Final Report 2010-2011 Evaluation of the Effective Corrections and Citizen Engagement Initiatives

Final Report 2010-2011 Evaluation of the Effective Corrections and Citizen Engagement Initiatives PDF Version (601 KB)

Executive Summary
1. Introduction
2. Profile
3. About the Evaluation
4. Findings
5. Conclusions
6. Recommendations
7. Management Response and Action Plan
Appendix A: Evaluation Matrix
Appendix B: Documents Reviewed
Appendix C: Matrix of Interview Questions
Appendix D: Page Views on Public Safety's Website
Appendix E: Aboriginal Corrections Project Results.
Appendix F: Ongoing Implementation and Demonstration Projects Funded under the Aboriginal Corrections Component
Appendix G: Public Education/Citizen Engagement Project Results

Executive Summary

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

This report presents the findings of Public Safety Canada's 2010-2011 Evaluation of the Effective Corrections and Citizen Engagement Initiatives (ECCEI). Effective corrections are about distinguishing between offenders who need to be separated from society and offenders who could be better managed in the community. The overall Initiatives were originally funded at $45 million over 5 years between 2000-2001 and 2004-2005, shared between Correctional Service Canada, Parole Board of Canada and then Solicitor General Canada (which became Public Safety Canada in 2005). Given the long-term nature of the Initiatives, funding was renewed in 2005-2006 to an ongoing level of $8 million per year (Correctional Service Canada, $4.8 million; Parole Board of Canada, $1.5 million; and Public Safety Canada, $1.7 million).

The focus of this evaluation was to assess the activities conducted by Public Safety Canada under ECCEI, which is divided into three components: Aboriginal Corrections, Community Corrections and Public Education/Citizen Engagement.

The Public Safety allocation of $1.7 million per year is comprised of $1.2 million in operating funds and $500,000 in contribution funding. The ECCEI contribution funding allocated to the Aboriginal Corrections and Community Corrections component is being administered under the Policy Development Contribution Program. This program is currently undergoing a separate evaluation, which may impact on ECCEI.

PS ECCEI has the following broad objectives:

Aboriginal communities have an increased knowledge and understanding of community-based healing and corrections processes, thereby increasing the capacity of communities to deal with their own correction issues;
Corrections and criminal justice policies and programs are informed by community-based pilot projects, research, best practices and public views;
Canadians have an increased knowledge of the criminal justice system and issues, contributing to their increase in the confidence of the system.

Indirectly, these objectives are intended to contribute to the safe and effective reintegration of eligible offenders into Canadian communities which, in turn, contributes to a safe and resilient Canada.

The period covered by this evaluation is 2005-2006 to 2009-2010. The evaluation team developed an evaluation matrix using the following lines of evidence: document review, interviews, and a review of performance and financial data.

Conclusions

Relevance

There is a continuing need for effective corrections. Enhancing public safety through effective corrections initiatives can serve as a very good alternative to incarceration for some offenders. The Government needs to continually design appropriate policies and programs to support communities in reintegrating offenders in a safe and effective manner.

Successful reintegration of offenders into society requires community acceptance, support and involvement. It is found that Canadians did not have a good understanding of the corrections system, and thus, there is a need to increase public knowledge of the corrections system.

Public Safety Canada's ECCEI are appropriate to the federal mandate. There are legislative authorities of relevance to ECCEI, as well as special provisions for Aboriginal offenders. ECCEI help to fulfill the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by contributing to the safe and gradual reintegration of offenders into the community. Interviewees viewed that the Public Safety Canada ECCEI funded activities were fairly unique from other initiatives. ECCEI align with the government's ongoing priority of maintaining public safety by contributing to the promotion of community safety.

Performance - Achievement of Expected Outcomes

In many instances, it is not possible to conclusively assess the achievement of outcomes for Public Safety Canada's ECCEI. Available documentation only allows this evaluation to assess a sample of projects. Interviewee perceptions were obtained from funding recipients/delivery partners.

The following highlights the extent of outcomes achieved, wherever possible. As well, it will alert readers to the specific outcomes that cannot be conclusively assessed.

Extent of corrections and criminal justice policies and programs being informed by community-based pilot projects, research, best practices and public views

The evaluation does not have sufficient evidence to conclude on the achievement of this outcome.

Public Safety Canada program representatives, as drafters of legislative proposals, confirmed the usefulness of knowledge gained through ECCEI funded conferences/workshops in informing policy and program development.

Extent of increased capacity of community organizations to serve their target populations

Based on interviewee perceptions, there is some indication to show that Community Corrections has contributed to building community organizations' capacity to serve their target populations, either directly or indirectly through knowledge sharing, networking, and partnership building. However, given limited evidence collected, conclusive statements cannot be made on this outcome.

Extent of Aboriginal communities being equipped to deal with their own correction issues

The evaluation found that Aboriginal Corrections funded projects have increased knowledge and awareness within Aboriginal communities and that Aboriginal communities are better equipped to deal with their corrections issues. Public Safety Canada staff was helpful with knowledge transfer and partnership leveraging.

Overall, Aboriginal Corrections pilot projects have been successful. There is indication that at least one project has been replicated in another community. All six of the completed Aboriginal Corrections pilot projects are currently being sustained through funding from provinces/territories or other federal organizations.

Extent of Canadians having an increased knowledge of the criminal justice system and issues

There is some evidence to suggest that Public Education and Citizen Engagement activities have contributed to increasing the knowledge of the criminal justice system and issues for Canadians, although the evaluation team cannot determine whether the collected evidence is representative of all the Public Education and Citizen Engagement activities. Available information indicates a high number of people have attended some Public Education and Citizen Engagement conferences/presentations or have engaged in public dialogue activities. A considerable number of information tools or publications have been distributed over the evaluation period. There are some examples to show that Public Education and Citizen Engagement funded projects have contributed to increased awareness of the criminal justice system and issues.

Extent of Canadians being confident in the criminal justice system

The evaluation cannot conclude on whether Public Safety Canada's ECCEI activities are increasing the confidence of Canadians in the criminal justice system. Interviewee perceptions differed. Two interviewees said that Public Education and Citizen Engagement activities had increased public confidence, while two others said there simply was no evidence or no way of gauging public confidence in this area. One program management interviewee noted that the increase of public confidence is a continual process. There are many negative factors influencing public perception that need to be gradually addressed.

Performance - Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy

Efficiency

Aboriginal Corrections and Community Corrections components have significantly leveraged partnerships to reach a wider target audience. Non-Public Safety Canada funding partners were varied, including federal departments/agencies, the provinces/territories, and non-governmental organizations. Public Education and Citizen Engagement program representative indicated that Public Safety Canada is the sole funding source for funding recipients/delivery partners.

Interviewees felt that Aboriginal Corrections and Public Education and Citizen Engagement components have been delivering Public Safety Canada's ECCEI in an efficient manner. Some interviewees acknowledged that Community Corrections had been managing more efficiently over time. Most expressed concerns about the project planning and approval process for Community Corrections.

Economy

Financial information specific to ECCEI components is not readily available.

The ECCEI Aboriginal Corrections funds and expenditures are tracked collectively with the resources gained through the Aboriginal Community Corrections Initiative which is separate from the ECCEI. Overall spending (for the Aboriginal Corrections component of ECCEI and the Aboriginal Community Corrections Initiative) averaged 85% of total budget over the evaluation period. Similarly, Community Corrections spending is tracked collectively with the Policy Development Contribution Program. Therefore, complete financial information specific to the Community Corrections expenditures is not available. However, evidence shows that Community Corrections contribution funding has been committed over the evaluation period. For Public Education and Citizen Engagement, a review of financial information showed that Public Education and Citizen Engagement budget consistently exceeded its expenditures, but had improved in the last year. Evidence suggests that the Public Education and Citizen Engagement component had funding available to do more to achieve intended outcomes.

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 program areas undertake:

the systematic collection and reporting of performance information to align with the Initiatives' outcomes; and
in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Management Branch, the collection of financial information to align with the Initiatives' activities.

Management Response and Action Plan

The Community Safety and Partnerships Branch accepts the recommendations of this evaluation and proposes the following management action plan:

Accepted recommendations by the Community Safety and Partnerships Branch
Management Action Plan		Target Date
1)	The Development of a performance management matrix that accurately depicts each project's: Purpose; Method of performance measurement; Responsibility for the measurement; and Project Notes Project leads will be asked to use the matrix throughout their specific project's lifecycle in measuring effectiveness.	February 2012
2)	Quarterly meetings that include all three Effective Corrections components which will allow for an opportunity to discuss financial plans, funds commitments, and the effectiveness of expenditures. Meetings will include the participation of the financial planning resource for the directorate's expenditures.	On-going

1. Introduction

This report presents the findings of Public Safety Canada (PS) 2010-2011 Evaluation of the Effective Corrections and Citizen Engagement Initiatives (ECCEI).

This evaluation provides Canadians, parliamentarians, Ministers, and central agencies an evidence-based, neutral assessment of the relevance and performance of the Initiatives. It assesses the extent to which the Initiatives continue to address a demonstrable need and the extent to which the Initiatives align with federal government priorities and roles and responsibilities. It also studies the extent to which effectiveness, efficiency and economy have been achieved.

2. Profile

2.1 Background

In May 1996, the Government of Canada endorsed a six-part strategy to increase public protection while containing Canada's incarceration rate and associated costs. The strategy received the support of the three levels of government and in 1997, was passed into law. Also in May 1996, the Government of Canada endorsed a five-year Aboriginal Justice Strategy to establish programs with provinces and territories to move offenders out of the mainstream court system into community alternative programming, where appropriate.

To effectively address Aboriginal corrections issues, it was recognized that a greater understanding and appreciation of Aboriginal communities, cultures and traditions were crucial.^{Note 1} Solicitor General Canada (renamed Public Safety Canada in 2005) developed the Framework to Advance Public Safety through Effective Corrections.^{Note 2} In July 2000, Solicitor General Canada, received funding for ECCEI in support of the public safety agenda for Canada. Effective corrections are about distinguishing between offenders who need to be separated from society from those who could be better managed in the community.^{Note 3}

The overall Initiatives were originally funded at $45 million over 5 years between 2000-2001 and 2004-2005, shared between Correctional Service Canada (CSC, $30 million), Parole Board of Canada (PBC, formerly the National Parole Board, $6.5 million), and Solicitor General Canada (PS, $8.5 million).

Given the long-term nature of the Initiatives, funding was renewed in 2005-2006 to an ongoing level of $8 million per year (CSC, $4.8 million; PBC, $1.5 million; and PS, $1.7 million).

The focus of this evaluation is to assess the activities conducted by PS under the ECCEI. Although linkages to the activities conducted by CSC and PBC will be made, where appropriate, this evaluation did not examine the activities performed by CSC and PBC under the Initiatives. CSC is currently conducting an evaluation of its involvement in the ECCEI.

2.2 Roles of Public Safety Canada

In the realm of effective corrections, PS is responsible for developing legislative proposals and policies governing corrections, conditional release (i.e., day or full parole, statutory release) and related criminal justice issues. The Department also provides expert advice and resources on issues related to corrections and the criminal justice system to the corrections community and the public.

To inform policy formulation and to fulfill its advisory role, the Department conducts cutting-edge research and implements innovative community and Aboriginal corrections projects that tailor correctional interventions to specific issues and community justice in general. Furthermore, it collaborates with other federal partners and provincial/territorial counterparts, and engages with stakeholders.^{Note 4}

2.3 Objectives of the Initiatives

PS ECCEI has the following broad objectives:

Aboriginal communities have an increased knowledge and understanding of community-based healing and corrections processes, thereby increasing the capacity of communities to deal with their own correction issues;
Corrections and criminal justice policies and programs are informed by community-based pilot projects, research, best practices and public views; and,
Canadians have an increased knowledge of the criminal justice system and issues, contributing to their increased confidence in the system.

Indirectly, these objectives are intended to contribute to the safe and effective reintegration of eligible offenders into Canadian communities which in turn, contributes to a safe and resilient Canada.

2.4 Resources and the Three Components of the Initiatives

There are three components for the Initiatives, namely: Aboriginal Corrections (AC), Community Corrections (CC), and Public Education/Citizen Engagement (PE/CE). Broadly speaking, the respective functions for the three components at PS are:

Resources and the Three Components of the Initiatives
PS ECCEI Components	Functions
Aboriginal Corrections	Increase knowledge base in Aboriginal communities about healing and corrections Support the development of community capacities to implement healing models involving offenders Test and evaluate models of offender treatment in Aboriginal communities that are taking a holistic and healing approach to community wellness.^{Note 5}
Community Corrections	Expanding research and development aimed at evidence-based policy and program development in community corrections Support innovative pilot projects with a focus on restorative justice.^{Note 6}
Public Education/ Citizen Engagement^{Note 7}	Provide opportunities for Canadians to exchange views about the criminal justice system (Citizen Engagement) Promote public awareness and inform communities about criminal justice matters and strengthen current learning opportunities and increase the number and extent of media used (Public Education) ^{Note 8}

Table 1 presents the PS ECCEI annual budget allotted to the three components from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010.

The annual budget for PS is $1.7 million per year. Within the three components, AC and PE/CE components account for nearly 90% of the overall budget, while CC takes up the rest. While AC and CC projects are funded through contributions, PE/CE projects are funded entirely using operations and maintenance (O&M) budgets.

Table 1: Annual ECCEI Budget Allocated to PS 2005-06 to 2009-10
	AC	CC	PE/CE	PS Total
Vote 1 (Operating)	$415,000	$85,000	$700,000	$1,200,000
Vote 5 (Grants & Contributions)	$385,000	$115,000	n/a	$500,000
Total	$800,000 (47%)	$200,000 (12%)	$700,000 (41%)	$1,700,000 (100%)

The ECCEI contribution funding allocated to AC and CC (vote 5) is being administered under the Policy Development Contribution Program (PDCP). This is a department-wide contributions program that allows the Department to support strategic projects that contribute to policy development and implementation, as well as service delivery, in the priority areas of public safety and emergency management. This program is currently undergoing a separate evaluation, which may impact on ECCEI.

The PS Aboriginal Corrections Policy Unit manages the Aboriginal Corrections component of ECCEI as well as the Aboriginal Community Corrections Initiative (ACCI). ACCI was created in 1996 as a component of the federal government's strategy for Aboriginal justice. Funding allocated under ECCEI's Aboriginal Corrections component ($800,000 as per table 1 above) supplements the funding received under ACCI ($325,000). This results in a combined total of $1,125,000 for the two initiatives ($515,000 to cover salary and administration expenditures and $610,000 for contributions to third parties). The two initiatives are managed jointly.

In 1996, ACCI funded three positions. Three more positions were added in 2000 through ECCEI AC. The three ECCEI AC funded positions were allotted for the purpose of developing, consulting, implementing, and monitoring of pilot projects and communications activities. Both CC and PE/CE do not have dedicated positions for ECCEI.

From 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, PS ECCEI funded 119 projects, including conferences and gatherings, public dialogue and engagement activities, publications, development of information tools, pilot projects, and capacity building activities. Average funding amount per project was highest for AC (about $75,000), followed by PE/CE (about $50,000)^{Note 9}. Funding amount per project for CC was small, at about $24,000^{Note 10}.

2.5 Logic Model

The logic model presented at Exhibit 1 is a visual representation that links what the Initiatives are funded to do (activities) with what the Initiatives produce (outputs) and what the Initiatives intend to achieve (outcomes). It also provides the basis for developing the evaluation matrix, which gave the evaluation team a roadmap for conducting this evaluation.

The AC component of the logic model was first developed when the interim evaluation of the Aboriginal Community Corrections Initiative was conducted in March 2004. Logic models for CC and PE/CE were created as part of the development of the departmental performance measurement framework. The logic model presented in this report combines the three components into one logic model.

Exhibit 1: Logic model of the Public Safety Canada Effective Corrections and Citizen Engagement Initiatives

Logic model of the Public Safety Canada Effective Corrections and Citizen Engagement Initiatives

Image Description

There are two enabling activities, each producing enabling outputs, as follows:
1. Administering the contributions program results in contribution agreements and in funding.
2. Developing partnerships and multi-stakeholder collaborations: within the Public Safety Portfolio, with other departments (e.g. DOJ) and other jurisdictions (provinces and territories) results in partnerships, collaborations and memoranda of understanding.

There are three ECCEI streams: Community Corrections, Aboriginal Corrections and Public Education/Citizen Engagement.

The contribution agreements and funding support the activities of the Community Corrections and Aboriginal Corrections streams, while partnerships, collaborations and memoranda of understanding support the activities of all three streams.

Community Corrections activities (i.e. Community Corrections and Restorative Justice Pilot Projects) are as follows:

develop model demonstration projects that operate in accordance with the UN Basic Principles for restorative justice; and
conduct comprehensive evaluations of the processes and outcomes of these restorative justice models.

These activities result in two outputs: pilot projects and evaluations of the processes and outcomes of restorative justice models.

Aboriginal Corrections activities are comprised of:

Pilot Project Implementation, i.e. develop, test and evaluate healing strategies grounded in Aboriginal cultural beliefs;
Capacity Building Communications, i.e. publish specific research and technical reports, support conferences, seminars and gatherings, and provide access to training; and
Knowledge Development and Transfer, i.e. support conferences, seminars and gatherings, and prepare publications.

Pilot project implementation activities result in the following outputs: offender treatment/healing projects, evaluations of projects and culturally appropriate healing strategies. Capacity building communication activities result in the following output: community capacity building (e.g. training, needs assessment, implementation readiness assessment). Knowledge development and transfer activities result in the following outputs: publications, gatherings and lateral knowledge transfer.

Public Education/Citizen Engagement activities are comprised of:

Research for best practices and models;
Citizen engagement activities, i.e. public dialogue and engagement and promote awareness; and
Public education activities, i.e. developing multi-media, e-learning and survey products, and developing information tools.

Research for best practices and models results in the following outputs: best practices and models for citizen engagement and public education. Citizen engagement activities result in the following outputs: joint sessions and focus groups, and citizen connectivity and participation. Public education activities result in the following outputs: public education activities and publicly accessible criminal justice materials.

The activities and outputs under the Community Corrections stream contribute to the following two immediate outcomes:

Community organizations are more knowledgeable and better able to serve their target populations (victims, offenders, organizations that work with criminal justice issues). (3.0)
Public Safety Canada is aware of what constitutes successful community corrections initiatives. (3.1)

These two immediate outcomes (3.0 and 3.1) contribute to an intermediate and a long-term outcome, respectively:

Corrections policy and programs are informed by ECCE community-based projects; (2.1) and
Safe and effective reintegration of eligible offenders into Canadian communities. (1.1)

The activities and outputs under the Aboriginal Corrections stream contribute to the following three immediate outcomes:

The knowledge base of Aboriginal-specific initiatives involving services to victims, offenders and their families is expanded within Aboriginal communities. (3.2)
Aboriginal communities have a sufficient knowledge base to determine whether to pursue community corrections initiatives. (3.3)
Aboriginal people are aware of the extent to which they could be involved in the community healing and corrections process. (3.4)

These three immediate outcomes (3.2 to 3.4) contribute to an intermediate and a long-term outcome, respectively:

Aboriginal communities are equipped to deal with their own corrections issues; (2.3) and
Aboriginal communities deal with corrections issues towards promoting safer communities. (1.2)

The activities and outputs under the Public Education/Citizen Engagement stream contribute to the following three immediate outcomes:

Public Safety Canada is aware of public views on the criminal justice system and criminal justice issues, and best practices & models in criminal justice. (3.5)
Misinformed stereotypes of the public are dispelled. (3.6)
The public is informed of criminal justice system and criminal justice issues. (3.7)

These three immediate outcomes (3.5 to 3.7) contribute to the following two intermediate outcomes:

Criminal justice policy is informed by the public and best practices; (2.4) and
The public is knowledgeable of the criminal justice system and criminal justice issues. (2.5)

These two intermediate outcomes (2.4 and 2.5) contribute to the following long-term outcome: the public is confident in the criminal justice system. (1.3)

Long-term outcomes (1.1 to 1.3) from all three streams (i.e. Community Corrections, Aboriginal Corrections and Public Education/Citizen Engagement) contribute to the ultimate outcome of communities being enabled (equipped, knowledgeable and confident) to respond to corrections issues. This is consistent with the PAA strategic outcome of “A Safe and Resilient Canada”.

3. About the Evaluation

3.1 Objective and scope

The objective of this evaluation is to provide Canadians, Parliamentarians, Ministers, central agencies and deputy heads with an evidence-based, neutral assessment of the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of the Initiatives.

As per the 2009 Treasury Board of Canada Policy on Evaluation, an evaluation needs to assess the continued relevance and performance of the Initiatives. However, a preliminary assessment revealed that the Department only had limited performance information. Thus, based on the 2009 Treasury Board of Canada Guide to Developing a Risk-Based Departmental Evaluation Plan and after calibrating the departmental evaluation effort, a deliberate decision was made to put a heavier emphasis on the assessment of the relevance of the Initiatives. Performance will be assessed, to the extent possible. As mentioned, the evaluation examines the PS activities funded by the Initiatives. Activities performed by CSC and PBC were not part of this evaluation.

The period covered by this evaluation is 2005-2006 to 2009-2010. As legislated by the Financial Administration Act, cyclical evaluation of the ECCEI has to be conducted every five years. Activities pertaining to funding received by PS on all the three components were evaluated in March 2004.^{Note 11} PS conducted this evaluation, as required by the Act.

3.2 Issues

The following questions were formulated based on, and as required by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Directive on the Evaluation Function.

Relevance

1. Does the PS ECCEI continue to address a demonstrable federal corrections need and are they responsive to these needs? (core issue 1)
2. Is there alignment between the PS ECCEI objectives and i) federal government priorities, and ii) the strategic outcomes of PS? (core issue 2)
3. Is it within the federal role and mandate to deliver the ECCEI? Are the roles of PS in the ECCEI appropriate? (core issue 3)
4. How relevant are delivery partnerships to the PS ECCEI and to what extent have opportunities for partnership been realized? (core issue 3)

Performance

5. To what extent has progress been made toward expected outcomes? (core issue 4)
6. Are the ECCEI being delivered efficiently to produce outputs and progress towards expected outcomes? (core issue 5)

3.3 Methodology

This evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Secretariat Standard on Evaluation for the Government of Canada and the PS Evaluation Policy (2010). The evaluation team developed an evaluation matrix (see Appendix A) using the following lines of evidence: document review, interviews, and a review of performance and financial data. Each of these methods is described in more detail in the following sections.

3.3.1 Review of Documents

The following types of documentation were reviewed for the evaluation (see Appendix B):

Corporate, accountability and policy documents: Reports on Plans and Priorities, previous evaluation frameworks and evaluation reports, etc. Other documents included Speeches from the Throne, legislation, briefing notes and related material;
Operational documents: terms and conditions, terms of reference, funding guidelines; and
Program outputs: strategic documents, annual and monthly reports, presentations, communiqués, funded project documents (progress or final reports, publications, etc.)

3.3.2 Interviews

A total of 22 interviews were conducted using interview guides developed for each of the interview groups (see Appendix C), as described in the table below.

Table 2: Interview Groups and Number of Interviews
Interview Group		Number of Interviews
A.	Funding recipients or delivery partners^{Note 12}:
	Aboriginal Corrections	5
	Community Corrections	4
	Public Education/Citizen Engagement (PS and non-PS)	6
B.	Program Managers and PS senior management (individual and group interviews)	4
C.	PS Contribution Review Committee members (past and current)	3
Total		22

In order to achieve the intended objectives of the Initiatives, the Department undertakes a wide spectrum of projects. These projects are conducted by funding recipients/delivery partners. For PE/CE, quite a few of the projects are administered by in-house PS staff.^{Note 13}

For this evaluation, the evaluation team interviewed funding recipients/delivery partners (Group A) and in-house PS staff (Group B - individual and one group interview) who administer the projects. Efforts were made to ensure that projects of different nature were covered.

In addition, a significant portion of all projects funded between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 was being covered. For CC, seven out of 20 projects were covered (35%). These projects were administered by non-government organizations which have presence in most provinces. For Aboriginal Corrections, 12 out of 40 projects (30%) were covered, representing about 50% of funding during the period.^{Note 14} These projects were mostly community-based, located in Alberta (6), Saskatchewan (1), Manitoba (1), and Nova Scotia (5). For PE/CE, opinions from six interviewees were obtained. All six received funding to deliver individual projects. Four of six individuals also received funding to manage multiple projects. Altogether, these six interviewees manage/deliver more than 53% of all PE/CE funding.

Program managers and PS senior management (Group B - group interview and individual interview with PS senior management) have insights of the Initiatives' continued relevance and performance and thus, the evaluation team interviewed them in order to garner their opinions with respect to relevance, achievement of outcomes, and efficiency and economy.

Past and current members of the PS Contribution Review Committee (Group C) consisted of CSC, ex-PBC as well as ex-PS management. They were able to provide objective independent comments about the PS ECCEI contribution-funded projects (i.e., CC and AC projects). Moreover, these individuals have in-depth and high-level knowledge of the Initiatives and frequently, they had/have been involved in the funding decision-making process for PE/CE projects.

3.3.4 Performance and Financial Data

ECCEI program partners from all three components provided the available project files for the period 2005-06 to 2009-2010, including but not limited to contribution agreements, statements of work, end of project reports, etc. The evaluation team then extracted the pertinent performance information contained in each of these files, supplemented by other program documents and available information that were published on the PS website. Web hit statistics were collected from PS Corporate Management Branch, Chief Information Officer Directorate.

PS Finance provided the breakdown of budget and expenditure data between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. Certain financial information (e.g., source of PS and non-PS funding) were obtained from project files. PE/CE program management representatives provided the 2009-2010 PE/CE year-end financial report.

The performance information was used to assess the achievement of expected ECCEI outcomes, and was combined with the financial information to assess the economy and efficiency of the Initiatives.

3.4 Limitations

Over the five-year period of this evaluation, the three components have altogether funded 119 projects and by and large, each project is fairly distinct from one another. On average, the funding amount for each project was small, approximately $54,000. However, given the distinctive nature of each project, conducting a comprehensive evaluation would require the assessment of each project.

To assess outcomes for each project, challenges were encountered. The following outlines these challenges as it relates to the limitation of this evaluation:

Project participants can provide direct and impartial opinions on the usefulness of funded projects. However, this evaluation did not solicit opinions from project participants. The number of project participants is high. Selecting an unbiased sample and then attempting to compile the contact information for them would be a huge undertaking, considering the small budget for the Initiatives. Instead, the evaluation team relied mainly on project evaluation results (where available) that funding recipients/delivery partners provided to assess outcomes for the projects. This was supplemented by funding recipients/delivery partners interviews;
The Department only has project evaluation results for some funded projects; and
The evaluation team interviewed a selected number of funding recipients/delivery partners, who are currently receiving funding from PS ECCEI. The evaluation team did not interview those who have not received funding and/or past funding recipients/delivery partners. As mentioned, in selecting interviewees, efforts were made to ensure that projects of different nature were covered. In addition, a significant portion of all projects funded between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010 was being covered.

3.5 Protocol

During the conduct of the evaluation, PS program representatives assisted in the identification of key stakeholders and provided documentation and data to support the evaluation. Collaborative participation greatly enriched the evaluation process.

Acceptance and approval process

This report was submitted to program representatives and to the ADM, Community Safety and Partnerships Branch, for review and acceptance. A management response and action plan was provided in response to the evaluation recommendations. These documents were presented to the PS Departmental Evaluation Committee for consideration and for final approval by the Deputy Minister of Public Safety.

4. Findings

4.1 Relevance

4.1.1 Continuing Need for ECCEI

Need for Effective Corrections as Alternative to Incarceration

Canada's incarceration rate is higher than the rates in most Western European countries. Meantime, the federal average daily inmate cost has increased from $241 in 2004-2005 to $300 in 2008-2009.^{Note 15} There is a need for a continued focus to enhance public safety, while containing the growth of the federal inmate population.

There is evidence to indicate that enhancing public safety through effective corrections initiatives can serve as a very good alternative to incarceration for some offenders. Experience has shown most criminals are more likely to become law-abiding citizens if they participate in a program of gradual, supervised release.^{Note 16} In fact, longer prison sentences are associated with a 3% increase in recidivism.^{Note 17}

Moreover, the cost of maintaining an offender in the community in 2008-2009 was substantially less than keeping that individual incarcerated ($29,476 per year versus $109,699).^{Note 18} A cost-benefit analysis conducted on a First Nation community in Manitoba (Hollow Water) also demonstrated that for every dollar the federal government invested on community healing process, it would otherwise have had to spend between a minimum of two dollars and a maximum of 12 dollars on the incarceration of the offenders.^{Note 19}

Need for Appropriate Policies and Programs for Effective Corrections

The majority of inmates serve sentences of fixed duration and return to their communities. In general, to protect societies, there is a need to develop relevant policies and programs to support offenders to reintegrate into the communities in a safe, timely and effective manner.

There is also a need for PS to continually develop tailored legislative proposals and policies while testing out innovative pilot projects and programs that are responsive to the needs of specific offender populations. Federal offender population has become more diversified (e.g., an aging offender population, a significant proportion and increases in offenders with mental health diagnoses, over-representation of Aboriginal offenders). This trend points toward an ongoing societal need for targeted policies and programs.

Need for Community Corrections Approach for Aboriginal Communities

Aboriginal offenders are over-represented in the corrections system and the problem is expected to grow in the coming years if current trends continue. In 2009-2010, Aboriginal offenders represented 17.9% of the total federal offender population while Aboriginal adults represent 3.0% of the Canadian adult population.^{Note 20} The numbers reach critical levels in the Prairie region where Aboriginal people make up more than 60% of the inmate population in some penitentiaries.^{Note 21}

From 2000-2001 to 2009-2010, the Aboriginal incarcerated population under federal jurisdiction increased by 28.1%.^{Note 22} It is expected that the current Aboriginal baby boom would cause the number of Aboriginal offenders to rise still further.^{Note 23} Statistics Canada estimated that the projected population growth (to the year 2017) in the 20-29 age group is 40% for Aboriginal Canadians, compared to 9% for non-Aboriginal Canadians.^{Note 24}

Document review indicates that culturally relevant community correction approach is important for the successful reintegration of Aboriginal offenders into the communities. The interim report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People, Bridging the Cultural Divide (1995) recognized the need for "community-based and community-controlled Aboriginal programs".^{Note 25} Aboriginal community research indicated that the major factors contributing to Aboriginal offenders' success upon release were their participation in spiritual and cultural activities, as well as treatment programs (preferably delivered by Aboriginal people) and the support they received from family and community.^{Note 26}

Need to Improve Public Knowledge of the Corrections System

Successful reintegration of offenders into society requires community acceptance, support and involvement. For example, ex-offenders need employers to provide employment in order to reintegrate back as productive citizens. However, employers require information to overcome concerns that might come from hiring ex-offenders (e.g., trust, reliability, interpersonal skills).^{Note 27}

There is a need to increase public knowledge of the corrections system nationally. Focus groups held across the country in 2004 revealed that participants gave the system a fair to middling grade. Most people were not aware how the statutory and conditional release system worked. Most people said that they simply did not have enough information to really rate the corrections system which emphasized the need for more information and increased knowledge on these issues. However after the focus group meetings, participants agreed that they were now much more curious about the corrections system than they were before.^{Note 28}

Moreover, it is important to inform the public in order to dispel myths about corrections and conditional release issues. Based on a 2007 national survey,^{Note 29} only 27% of respondents said that they valued the information received from the government. Information received from television news (43%), friends and family members (41%), newspapers and magazines (34%) were rated more highly. The 2004 focus groups held across the nation noted similar findings.

4.1.2 Alignment to the Federal Mandate and Federal Government Priorities

Appropriateness to the Federal Mandate - Legislative Authorities

The legislative authorities of relevance to the ECCEI include: the Constitution Act, 1982, the Criminal Code, and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. In addition, the objective of ECCEI aligns well with the purpose of the federal correctional system. The purpose, as stipulated in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (s.3), is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. ECCEI helps to fulfill this government mandate by contributing to the safe and gradual reintegration of offenders into the community.

There are specific provisions embedded in the Canada's legislative framework for Aboriginal offenders. Under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, Aboriginal communities may, where capacity exists, assume responsibility for the care and custody of offenders (Section 81) and support the reintegration of offenders into their communities (Section 84). In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the provisions of the Criminal Code requiring that alternatives to imprisonment be considered for all offenders, and in particular for Aboriginal offenders. Starting in 2012, the Aboriginal Corrections of the PS ECCEI will be the only federal initiative exploring the treatment of victims, offenders and their families using traditional healing approaches.^{Note 30}

Appropriateness to the Federal Mandate - Duplication with other Initiatives

Interviewees (12 out of 15) funding recipients/delivery partners and review committee members) viewed that the activities funded by PS ECCEI to be fairly unique and serve different purposes than the ECCEI activities funded by Correctional Service Canada (CSC) and the Parole Board of Canada (PBC). As well, review committee members and PS management are responsible to ensure PS funded projects do not duplicate funding from CSC and PBC.

Program management representatives indicated that PS has a different target audience, working with communities, while CSC and PBC work specifically with federal offenders. While CSC and PBC are very operational and projects tend to be narrower in scope (e.g., instituting a culturally-sensitive prison), PS deals with broader corrections issues leading up to legislative and policy developments.

Alignment with Federal Government Priorities

A review of program documents indicates that the PS ECCEI aligns with the government's public safety agenda by contributing to the promotion of community safety. Community safety can be strengthened through PS ECCEI activities that,

enable communities to deal with their correction issues; and
build community support for ex-offenders by increasing public confidence of the criminal justice system.

More subtly, PS ECCEI facilitates the establishment of safer neighbourhoods and communities by contributing to the strengthening of the criminal justice system (e.g., activities that are conducive to the development of more informed policy-making in corrections issues).

4.2 Performance - Achievement of Expected Outcomes

In many instances, it is not possible to conclusively assess the achievement of outcomes for PS ECCEI. The Department has not been systematically collecting and reporting project performance information. Available information only allows this evaluation to report on the assessment based on examples and isolated cases.

Interviewee perceptions were obtained from funding recipients/delivery partners. More direct and impartial opinions from project participants could not be gathered. The small budget for PS ECCEI and the nature of the projects did not justify the collection of comprehensive project participant information as part of this evaluation (e.g. through surveys of project participants).

With this pretext, the following highlights the extent of outcomes achieved, wherever possible. As well, it will alert readers to the specific outcomes that cannot be conclusively assessed.

The following presents the extent in which PS ECCEI has achieved the intended outcomes of:^{Note 31}

Corrections and criminal justice policies and programs are informed by community-based pilot projects, research, best practices and public views; ^{Note 32}
Increased capacity of community organizations to serve their target populations;
Aboriginal communities are equipped to deal with their own correction issues;
The public has an increased knowledge of the criminal justice system and issues; and,
The public is confident in the criminal justice system.

4.2.1 Corrections and criminal justice policies and programs are informed by community-based pilot projects, research, best practices and public views

Based on interviews, table 3 presents examples showing how some PS ECCEI funded projects have contributed to policy and program developments.

Table 3: Contribution of PS ECCEI Funded Projects to Policy and Program Developments 2005-2006 to 2009-2010
Project Title	Year	ECCEI Components	Impact on Policy and/or Program Development
"What Works in the community reintegration of high risk offenders" conference	2006	CC	Contributed to the development of the National Sex Offender Registry Resulted in a proposed protocol to deal with high risk offenders released from penitentiary. Contributed to the determination of roles and responsibilities of jurisdictions for offenders upon release.
Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview	Every year	PE/CE	Useful for all corrections-related legislative proposals within PS and beyond
"No Estamos Solos - Not Alone" Worldwide Conference	2005-2006	CC	Helped improve restorative justice policies and practices
Improving Services and Information to Victims of Crime Meeting	2007-2008	PE/CE	Helped government organizations (e.g., RCMP and CSC) in developing ways to assist victims and victims service providers.
Federation of Canadian Municipalities/CSC/PBC/PS Canada Joint Committee on Community Corrections: Discussion Groups with Municipalities	2009-2010	PE/CE	Informed CSC in developing a community strategy to promote safe communities and municipalities.
Sagkeeng Child and Family Services Project	2005-2006	AC	Incorporated into a CSC program to respond to gang problems.

Perception of PS Program Management

Opinions of PS program representatives on how PS ECCEI activities contribute to policy developments are important. In many ways, PS program representatives are authors of corrections and criminal justice legislative proposals and thus, their user perception of the significance of knowledge gained from PS ECCEI funded activities is important.

Program representatives indicated that through PS ECCEI funded conferences/workshops, PS staff has gained useful knowledge from funding recipients/delivery partners. This knowledge gained has greatly contributed to corrections-related program and policy developments.

4.2.2 Increased Capacity of Community Organizations to Serve their Target Populations

Over the five-year evaluation period, CC mainly funded projects related to knowledge development (pamphlet, booklet), knowledge sharing (conference, workshops), and dissemination (publication) within the corrections community. It is expected that through these activities, community organizations can become more equipped to serve their target populations (offenders, victims, organizations that work with criminal justice issues). In the following, the extent to which CC has achieved this outcome is presented.

As a preamble, CC and PE/CE fund similar types of projects. However, there are differences. For CC, the goal of funded projects centers on how to make community corrections more effective. Its main target audience has a strong connection with the corrections community. PE/CE is about reaching out to the public and engaging the public in corrections and criminal justice issues.

Reach and Distribution - Community Corrections Funded Projects

From table 4, it is noted that CC funded 20 projects from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010. Funded projects included mainly conferences/workshops (12), followed by development/distribution of information tools (5) and publications (2). One pilot project was being conducted.^{Note 33} Given the limited information available, conclusive statements cannot be made in regards to the extent of reach and distribution of these activities.

Table 4: Reach and Distribution, Community Corrections Funded Projects 2005-2006 to 2009-2010
	# of projects	# of people reached	# of tools/publication distributed
Conferences/workshops	12	1955*	n/a
Publications	2	unknown	unknown
Information tools (e.g. pamphlets, booklets, voluntary gateway.ca)	5	unknown	unknown
Pilot Projects	1	n/a	n/a

* Based on 10 projects

Extent of Knowledge Sharing and Dissemination - Community Corrections Funded Projects

Table 5 demonstrates a few examples indicating the extent of knowledge-sharing and dissemination within the corrections community through these CC funded projects. However, limited available information does not allow conclusive statements to be made.

Table 5: Examples of CC Funded Projects that Contribute to Knowledge Sharing and Dissemination 2005-2006 to 2009-2010
Project Title	Project Type	Extent of Knowledge Sharing and Dissemination
"No Estamos Solos - Not Alone" Worldwide Conference	Conference	325 participants from 70 countries Evaluation sheets (90% returned) said that participants benefited greatly from the Conference
Interaction 2006 National Conference	Conference	Approximately 600 participants A review of participant feedback showed that the conference was very positively received by participants Funding recipient reports that conference received a lot of media attention.
What Works conference on "A Crime Prevention Strategy for Working with Offenders with Mental Health Problems"	Conference	Over 84 individuals and organizations participated A handbook was subsequently published and it has reportedly reached hundreds of people in Canada. Other initiatives have taken place building on this Conference.
Special Issue of the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice	Publication	Approximately 900 subscribers in 35 countries.

Extent of Increased Knowledge Sharing and Transfer - Interviewee Perceptions

Three out of four CC funding recipients interviewed said that the CC projects have increased their community's capacity to service their target audience either directly or indirectly through knowledge sharing.

All four CC interviewees viewed that the CC funded conferences/workshops are very important in allowing them to network and establish partnerships. Different subject matter experts are brought together to focus on one common issue (e.g., academics, mental health practitioners, different levels of government officials are brought together to discuss mental health issues).

Most CC interviewees (3/4) stated that knowledge transfer of information to other communities is occurring indirectly.

In addition, all CC funding recipients interviewed (4/4) felt that PS staff has been very supportive in enabling them to share best practices and/or facilitate them in partnership building. Some interviewees (2/4) expressed that without PS funds, the projects would not have been possible. One interviewee mentioned that overall progress has been made in the areas of criminal justice and corrections that would not have been on the radar if it wasn't for PS funding.

4.2.3 Extent of Aboriginal Communities being Equipped to Deal with their Own Corrections Issues

In assessing this outcome, the evaluation examined the increase in knowledge and capacity of Aboriginal communities about healing and corrections processes, and the evaluation and sustainability of pilot projects after PS funding ended.

As ECCEI AC and the Aboriginal Community Corrections Initiative (ACCI) are managed jointly, it was not possible to distinguish between projects funded under each of these two initiatives. Other activities are also undertaken under the ACCI (e.g., partnerships and multi-stakeholder cooperation and collaborations). These activities serve as important and necessary groundwork, but were not the focus of this evaluation.

4.2.3.1 Extent of increase in knowledge and capacity of Aboriginal communities

Through the increased knowledge of Aboriginal communities about healing and corrections processes, the capacity of Aboriginal communities is being built up. In turn, this leads to Aboriginal communities being better equipped to deal with their own corrections issues. To examine the extent in which Aboriginal communities have become more knowledgeable and capable to implement community healing and corrections processes, this evaluation:

examined the extent of reach and distribution of AC related projects;
identified relevant examples; and
analyzed interviewee perception on the issue.

Reach and Distribution - Aboriginal Corrections Funded Projects

Between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010, 29 out of 40 AC funded projects (Table 6) related to knowledge-building (4), knowledge-sharing (17), and capacity-building (8) activities. Based on available information, the evaluation team could not determine the extent of the number of people reached through these projects.

Table 6: Reach and Distribution, Aboriginal Corrections Funded Projects 2005-2006 to 2009-2010
	# of projects	# of people reached	# of communities
Knowledge building (research)	4	not available	Based in communities in SK, MB, QC, NS (unknown if reached other communities)
Knowledge sharing (seminars and gatherings)	17	628*	MB 5, NS 5, ON 2, NB 1, AB 4, BC 1, NFLD 1
Capacity Building (training, seminars)	8	127**	SK 3, ON 2, MB 1, AB 1, NS 1
Total	29	n/a	n/a

*based on 8 out of 17, **based on 2 out of 8

About one third of the publications on the Aboriginal Peoples Collection Website are related to AC funded projects (between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010). Although no Web statistics on these specific AC funded projects are available, the number of page views on the Collection Website might suggest that there is an interest to seek out information emanating from these funded projects. From 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, these publications have drawn more than 11,000 page views, an average of 2,348 per year. Numbers have been increasing over the last five years. Complete figures are presented in Appendix D.

In addition, based on the 2005-2010 Aboriginal Corrections Strategic Framework, responses for these publications have been very positive. Some of these publications have formed part of legal briefs, and have been used in post-secondary institutions and cross-cultural training. This same document noted that the "Department has been unable to keep pace with the growing need for information about healing and restorative corrections and has not been able to address several emerging issues, such as healing and restoration as it affects the Inuit, northern communities, Métis people, and women."

Demonstration of Increased Knowledge and Capacity for Aboriginal Communities

There is documented evidence to indicate that half of the 29 funded projects have contributed to making Aboriginal communities more knowledgeable and capable to deal their own correction issues.^{Note 34} A more detailed discussion can be found in Appendix E. In summary, these projects have demonstrated to:

Provide knowledge to communities to determine whether to and how to address specific correction issues;
Contribute to network development and information exchange between community organizations and between communities;
Support the development of community correction strategies to deliver correctional services;
Provide community workers, through training events, with key knowledge and tools that have made them more equipped to serve their communities; and
Facilitate partnership development between community organizations and various levels of governments.

For the rest of the AC projects, it is either too soon to assess project impacts or available information is lacking.

Extent of Increased Knowledge and Capacity for Aboriginal Communities - Interviewee Perceptions

Most AC funding recipient interviewees (4/5) felt that, as a result of PS ECCEI funded projects, knowledge and awareness within Aboriginal communities have been increased. In addition, most AC interviewees (4/5) indicated that these projects have facilitated the creation of important partnerships and networks.

Most AC interviewees (4/5) agreed that they have a very positive relationship with PS and that PS staff have helped with knowledge transfer (4/5) and building partnerships (5/5). However, two AC interviewees reported that, due to the government's inflexibility to adjust to the changing environment, funding recipients can only report on progress that are strictly within the terms and conditions of the original proposal even though opportunities have arisen to leverage resources from other partners.

On the whole, three out of five AC interviewees agreed that, due to the AC funded projects, Aboriginal communities are better equipped to deal with their corrections issues.

4.2.3.2 Assessment and Sustainability of Aboriginal Corrections Pilot Projects

Assessment of Aboriginal Corrections Pilot Projects

Similar to the other AC projects, pilot projects are intended to directly provide involved communities with increased knowledge and capacity which in turn, help these communities to be better equipped to deal with corrections issues. In addition, successful pilot projects can be replicated in or tailored to other communities, furthering the impact on other Aboriginal communities. Lastly, through a formal evaluation of these projects, there can be important lessons and best practices learned which can indirectly benefit other Aboriginal communities.

PS funds these innovative pilot projects through contributions, for a maximum period of five-years. These projects are cost-shared among provinces/territories, Aboriginal communities, other federal organizations, and non-governmental organizations. After the five year demonstration phase, PS funding will end and continued funding for the projects will depend on the community (with PS support) finding other sources of funding.

Between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010, PS has funded 11 pilot projects. Of these, six pilot projects have been completed, and five of them are in progress. Table 7 outlines the results achieved by four of these projects and provides pertinent information on the other two completed projects. Evidence collected is based on published evaluations, final reports and/or funding recipient interviews. A preliminary observation of the five ongoing projects is provided in Appendix F.

Overall, there is evidence to indicate that these projects have been successful in contributing to Aboriginal communities being more equipped to deal with their own corrections issues. Moreover, there is indication that one project has been replicated in another community.

Table 7: Aboriginal Corrections Pilot Projects Contribution to Aboriginal Communities being Equipped to deal with Corrections Issues
Project Title	Impact on Aboriginal Communities being More Equipped to deal with Corrections Issues
The Rankin Inlet Spousal Abuse Counselling Program (Pulaarvik Kablu Friendship Centre, Nunavut)	No offender that participated in the program has re-offended. Victims feel safer, happier, have increased their self esteem, have found employment or have been taking skills development courses. Children are happier, less nervous and fearful; they are performing better in school. Community is more aware about spousal abuse through the outreach component. This model could be replicated in other Inuit communities in the future.
MamowichihitowinCommunity Wellness Program (Hinton Friendship Center, Alberta)	No cases of re-offending or re-victimization. Suicide rate has been reduced in four communities. High increase in sexual abuse disclosure rates. Educational component provides workshops all over Canada and abroad The model is becoming to be a teaching model for other Aboriginal communities (training manual being created). The Community Wellness Program is becoming a teaching facility for a University (practicum site for master level students).
Aseniwuche Winewak Nation Community Wellness Program (Hinton Friendship Center, Alberta)	The model developed for the Mamowichihitowin Community Wellness Program has been replicated and tailored to the Aseniwuche Winewak Nation Community. No specific results were found for this Wellness Program.
Community Solutions to Gang Violence (Native Counselling Services of Alberta)	Heightened awareness of and about the project among community members, government leaders and service providers. The service has established itself as a viable community initiative that warrants recognition and merits consultation on issues surrounding youth and gangs in the community. The Province has since developed a gang prevention strategy, using material from the project, and incorporated it into a provincial Website. Partnerships with federal, provincial and municipal agencies, schools and the Edmonton Police Service providing services to youth most at risk of gang involvement.
Ahousaht Holistic Society (British Columbia)	No final report available.
Family Reintegration Program (Prince Albert Grand Council, Saskatchewan)	Out of 41 clients, seven (7) have either re-offended or broke their probation/parole orders. This represents a success rate of approximately 82% for the program. 24 clients are either fully employed or they are taking training.

Sustainability of Aboriginal Corrections Pilot Projects

Sustainability of pilot projects after PS involvement is a good indication that involved communities are better able to deal with their own corrections issues. Moreover, sustained pilot projects demonstrated two other elements of success. First, it illustrated that the design of the pilot projects are appropriate, or more likely, stakeholders have made the necessary and appropriate adjustments during the piloted period. Second, significant partnerships must have been established so that by the time PS involvement is complete, other partners see the value of the projects and become willing sponsors to continue the projects.

All six completed AC pilot projects are currently being sustained through funding from provinces/territories, other federal organizations, or other organizations. Some AC funding recipients (3/5) mentioned that they initially could not find other funding sources for their projects, prior to PS involvement.

4.2.4 Extent of Canadians having an Increased Knowledge of the Criminal Justice System and Issues

In assessing this outcome, the evaluation analyzed the reach and distribution of PE/CE funded project activities, and provides examples and documented evidence demonstrating extent of outreach and increased knowledge for some PE/CE projects and perceptions based on interviewee opinions.

Reach and Distribution - Public Education/Citizen Engagement Funded Projects

From 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, a total of 59 projects were undertaken under PS ECCEI's PE/CE component. These projects are mainly public dialogue and engagement events (27 out of 59), followed by publications (13), information tools (12), and conferences/presentations (6) (Table 8).

Though only partial information was obtained, there is evidence to suggest a high number of people have attended some PE/CE funded conferences/presentations or have engaged in public dialogue activities. Similarly based only on incomplete information obtained, it is found that a considerable number of information tools or publications have been distributed over the evaluation period.

Table 8: Reach and Distribution, Public Education/Citizen Engagement Funded Projects 2005-2006 to 2009-2010
Public Education/Citizen Engagement Projects	# of projects	# of people reached	# of tools/publications distributed
Conferences/Presentations	6	900*	n/a
Public Dialogue and Engagement (e.g. focus groups, one-on-one interaction)	27	658**	n/a
Publications (e.g. research, best practices)	13	n/a	3,000***
Information tools (e.g. multi-media, e-learning)	12	n/a	36,200****
Other	1	n/a	n/a
TOTAL	59	1558	39,200

*based on 2 projects, **based on 9 projects, ***based on 1 project, ****based on 3 projects

Examples demonstrating Extent of Outreach and Increased Knowledge of Criminal Justice System and Issues

Through documented evidence and information collected from PE/CE funding recipient/delivery partner interviews, the evaluation team has gathered project performance information relating to the extent of outreach and increased awareness of the criminal justice system and issues for 30 out of a total of 59 PE/CE projects. The following table provides examples for which available project information is relatively more comprehensive. More examples are included in Appendix G.

Table 9: Public Education/Citizen Engagement Funded Projects that Contribute to Increased Knowledge of Criminal Justice System and Issues 2005-2006 to 2009-2010
Project Title	Project Type	Extent of Outreach and Increased Knowledge of Criminal Justice System and Issues
A Little Manual of Restorative Justice	Publication	Originally published at 2,000 copies. A subsequent reprint was required due to the number of requests received. It is estimated that a total of 3,000 copies have so far been distributed.
What Works Conference on Community Reintegration of High-Risk Offenders	Conference	Program reports showed highly positive conference evaluations and indicated that conference attendees felt more informed about the correctional system as a whole and were more aware of correctional issues generally, including the barriers faced by offenders in the community.
Speakers' Series (12 events)	Conference	800 people attended including students, faculty members, local non-governmental organizations, police forces and government officials. Participants felt the events were a success and allowed for useful discussions. Program reports indicated that the Speakers' Series made an important contribution to enhancing the level of debate about topical and timely criminal justice issues in Canada, helped bridge the gap between practitioners and the wider public and also strengthen the links between PS and Canadian universities.
Inside/Out Program	Public Dialogue and Engagement	Helped the community to develop an understanding and acceptance of the inmates and their ability to reintegrate. The project assisted to dispel myths and fear related to having a penitentiary in the community.
CSC Northern Corrections Framework project (3 events)	Public Dialogue and Engagement	Generated positive discussions around the reintegration of Inuit offenders. Community mayor indicated the event had provided a better understanding of the legislative release process.
Sentence Calculation Handbook	Information Tool	Over 34,000 copies were distributed across Canada, including 4,000 copies of a version specifically intended for judges, lawyers and correctional officers.

The following presents a summary of results of project evaluation forms that were completed for 31 project activities^{Note 35} from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010:

87% of completed forms stated that participants were more informed about the correctional system.
74% of completed forms stated that participants were more aware of correctional issues and barriers faced by offenders in the community.

It should be noted that evaluation forms were filled out by PE/CE funding recipients/delivery partners, not by project participants. Very often, assessment of outcomes was based on perceptions. In some cases (about one-third), interviews were conducted and, in a minority of cases, surveys were undertaken.

The PS website is also a key vehicle for making publications and information tools available to the public. To show the frequency of access to PS publications on corrections, the evaluation compiled the number of web page views for different types of corrections-related publications. Though the access to PS publications on corrections that are directly related to PS ECCEI projects cannot be established, based on available information, it can be inferred that there is an interest to access corrections-related material on the PS website.

On average between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010, Corrections Research Summaries have generated approximately 65,000 page views per year, with a high of 94,000 views in 2007-2008. Corrections reports and manuals have generated approximately 32,000 views annually, and have been constantly increasing over the past five years. Yearly figures are included in Appendix D. It should be noted that many publications on these Websites fall outside the scope of PS ECCEI.

Increased Knowledge of Criminal Justice System and Issue - Interviewee Perceptions

Six interviewees were consulted on this issue, of which three are internal PS funding recipients/delivery partners. All PE/CE interviewees (6/6) felt that projects have been useful to the project participants and believed that the projects had increased the knowledge of criminal justice system for the event participants.

Some PE/CE interviewees (4/6) felt that a good number of people have been reached, mostly academic and practitioners in the corrections and criminal justice fields. One indicated it was a challenge to reach the general public.

Most PE/CE interviewees (3/6) stated that knowledge transfer of information to other communities is occurring indirectly. This is re-enforced by post-project requests for publications or to reproduce the project (3/6). However, some interviewees (2/6) indicated that these perceptions were based on anecdotal evidence only.

4.2.5 Extent of Canadians being Confident in the Criminal Justice System

Based on interviews conducted, only two out of six PE/CE interviewees felt that the PE/CE activities have increased public confidence. Two others felt that there is simply no evidence and there is no way to gauge public confidence on the criminal justice system. One program management interviewee noted that the increase of public confidence is a continual process. There are many negative factors influencing public perception that need to be gradually addressed.

The evaluation team found previous studies undertaken on the confidence of Canadians towards the criminal justice system. However, these are not linked to PS ECCEI activities. For example, a review of available Canadian public opinion research conducted between 1980 and 2004 indicated that earlier surveys demonstrated that Canadians expressed little confidence in the criminal justice system. The most recent survey conducted at the time of the review indicated that Canadians were more positive (46%) than negative (32%). In 2004-2005, among the 15 Western countries being studied, Canada was ranked sixth in terms of the level of public confidence in the criminal justice system.^{Note 36}

The 2007 National Justice Survey: Tackling Crime and Public Confidence (a Canadian study) showed that respondents generally expressed lower confidence in the criminal justice system compared to education, health care, and social welfare systems. Respondents were more likely to indicate lower confidence as they moved further along in the criminal justice process from police (6% had low confidence) to parole (32% had low confidence). The respondents also expressed lower confidence in the correctional system's ability to rehabilitate offenders, and the parole system's ability to safely release and supervise offenders within the community.

4.3 Performance - Efficiency and Economy

Under the 2009 Treasury Board of Canada's Policy on Evaluation, efficiency is defined as maximizing the outputs produced with a fixed level of inputs or minimizing the inputs used to produce a fixed level of outputs; and economy is defined as "minimizing the use of resources [...] to achieve expected outcomes". These elements of performance are, therefore, demonstrated when:

Outputs are produced at minimum cost (efficiency); and
Outcomes are achieved at minimum cost (economy).

In assessing efficiency of the Initiatives, this evaluation analyzed the extent of partnership leveraging and management efficiency from the perspectives of funding recipients/delivery partners.

In assessing economy of PS ECCEI, the evaluation conducted an analysis of the relationship between allotted budget and extent of outcome achievement; the project review and approval process; and the use of resources (budget versus expenditure, funded activities versus logic model activities).

A note of caution is warranted here. In assessing efficiency and economy of the Initiatives, it is important to bear in mind that two out of the three PS ECCEI components (PE/CE and CC) do not have any funded positions. Efficiency and economy for these two components need to be examined in light of this human resource constraint.

4.3.1 Efficiency

Leveraging of Funds from non-PS Partners

It is the intent of the PS ECCEI to leverage partnerships. These can extend the reach and consequently increase the effectiveness in policy development and programming to assist in offender reintegration. As well, funding recipient/delivery partner interviewees (6/13) and program representatives (4/4) indicated that partnerships are both significant and relevant for PS ECCEI.

Table 10 provides the project funding sources for AC and CC components, for each year between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010. For the PE/CE component, a program representative indicated that PS is the sole funding source for funding recipients/delivery partners.^{Note 37}

Table 10: Project Funding Sources for Aboriginal Corrections and Community Corrections 2005-2006 to 2009-2010
Year	Amount of Funding, by Sources			% of Funding, by Sources
Year	PS Contribution Funding (committed)	Non-PS funding	Total funding	% PS funding	% of non-PS funding	Total %
Aboriginal Corrections
5-Year Total	$3,031,071	$7,732,153	$10,763,224	28%	72%	100%
Community Corrections
5-Year Total	$487,358	$960,189	$1,447,547	34%	66%	100%

Source: AC and CC project files
Notes:

For AC, funding amount was based on committed amount to funding recipients.
The evaluation team was not provided with funding information for some of the CC projects. The above table reflected the committed funding amount for which funding information is available.

The above table indicated that there was a significant amount of funds leveraged from non-PS partners, for both AC and CC components. During the 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 period, PS funding to AC component recipients amounted to approximately $3 million, representing 28% of funding from all sources. Based on the available funding information obtained for CC projects, the proportion of PS funding was 34%.

Non-PS funding partners were varied, including federal departments/agencies (e.g., CSC, Justice Canada), the provinces/territories (e.g., provincial ministries of the Attorney General) and non-governmental organizations (e.g., John Howard Society of Canada, Elizabeth Fry Society, St. Leonard's Society, Aboriginal Healing Foundation, St-Paul University, Carleton University).

Management Efficiency

Overall, AC and PE/CE interviewees felt that the two components have been delivering the Initiatives in an efficient manner. Though improving overtime, CC interviewees expressed concerns about the project review and approval process for CC. Captured below is a summary of what the interviewees said:

Three out of five (3/5) AC interviewees commented that in their project-related interactions with PS program staff, they have been efficient;
AC program representative commented that AC projects can be very resource-intensive and therefore, AC might not be seen as resource-efficient.^{Note 38} However, PS AC unit considered the constant connection with partners (e.g., provinces/territories) and AC communities to be crucial to its success, as indicated by the high percentage of pilot projects being sustained after PS funding ended;
Though two out of four CC interviewees said that PS has been delivering the Initiatives more efficiently overtime, three of them commented that the project review and approval process needs improvement. They commented that the delays for project approval make it difficult for them to plan and implement the projects; and
Two out of the three non-PS PE/CE interviewees^{Note 39} said that PE/CE has been efficient in the delivery of the Initiatives.

4.3.2 Economy

In assessing economy, this evaluation examined the relationship between allotted budget and extent of outcome achievement based on interviewee perceptions; the project review and approval process; and the use of resources (budget versus expenditures, funded activities versus logic model activities).

Allotted Budget and Extent of Outcome Achievement - Interviewee Perceptions

All three review committee members interviewed said that, given the budget available, the funding allotted to the CC and AC components have been well-spent. However, one review committee member commented that available PE/CE budget has not been spending on projects to effectively achieve its overarching objectives. Two interviewees commented that achieving PE/CE's objective of reaching the public has been difficult. This same comment was echoed by one of the program representatives.

According to one review committee member, outreach to the public has been difficult despite a genuine attempt to do so. As a forerunner, PE/CE needs the support from political staff, the police community, and others (e.g., media) before it can communicate effectively and accurately about corrections issues with the public. In addition, it is and will continue to be difficult to reach beyond the traditional audiences. To effectively outreach, PE/CE needs to constantly reach out to new audiences.

Funding Review and Approval Process

A cursory review of the funding review process seems to provide support that there is a relatively more formal funding review and approval process for the AC and CC components. If funding is provided to internal PS units, the process appears to be less rigorous for the PE/CE component.

Document review indicated and interviewees confirmed (program representatives, review committee members) that to be considered for funding, AC and CC project applicants need to provide PS with proposals that meets the PS terms and conditions for contribution funding. If the applicant is successful, a contribution agreement will be signed between PS and the funding recipients, further specifying the requirements that they need to fulfill for the projects.

AC and CC project proposals are reviewed by the PS Contribution Review Committee, consisting of members from PS, PBC, and CSC. The committee meets annually to set priorities for all PS contribution projects, including the AC and CC ECCEI projects. Committee members are responsible to review and provide recommendation for funding on all PS contribution projects. In addition, they are responsible to ensure that PS projects do not overlap with projects funded by PBC and CSC. For PS ECCEI projects, the final decision rests with PS program management.

Based on document review, there seems to be a formal process in which PE/CE funds are distributed. At the beginning of a fiscal year, PE/CE sends out a project proposal call letter, inviting for submission of project proposals. Potential applicants are provided with an overview of the 2006-2011 PE/CE Plan and the selection criteria list. Project proposals are to be considered by the Portfolio Effective Corrections Work Group (PBC, CSC, and PS) with PS program management as the final authority to approve projects. For PE/CE projects conducted by CSC, the funding arrangement is formalized via a memorandum of understanding.

However, internal PS PE/CE funding recipients/delivery partners commented that the review process can be quite informal if funds are provided to PS units. By in large, discussion occurs over emails and perhaps over one face-to-face meeting. There are no terms and conditions and, except for AC, there is no submission of formal project proposals. PE/CE funding to internal PS units is significant. Out of the 54 projects for which proposed funding information is available for the five-year evaluation period, 22 of these PE/CE projects were administered by internal PS units. These projects represented a total proposed funding amount of $1.8 million, or 60% of the proposed funding for these 54 projects.

Resource Use

To provide an indication of the extent of the effective use of financial resources, this evaluation examines the budget and expenditure breakdown for the three PS ECCEI components, and a comparison between funded project activities and logic model activities.

Budget and Expenditure

A review of budget and expenditure information for the three components for PS ECCEI was undertaken as part of this evaluation. In some ways, the difference between allotted budget and actual spending can be an indication of management planning, and by extension, the effective use of budget.

Due to the fact that ECCEI AC funding is combined with the ACCI funding, and that spending is tracked collectively, separate financial information is not available for each initiative. Overall spending (for ECCEI AC and ACCI) was fairly consistent over the evaluation period. Eighty-five percent (85%) of total budget was spent over the evaluation period. Approximately 80% of contribution funding was spent over the same period. Given that this assessment of spending is based on financial information from both initiatives, it can be reasonably assumed that findings would be the same for each initiative taken separately.

A review of CC program files from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 shows that contribution funding was fully committed for most years (information was incomplete or unavailable for some years). Program representatives confirm that all the funding has been spent. However, given that CC financial information is not being tracked separately (it is combined with the departmental Policy Development Contribution Program funding), it was not possible to obtain documented evidence that committed funding had been spent. Furthermore, the evaluation was not able to confirm CC spending of O&M budget as financial information was not captured specific to ECCEI.

For PE/CE, a review of financial information from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 revealed that spending was at approximately 35% to 40% of PE/CE's total budget in early years and had reached 72% in 2009-2010.

Due to the program's lack of regional presence, human resources limitations and competing departmental priorities, a portion of funding ($250,000 out of the $700,000 PE/CE budget) was transferred to CSC to leverage resources, facilitate project delivery and maximize results. Program representatives noted that transferred funds had been expended, but financial records were not available to document spending. The above-noted limitations impact on program performance measurement and financial information tracking.

Funded Activities and Logic Model Activities

As depicted in the logic model (program theory), there are categories of activities that, when performed by each PS ECCEI component, are intended to lead individual component to contribute fully to the overall achievement of PS ECCEI intended outcomes. A comparison of activities depicted in the logic model vis-à-vis the funded activities conducted for the three components is discussed below.

There are three categories of activities identified in the logic model for AC. Table 11 maps out these categories against the funded AC activities conducted over the five-year evaluation period. Overall, funded AC activities align well with logic model activities.

Table 11: Logic Model Activities and Funded Activities, Aboriginal Corrections 2005-2006 to 2009-2010
Logic Model Activities	Number of Projects	Funding Amount (Committed)	% of Funded Amount
Knowledge Development and Dissemination	21	$695,903	23%
Capacity Building	8	$233,928	8%
Pilot Project	11	$2,101,239	69%
Total	40	$3,031,071	100%

Source: Aboriginal Corrections project files

For the CC component, though the logic model activities call for the conduct of restorative justice pilot projects and evaluations, over the five-year evaluation period, there is only one pilot project that CC has been and is conducting over the five-year evaluation period. This pilot project takes up $80,000 per year for five years, starting in 2009-2010. This means that CC is and will be left with $35,000 contributions budget per annum between 2009-2010 and 2013-2014.

CC was very much constrained in developing demonstration pilot projects due to its limited funding available. The alternative CC strategy to concentrate on projects related to knowledge development, building, and dissemination has demonstrated some positive results in CC contributing to its intended outcome of informing corrections policy and program development. However, the near absence of CC pilot projects and its evaluation may mean that, overall for PS ECCEI, there may be an over-reliance on opinions collected from the corrections community, the public and research studies in informing corrections policies and programs.

For 2009-2010, most PE/CE funded activities were aligned with logic model activities. A significant 49% was spent on public education activities (events, printing, translation, production of multi-media tools). Twenty-eight percent (28%) was spent on citizen engagement activities. Twenty-four percent (24%) was spent on other PE/CE activities, but were not directly related to PE/CE funded projects. Unfortunately, the evaluation team does not have sufficient information to categorize the PE/CE logic model activities related to research on best practices and models. These projects would have been included under either public education or citizen engagement activities.

5. Conclusions

5.1 Relevance

Aboriginal offenders are over-represented in the corrections system and the problem is expected to grow in the coming years if current trends continue. Research indicates that a culturally relevant community correction approach is important for the successful reintegration of Aboriginal offenders into their communities. Successful reintegration of offenders into society requires community acceptance, support and involvement. It is found that Canadians did not have a good understanding of the corrections system, and thus, there is a need to increase public knowledge of the corrections system.

PS ECCEI is appropriate to the federal mandate. There are legislative authorities of relevance to PS ECCEI, as well as special provisions for Aboriginal offenders. ECCEI helps to fulfill the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by contributing to the safe and gradual reintegration of offenders into the community. Interviewees viewed that the PS ECCEI-funded activities to be fairly unique from other initiatives. PS ECCEI aligns with the government's ongoing priority of maintaining public safety by contributing to the promotion of community safety.

5.2 Performance - Achievement of Expected Outcomes

In many instances, it is not possible to conclusively assess the achievement of outcomes for PS ECCEI. Available documentation only allows this evaluation to assess a sample of projects. Interviewee perceptions were obtained from funding recipients/delivery partners. The following highlights the extent of outcomes achieved, wherever possible. As well, it will alert readers to the specific outcomes that cannot be conclusively assessed.

Extent of corrections and criminal justice policies and programs being informed by community-based pilot projects, research, best practices and public views

The evaluation does not have sufficient evidence to conclude on the achievement of this outcome. PS program representatives, as drafters of legislative proposals, confirmed the usefulness of knowledge gained through PS ECCEI funded conferences/workshops in informing policy and program development.

Extent of increased capacity of community organizations to serve their target populations

Based on interviewee perceptions, there is some indication to show that CC has contributed to building community organizations' capacity to serve their target populations, either directly or indirectly through knowledge sharing, networking, and partnership building. However, given limited evidence collected, conclusive statements cannot be made on this outcome.

Extent of Aboriginal communities being equipped to deal with their own correction issues

The evaluation found that AC-funded projects have increased knowledge and awareness within Aboriginal communities and that Aboriginal communities are better equipped to deal with their corrections issues. PS staff was helpful with knowledge transfer and partnership leveraging.

Overall, AC pilot projects have been successful. There is indication that at least one project has been replicated in another community. All six of the completed AC pilot projects are currently being sustained through funding from provinces/territories or other federal organizations.

Extent of Canadians having an increased knowledge of the criminal justice system and issues

There is some evidence to suggest that PE/CE activities have contributed to increasing the knowledge of the criminal justice system and issues for Canadians, although the evaluation team cannot determine whether the collected evidence is representative of all PE/CE activities. Available information indicates a high number of people have attended some PE/CE conferences/presentations or have engaged in public dialogue activities. A considerable number of information tools or publications have been distributed over the evaluation period. There are some examples to show that PE/CE funded projects have contributed to increased awareness of the criminal justice system and issues.

Extent of Canadians being confident in the criminal justice system

The evaluation cannot conclude on whether PS ECCEI activities are increasing the confidence of Canadians in the criminal justice system. Interviewee perceptions differed. Two interviewees said that PE/CE activities had increased public confidence, while two others said there simply was no evidence or no way of gauging public confidence in this area. One program management interviewee noted that the increase of public confidence is a continual process. There are many negative factors influencing public perception that need to be gradually addressed.

5.3 Performance - Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy

Efficiency

AC and CC components have significantly leveraged partnerships to reach a wider target audience. Non-PS funding partners were varied, including federal departments/agencies, the provinces/territories, and non-governmental organizations. PE/CE program representative indicated that PS is the sole funding source for funding recipients/delivery partners.

Interviewees felt that AC and PE/CE components have been delivering PS ECCEI in an efficient manner. Some interviewees acknowledged that CC had been managing more efficiently over time. Most expressed concerns about the project planning and approval process for CC.

Economy

Financial information specific to ECCEI components is not readily available.

The ECCEI AC funding is combined with ACCI funding, and spending is tracked collectively. Overall spending (for ECCEI AC and ACCI) accounted for 85% of total budget over the evaluation period. Similarly, CC spending is tracked collectively with the Policy Development Contribution Program. Therefore, complete financial information specific to the CC expenditures is not available. However, evidence shows that CC contribution funding has been committed over the evaluation period.

The review of financial information showed that PE/CE budget consistently exceeded its expenditures, but had improved in the last year. Evidence suggests that the PE/CE component had funding available to do more to achieve intended outcomes.

6. Recommendations

the systematic collection and reporting of performance information to align with the Initiatives' outcomes; and
in collaboration with the Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Management Branch, the collection of financial information to align with the Initiatives' activities.

7. Management Response and Action Plan

The Community Safety and Partnerships Branch accepts the recommendations of this evaluation and proposes the following management action plan:

Accepts the recommendations by the Community Safety and Partnerships Branch
Management Action Plan		Target Date
1)	The Development of a performance management matrix that accurately depicts each project's: Purpose; Method of performance measurement; Responsibility for the measurement; and Project Notes Project leads will be asked to use the matrix throughout their specific project's lifecycle in measuring effectiveness.	February 2012
2)	Quarterly meetings that include all three Effective Corrections components which will allow for an opportunity to discuss financial plans, funds commitments, and the effectiveness of expenditures. Meetings will include the participation of the financial planning resource for the directorate's expenditures.	On-going

Appendix A: Evaluation Matrix

Appendix A: Evaluation Matrix
Questions	Indicators	Document Review and Quantitative Data	Interviews
Questions	Indicators	Document Review and Quantitative Data	Program	Policy	AC	CC	PE/CE
Relevance
1. Do the PS ECCEI continue to address a demonstrable federal corrections need and are they responsive to these needs? (TBS core issue 1)	(1a) Perceptions and examples of gaps in the following corrections areas if the PS ECCEI did not exist: aboriginal corrections community corrections citizen engagement public education	Inception documents	X	X	X	X	X
	(1b) Existence of an ongoing need to move offenders out of the mainstream court system into community alternative programming (aboriginal, general)	Aboriginal Justice Strategy and Renewal of AJS 2005 Progress Report on Federal Aboriginal Corrections, Office of the Correctional Investigator - November 2009 2005-10 Strategic Framework for the Aboriginal Corrections Policy Unit CSC Effective Corrections Transformation agenda documents U.N. Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice Program in Criminal Matters U.N. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice	X	X	X	X	X
	(1c) Trend in the inmate population pre 2000 to the present (if readily available) aboriginal population general population	Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview may have some crime rate stats Statistics from PS Corrections Research Division
	(1d) Trend in recidivism rate since pre 2000 to the present (if readily available) aboriginal population general population	Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview may have some crime rate stats Statistics from PS Corrections Research Division
	(1e) Trend in the level of awareness and knowledge of corrections issues from pre 2000 to the present	Public Opinion Survey from 2004/05 (note: POR not conducted since 2004) Effective Corrections Public Education and Citizen Engagement Plan 2005-10 Inception documents
2. Is there alignment between the PS ECCEI objectives and i) federal government priorities and ii) the strategic outcomes of PS? (TBS core issue 2)	(2a) Degree of alignment between government Budgets and priorities that created the PS ECCEI and current budgets and priorities	Speeches from the throne Federal budget documents Inception documents
	(2b) Degree of alignment between PS strategic outcome and ECCEI corrections objectives.	Program Activity Architecture
3.1 Is it within the federal role and mandate to deliver the ECCEI? Are the roles of PS in the ECCEI appropriate? (TBS core issue 3)	(3.1a) Alignment between the ECCEI and enabling legislation regarding: federal corrections issues aboriginal corrections issues	Public Safety Act Corrections and Conditional Release Act (support to section 81 and 84, sections 3 and 4 and 4f) Framework to Advance Public Safety through ECCEI Supreme Court of Canada Decision R. vs. Gladue Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and Gathering Strength publication Progress Report on Federal Aboriginal Corrections, Office of the Correctional Investigator - November 2009 Background documents related to Strategic Review - summer 2009
	(3.1b) Alignment of PS's current role with role stated in inception documents	Inception documents
	(3.1c) Degree of overlap between PS's role in the ECCEI and the roles of Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the National Parole Board (NPB)	Inception documents PBC and CSC evaluation frameworks and reports Background documents related to Strategic Review - summer 2009
3.2 How relevant are delivery partnerships to the PS ECCEI and to what extent have opportunities for partnership been realized? (TBS core issue 3)	(3.2a) Degree to which PS ECCEI are delivered by PS and/or partners	Contributions Plans from 2005-06 to 2009-10 (for ACCI and Community Corrections) Year-end Reports 2006-07 to 2009-10 (three years available only for PE/CE Summary list of partners/contracts and what work they have done for PE/CE from 2005-06 to 2009-10
	(3.2b) Extent to which the nature of delivery partnerships (NGOs, other federal) demonstrate the significance and relevancy of such collaborations	Memoranda of Understanding with CSC Terms and conditions for Contribution Programs (Community Corrections and ACCI)	X		X	X	X
	(3.2c) Existence of: duplication/gaps in delivery partnerships further opportunities for partnerships		X	X	X	X	X
Performance - Achievement of Outcomes
4. To what extent has progress been made toward expected outcomes? (TBS core issue 4)
4.1 Extent to which knowledge and awareness of Public Safety policy makers and community organizations have been augmented by the ECCEI and how has this informed criminal justice and corrections policy? (outcomes 2.1, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5)	(4.1a) Perceptions of increased knowledge and examples of policy development due to: community corrections and restorative justice project results Aboriginal Corrections project results citizen engagement activities: joint sessions, focus groups, citizen connectivity best practices and models			X	X	X	X
4.2 Extent to which the public is knowledgeable of the criminal justice system and criminal justice issues because of the work of the ECCEI (outcome 2.5, 3.6, 3.7)	(4.2a) # type and location of public education and engagement activities delivered	Project list for 2005-06 to 2009-10
	(4.2b) # of people reached through public education and engagement activities, by target audience	Project list for 2005-06 to 2009-10
	(4.2c) Degree to which event participants indicate that public education/ citizen engagement activities are useful and increase knowledge	Year-end Reports (contains some information - no feedback forms available) Project evaluation form (limited data available)
	(4.2d) Level of public knowledge of the criminal justice system and issues.	Public opinion survey from 2004 (no other surveys available) Project evaluation form (limited data available)					X
4.3 Extent to which the knowledge and awareness of Aboriginal communities has been augmented by the efforts of the ECCEI (outcome 3.2, 3.3, 3.4)	(4.3a) Perceptions and examples of how knowledge and awareness within Aboriginal communities has been augmented by pilot projects, capacity building activities, and knowledge transfer activities	2005 - 2010 Strategic Framework for the ACPU			X
	(4.3b) # and type and location of capacity building events and knowledge transfer activities delivered	Appendix 3 - Formative Evaluation Project list for 2005-06 to 2009-10
	(4,3c) # of people (or communities) reached through capacity building and knowledge transfer activities - e.g. attendance at gatherings	Project list for 2005-06 to 2009-10
4.4 Extent to which the ECCEI have contributed to Aboriginal communities being equipped to deal with their own corrections issues (outcomes 2.3)	(4.4a) Perceptions as to how projects have equipped and sustained aboriginal communities				X
	(4.4b) # (%) of projects that continue to be sustained beyond PS involvement and/or transfer knowledge to other communities	End of Project Reports (as available) Project list for 2005-06 to 2009-10
4.5 Extent to which the community and restorative justice projects have contributed to the safe and effective reintegration of eligible offenders into pilot communities (outcome 1.1)	(4.5a) Perceptions of how community corrections and restorative justice projects have contributed to effective reintegration					X
	(4.5b) #, type and location of community corrections and restorative justice projects delivered	Appendix 3 - Formative Evaluation Project list for 2005-06 to 2009-10
	(4.5c) # of projects deemed successful in reintegrating offenders vs. the # of projects delivered with re-integration as a stated goal (including examples of projects)	Project list for 2005-06 to 2009-10 Project Reports for projects intended to be reintegration projects
4.6 Extent to which the community corrections projects have contributed to increased knowledge and capacity among community organizations (outcome 3.0)	(4.6a) Perceptions of how community corrections projects have contributed to increased knowledge and capacity (ability to serve target audiences)					X
	(4.6b) # of projects deemed successful in raising awareness and capacity vs. the # of projects delivered with the stated goal of increasing awareness and capacity (including examples of projects)	Project list for 2005-06 to 2009-10 Project Reports for projects intended to be awareness and capacity building projects
4.7 Extent to which the public is confident in the criminal justice system due to the ECCEI (outcome 1.3)	(4.7a) Level of public confidence in 2004 versus level of public confidence in 2000.	Inception documents Public Opinion Survey 2004
4.8 Have there been any challenges or unintended outcomes as a result of ECCEI?	(4.8a) Perceptions and examples of unintended impacts		X	X	X	X	X
Performance - Efficiency and Economy
5. Are the ECCEI being delivered efficiently to produce outputs and progress towards expected outcomes? (TBS core issue 5)	(5a) Trend in annual expenditures for each component of the ECCEI since 2000 vs. trend in # of people reached	Expenditure information by component - yearly data since 2005-06
	(5b) Trend in dollar value of funds leveraged from sources outside the federal government	Summary of final cash flow statements from projects (indicating other sources of funds for the projects)
	(5c) Perceptions of whether the ECCEI are being delivered efficiently and examples of measures to improve efficiency		X	X	X	X	X

Appendix B: Documents Reviewed

Couture, J., Parker, T., Couture, R., & Laboucane, P. (2001). A cost-benefit analysis of Hollow Water's Community Holistic Circle Healing Process. (Aboriginal Peoples Collections 2001). Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.
CSC, Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections, Innovation, Learning and Adjustment 2006-07 to 2010-2011
CSC Website, http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/faits/03-eng.shtml
Department of Justice Canada, 2007 National Justice Survey: Tackling Crime and Public Confidence
Gendreau, P. Goggin, C., & Cullen, F. T. (1999). The Effects of Prison Sentences on Recidivism, Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.
Government of Canada, Speech from the Throne, 2007
PBC Website, http://www.pbc-clcc.gc.ca/infocntr/myths_reality-eng.shtml
PS, 2005-2010 Strategic Framework for the Aboriginal Corrections Policy
PS, 2005-2010 Public Education and Citizen Engagement Plan
PS, Community Safety and Partnership Branch Business Plan, 2009-2010
PS, Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview, Annual Report 2010
PS, Effective Corrections Initiative, Public Education and Citizen Engagement Plan, 2006-2011
PS, Evaluation Framework for the Consolidated Aboriginal Community Corrections Initiative, March 2004
PS, Evaluation of Two Components of the Effective Corrections Initiative: Public Education/Citizen Engagement, March 31, 2004
PS, Focus Group Report to Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada on Public Views toward Effective Corrections and the Correctional System in Canada, September 2004
PS, Interim (Formative) Evaluation: Aboriginal Community Corrections Initiative, March 31, 2004
PS, Report on Plans and Priorities, 2009-2010.
PS Website, http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/crrctns/index-eng.aspx
Roberts, J. V., Public confidence in criminal justice: A review of recent trends: 2004-2005
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Bridging The Cultural Divide: A Report On Aboriginal People And Criminal Justice In Canada, 1995

Appendix C: Matrix of Interview Questions

Matrix of Interview Questions
Evaluation of the Effective Corrections and Citizen Engagement Initiatives
December 8, 2010

Public Safety Canada (PS) is conducting an evaluation of the Effective Corrections and Citizen Engagement Initiatives (ECCEI). The purpose of this evaluation is to examine the relevance and performance (impact and cost-effectiveness) of the Initiatives. Though Correctional Services Canada and the National Parole Board are also funded, this evaluation only examines the activities of Public Safety Canada under the Initiatives.

As part of the evaluation, Public Safety Canada is conducting interviews with key stakeholders involved in the Initiatives. The goal of the interviews is to gain a better understanding of the program, to collect information to assess the relevance and success of the Initiatives, and to identify possible program improvements.

The following questions will serve as a guide for our interview. In some cases, questions will not be relevant to your particular situation. The interviewers will focus on those questions relevant to you. Please note that the responses you provide will not be attributed to you in the evaluation report, only aggregate information will be released.

Questions served as a guide for the interview
Question		Indicator	Group
Question		Indicator	Program Manager (group or individual interview)	Interviewee re: relevance (e.g., PS senior mgt)	Funding recipients (ACCI/CC) or delivery partners (PE/CE)
Background
1.	Can you briefly describe your role and involvement with the Initiatives? (probe for role and years of involvement)	--	■	■	■
Relevance
2.	What are the needs that the Initiatives intend to address? Since the implementation of the Initiatives, have these needs persisted or have they been changed? How? (probe for answers from individual component - ACCI, PE, CE, CC)	1a 1b (TBS core issue 1)	■	■	■
3.	(if needs have changed overtime) Have the Initiatives evolved to meet new or changing needs? How?		■	■	■
4.	Are the Initiatives designed and implemented appropriately to address the current need?		■	■	■
5.	Which segments of the population or the society are targeted by the Initiatives? Is this the appropriate target group? (probe for answers from individual component - ACCI, PE, CE, CC)		■	■
6.	According to what Budget or other priority was this Initiative created?		■	■
7.	How do the objectives of the Initiative relate to the current government priorities?	2a (issue 2)	■	■
8.	To what extent do the objectives of the Initiatives align with the strategic outcome of Public Safety Canada?	2b (issue 2)	■	■
9.	What is the mandate of the federal government to deliver the Initiatives? What are the legislative authorities that speak to the relevance of the Initiatives? (probe for criminal justice, aboriginal and federal correction issues)	3.1a (issue 3)	■	■
10.	What are the roles and responsibilities of Public Safety Canada in the Initiatives? Are these roles and responsibilities appropriate?	3.1b (issue 3)	■	■
11.	Do the Initiatives duplicate or overlap with other programs, policies or initiatives delivered by other stakeholders? (probe for duplication of roles between PS, Correctional Services Canada and the National Parole Board) (probe for answers from individual component - ACCI, PE, CE, CC)	3.1c (issue 3)	■	■	■
12.	To what extent are the activities or projects of the Initiatives delivered by Public Safety Canada? By other partners? (probe for answers from individual component - ACCI, PE, CE, CC)	3.2a (issue 3)	■
13.	In terms of the nature of these delivery partnerships (NGOs, other federal department/agency), how significant and relevant are these collaborations for the Initiative?	3.2b (issue 3)	■	■	■
14.	Are there duplications/gaps in delivery partnerships? Are there further opportunities for partnership?	3.2c (issue 3)	■	■	■
Performance - achievement of outcomes
15.	To what extent has policy development (Corrections policy and Criminal Justice policy) been informed by the activities/projects of the Initiatives? (based on CC and restorative justice project results, AC project results, citizen engagement activities including joint sessions, focus groups, citizen connectivity, best practices and model)	4.1a LM outcome: 2.1, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5	■	■
16.	To what extent have the events of the public education/citizen engagement activities been useful to event participants? Why do you say so? (Probe for level of usefulness - not useful, somewhat useful, very useful)	4.2c Outcome: 2.5, 3.6, 3.7	■ PE/CE only		■ PE/CE only
17.	Have the public education/citizen engagement events increase the knowledge of the criminal justice system and criminal justice issues of event participants? (Probe for level of knowledge before and after the events e.g., before - no knowledge at all; after - some knowledge)	4.2c Outcome: 2.5, 3.6, 3.7	■ PE/CE only		■ PE/CE only
18.	To what extent have the knowledge and awareness within Aboriginal communities been increased due to pilot projects, capacity building activities, and knowledge transfer activities? Any examples or evidence?	4.3a Outcome: 3.2, 3.3, 3.4	■ AC only		■ AC only
19.	To what extent have the projects funded by the Initiative contributed to Aboriginal communities being equipped to deal with their own corrections issues? Any examples or evidence?	4.4a Outcome: 2.3	■ AC only		■ AC only
20.	To what extent have projects continue to be sustained beyond Public Safety Canada funding or involvement? Have these projects resulted in transfer knowledge to other communities? Any examples or summary evidence? (Probe for % or # of projects for each component)	4.4b Outcome 2.3, 1.2, 1.1,	■		■
21.	Have the community and restorative justice pilot projects contributed to the safe and effective reintegration of eligible offenders into pilot communities? Any examples?	4.5a (outcome 1.1)	■ CC only		■ CC only
22.	To what extent have the community corrections projects contributed to increased capacity and ability of community organizations to serve their target audience (victims, offenders, organizations that work with criminal justice issues)? Any examples or evidence?	4.6a (outcome 3.0)	■ CC only		■ CC only
23.	To what extent have the public education and/or citizen engagement activities contributed to the target audience being confident in the criminal justice system? Why do you say so?	4.7a (outcome 1.3	■ PE/CE only		■ PE/CE only
24.	Have there been any challenges? Have there been any outcomes of the Initiatives that you did not expect, either positive or negative? Are measures required to mitigate the effect of these unintended outcomes? Have these measures been implemented? (probe what kind of unintended results - reaching unintended target audience, having unintended outcomes?)	4.8a	■	■	■
Performance - Cost Effectiveness
25.	Are the Initiatives being delivered efficiently? Has there been any improvement over time? Why do you say so? (probe for evidence in terms of increased reach and achievement of outcomes without increase in resource)	5.a 5.b	■	■	■
26.	Are there alternative approaches or do you have suggestions for improving the program (i.e., to make it more cost-efficient or produce more effective results)?	5.a 5.b	■	■	■
Miscellaneous
27.	Do you have anything else to add?	--	■	■	■

Appendix D: Page Views on Public Safety's Website

Corrections Webpage Views
Fiscal Year	Corrections Research Summaries	Corrections Reports and Manuals
05-06	17,382	3,364
06-07	66,733	17,610
07-08	94,073	24,126
08-09	78,295	39,092
09-10	64,764	76,205
Average	64249.4	32079.4

Correction Webpage Views

Image Description

A line chart showing trend in the number of page views, by fiscal year, for Corrections Research Summaries and for Corrections reports and manuals. Content is identical to the table on Correction Webpage Views.

Aboriginal Peoples Collection Webpage Views
FY	# of page views
2005-06	1102
2006-07	2804
2007-08	1904
2008-09	2458
2009-10	3476
TOTAL	11744
Average	2348.8

Aboriginal Peoples Collection Webpage Views

Image Description

A line chart showing trend in the number of page views, by fiscal year, on the Aboriginal Peoples Collection Webpage. Content is identical to the table on Aboriginal Peoples Collection Webpage Views.

Appendix E: Aboriginal Corrections Project Results

Demonstration of Increased Knowledge and Capacity for Aboriginal Communities

Projects have demonstrated to:

Provide knowledge to communities to determine whether to and how to address specific correction issues. For example, a research project undertaken by the Mi'kmaq Native Friendship Centre in Halifax helped the organization identify the need to develop programming that will connect Aboriginal people with traditional spiritual and healing practices by gauging the community's experience with and interest in such practices as a way of assisting in rehabilitation and reconnecting to culture.
Contributed to the development of networks between community services and between communities and enabled the exchange of expertise, experiences and views between communities on corrections issues and processes. For example, the Black and Aboriginal gathering in Nova Scotia allowed these two communities to share their similar experiences and strategies around the criminal justice and corrections systems and opened the way to future cooperation. Also, the Biidaaban/Mnjikaning Community shared knowledge about their community-based healing model on restorative justice with Halifax communities.
Supported the development of correction strategies and informed programming/service delivery and policy-making. For example the Okanese First Nation in Saskatchewan developed a Community Wellness Plan as well as a Strategic and Evaluation Framework that increased the community's capacity to deliver services. An assessment of the Wellness Plan (undertaken by the funding recipient) shows that residents surveyed thought the program had a positive impact on the safety of residents (70%), on resolution of conflicts between individuals (69%), on bringing people together to address problems seriously (68%), on alcohol and drug abuse (50%) and on conflicted relations between families (47%) and among families (48%).
Provided individuals, through training projects, with key knowledge and tools that have made them more equipped to serve their communities. For example, staff from the Hinton Friendship Center in Alberta attended a conference on the treatment of sexual offenders. Staff gained essential information and tools that could be applied directly in the community. Training workshops were also held in the Okanese First Nation in Saskatchewan. These workshops provided serious education to community caregivers. Participants rated workshops very positively^{Note 40} and indicated they had gained valuable information and understanding to help people in the communities.
Facilitated the development of relationships with federal, provincial, territorial or municipal governments. For example, the Mi'kmaq Frienship Centre in Halifax organized a gathering on Aboriginal justice. This resulted in a partnership whereby a staff person was asked to serve as part of the Mayor's Task Force on Violence.

Appendix F: Ongoing Implementation and Demonstration Projects Funded under the Aboriginal Corrections Component

Appendix F: Ongoing Implementation and Demonstration Projects Funded under the Aboriginal Corrections Component
Project name	Preliminary Observations
Tending the Fire (Prairie Spirit Connections Inc., Saskatchewan)	Some lessons learned: difficulty of living isolated in housing projects; silence; low objectives set as job opportunities not attractive Positive unintended outcome: parents regaining custody of their children
Turning the Tides Project (Ndinawemaaganag Endaawaad Inc., Manitoba)	Currently 24 participants Forged further connections for youth and insight into their heritage Some youth have successfully transitioned from completing community service hours to employment placement More females have joined the program
Seven Sparks Healing Path Program (Mi'kmaq Native Friendship Centre, Nova Scotia)	8-9 clients per week Awareness and education through participation of the municipality and corrections institutions
Justice Support Program (Métis Justice Institute of Manitoba)	Successfully developed new partnerships In contact with 85 individuals seeking support or information Currently actively working with 22 clients Provided addiction, education/training, employment, housing and court services
Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq (Mi'kmaq Legal Support Network, Nova Scotia)	No information available

Appendix G: Public Education/Citizen Engagement Project Results

Publications

The Getting Out regional handbooks were distributed to Northern Ontario and Quebec federal prisons generated particular interest and were very well received. The Getting Out Handbooks are generally published for and distributed to many regions in Canada.

Public Dialogue and Engagement

Regional community information sessions were held in 2007-08 and 2008-09. These sessions reached over 200 people from approximately 30 First Nation communities. Information provided was useful to participants and helped bridge the gap between CSC and Aboriginal communities in terms of reintegration.
Consultations were also held with Canadian municipalities. These included 21 interviews with mayors from across Canada on their needs and perceptions on community corrections and the correctional system. In addition to providing the opportunity to share information, these consultations were also an opportunity to gain valuable input that can be used to inform future policy and programming development.

Information Tools

Several hundred copies of the Landmarks of Canadian Corrections and Criminal Justice Reform CD have so far been distributed to Canadian law libraries, criminology departments, non-governmental organizations and correctional organizations. A university academic considered it an excellent source of information.

Notes

1
CSC, Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections, Innovation, Learning and Adjustment 2006-07 to 2010-2011
2
PS, 2005-2010 Strategic Framework for the Aboriginal Corrections Policy
3
PS, Evaluation Framework for the Consolidated Aboriginal Community Corrections Initiative, March 2004
4
PS, Community Safety and Partnership Branch Business Plan, 2009-2010; PS, Report on Plans and Priorities, 2009-2010.
5
PS, 2005-2010 Strategic Framework for the Aboriginal Corrections Policy
6
PS, Evaluation of Two Components of the Effective Corrections Initiative: Public Education/Citizen Engagement; PSEPC's Community Corrections, March 31, 2004
7
Starting in 2008-2009, rather than trying to reach Canadians directly, the PE/CE component strategically identified five target audience groups (i.e., business leaders, municipalities, aboriginal communities, ethno-cultural communities, general public particularly in high reintegration communities) to increase effectiveness of its outreach. These audiences were chosen because they have frequent interaction with the correctional population and/or the selected communities are seen to be most in need for the purpose of outreach.
8
PS, Effective Corrections Initiative, Public Education and Citizen Engagement Plan, 2006-2011
9
Average calculated based on 54 out of 59 projects.
10
Average calculated based on 15 out of 20 projects.
11
PS, Evaluation of Two Components of the Effective Corrections Initiative: Public Education/Citizen Engagement; PSEPC's Community Corrections, March 31, 2004; and Interim (Formative) Evaluation: Aboriginal Community Corrections Initiative, March 31, 2004
12
Funding recipient is defined as a recipient who receives funding to deliver individual PS ECCEI project. Delivery partner is defined as those who receive funding to manage multiple PS ECCEI projects.
13
PE/CE provides funding to internal PS units including AC, CC, a PS policy unit, and a PS research unit. These PE/CE projects are either administered by in-house PS staff and/or non-PS funding recipients/delivery partners.
14
50% of funding does not include funded projects that started prior to 2005-2006.
15
PS, Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview, Annual Report 2010
16
CSC Website, http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/faits/03-eng.shtml; PBC Website, http://www.pbc-clcc.gc.ca/infocntr/myths_reality-eng.shtml
17
The Effects of Prison Sentences on Recidivism, Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada, by Gendreau, P. Goggin, C., & Cullen, F. T., 1999.
18
PS, Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview, Annual Report 2010
19
Couture, J., Parker, T., Couture, R., & Laboucane, P. (2001). A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Hollow Water's Community Holistic Circle Healing Process. (Aboriginal Peoples Collections 2001). Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.
20
PS, Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview, Annual Report 2010
21
PS, 2005-2010 Strategic Framework for the Aboriginal Corrections Policy
22
PS, Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview, Annual Report 2010
23
PS, 2005-2010 Strategic Framework for the Aboriginal Corrections Policy unit
24
CSC, Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections, Innovation, Learning and Adjustment 2006-2007 to 2010-2011
25
Bridging The Cultural Divide: A Report On Aboriginal People And Criminal Justice In Canada, Royal Commission On Aboriginal peoples 1995
26
CSC, Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections, Innovation, Learning and Adjustment 2006-2007 to 2010-2011
27
According to a March 2006 study titled Research with Business Executives regarding the Hiring of Ex-Inmates (by Pheonix Strategic Perspectives Inc.), it concluded that among the businesses surveyed, when they are provided with full information (e.g., nature of crime committed), hiring companies are not averse to providing employment opportunities to ex-inmates. In fact, companies feel a sense of social responsibility to provide these opportunities.
28
PS, Focus Group Report to Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada on Public Views toward Effective Corrections and the Correctional System in Canada, September 2004
29
Department of Justice Canada, 2007 National Justice Survey: Tackling Crime and Public Confidence
30
The Aboriginal Healing Foundation has the same mandate as the Aboriginal Corrections of PS ECCI. The Foundation is due to sunset in 2012.
31
This evaluation assesses most of the intended outcomes, as depicted in the logic model. However, due to a lack of available evidence, some of the intended outcomes could not be assessed (i.e., logic model outcomes 1.2, 3.1, 3.5, 3.6). As discussed, all intended outcomes are expected to contribute to the "safe and effective reintegration of eligible offenders into Canadian communities (outcome 1.1). Thus, this outcome has not been explicitly evaluated.
32
This outcome applies to all the three components, relating to logic model outcome 2.1 for CC; 2.4 for PE/CE. Though the logic model has not specified that this outcome is applicable for AC, during the conduct of this evaluation, there is evidence to suggest that AC project activities have also contributed to the achievement of this outcome.
33
In 2009-10, CC funded a youth conflict resolution demonstration project, delivered by YOUCAN (not-for profit organization). This project received funding for five years ($80,000 per year). Since the project has been operating for a fairly short period of time, outcome assessment is not possible.
34
Evidence is based on comments received directly from project participants, as well as AC funding recipients.
35
This represents 26 projects. One project can have multiple project activities. It occurs when a project is repeated year after year (e.g. Speakers' Series Conference).
36
Roberts, J. V., Public confidence in criminal justice: A review of recent trends: 2004-2005
37
PE/CE program representative indicated that funding recipients/delivery partners may provide in-kind services (e.g., for the Speakers' Series project, universities usually provide in-kind support such as venue set-up, advertising, etc).
38
AC unit has 6 positions, managing a total of $610,000 grants and contributions budget each year. By comparison, both PE/CE and CC components have no dedicated staff for PS ECCEI, with PE/CE managing $700,000 operating and maintenance budget and CC managing $115,000 grants and contributions budget per year.
39
The evaluation team did not specifically ask internal PS PE/CE interviewees (3 of them) to comment on management efficiency. These interviewees work in the same environment as PE/CE program staff making it difficult for them to comment objectively.

Date modified:: 2022-07-26