process was too lengthy and harmed service delivery

The application and approval process was onerous and in need of streamlining. Information about the approval process obtained from the file review indicates that more than three-quarters of projects had approval processes that took more than four months, and one-third took more than six months. The accountability process should be restructured - the bureaucracy of the process was seen as inhibiting programs' capacity to deliver services. The resources that were initially provided to funding applications were not clear, and resulted in delays from the review committee. Further guidance and better templates would have helped project contacts and program officers.

After project approval fund transfers also took too long

After the lengthy approval period, there were further delays in transferring funds to the projects. These delays negatively influenced morale in recipient communities, and created some pessimism about the NCPC and federal government's commitment to the projects. The volume of reporting required from projects is also excessive (quarterly accounting and activity reports, amounting to eight reports annually), and consumes resources that could be spent on service delivery.

Tools and resources to support projects were planned but not delivered successfully

While NCPC managers were generally confident that they had provided sufficient resources to execute their projects successfully, program officers noted that the projects did not receive enough support, that resources were probably provided to projects too late (i.e., after the program had begun), and that the training was not sufficiently specialized. This divergence of opinions between NCPC management and program officers suggests that the structures and directives for resource development were arranged by management, but that they were not followed-through with actions giving resources to the funded projects.

Project contacts had diverse experiences. In fact, there experiences were so divergent that we believe the NCPC did not have a clear process to deal with their needs. Some projects received funds for external training, while some received training from NCPC, and other received none at all. NCPC is advised to further investigate the reason for the diversity of experiences. Project contacts found the documents provided by NCPC to be helpful, and the most frequently requested resource was a conference for YGPF-funded project administrators to meet and share their experiences.

YGPF projects had the characteristics needed for funding

The projects funded by the YGPF included most of the characteristics that they were expected to have. The projects did screen and identify at-risk youth and youth involved in gangs; most projects provided some quantification to their risk assessments. The projects all addressed risk factors at multiple levels, and half addressed factors at all levels. Most projects appeared to be based on literature and/or best practices, although the file review did not provide a lot of information about the projects' foundations. The projects also evidenced a high degree of partnering with other community organizations.

NCPC produced documents to provide guidance in developing successful gang prevention and intervention projects

Our literature review identified a number of documents that were prepared by the NCPC for, which would have helped to develop effective, evidence-based projects. These documents are publicly available, in the expectation that they can influence the practice of gang prevention and intervention.

Funded projects delivered the appropriate services to the appropriate participants

YGPF-funded projects did deliver the required services to participants. They tended to deliver service using two models - intensive intervention only, or intensive intervention plus non-intensive service provision. Because of the different models, the number of participants in projects ranged from less than 10 to more than 100. The modal categories were 10 to 20 and 20 to 30. Project annual reports did not provide sufficient information about length of involvement to make conclusive statements about the length that youth had participated in the program, but figures presented regarding drop-out rates suggest that the participants are invested and engaged in the programs.

Positive impact on participants cannot be ascertained yet, but is on track to succeed

Qualitative information provided by key informants and in the Project Annual Reports indicates that positive changes are being observed among YGPF project participants. These improvements are being observed at all levels of risk factors. Because of the limited time that most projects have been operating, there is insufficient quantitative information available to make conclusions about the success of the program to date.

YGPF has not yet positively impacted Canada's literature on gangs, which remains limited

Canadian literature with primary research on gangs and gang prevention remains limited. Since the 2002 Canadian Police Survey on Youth Gangs, there has not been any attempt to quantify the scope of the youth gang problem at the national level. While the author of that report has produced some estimates of the youth gang scope in 2007, there has been no follow-up to the 2002 study conducted, leaving a large gap in Canada's knowledge about its current gang problem.

The published research from 2003 to date includes a number of reviews of programs and international research, some research on specific ethnic gang experiences, and some investigations of the predictors of gang membership and violence. The most substantial document produced in that time that would be helpful to inform the youth gang situation came from the Government of Ontario in the form of the Roots of Violence report.

Progress toward meeting longer-term objectives

Based on our evaluation, we are confident that YGPF has systems in place to ensure that the YGPF will continue toward reaching many of its longer-term objectives as far as program delivery is concerned. We have found that many projects have been funded and are operational, and that more will be in the near future. While there is not a lot of quantitative data concerning changes in risk and protective factors at this time, there is optimism expressed qualitatively.

On the knowledge development side of the program, we have some concerns about the knowledge dissemination activities of the YGPF-funded projects. To date, only about one-third of projects have engaged in community-level knowledge dissemination, and the remaining two-thirds did not address this component of the project in their Project Annual Reports. Without knowledge dissemination, the community-level changes that are anticipated in the logic model will not occur. Also, most YGPF projects have not engaged in the creation of primary Canadian research about youth gang prevention, and so the Canadian literature on the topic remains limited.

NCPC has provided YGPF-funded projects with a template for information capturing to ensure that projects are comparable over time and between each other. We have found, however, that the projects have not used these templates consistently, resulting in information that is disjointed and difficult to compile as a whole.

Recommendations

Based on our evaluation, we have the following recommendations:

Appendix D: Evaluation Matrix

Evaluation Matrix
  Indicators Document Review, Literature Review, and Internet Research G-CIMS Annual Project Eval Reports Compa-
rative
Analy-
sis		 Cost Effect-
iveness Analysis		 Interviews Focus Group - PT Stake-
holders
Program Mana-
gement		 Funded Recip-
ients		 Project Evalu-
ators [1]		 SMEs
Relevance
1 Is there a demonstrable societal need to address the issue of youth gangs in Canada?
(TBS core issue 1) 		1a Trend in size and severity of youth gang problem in Canada (ARAF, 1) 1) Interim evaluation report
2) Studies and surveys produced by NCPC and other research bodies since the interim evaluation		 x
1b Extent of societal impact and risk of not addressing youth gang issues 1) Literature from NCPC and internet search x x x x x
1 What aspects of the issue of youth gangs was the YGPF Program designed to address and does this response remain relevant? (TBS core issue 1) 1c Extent to which the program's objectives remain relevant (ARAF, 5) 1) Foundational documents
2) Business/ strategic plans
3) Interim evaluation of the YGPF
4) Terms and conditions for the contribution fund
1d Continued relevance of identified risk factors and protective factors to predict and prevent youth gang membership (ARAF, 13) 1) Studies and surveys produced by NCPC and other research bodies
2) Literature review		 x x x x x x
1e Level of demand for the program:
- number (%) of targeted youth being reached by funded projects (ARAF, 2)
- uptake
- waiting lists for projects
- participation rate		 x x
1f Evidence of emerging needs not addressed by the YGPF 1) Interim evaluation of the YGPF
2) Studies and surveys produced by NCPC and other research bodies		 x x x x x
2 Is there alignment between the YGPF Program objectives and i) federal government priorities and ii) the strategic outcomes of PS? (TBS core issue 2) 2a Level of commitment of the federal government to the issue of youth gang prevention 1) Strategic level government documents e.g. Speech from the Throne)
2) Foundational documents
3) Electoral platform (reiterated in 2008)
2b Degree of alignment between government Budgets and priorities that created the program and current Budgets and priorities 1) Throne Speeches 2005 to present
2) Foundational documents
2c Degree of alignment between PS strategic outcome and the program's objectives (ARAF, 6) 1) Foundational documents
2) PS Program Activity Architecture/ Departmental Performance Reports
3) ARAF
4) Interim evaluation of the YGPF
5) Terms and conditions for the contribution fund
3 Is it within the federal role and to deliver the YGPF Program? (TBS core issue 3) 3a Degree of duplication or overlap with other similar programs, policies or initiatives OR Size and scope of other gang initiatives (ARAF 3) 1) Interim evaluation of the YGPF
2) Studies and surveys produced by NCPC and other research bodies		 x x x x x x
3b Extent to which the level of involvement of the federal government and the role of other jurisdictions is appropriate to the program's issue and mandate (ARAF, 4) 1) Program committees (ARAF)
2) Applicable Acts
3) Other legislative/ mandate documents
4) Business/ strategic plans
5) Interim evaluation of the YGPF
6) Federal/ provincial/ territorial youth gang prevention policies and initiatives (ARAF)
Performance (effectiveness) 
4 To what extent has the YGPF Program progressed toward expected outcomes?
(TBS core issue 4)
4 - Extent to which there have been changes in engagement of youth and access to support services by project participants 4.1a # and type of support services and/or resources that are available to youth x
4.1b # of youth engaged in projects and accessing services and resources (ARAF, 9; ARAF. 11) x x
4.1c Drop out rate x
4.1d # and types of partners involved in projects x x
4.1e Extent to which the following support services are accessible and useful and whether there are existing gaps:
- support services provided by NCPC to project recipients
- support services delivered by the projects to participants		 1) Interim evaluation of the YGPF x
4 - Extent to which awareness and knowledge among project participants has changed 4.2a Perceptions of changes in knowledge and awareness among project participants a result of the program activities x x x
4 - Extent to which the body of knowledge and knowledge level among local/ provincial stakeholders has changed 4.3a # and type of knowledge transfer activities delivered by projects: (e.g. resources developed and disseminated; training sessions held; networks created; consultations provided) x
4.3b Existence of current and comprehensive information on the nature of gang phenomenon in Canada (ARAF, 14) 1) Environmental scan of Canadian gang research and knowledge base (ARAF)
4.3c Existence of a compendium of good and promising practices in gang prevention based on current research and practice (ARAF, 15) 1) Environmental scan of Canadian gang research and knowledge base (ARAF)
4.3d Perceptions of changes in the knowledge of community organizations and PT stakeholders as a result of the YGPF 1) Interim evaluation x x x x x
4 - Extent to which there has been a change in behaviour among program participants 4.4a # and % of participants demonstrating positive changes against risk factors addressed by the project (individual, peer, family, school, community) x
4.4b Perceptions of the level of behaviour change among program participants x x
4 Extent to which involvement in youth gangs has changed (intermediate and long-term outcome) (ARAF) 4.5a Change in # youth joining gangs and exiting gangs (ARAF, 16, 17) x
4 Extent to which there have been changes in the community response to gangs. (Intermediate outcome) (ARAF) 4.6a Evidence of effective crime prevention practices aimed at gang-related crimes in communities, including those without YGPF projects (ARAF, 25) 1) Studies and surveys produced by NCPC and other research bodies
4.6b Perceptions regarding possible sustainability/ transferability of the YGPF project model (the availability of organizations and resources within the community or other communities to do so) x x x x x
4 Are there any challenges or unintended impacts as a result of the YGFP program? 4.7a Perceptions of challenges and unintended impacts x x x x x
Performance (efficiency and economy) 
5 Has the YGPF Program reached youth in a cost-efficient manner? (TBS core issue 5) 5.1a Cost per youth reached compared among projects based on three project models: wraparound, educational model, recreational/ outreach model x x
5.1b Cost per youth reached compared to similar research initiatives in other countries (as available) x
5 Is the contribution fund being administered efficiently? (TBS core issue 5) 5.2a Trend in administration costs of the YGPF x
5.2b Perceptions of whether the program is being delivered efficiently and examples of measures or alternatives to improve efficiency x x
5 Given early success, what is the potential return on investment? (TBS core issue 5) 5.3a Potential cost savings to the correctional system based on the # of youth demonstrating behaviour change 1) Cost savings as identified through literature review or previous studies x x x x
5.3b # of projects demonstrating early success compared to other similar initiatives x N/A
5.3c Cost per project demonstrating early success and perceptions of the likelihood that the model will be sustained/ adopted elsewhere x x
5.3d Cost per youth indicating changed behaviour compared to other initiatives N/A x
5.3e Comparisons with other types of responses to gang related crime and victimization (ARAF, 34) 1) Studies and surveys produced by NCPC and other research bodies N/A

[1] The six interviewees included two who were also subject matter experts as well as project evaluators.

ARAF: Accountability, Risk and Audit Framework
G-CIMS: Grants and Contributions Information Management System

Appendix E: List of Documents Reviewed

List of Documents Reviewed
Document List Date
Addressing Youth Gang Problems: An Overview of Programs and Practices 2008
An Examination of Youth and Gang Affiliation within the Federally Sentenced Aboriginal Population 2009
Attachment to this report - Application Attributes
Benefits & Costs of Prevention and Early Intervention Programs for Youth 2004
Benefits & Costs Of Prevention And Early Intervention Programs for Youth App. A 2004
Conservative Party Platform 2008 2010
Cost-Benefit Economics (power point presentation regarding preventative juvenile justice programs) 2005
Costs of Juvenile Crime in Urban Areas: A Longitudinal Perspective 2008
Crime Prevention in Action information sheets (n=17)
Evidence-Based Juvenile Offender Programs: Program Description, Quality Assurance & Cost 2007
Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Crime and Criminal Justice Costs: Implications in Washington State 2005
Families, Youth and Delinquency: The State Of Knowledge, and Family-Based Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Programs 2008
"Feature Focus: Youth Gangs and Guns"; RCMP Environmental Scan; 2006 2006
Foundational Documents 2006
FPT Policies, Strategies, Actions and Initiatives to Address Youth Gang Issues
Gangs - General Information 2009
Gangs de jeunes - quelques information 2010
NCPC Internal Youth Gang Network, Meeting Minutes- April 22, 2010 2010
NCPC Internal Youth Gang Network, Meeting Minutes- March 25, 2010 2010
NCPC Internal Youth Gang Network, Meeting November 26, 2009 2009
NCPC Knowledge Strategy for Youth Gangs (DRAFT), January, 2009 2009
NCPC Model Programs Networks - Overview 2010
NCPC Staff Youth Gang Network Meeting, October 22, 2009 2009
NCPC Youth Gang Network Terms of Reference
NCPC Youth Gang Symposium, March 9-10, 2010, Toronto 2010
New Evidence on the Monetary Value of Saving a High Risk Youth 2008
Notes from the March 9-10 Youth Gang Symposium 2010
Performance Monitoring Reports by Project
Profile of Youth Gangs in Canada 2010
Progress Evaluation of the Youth Gang Prevention Fund Projects: A Synthesis of 2010 Annual Evaluation Reports (DRAFT), T. Hunsley, May 19, 2010 2010
Project Evaluation Reports (Annual and Final reports) 2010
Promising and Model Crime Prevention Programs 2008
PS DPR 2008/09 2009
PS RPP 2009/10 2009
PS RPP 2010/11 2010
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act c-10 2009
School-Based Drug Abuse Prevention: Promising and Successful Programs 2009
Self-Reported Violent Delinquency and the Influence of School, Neighbourhood & Student Characteristics 2009
Speech from the Throne - 2010 2010
Terms and Conditions for the Contribution Funding under the YGPF 2006
The Breaking the Cycle Youth Gang Exit and Ambassador Leadership Program 2009
YGPF Interim Evaluation
YGPF NCPC Staff Network, Conference call Monday, October 5, 2009 2009
YGPF Representatives Call, Meeting August 27th, 2009 2009
YGPF Representatives Call, Meeting June 26th, 2009 2009
Youth Custody and Community Services in Canada, 2008/09 2010
Youth Gang Network, Summary of Meeting, April 23, 2009 2009
Youth Gang Prevention Project Network, Meeting January 28th, 2010 2010
Youth Gang Prevention Project Network, Meeting October 8th, 2009 2009
Youth Gangs in Canada - What Are the Risk Factors? 2007
Youth Gangs in Canada - What Do We Know? 2007
Youth Gangs in Canada: A Content Analysis of Canadian Newspaper Coverage 2010

Appendix F: Interview Guides

Interview Guide for Project Evaluators/Subject Matter Experts

Public Safety Canada is conducting an evaluation of the Youth Gang Prevention Fund (YGPF) program, including the contribution fund itself and the program activities of the National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC) related to administration of the fund and to knowledge development and transfer. The purpose of the evaluation is to examine the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the program.

The objectives of the YGPF are as follows:

As part of the evaluation, we are conducting interviews with key stakeholders involved in the YGPF program. The goal of the interviews is to gain a better understanding of the program, collect information to assess the success of the program, and identify possible alternatives or improvements to the program. The following questions will serve as a guide for the interview which will take up to an hour and a half.

Background

1. To begin, we would like to know about your relationship to the YGPF program and to youth gang issues in general. As a subject matter expert, how long have you been involved in this area?

Relevance

2. What is the potential impact of not addressing the issue of youth gangs in Canada?

  1. on society
  2. on youth
  3. on communities

3. Do you see any evidence of emerging needs with respect to youth gangs that should be addressed by the YGPF program or the funded projects? Please explain.

4. Are you aware of other programs, policies or initiatives that address youth gang issues (either at the federal, provincial or municipal level) in Canada? If yes, please describe (size and scope). In what ways, if any, do these duplicate or complement the YGPF?

  1. Are you aware of similar initiatives in other countries?

5. Please refer to the key risk factors currently being addressed by YGPF funded projects that are listed in Annex A.

  1. Can you provide us with some insight into how the risk factors that your project set out to address were initially selected? To what extent do you think these risk factors continue to be relevant in addressing youth gang issues for your project?
  2. In general, to what extent do you think the risk factors in Annex A continue to be relevant in addressing youth gang issues in the Canadian context? (i.e. are they effective in predicting and preventing youth gang membership).
  3. On what do you base your opinion (e.g. studies, emerging research)?

Performance (effectiveness)

The YGPF has two outcome streams:

6. Please complete the following table. Since the beginning of your project, to what extent do you believe there have been changes to the following due to the funded interventions?

Performance rating of funded projects
  0
No success or negative effects		 1
Some
success		 2
Moderate
success		 3
Advanced
success		 Cannot assess
a) Behaviour of project participants, for example:
  • problem-solving
  • anger management skills
  • school achievement
  • involvement in pro-social activities
  • decreased substance abuse
  • employment
  • gang membership
b) Level of knowledge among project participants for example
  • awareness of consequences of gang involvement
  • awareness of other opportunities and supports
  • adopt less positive attitude towards gangs
  • other motivation to change behaviour
c) Level of awareness of the youth gang phenomenon:
  • within the local community as a result of knowledge transfer activities that have been delivered by the project
  • among a wider group of stakeholders as a result of knowledge transfer activities by the NCPC

For your answers in a) to c), please provide evidence and/or examples to support your views (For example, "community knowledge has increased through publications, conference presentations, media interviews")

7. When the project(s) end, what is the likelihood that the model(s) will be sustained/adopted elsewhere in Canada? Are community resources and organizations available to sustain or transfer this model?

Performance (efficiency and economy)

8. Are you aware of any studies that quantify the potential cost savings of preventing youth gang involvement (e.g. savings to the correctional system)? Is there any other literature that you recommend we review during our evaluation?

9. Have there been any challenges or unintended impacts as a result of the YGPF? What, if anything, is needed to address these? What could be done differently that would save time or money?

10. Is there anything else you would like to add?

Key Risk Factors Being Addressed by YGPF Projects

(Included as Annex A in the Interview Guide)

Individual Risk Factors

Peer Risk Factors

Family Risk Factors

School Risk Factors

Community Risk Factors

Appendix F: Interview Guides (continued)

Interview Guide for Project Evaluators and Funded Recipients

Public Safety Canada is conducting an evaluation of the Youth Gang Prevention Fund (YGPF) program, including the contribution fund itself and the program activities of the National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC) related to administration of the fund and to knowledge development and transfer. The purpose of the evaluation is to examine the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the program.

The objectives of the YGPF are as follows:

As part of the evaluation, we are conducting interviews with key stakeholders involved in the YGPF program. The goal of the interviews is to gain a better understanding of the program, collect information to assess the success of the program, and identify possible alternatives or improvements to the program. The following questions will serve as a guide for the interview which will take up to an hour and a half.

Background

1. To begin, we would like to know about your relationship to the YGPF program and to youth gang issues in general. How long have you been involved in the program and what has been your role?

Relevance

2. What is the potential impact of not addressing the issue of youth gangs in Canada?

  1. on society
  2. on youth
  3. on communities

3. Do you see any evidence of emerging needs with respect to youth gangs that should be addressed by the YGPF program or the funded projects? Please explain.

4. Are you aware of other programs, policies or initiatives that address youth gang issues (either at the federal, provincial or municipal level) in Canada? If yes, please describe (size and scope). In what ways, if any, do these duplicate or complement the YGPF?

  1. Are you aware of similar initiatives in other countries?

5. Can you provide us with some insight into how the risk factors that your project set out to address were initially selected? To what extent do you think these risk factors continue to be relevant in addressing youth gang issues for your project? What about in the Canadian context in general?

Performance (effectiveness)

The YGPF has two outcome streams:

6. Please complete the following table. Since the beginning of your project, to what extent do you believe there have been changes to the following due to the funded interventions?

Performance rating of funded projects
  0
No success or negative effects		 1
Some
success		 2
Moderate
success		 3
Advanced
success		 Cannot assess
a) Behaviour of project participants, for example:
  • problem-solving
  • anger management skills
  • school achievement
  • involvement in pro-social activities
  • decreased substance abuse
  • employment
  • gang membership
b) Level of knowledge among project participants for example
  • awareness of consequences of gang involvement
  • awareness of other opportunities and supports
  • adopt less positive attitude towards gangs
  • other motivation to change behaviour
c) Level of awareness of the youth gang phenomenon:

 - within the local community as a result of knowledge transfer activities that have been delivered by the project

- among a wider group of stakeholders as a result of knowledge transfer activities by the NCPC

For your answers in a) to c), please provide evidence and/or examples to support your views (For example, "community knowledge has increased through publications, conference presentations, media interviews")

7. When the project(s) end, what is the likelihood that the model(s) will be sustained/adopted elsewhere in Canada? Are community resources and organizations available to sustain or transfer this model?

Performance (efficiency and economy)

8. Have there been any challenges or unintended impacts as a result of the YGPF? What, if anything, is needed to address these? What could be done differently that would save time or money?

9. Is there anything else you would like to add?

Appendix F: Interview Guides (continued)

Interview Guide for Subject Matter Experts

Public Safety Canada is conducting an evaluation of the Youth Gang Prevention Fund (YGPF) program, including the contribution fund itself and the program activities of the National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC) related to administration of the fund and to knowledge development and transfer. The purpose of the evaluation is to examine the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the program.

The objectives of the YGPF are as follows:

As part of the evaluation, we are conducting interviews with key stakeholders involved in the YGPF program. The goal of the interviews is to gain a better understanding of the program, collect information to assess the success of the program, and identify possible alternatives or improvements to the program. The following questions will serve as a guide for the interview which will take up to an hour and a half.

Background

1. To begin, we would like to know about your relationship to the YGPF program and to youth gang issues in general. How long have you been involved in this area?

Relevance

2. What is the potential impact of not addressing the issue of youth gangs in Canada?

  1. on society
  2. on youth
  3. on communities

3. Do you see any evidence of emerging needs with respect to youth gangs that should be addressed by the YGPF program or the funded projects? Please explain.

4. Are you aware of other programs, policies or initiatives that address youth gang issues (either at the federal, provincial or municipal level) in Canada? If yes, please describe (size and scope). In what ways, if any, do these duplicate or complement the YGPF?

  1. Are you aware of similar initiatives in other countries?

5. Please refer to the key risk factors currently being addressed by YGPF funded projects that are listed in Annex A.

  1. In general, to what extent do you think the risk factors in Annex A continue to be relevant in addressing youth gang issues in the Canadian context? (i.e. are they effective in predicting and preventing youth gang membership).
  2. On what do you base your opinion (e.g. studies, emerging research)?

Performance (effectiveness)

The YGPF has two outcome streams:

6. Since the beginning of your project, to what extent do you believe there have been changes due to the YGPF in the following areas?:

Performance rating of changes due to YGPF funded projects
  0
No success or negative effects		 1
Some
success		 2
Moderate
success		 3
Advanced
success		 Cannot assess
a) Level of awareness of the youth gang phenomenon:

- within the local community as a result of knowledge transfer activities that have been delivered by the project

- among a wider group of stakeholders as a result of knowledge transfer activities by the NCPC

For your answers in a), please provide evidence and/or examples to support your views (For example, "community knowledge has increased through publications, conference presentations, media interviews")

7. When the project(s) under the YGPF end, what is the likelihood that the project models will be sustained/adopted elsewhere in Canada? Please elaborate. Are community resources and organizations available to sustain or transfer this model?

Performance (efficiency and economy)

8. Are you aware of any studies that quantify the potential cost savings of preventing youth gang involvement (e.g. savings to the correctional system)? Is there any other literature that you recommend we review during our evaluation?

9. Is there anything else you would like to add?

Key Risk Factors Being Addressed by YGPF Projects

(Included as Annex A in the Interview Guide)

Individual Risk Factors

Peer Risk Factors

Family Risk Factors

School Risk Factors

Community Risk Factors

Appendix F: Interview Guides (continued)

Interview Guide for Program Management

Public Safety Canada is conducting an evaluation of the Youth Gang Prevention Fund (YGPF) program, including the contribution fund itself and the program activities of the National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC) related to administration of the fund and to knowledge development and transfer. The purpose of the evaluation is to examine the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the program.

The objectives of the YGPF are as follows:

As part of the evaluation, we are conducting interviews with key stakeholders involved in the YGPF program. The goal of the interviews is to gain a better understanding of the program, collect information to assess the success of the program, and identify possible alternatives or improvements to the program. The following questions will serve as a guide for the interview which will take up to an hour and a half.

Background

1. To begin, we would like to know about your relationship to the YGPF program and to youth gang issues in general. How long have you been involved in the program and what has been your role?

Relevance

2. What is the potential impact of not addressing the issue of youth gangs in Canada?

  1. on society
  2. on youth
  3. on communities

3. Do you see any evidence of emerging needs with respect to youth gangs that should be addressed by the YGPF program or the funded projects? Please explain.

  1. Do you think filling these gaps would be an appropriate role for the federal government? Why or why not?

4. Are you aware of other programs, policies or initiatives that address youth gang issues (either at the federal, provincial or municipal level) in Canada? If yes, please describe (size and scope). In what ways, if any, do these duplicate or complement the YGPF?

  1. Are you aware of similar initiatives in other countries?

5. Please refer to the key risk factors currently being addressed by YGPF funded projects that are listed in Annex A.

  1. In general, to what extent do you think the risk factors in Annex A continue to be relevant in addressing youth gang issues in the Canadian context? (i.e. are they effective in predicting and preventing youth gang membership).
  2. On what do you base your opinion (e.g. studies, emerging research)?

6. Have there been any challenges or unintended impacts as a result of the YGPF? What, if anything, is needed to address these?

7. In what ways has the NCPC contributed to the knowledge base related to the youth gang phenomena in Canada? Has any feedback been gathered from recipients of knowledge products in order to determine how useful products have been?

8. Besides what we have already been provided by NCPC, is there any literature that you recommend we review during our evaluation?

9. Is there anything else you would like to add?

Key Risk Factors Being Addressed by YGPF Projects

(Included as Annex A in the Interview Guide)

Individual Risk Factors

Peer Risk Factors

Family Risk Factors

School Risk Factors

Community Risk Factors

Appendix G: Cost-Effectiveness Methodology

Discussion Paper on the Assessment of Efficiency and Economy of the Youth Gang Prevention Fund Program

1. Introduction

This paper presents a discussion on how to assess efficiency and economy of the Youth Gang Prevention Fund (YGPF) Program in order to address Treasury Board Secretariat Core Issue 5: Performance (Efficiency and Economy) - Assessment of resource utilization related to the production of outputs and progress toward expected outcomes.

2. Background

A revised Evaluation Policy came into effect in April 2009. Under the 2009 Evaluation Policy, core evaluation issues are grouped under two general headings--relevance and performance. Performance is defined as the "extent to which effectiveness, efficiency and economy are achieved by a program."Note 77 Further, effectiveness is defined to be "the extent to which a program is achieving expected outcomes"; efficiency is defined to be maximizing the outputs produced with a fixed level of inputs or minimizing the inputs used to produce a fixed level of outputs (paraphrase); and economy is defined to be "minimizing the use of resources [...] to achieve expected outcomes". Therefore, for the purposes of the Evaluation Policy, performance is demonstrated when:

  1. a program is achieving expected outcomes (effectiveness);
  2. outputs are produced at minimum cost (efficiency); and
  3. outcomes are produced at minimum cost (economy).

These concepts are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Relationships between Effectiveness, Efficiency and Economy

Relationships between Effectiveness, Efficiency and Economy

Image Description

Four boxes are aligned horizontally: inputs lead to activities, activities lead to output, and outputs lead to outcomes. Economy links inputs and outcomes, efficiency links inputs and outputs, and effectiveness is linked to outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) consists of calculating the cost of producing a unit of outcome (or, in some cases, output) and is consequently key to the assessment of program performance and value for money. In order to draw conclusions on the degree to which a program or initiative is achieving value-for-money a comparison is required as there is no absolute level of cost-effectiveness. A comparison of the cost of producing a unit of outcome to unit costs under alternative approaches or benchmarks from other similar programs will support conclusions on efficiency, economy and value for money.

3. Evaluating Efficiency and Economy of the YGPF Program

As mentioned, the focus of this discussion paper is on the assessment of efficiency and economy for the YGFP since effectiveness is addressed elsewhere in the evaluation methodology.

The typical steps in CEA are described below as well as the specific approach proposed for YGPF Program.

i) Defining the objectives of the exercise

CEA can be used for a number of different purposes: to sustain support for an existing program; to assess the potential impact of a new program or service; or to assess alternative approaches.Note 78 The purpose of the exercise will influence the approach to be used, including the degree of detail required and the level of rigour of the analysis.

In the case of the YGPF Program, the objective is to draw conclusions on efficiency and economy and the extent to which YGPF Program provides value for money. The YGPF Program has two key outcome streams in its program theory. The first of these outcome streams is related to behaviour change among funded project participants (youth) while the second is related to increasing knowledge of the youth gang phenomena and how to address the issue in Canada (knowledge transfer stream). To simplify the analysis and increase the chances of identifying comparable programs, it is proposed that a single indicator be chosen related to the first outcome stream when comparing to other programs. While a single indicator will not fully represent YGPF Program, it will be indicative and assist in drawing conclusions on value for money related to the changes in participant behaviour. It is important to note that the knowledge transfer outcomes related to the YGPF Program are a very important part of the program; however, based on our data assessment to date, we do not believe that the success of this outcome will be as quantifiable/ comparable as the outcomes related to the behaviour of youth participants in funded projects. Having said this, we propose that the efficiency of the knowledge transfer activities be simply assessed by measuring the cost and reach of knowledge transfer activities over time.

ii) Measuring outcomes

CEA requires that outcomes be expressed in common units, so that different initiatives may be compared. The choice of outcome unit is naturally dependent upon the nature of the program. CEA has been widely used in health and education, where outcomes can be measured in terms of increased years of lifespan, or improved academic standing.Note 79

The outcomes/outputs selected should be significant (in terms of the objectives of the program) and measurable. Some programs do not produce quantifiable outcomes, and cannot be the subject of CEA. Clyne and Edwards have argued that final (long-term) outcomes are preferable in economic evaluations, as they best demonstrate the intended purpose of a program.Note 80 However, it is often more difficult to link longer-term outcomes to programs, particularly for smaller programs with modest budgets. As a result, intermediate or short-term outcomes may be substituted.

In the case of the YGFP a quantifiable measure of success of both intermediate and long term outcome level outcome "youth disengage from gangs" is the "number of youth disengaged from gangs". Finally, we expect that there are comparable programs in other jurisdictions that have the objective of convincing youth to disengage from gangs and that they are most likely to be able to provide quantitative data on this single outcome.

iii) Determining costs

Calculating the costs of a program can often be challenging, with each program presenting unique difficulties. The costs to be included in the calculation will vary depending on the purpose of the analysis and the perspective to be adopted. Decisions must be made prior to proceeding, including, for example, whether costs should be estimated from the perspective of the government as a whole, or from the point of view of a particular agency or department.

In the case of the YGPF Program, we propose to use the cost of the funded contribution projects in calculating the cost per disengaged youth. The cost of knowledge transfer activities would be excluded as these activities do not directly contribute to this outcome. Once comparable programs in other jurisdictions have been identified, further adjustments to the cost elements included in the analysis may be required to ensure comparability of the results.

Further, in terms of assessing potential value for money, it can be argued that each youth that has disengaged from a gang has potentially prevented costs to the criminal justice system. It is expected that the probability of a disengaged youth gang member causing cost savings to be realized by the correctional system might be confirmed through literature review and/or available statistical information from the National Crime Prevention Centre, Correctional Service (CSC) of Canada or Statistics Canada. We are currently investigating whether cost savings of this potential crime reduction can be obtained from any of these sources.

iv) Calculating unit costs and drawing conclusions

Cost-effectiveness is assessed using ratios of cost/outcome (an "economy" measure). Alternatively, ratios of cost/output can be used to measure "efficiency", a measure that can be adopted in the absence of outcome data. A decision regarding the degree to which a program or initiative is achieving value-for-money requires some sort of comparison. There is no absolute level of cost-effectiveness.

For the YGPF Program, the unit cost to be calculated is the cost per youth that has disengaged from a gang. Calculating the cost per youth disengaged as a result of comparable programs in other jurisdictions will show whether YGPF Program is more or less efficient that these other programs. In addition, if the study is able to quantify the savings accrued to the correctional system associated with youth disengaging from gangs, a comparison against the unit cost may be made to see if the YGPF Program is "breaking even".

In terms of assessing the efficiency of knowledge transfer activities, we plan to assess the trend over time in the number of people reached through knowledge transfer activities versus the trend in the amount of money spent on knowledge transfer activities.

4. Alternative Approaches

Cost-effectiveness analysis is labour-intensive and demanding in terms of data. If cost-effectiveness is not feasible or not considered necessary to address Core Issue 5: Performance (Efficiency and Economy), the cost saving achieved by YGPF Program could be assessed as an alternative. This approach would involve asking interviewees to provide:

Attempts would be made to corroborate interview information with available financial information.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis - Steps

  1. Develop a costing template; assess data availability and quality for the chosen indicator (# of youth exiting gangs);
  2. Conduct a literature review to determine a list of comparable organizations and to understand if cost savings information regarding youth not entering the correctional system is available.
  3. Develop criteria to select three to four programs in other jurisdictions with the following dual comparable objectives:
    1. knowledge transfer and;
    2. funding pilot projects that test evidence-based approached to youth exiting gangs
  4. Gather cost information from Public Safety Canada; Interview representatives of other organizations and request their co-operation in completing the costing template.
  5. Review documents provided by interviewees and through further internet research and follow-up with interviewees to obtain completed costing templates.
  6. Analyze the information and calculate and compare unit costs.

Appendix H: Return on Investment Analysis

Regina Anti-gang Services Project, Saskatchewan

Crime Career of Non-Gang Members

Crime Career of Gang Members

Probability of Crime Resulting in Arrest and Court Appearance

Court Statistics

Federal Incarceration Cost per Non-Gang Member

Federal Incarceration Cost per Gang Member

Project Costs

Cost Savings Per Gang Exit

Youth Alliance against Gang Violence, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan

Crime Career of Non-Gang Members

Crime Career of Gang Members

Probability of Crime Resulting in Arrest and Court Appearance

Court Statistics

Federal Incarceration Cost per Non-Gang Member

Federal Incarceration Cost per Gang Member

Project Costs

Cost Savings Per Gang Exit

Notes:

  1. The inception documents state that gang members are six times as likely as non-gang members to commit a crime.
  2. The inception documents state that gang members are likely to commit between 3 and 7 times as many crimes as non-gang members. A figure of six has been chosen for the model.
  3. In 2008, 167,500 youth committed a crime, out of a total population of 4.2 million youth aged 15 to 24, for a probability of 3.9%. (Andrea Taylor-Butts. "Where and when youth commit police-reported crimes, 2008" Juristat Vol. 30, no.2 pg. 6. Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Population , Statistics Canada catalogue no. 97-564-XCB200609)
  4. The 167,500 youth committed 204,424 crimes, for an average crime per youth of 1.2. (Ibid. pg. 22)
  5. As of 2005. (Statistics Canada Criminal Justice Indicators 2005 Catalogue no. 85-227-XIE pg. 13)
  6. The total number of adult criminal court cases hear in 2008/09 was 390,000. (Jennifer Thomas "Adult criminal court statistics, 2008/2009" Juristat Vol. 30, no2. pg. 5)
  7. 1.16 million charges / 2.5 report crimes=2.97
  8. (Jennifer Thomas pg. 5)
  9. 1.1 million charges / 2.5 million reported crimes
  10. (Jennifer Thomas. pg. 5)
  11. (Mikhail Thomas "Adult Criminal Court Statistics 2003/04" Juristat vol. 24, no 12. pg 1.)
  12. For gang members, Probability of Committing a Crime x Probability of a Court Appearance x Probability of Being Found Guilty x Probability of Court Sentence
  13. For non-gang members, Probability of Committing a Crime x Probability of a Court Appearance x Probability of Being Found Guilty x Probability of Court Sentence
  14. The probability of at least one crime resulting in incarceration, or 1-Probability of no jail time. 1-((1-(P(Incarceration|Gang Member)/Probability of Committing a Crime))^Number of Crimes Committed)
  15. A higher value has been given due to the criminal background and serious nature of crimes committed.
  16. Correctional Service Canada

Appendix I: List of Canadian Youth/Gang Related Programs

List of Canadian Youth/Gang Related Programs
Province Name Description
Quebec Quebec Provincial Intervention Plan on Street Gangs (Plan d'intervention québécois sur les gangs de rue 2007-2010) The Plan contains a four-pronged approach including: suppression, prevention and intervention, research and analysis as well as training and communication.
Service de police de la ville de Montréal (SPVM) Integrated Approach Created posters, questionnaires and brochures to enhance community awareness.
Public Security's Street Gang Task Force, created under the Comité de coordination des efforts de lutte au crime organizés Helps to identify and develop action plans to combat street gangs.
Ontario The Provincial Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy (PAVIS) An intelligence-based anti-violence strategy, mobilizing the community and providing proactive enforcement to target street gang activity across the province.
Provincial Integrated Guns and Gangs Task Force Assists in the identification of gang members through intelligence gathering.
Toronto Anti-Guns and Gangs Task Force Police and Crown prosecutors work together to effectively investigate and prosecute cases involving guns and gangs. The Crowns provide early legal advice and can obtain authorization for wiretaps to speed along investigations. After charges are laid by the police, the Crowns will lead to prosecutions.
Victim and witness service staff Provide support for at-risk youth, youth already involved in gangs, and their families.
Provincial Operations Centre In 2006, the Toronto police service created a Provincial Operations Centre that serves as a hub for coordinated investigations and prosecutions of gun and gang-related crimes. The Guns and Gangs Task Force and other partners have been incorporated into the centre.
• Ottawa Police Direct Action Response Team (DART) Plays a proactive role in prevention, intervention and diversion strategies in each community within Ottawa. Establishes a police presence through frequent community patrol and works closely with Ottawa communities to gauge and reduce street gang activity.
The Ontario Gang Investigators Association (ONGIA) Hosts regular large-scale conferences and training seminars on gang-related issues. The association also created the website Voices of Youth (www.notogangs.org), a forum featuring anonymous youth testimonials. The goal is to facilitate policy changes.
Guns and Gangs Operations Centre In 2007 a Guns and Gangs Operations Centre dedicated to the investigation of gun and gang crimes was created.
Manitoba Manitoba Youth Gang Reduction Strategy Focuses on the prevention, intervention and suppression of street gang activity. Works in partnership with other provincial anti-gang programs: Lighthouse, Choices, Turnabout, Violence Is Not the Answer.
Ototema: Young Offender Mentoring A young offender mentoring program in Winnipeg that addresses young female and male offenders' need for social support while also meeting probation requirements. The mentors provide young women and men, many of whom are involved in gangs, with support needed to make healthy choices about family, school, employment, substance abuse and other activities in order to reduce the potential for re-offence.
The Spotlight Unit Program A Winnipeg Youth Probation Services Unit that supervises up to 60 high-risk male youth offenders who are on a Court Order and meet the Provincial gang membership criteria. Services are provided to the client and the client's family members by Probation Officers, Street Mentors, a Supervision Worker and a Family Therapist.
Manitoba Justice - Gang Prevention Network To bring together local agencies that are currently working with youth and families to address gang concerns. The network meets quarterly and has included approximately 35 agencies as well as government and law enforcement officials. There has also been representation by some agencies outside of Winnipeg. This network discusses collective concerns; shares information on available programming and new initiatives in the Province as well as using the time to network with other agencies.
Manitoba Justice - Crime Prevention Unit Working in partnership with the Healthy Child Manitoba Office to design, implement and share information across government on evidence-based crime prevention approaches. This involves working with other provincial partners such as Manitoba Health/Healthy Living, Education Citizenship and Youth, Neighbourhoods Alive!, and Family Services and Housing.
Project Gang-Proof Raises public awareness via a series of information pieces and a province wide resource line that answers many questions the public commonly asks about street gangs. Project Gang-Proof consists of a toll-free resource line, handbook for families and communities, a fact sheet for parents and guardians and a pamphlet on how to get out of a gang. The material content is based on input from Justice staff and multiple departments, law enforcement agencies and research.
stayoutofgangs.ca Web based awareness initiative aimed at providing information on the realities of joining a gang.
Saskatchewan The Saskatoon Gang Strategy Created in 2006 in response to criminal activity associated with gangs in Saskatoon. The objectives of the gang strategy are to increase public awareness of gang-related problems, address the factors that encourage gang membership, help members leave the gang lifestyle and suppress gang-related crime. As part of the strategy, officers provide awareness presentations to schools and businesses
Alberta Alberta Gang Crime Suppression Initiative (AGCSI) Developed a provincial gang suppression strategy to counter the growing threat of gangs and gang crime in Alberta.
Edmonton Community Solution to Gang Violence (CSGV) Focuses on the community's role in addressing gang violence by creating a network support and planning system to find solutions to gang violence. Promotes positive youth development and prevention tactics, as well as provide support for families and at-risk youth.
Four working groups Focus on community awareness, early prevention, engaging youth and influencing government policy.
Gang Prevention and Intervention Matrix (online) (http://www.csgv.ca/matrix.php) designed to gather information on agencies, programs, services and best practices to help at-risk youth develop positively.
Calgary Police Service Developed a Calgary Gang Strategy in 2006. The strategy is a four-point strategy which includes education, prevention, disruption and investigation. To prevent youth involvement with gangs, the Calgary Police Service works closely with youth who are associating with gangs and those at risk of being recruited. The prevention component of the strategy includes three areas: Connecting with the Community, which helps communities to become involved in addressing the problem. Working with Youth, which includes several long-standing programs aimed at youth such as School Resource Officers, and Youth Education and Intervention officers who provide educational sessions to Junior High students, and their primary presentation topics are gangs and drug education/awareness, and the Monitoring Known Offenders. Through ongoing investigation and observation, they work to stay one step ahead of the gangs.
British Columbia Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General in partnership with the Inter-ministry Committee on the Prevention of Youth Violence and Crime $2 million four-year strategy (2006-2010) to prevent youth gang violence through education, law enforcement and youth and community partners. This strategy was developed in 2006, in response to incidents of gang violence witnessed by communities across B.C. This strategy includes the Youth against Violence Line, a toll-free, multilingual phone line available to youth 24/7 to report crime or ask for help. The strategy supports the direct efforts of eight local communities in developing community plans to prevent youth gang violence, and best practices will be shared with other B.C. communities.
Safe Streets and Safe and Safe Schools grant Provide $150,000 a year toward community and crime prevention initiatives.
Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, Victim Services and Crime Prevention Division Published a document on Preventing Youth Involvement in Gangs. This booklet is designed to assist service providers, parents, teachers, and others who are working to help prevent youth form becoming involved in gangs or to help them leave gangs.
RCMP
Federal Department Name Description
RCMP Strategic Priorities (2 of 5) Organized Crime (reduce the threat and impact of organized crime)
Youth (reduce youth involvement in crime as victims and offenders)
Publications A Research Report on Youth Gangs: Problems, Perspective and Priorities (2007)
Feature Focus 2006: Youth Gangs & Guns
Youth priority The objectives of the Youth priority are to:
  • to reduce youth involvement in crime, both as victims and offenders;
  • to support sustainable long-term responses to youth crime and victimization;
  • to support approaches that are consistent with youth justice law;
  • to focus on risk factors, prevention and early intervention; and
  • to promote youth engagement.
National Youth Strategy Part of this Strategy includes designating a youth contact in every province and territory, who supports the development of national youth programs and policy and oversees local initiatives.
National Youth Officer Program The RCMP educates front-line officers about what causes youth crime and what police and young people can do about it. The accompanying Youth Officer Resource Centre provides officers with tools and resources to assist them when they interact with youth in schools and in the community.
Deal.org A by-youth, for-youth website, helps facilitate the youth engagement process and works to raise awareness on topics such as bullying, internet safety, gangs and impaired driving, among others.
Community Cadet Corps Developed and implemented by the RCMP in some First Nations communities (including Hobbema, Alberta):
  • a comprehensive crime reduction initiative educating Aboriginal youth on the dangers of gang activity, drug abuse and associated violence.
  • recruits young Aboriginal people and advises them on positive choices and alternatives to overcome daily negative obstacles that prevent them from obtaining future education and career opportunities.
  • in partnership with the youth, community and police, it provides culturally tailored guidance, knowledge, trust, respect, discipline, experience and strength to everyone involved.
  • cadets become role models for their peers and the younger generation in their respective communities.
Work with local organizations and social services The RCMP believes that long-term prevention of youth crime and victimization can only be accomplished in partnership with the community. The RCMP works closely with local organizations and social services so that young people who come into contact with the police, as either offenders or victims, receive the help they need to overcome challenges in their lives.
Department of Justice Youth Justice Fund - Guns, Gangs and Drugs Priority To respond to youth involved in the justice system and in gun, gang and drug activities in order to promote the making of "smart choices" by criminalized youth at-risk of joining gangs or already involved in youth gangs through community-based educational, cultural, sporting and vocational opportunities.

Appendix J: List of Documents Produced by NCPC

List of Documents Produced by NCPC
Title Year
Addressing Youth Gang Problems: An Overview of Programs and Practices 2008
Evidence-Based Crime Prevention: Scientific Basis, Trends, Results and Implications for Canada 2007
Families, Youth and Delinquency: The State of Knowledge, and Family-Based Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Programs 2009
Family-Based Programs for Preventing and Reducing Juvenile Crime 2008
Family-Based Risk and Protective Factors and Their Effects on Juvenile Delinquency: What Do We Know 2008
Gangs - General Information (A48, Working Document) 2010
Gangs de jeunes - quelques informations (A32, Working Document) 2010
Profile of Youth Gangs in Canada 2010
Promising and Model Crime Prevention Programs 2008
School-Based Drug Abuse Prevention: Promising and Successful Programs 2009
Self-Reported Violent Delinquency and The Influence of School, Neighborhood and Student Characteristics 2009
Strategies for Reducing Gun Violence: The Role of Gangs, Drugs and Firearm Accessibility 2007
Supporting the Successful Implementation of the National Crime Prevention Strategy 2009
The Breaking the Cycle Youth Gang Exit and Ambassador Leadership Program 2009
Youth Gangs in Canada - What Are the Risk Factors? 2007
Youth Gangs in Canada - What Do We Know? 2007
Youth Gangs in Canada: A Content Analysis of Canadian Newspaper Coverage 2010

Notes

  1. 1

    A component of Public Safety Canada's Community Safety and Partnership Branch

  2. 2

    Howell, J.C. (1998). Youth Gangs: An Overview (PDF Version). Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; NCPC -Youth Gang Series Publications (2007).

  3. 3

    Wyrick and Howell, 2004, quoted from NCPC (2007), "Addressing Youth Gang Problems: An Overview of Programs and Practices"

  4. 4

    Jamieson, W., Hart, L. (June 2003). Compendium of Promising Crime Prevention Practices in Canada. Calendon Institute of Social Policy for the National Crime Prevention Strategy.

  5. 5

    As mentioned in section 1.0, the YGPF Program refers to the results of the funded projects under the YGPF (the fund); the administration of related contribution funding; and the knowledge transfer activities of the National Crime Prevention Center (NCPC) related to the youth gang issue.

  6. 6

    Interim Evaluation of the National Crime Prevention Centre Youth Gang Prevention Fund Program

  7. 7

    These questions cover the core issues of the TBS Directive on the Evaluation Function, April 2009 which can be found at: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=15681&section=text

  8. 8

    Two individuals were interviewed as both project evaluators and subject matter experts.

  9. 9

    For the remaining three projects: two were too early to report on, while the third report was outstanding.

  10. 10

    Hunsley, Terrance (2010) Progress Evaluation of the Youth Gang Prevention Fund Projects: A Synthesis of 2010 Annual Evaluation Reports. Report prepared for the National Crime Prevention Centre, May, 2010.

  11. 11

    The range of three to eight years was determined based on an average federal sentence of three years and the suggested incarceration time for a career criminal as noted in literature. Source: Cohen, M. , (1998) "The Monetary Value of Saving A High-Risk Youth", Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 11

  12. 12

    Wortley, S & Tanner, J (2006). "Immigration, Social Disadvantage and Urban Youth Gangs: Results of a Toronto-area Survey". Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 15(2), Supplement pages 18-37.

  13. 13

    Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) (2006). "Feature Focus: Youth Gangs and Guns, RCMP Environmental Scan", p. 5

  14. 14

    Includes subject matter experts, project evaluators, funded recipients and program management.

  15. 15

    Astwood Strategy Corporation. (2003). "Results of the 2002 Canadian Police Survey on Youth Gangs". Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada

  16. 16

    NCPC (2010). "Profile of Youth Gangs in Canada (work in progress)", p. 5

  17. 17

    Hunsley, T. (2010). Progress Evaluation of the Youth Gang Prevention Fund Projects: A Synthesis of 2010 Annual Evaluation Reports, p.54

  18. 18

    NCPC (2007). Guide for the Youth Gang Prevention Fund, p. 2

  19. 19

    Esbensen and al., Youth Gangs and Definitional Issues, Crime and Delinquency, Vol.47, No.1, January 2001, pp.105-130

  20. 20

    Esbensen and al., Youth Gangs and Definitional Issues, Crime and Delinquency, Vol.47, No.1, January 2001, pp.105-130

  21. 21

    Howell , Egley and O'Donnel., National Gang Center

  22. 22

    A street gang (or troublesome youth group corresponding to a street gang elsewhere) is any durable, street-oriented youth group whose identity includes involvement in illegal activity.

  23. 23

    Egley, Howell, and Major, 2006; Klein, 2002; Weisel, 2002

  24. 24

    NCPC (2007), An investigation into the formation and recruitment processes of Aboriginal gangs in Western Canada

  25. 25

    National District Attorneys Association (2007), Prosecutor's Comprehensive Gang Response Model

  26. 26

    Includes subject matter experts, project evaluators, funded recipients and program management.

  27. 27

    NRG Research Group (2009). "Interim Evaluation of the National Crime Prevention Centre Youth Gang Prevention Fund Program", p. 23.

  28. 28

    Includes subject matter experts, project evaluators, funded recipients and program management.

  29. 29

    RCMP (2006). "Feature Focus: Youth Gangs and Guns, RCMP Environmental Scan", p. 4.

  30. 30

    NCPC (2010). "Profile of Youth Gangs in Canada" (work in progress), p.6.

  31. 31

    For example: Chettleburgh (2007); RCMP (2006); Tanasichuk & Wormith (2008).

  32. 32

    37 of 164 risk factors.

  33. 33

    27 of 164 risk factors.

  34. 34

    Program management interviewees.

  35. 35

    NCPC (2007). "Youth gangs in Canada: What do we know?"

  36. 36

    Wortley and Tanner (2004)

  37. 37

    Constitution Act, 1867, Section 91, paragraph 27; and Section 92 paragraph 14

  38. 38

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

  39. 39

    RCMP (2006). Feature Focus: Youth Gangs and Guns, RCMP Environmental Scan, p. 28

  40. 40

    The Crime Prevention Action Fund was created in 2006. The terms and conditions were renewed as part of the National Crime Prevention Strategy in 2008. The current Crime Prevention Action Fund Terms and Conditions will remain in effect until March 31, 2013.

  41. 41

    The 2008 Conservative Party Platform, p. 5

  42. 42

    The 2010 Speech from the Throne, p. 12

  43. 43

    NCPC (2005). Accountability, Risk and Audit Framework for the Renewal of the National Crime Prevention Stratey, p. 11

  44. 44

    Four of 19 projects did not have information available.

  45. 45

    Reasons why the other projects did not report include that this measure had been included in the requested data collection mechanisms too late for project evaluators and program staff to collect on it

  46. 46

    NCPC (2007). Accountability, Risk and Audit Framework (ARAF) for the Youth Gang Prevention Fund, p. 30.

  47. 47

    Includes project evaluators and funded recipients.

  48. 48

    Funded recipients.

  49. 49

    In many cases it was unclear whether reported figures were for the duration of the project (i.e. over 3 years) or per year. Where primary and secondary participants were specified, only primary participants were counted. Primary recipients are youth who have received the full extent of the services and tools available, such as counseling, parental guidance, educational intervention, etc. Secondary recipients are youth who are taking advantage of some aspects of the program, such as a drop-in center, but do not receive the same "intensity" of intervention.

  50. 50

    Reasons why the other projects did not report drop out rates include philosophical reasons (i.e. they did not wish to label the youth), or because the programs had not been operational sufficiently long enough.

  51. 51

    Hunsley, T. (2010), "Progress Evaluation of the Youth Gang Prevention Fund Projects: A Synthesis of 2010 Annual Evaluation Reports", p. 46

  52. 52

    Project evaluators and funded recipients.

  53. 53

    Project evaluators and funded recipients.

  54. 54

    Project evaluators and funded recipients.

  55. 55

    Includes project evaluators, funded recipients and program management.

  56. 56

    Ibid., p. 3

  57. 57

    Ibid., p. 4

  58. 58

    Project evaluators and funded recipients.

  59. 59

    Project evaluators, funded recipients and program management.

  60. 60

    Project expenditures include the amounts paid to funded recipients under the YGPF contribution agreements (vote 5).

  61. 61

    Administration costs include the proportionate cost of NCPC salaries, operations and maintenance, employee benefits and corporate overhead for both the administration YGPF related to the funded projects.

  62. 62

    NRG Research Group (2009). "Interim Evaluation of the National Crime Prevention Centre Youth Gang Prevention Fund Program", p. 5.

  63. 63

    Ibid., p. 25

  64. 64

    Ibid., p. 25

  65. 65

    Source: financial data

  66. 66

    NCPC (2007). Accountability, Risk and Audit Framework (ARAF) for the Youth Gang Prevention Fund, p. 18.

  67. 67

    Project evaluators and funded recipients.

  68. 68

    The cost per participant was taken from 12 of 14 projects that reported in the "Interim Evaluation of the National Crime Prevention Centre Youth Gang Prevention Fund Program". Project start-up costs were included in these figures.

  69. 69

    The "project level" analysis included costs related to vote 5 expenditures and fund administration costs allocated at a rate of 23% per project for the two projects that have reported gang exits. The analysis did not include costs related to NCPC knowledge transfer activities nor funding from other organizations outside of NCPC (funding partners).

  70. 70

    The "fund level" analysis included costs related to vote 5 expenditures (and projected expenditures) for all 19 projects and total fund administration costs. The analysis did not include costs related to NCPC knowledge transfer activities nor funding from other organizations outside of NCPC (funding partners).

  71. 71

    Includes contribution fund expenditures and administration costs but does not include knowledge transfer costs.

  72. 72

    Federal investment up to March 31, 2010

  73. 73

    76 gang exits was used in the calculation as opposed to the 81 exits noted earlier in this report due to the fact that five of these former gang members were in the legal system at the time of the evaluation.

  74. 74

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

  75. 75

    Drake, E., Aos, S., Miller, M. (2009). "Evidence-based Public Policy Options to Reduce Crime and Criminal Justice Costs: Implications in Washington State".Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

  76. 76

    As per original agreements up to March 31, 2011.

  77. 77

    Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. (2009). Policy on Evaluation, April 1, 2009. Accessed online 07/02/09 at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=15024&section=text#cha4

  78. 78

    Clyne G., and R. Edwards. (2002). Understanding Economic Evaluations: A Guide for Health and Human Services, The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1-23.

  79. 79

    Mason, G. and M. Tereraho. (2007). "Value for Money Analysis of Active Labour Market Programs," The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, Vol. 22, No,. 1, Pages 1-29.

  80. 80

    Clyne, G. and R. Edwards. (2002) "Understanding Economic Evaluations: A Guide for Health and Human Services," The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, Vol. 17, No 3, Pages 1-23.

Date modified: