Evaluation of the Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence

July 2020

Executive Summary

This report presents the results of the delivery evaluation of the Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence.

What we examined

As a delivery evaluation, the purpose of this evaluation was to examine program design, implementation, and production of outputs, while also reviewing achievement of early outcomes, program efficiency, and alignment with federal priorities and departmental objectives. The evaluation covered the Centre’s activities from July 2017 (launch) to September 2019.

What we found

Overall, the work and focus of the Canada Centre aligns with government priorities, federal roles and responsibilities, and departmental objectives.

The Centre has established a national leadership role and international profile in CRV. Coordination with other federal departments could be enhanced and there is the desire for the Centre to have a more visible role with stakeholders and communities by conducting more direct outreach.

The Centre’s activity area of knowledge development and mobilization was identified as the activity area needing the most attention. While the Centre funds research, it was seen as important for the Centre to do more to identify and distribute knowledge products.

Projects funded through the Community Resilience Fund address identified priorities, and have built the capacity of organizations and CRV practitioners. To help build a knowledge-base and evidence for the effectiveness of CRV programming, the Centre should encourage and support project-level evaluations.

The Centre appears to be operating efficiently but there is limited data to support an analysis of its efficiency.

Recommendations

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Portfolio Affairs and Communication Branch and the Assistant Deputy Minister, Emergency Management and Preparedness Branch should consider the following for the Canada Centre:

  1. In terms of its national leadership role: explore opportunities to expand its coordinating role, including outreach at the stakeholder and community level.
  2. In terms of its knowledge development and mobilization role: formalize the roles and responsibilities suitable for the Canada Centre as a curator and distributor, and even potentially a producer of research products.
  3. In terms of its G&Cs role: provide necessary guidance to ensure that funded projects are monitoring and assessing their activities in line with the overall objectives of the Canada Centre.
  4. The Canada Centre should put in place measures to systematically collect and report on its outputs and outcomes.

Management Action Plan

Program Management accepts all recommendations and will implement an action plan.

1. Background

Established in 2017, the Canada Centre is a centre of excellence in countering radicalization to violence in the Canadian context. While the federal government had already been involved for many years in domestic and international efforts to counter the radicalization to violence, the Canada Centre was created to expand support for and coordination of these efforts and also, by its emphasis on prevention, complement traditional security and intelligence responses to radicalization.

The Centre’s activities fall into three main areas:

Quote 1: “Radicalization to violence occurs when a person or group takes on extreme ideas and begins to think they should use violence to support or advance their ideas or beliefs. These beliefs can fall along a wide spectrum of ideologies, including political and religious ideologies.” National Strategy on Countering Radicalization to Violence (2018)

2. Evaluation Purpose and Methodology

As a delivery evaluation, the purpose of this evaluation was to examine program design, implementation, and production of outputs, while also reviewing achievement of early outcomes, program efficiency, and alignment with federal priorities and departmental objectives. The evaluation covered the Centre’s activities from July 2017 (launch) to September 2019 and used multiple lines of evidence to ensure triangulation of findings.

2.1 Lines of Evidence

Data collection for this evaluation included the following lines of evidence:

Interviews:
Thirty interviews were conducted with program and other Public Safety (PS) staff, Expert Committee members, representatives of funded projects, Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group members, other relevant federal departments and agencies, and Canadian and international stakeholders.
Literature and Program Document Review:
A bibliographic search was conducted to determine whether documents published by the Canada Centre have been referenced in the literature. Academic and grey literature on best practices in the design of programs to counter radicalization to violence were also reviewed.
Document and Data/File Review:
Documents and data/files included relevant internal program documents, administrative and performance measurement data, CRF documents, reports funded in whole or in part by the Canada Centre, and financial data.

2.2 Limitations

External stakeholders had limited direct experience with or knowledge of the overall program design and implementation and focused their responses on Centre activities in which they had more involvement. The Canada Centre does not systematically track its outputs and outcomes, so certain performance indicators could not be quantified. Given that the Canada Centre is still relatively new, key informants cautioned that it was still too early to definitively assess its impact on helping to create and sustain multi-sector partnerships, a key component of its national leadership role.

3. Findings

3.1 Relevance

3.1.1 Alignment with federal priorities and departmental objectives

Finding: The work and focus of the Canada Centre aligns with government priorities, federal roles and responsibilities, and departmental objectives.

The federal commitment to countering radicalization to violence is evident from the 2015 mandate letter to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to create an Office of the Community Outreach and Counter-radicalization Coordinator, which became the Canada Centre. This commitment was reaffirmed in December 2019, when the Minister was again mandated to “support the work of the [Canada Centre] and invest in front line programs that work to counter radicalization to violent extremism.” The level of federal support to address radicalization to violence is found in the five-year financial commitment of $35 million in Budget 2016, with $10 million a year of ongoing funding (see Figure 1).

The work of the Canada Centre directly supports one of Public Safety’s six priority areas for the last three years, which is to “continue to advance countering radicalization to violence and counter-terrorism efforts with all levels of government, internal partners, and other stakeholders.”

Figure 1. Treasury Board allocated funding (Budget 2016)

Image description

Figure 1 illustrates the Treasury Board allocated funding for the Canada Centre identified in Budget 2016. Total funding by fiscal year is as follows: $2.5 million in 2016-17; $5 million in 2017-18; $7.5 million in 2018-19; and, $10 million in 2019-20.

3.1.2 Gender Based Analysis Plus (GBA+)

Finding: The Canada Centre has taken several active steps to promote and advance GBA+ considerations in its work and in CRV programming more generally.

A federal priority is ensuring that differential impacts on diverse groups are considered in the development and implementation of government programs, policies, and legislation. The Canada Centre has taken several active steps to promote and advance GBA+ considerations in its work and in CRV programming more generally. In particular,

3.2 Design, Implementation, and Early Outcomes

3.2.1 National Leadership Role

Finding: The Canada Centre is providing a national leadership role in countering radicalization to violence.

The evaluation found that the Canada Centre has effectively assumed a national leadership role in CRV, which had been a gap as no single body in Canada had fulfilled that function prior to 2017.

Development of a national CRV strategy was a key first step in providing national leadership. The Centre published the National Strategy on Countering Radicalization to Violence in 2018, 18 months after the Centre’s launch. Based on consultations with key stakeholders, the National Strategy established priority areas to guide the federal government’s support of CRV work: building, sharing, and using knowledge; addressing radicalization to violence in the online space; and supporting interventions in early prevention, at-risk prevention, and disengagement from violent ideologies.

The Canada Centre has achieved its performance indicators under the National Leadership activity area, mainly through the consultations and activities related to the development of the National Strategy, but also due to ongoing activities (see Table 1). The extent to which identified national priorities are being advanced as planned is not being collected or reported on, so the level of success in addressing priorities is difficult to determine.

Table 1. Achievement of performance indicators related to national leadership
Performance Indicator and Target Level of Achievement
Strategy is developed Strategy completed
Number and percentage of national strategy priorities being advanced as planned CRF project documents provide evidence that all three priority areas are being addressed in some way, but there is no evidence of consistent tracking of this indicator.
Number of organizations engaged by the Canada Centre [>25]; and To inform the Strategy, over 100 meetings were held with 275 different organizations and stakeholders in 14 cities across 10 provinces. The annual Mega Week hosted by the Centre continues to engage organizations.
Number of engagements conducted (e.g., formal consultations, meetings, etc.) [>50] To inform the Strategy, over 100 meetings were held with 275 different organizations and stakeholders in 14 cities across 10 provinces. The annual Mega Week hosted by the Centre continues to engage organizations.
Number of significant products to support policy and legislation [>10] Based on examples of products provided to the evaluation, it appears this target was met.
Number of sectors engaged in partnerships involving support from the Canada Centre [3 sectors]

Most CRF-funded projects (93%) have at least one partnership and 86% have two or more. Partnerships across the CRF projects included no fewer than seven different sectors (number of projects in parentheses):

community-serving/not for profit organizations (18), education (18), criminal justice system (16), other government stakeholders (14), international partnerships (10), health care (9), and other sectors (5), which included media and technology and faith-based organizations.

Strengths and successes

In addition to the development of the National Strategy, the evaluation found a number of other achievements indicating the national leadership role of the Centre, including its:

Suggestions for improvement

More work could be done in the following areas, according to key informants who suggested:

3.2.2 Knowledge Development and Mobilization

Finding: Knowledge development and mobilization has demonstrated some successes, but it is the activity most in need of attention.

One of the Canada Centre’s primary activities is the funding, planning, and coordinating of research to better understand radicalization to violence and how best to counter it, and mobilizing research to front-line individuals working to prevent radicalization to violence. To support this activity, the Canada Centre supports knowledge mobilization and development in a variety of ways.

The Canada Centre has been involved in numerous conferences and events for researchers, practitioners, and partners. These have created an opportunity for stakeholders to meet and learn from one another, and to support the creation of a community of scholarship that is globally recognized. Notably, Mega Week is an annual event to bring practitioners, researchers, academics, other governmental stakeholders together for knowledge dissemination, networking, and showcasing services.

The Canada Centre is well placed to determine research priorities, act as the central custodian of produced research, and share findings with relevant actors. While it has assumed the first of these roles, it has made less progress on the latter two. For example, on Public Safety’s website, there is a research catalogue that provides information on terrorism and radicalization to violence research funded by the CRF and Kanishka ProjectFootnote 1. This webpage includes links to funded projects reports. However, few people know to look for the research there, and it is not presented in a particularly straightforward manner. This ties into a broader supposition that the awareness of the Canada Centre and its activities outside of academic and research circles is limited.

Knowledge mobilization mechanisms

It appears that the Canada Centre has made progress toward some of the performance indicators linked to knowledge mobilization, however data in some areas was limited or incomplete (see Table 2). As the Canada Centre matures, some indicators may require refinement or adjustment to reflect the actual knowledge mobilization and development activities undertaken.

Table 2. Achievement of performance indicators related to knowledge development and mobilization
Performance Indicator and Target Level of Achievement
Number of events, conferences, symposia with the CRV Office involvement [>25 a year] Unlikely to have been involved in >25 events, conferences and symposia annually.
Number of organizations engaged in the CRV Office organized/funded events [>30] Target likely to have been met, though information is not available.
Number of evidence-based practices reported being used by stakeholders Unclear
Number of website hits for research products and number of downloads of research products 74,749 hits between April 1, 2017 and September 30, 2019. No information on the number of downloads of research products.
“Fit for use” index measure [75% of respondents report “fit for use” as good or very good] No information was available.
Evidence and description of the reach and impact of knowledge products and research Difficult to assess given project timeframes and limited information being reported to the Canada Centre.

Strengths and successes

Suggestions for improvement

3.2.3 Grants and Contributions – Community Resilience Fund

Finding: The CRF is considered a useful mechanism for building capacity of organizations and practitioners across Canada. It is addressing identified priorities.

The Canada Centre leads the CRF, a key tool for supporting partnerships and innovation in countering radicalization to violence in Canada. The CRF is managed by the Programs Directorate under the Emergency Management and Programs Branch of Public Safety.

The CRF provides financial assistance to organizations addressing at least one of the three priorities outlined in the National Strategy. Applicants can also submit youth-led projects which seek to empower young people working to counter radicalization to violence. Activities eligible for CRF funding include research, programming, evaluation, and networking (including conferences, workshops and seminars).

A wide range of organizations and institutions are allowed to apply for the CRF, including:

While provincial, territorial, municipal, and Indigenous governments can apply for funding, no federal institution is eligible.

The CRF has held three calls for proposals since it was launched in December 2016. Over 200 applications were received. As of October 31, 2019, 28 funding agreements have been signed and 95% of funding committed between FYs 2016-17 and 2018-19 has been paid to projects. A Senior Steering Committee – co-chaired by the Director of Community Safety Programs (Public Safety) and the Senior Director of the Canada Centre – sets the terms and conditions of the CRF and recommends projects for funding. Representatives of other relevant government departments are also asked by the Canada Centre to review proposals.

Funded projects addressed the overall objectives of the Community Resilience Fund. The majority of projects (70%) addressed supporting evidence-based models and promising practices which address known risk and protective factors to prevent radicalization to violence, and half addressed empowering local communities to take steps to prevent all forms of radicalization to violence.

Partnership is a crucial element of the CRF projects. Seven unique sectors were identified as partners, and most projects had partners in multiple sectors (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Identified sector of partners for funded projects

Image description

Figure 2 illustrates the identified sector of partners for projects funded by the Canada Centre. The identified sectors and corresponding number of partners are as follows: Community (18 partners); Education (18 partners); Criminal Justice (16 partners); Government (14 partners); International (10 partners); Health Care (9 partners); and, Other (5 partners).

The Canada Centre has mostly met its performance indicators related to addressing priority areas through CRF-funded projects (see Table 3). The percentage of funding going to community-based programming is below the targeted amount, but key informants noted that it will require some time for community-based programming to develop the capacity to design and implement projects.

Table 3. Achievement of performance indicators related to the Community Resiliency Fund
Performance indicator and target Level of achievement
Number and percentage of applications funded addressing priority areas [90%] 100% (though priority areas are very broad)
Canada Centre meets departmental G&C Service StandardsFootnote 2 For 2016-17 and 2017-18, most cases met standards. In 2018-19, standards were met for all cases.
Number and percentage of priorities that are addressed by released funding [95%] 100% of priorities or objectives have been addressed by at least one project (though priorities are very broad).
Percentage of available funding devoted to community-based programming [95%] 78.3%

Ability to address identified issues and priorities

Suggestions for improvement

3.3 Efficiency

3.3.1 Program administration

Finding: The Canada Centre is being administered efficiently based on available evidence, but there are gaps/unmet targets.

Canada Centre budget

As shown in Figure 3, the Canada Centre’s operating budget increased from year-to-year, with its first full year of operations in 2017-18. Between 2017-18 and 2018-19, the operating budget grew by 17% from $2.59 million to $3.04 million. This was a planned increase to ramp up activities of the Centre.

Figure 3. Canada Centre operating expenditures by fiscal year

Image description

Figure 3 illustrates the Canada Centre’s actual operating expenditures by fiscal year compared to the amount allocated for operating expenditures for the same fiscal year. The amounts allocated and spent by fiscal year are as follows: 2016-17 – $1,466,407 (allocated) and $1,295,730 (spent); 2017-18 – $2,532,312 (allocated) and $2,590,410 (spent); and, 2018-19 – $2,955,124 (allocated) and $3,043,399 (spent).

Gaps/unmet targets

Available budget and expenditure information is high level, so details that would assist with an assessment of efficiency, such as the amount spent on conducting research activities, organizing conferences or other knowledge dissemination efforts, and managing the CRF, are not available.

Efficiency is also based on meeting performance targets and, as noted earlier, while many are met, there are some without sufficient evidence to assess, or they are not yet met.

CRF efficiency

One measure of efficiency for G&Cs programming is the success in getting funding out the door (see Figure 4). Based on this measure, the CRF has improved over time. In its first year, FY 2016-17, 60% of funding budgeted for G&Cs (Vote 5) was spent, which increased to 83% in FY 2017-18 and to 97% in FY 2018-19.

Another indicator of G&Cs program efficiency is leveraging federal funding with other funding so that each federal dollar spent results in more outputs/outcomes due to the combined funding sources. For the Canada Centre, the performance target is 80% of applications where over 20% of total funding is from other sources.

Currently, 21% of all applications and 43% of projects that received CRF funding had 20% or more of their total funding from other sources.

Figure 4. Percentage of budgeted CRF funding spent

Image description

Figure 4 illustrates the percentage of budgeted CRF funding spent by fiscal year. The percentage of budgeted CRF funding spent by fiscal year is as follows: 2016-17 – 60%; 2017-18 – 83%; and, 2018-19 – 97%.

Duplication/unexplored synergies

Findings highlighted several synergies and minimal duplication between the work undertaken by the Canada Centre and that of other federal government programs. There is evidence that, by focusing on prevention and by articulating a coordinated federal approach to CRV, the Canada Centre is filling a gap in the government’s approach to CRV. Several fora and mechanisms exist through which the Canada Centre can engage with other federal departments and agencies, including having representatives of these agencies review applications to the CRF.

Notwithstanding, findings suggest that the working relationship with several departments, including the RCMP, could be improved and strengthened so as to avoid any duplication and to explore potential synergies. In particular, stakeholders identified that there is potential overlap with Canadian Heritage’s Anti-Racism Action Program (which supports its Anti-Racism Strategy), due to the ambiguous nexus between hate-motivated crime and radicalization to violence. For example, the Anti-Racism Action Program, similar to the Canada Centre, also prioritizes funding projects that target online hate and promote digital literacy. While the Canada Centre is identified in, and receives funding from Canadian Heritage’s Anti-Racism Strategy, it is aware of this potential overlap with its Anti-Racism Action Program and is currently discussing its implications.

3.3.2 Canada Centre Delivery Model

Finding: The Canada Centre delivery model supports its objectives.

Integration of research, policy, and programming

The Canada Centre integrates research, policy, and programming for its subject area, which is considered unique within Public Safety Canada. This model helps ensure that those three core activity areas are aligned and support one another. However, the integrated model is showing some strains. Due to the high demand for support on policy files, internal key informants noted that the Canada Centre personnel hired as researchers do not have sufficient time to devote to knowledge development and mobilization. A suggestion to better support the integration of policy and research was to reorganize the Centre from having separate policy and research teams to having teams based on topics of importance or streams of work.

Expert Committee

The Expert Committee is made up of non-government representatives who are appointed by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness from a list of recommended candidates.

The Committee assists with policy advisory work as well as programming, including knowledge development and advice on CRV interventions. The Committee has a diverse membership from a variety of sectors and it provides a direct link between the community-level stakeholders and policy makers. The Expert Committee is considered by stakeholders to enhance the Centre’s national leadership role and its role in community engagement. As it is newly formed (2019), it is too early to assess what its full impacts will be. A suggested improvement was adding someone to the Expert Committee who is an expert in the online sector.

Shared management of CRF

The use of the Programs Directorate under the Emergency Management and Programs Branch of Public Safety for administrating the CRF is considered to work well with its expertise in developing and managing funding agreements paired with the Canada Centre’s policy expertise. A suggested improvement was the need for Public Safety to ensure consistent communications with funding recipients from these two parts of Public Safety.

Gaps and limitations

The commitment and quality of the Canada Centre staff was noted by external stakeholders, but internal key informants noted that there have been some staffing challenges, including turnover and expertise gaps within the Centre.

Given those previous concerns, the current model might face capacity issues in some areas of suggested expansion, including:

4. Conclusions

The Canada Centre’s activities align with federal government priorities to prevent radicalization to violence. With its launch in July 2017, the Canada Centre is still relatively new, but it has shown progress in its three core activity areas.

As a focal point for the federal approach to CRV, the Canada Centre is fulfilling a national leadership role by developing the National Strategy on Countering the Radicalization to Violence, which has set national priorities to guide CRV work.

The Centre has convened national meetings (e.g., Mega Week) and supported other conferences that bring together stakeholders across Canada that work in CRV to share best practices and learnings.

By funding CRV projects through the CRF, the Centre is supporting interventions that should help develop an evidence base of the effectiveness of CRV programming.

The Centre appears to be operating efficiently but there is limited data to support an analysis of its efficiency.

The evaluation found some areas of gaps or potential improvements for the Centre to address.

5. Recommendations

The Assistant Deputy Minister, Portfolio Affairs and Communication Branch and the Assistant Deputy Minister, Emergency Management and Preparedness Branch should consider the following for the Canada Centre:

  1. In terms of its national leadership role: explore opportunities to expand its coordinating role, including outreach at the stakeholder and community level.
  2. In terms of its knowledge development and mobilization role: formalize the roles and responsibilities suitable for the Canada Centre as a curator and distributor, and even potentially a producer of research products.
  3. In terms of its G&Cs role: provide necessary guidance to ensure that funded projects are monitoring and assessing their activities in line with the overall objectives of the Canada Centre.
  4. The Canada Centre should put in place measures to systematically collect and report on its outputs and outcomes.

6. Management Action Plan

Management Action Plan
Recommendations Action Planned Planned Completion Date
In terms of its national leadership role: explore opportunities to expand its coordinating role, including outreach at the stakeholder and community level. Revitalize the CC-led DG-level table of federal institutions and the FPT working-level network, and leverage the use and work of the CRV Expert Committee. 08/31/2021
Develop a stakeholder and community engagement plan with updated objectives for 2020-2022; and, update the Canada Centre web presence. 08/31/2021
In terms of its knowledge development and mobilization role: formalize the roles and responsibilities suitable for the Canada Centre as a curator and distributor, and even potentially a producer of research products. Set a Canada Centre biennial strategic knowledge mobilisation and research agenda. 08/31/2021
In terms of its G&Cs role: provide necessary guidance to ensure that funded projects are monitoring and assessing their activities in line with the overall objectives of the Canada Centre. Develop and implement a performance monitoring guidance for projects in light of overall CC objectives; and, update the Annual Performance Report requirements accordingly. 08/31/2021
The Canada Centre should put in place measures to systematically collect and report on its outputs and outcomes. Create and utilize a Canada Centre-specific performance measurement tool to collect and report on outputs and outcomes. 08/31/2021
Date modified: