Department of Justice Component of
Canada's Action Plan Against Racism
Formative Evaluation

4. KEY FINDINGS


4. KEY FINDINGS

This section presents key findings from the document review and key informant interviews, beginning with those related to the design and delivery of the Justice component of the Action Plan.

4.1. Design and Delivery

4.1.1. Three priority work areas

The Justice component of the Action Plan was designed such that the Department would focus its activities on three main areas: addressing race-based issues in the justice system (including the problem of overrepresentation of certain groups in the justice system and the perception of racial profiling), interventions for victims and perpetrators of hate crimes, and countering Internet-based hate crime.  Interview, case study and file review findings indicate that, while the Department has attempted to pursue activities in all three areas, work has been concentrated in some areas, such as the Internet tip line, and has not yet occurred in others, such as interventions for perpetrators of hate crime.  Interviewees involved with the development of the Internet tip line indicated that this project has dominated other activities because it is the only initiative that will receive ongoing funding ($500K annually) after the Action Plan concludes in 2009-10 and because it is the most concrete Justice Canada deliverable in the Action Plan.  Interview findings also suggest that, beyond providing general direction by identifying key priority work areas (e.g. countering hate and bias) and broadly defining the work that will be undertaken by each partner Department (e.g. clarifying race-based issues in the justice system), the Action Plan was meant to be flexible.  As such, the Justice component is evolving primarily in terms of whom within the Department is willing to collaborate and pursue activities that are relevant to Canada’s priorities under the Action Plan.

4.1.2. Contributions component

In order to expedite the implementation of the G&C component of the Action Plan, the Department decided it would use the JPIP, an already well-established program with its own Terms and Conditions to deliver the G&C funding available through the Action Plan.  The main advantage of this was that the Department did not have to design a whole new program to carry out G&C activities under the Action Plan, particularly since the G&C funding allocated is a relatively small amount at $2.5M over five years and $450,000 in ongoing funding for the tip line.  However, by doing so, the Action Plan funding has become somewhat of an initiative within a program, which tends to make it less visible than if it had been made its own distinct program. The issue of the visibility of the Justice component of the Action Plan is discussed more in the next section on "Take-up" .

Take-up:

According to Table 1- Distribution of funds for Justice Component of Action Plan Against Racism (page 7), $50K was allocated to contributions in 2005-06 (which the Department never actually received because Justice did not receive approval for the Justice component of the initiative until November 1, 2005), $350K in 2006-07 and $850K in 2007-08.  Interviewees involved with the G&C portion of the Department’s work under the Action Plan indicated that funding criteria are very broad and flexible, allowing the Department to fund projects on a wide range of race-based issues in the justice system.  However, only 11 organizations had applied for funding at the time of the evaluation, and only five had actually received funding through JPIP. Of the six applicants that did not receive funding through JPIP, four did not follow up further with the Department by providing the additional requested information needed to complete their proposal.  This resulted in their file being closed.  One of the remaining two proposals was funded in partnership with Youth Justice through the Youth Justice Renewal Fund, as the JPIP was undergoing renewal at the time.  The remaining proposal did not meet the objectives of the Action Plan. The limited take-up of the G&C component has resulted in the provision of only $330K or 27% of available funds since the implementation of the Action Plan[1] .

Interviewees suggested that the limited take-up in relation to the G&C portion of the Action Plan could be due to several factors.  Firstly, even though a funding overview description for the Justice component of the Action Plan was prepared in May 2006, it was not posted on the JPIP Website until March 2007.  As such, many organizations would not have known that G&C funding for anti-racism activities was available through the Department of Justice until the end of the 2006-07 fiscal year.  Additionally, one interviewee indicated that the Terms and Conditions of JPIP were to terminate on March 31, 2007, leaving a slight doubt that the Program might not be renewed, which may have resulted in some hesitation within the Department to actively publicise and promote the G&C portion of the Action Plan until the Program was renewed.  Another interviewee suggested that the departmental mandate for anti-racism activities may not be very apparent to the public.  Therefore, organizations seeking funding to pursue anti-racism activities may not consider doing so through the Department of Justice, but rather through departments with clearer links to this area, such as Canadian Heritage which is responsible for multiculturalism.

Of note, all of the organizations that have received funding from Justice to pursue activities under the Action Plan did not initially seek funding through JPIP.  Rather, they were referred by  Canadian Heritage (Community Action Unit, Multiculturalism Program Directorate) or by another area within the Department.  As such, it appears as though the public is generally unaware that specific funding for anti-racism activities is available through the Department of Justice.

Although take-up for the Department’s G&C portion of the Action Plan has been limited, the results of the interview findings suggest that the Department is taking steps towards communicating the funding available through the Action Plan to the public.  For instance, the Departmental Coordinator for the Action Plan actively seeks out proposals and promotes the funding available through the Action Plan at conferences and meetings, during site visits and through cold calls to anti-racism and related organizations.  Additionally, a fact sheet that describes the Action Plan and the types of projects that are eligible to receive funding (e.g. projects that explore the role the Department may have in working with others to combat hate-motivated crimes) is posted on the Programs Branch Website where all of the Department’s funding programs are described.

Programs Branch has also taken steps to help ensure the success of the Action Plan.  For instance, a Program Analyst from the Branch attended a recent National Stakeholders’ Meeting on Combating Internet Hate held on December 6-7, 2007, in order to ensure that participants understood the G&C funding element so that sound proposals for the development of Internet hate tip line tools would be received.  In fact, interview findings indicate that it was very helpful to have a Program Analyst attend the event to distribute application kits, explain funding criteria and answer questions from potential applicants.

Organizational Configuration:

Because the Departmental Coordinator is an employee of the Strategic Initiatives and Law Reform Unit and not an employee of the Programs Branch, the success of the G&C component is largely dependent upon good communication and significant collaboration between Programs Branch who has been largely responsible for the administrative aspect (e.g. reviewing proposals to ensure that they are complete and consistent with the Terms and Conditions of the JPIP, communications with the applicant, and managing agreements) and the Departmental Coordinator who has been dedicating a significant amount of time to soliciting proposals and communicating the G&C funding that is available.  Although both the Departmental Coordinator and Programs Branch have taken steps to facilitate the success of the Action Plan as mentioned earlier, the lapse of funds suggests that more could be done.  To enhance the effectiveness of the G&C mechanism, it would be beneficial for the Programs Branch and the Departmental Coordinator to work collaboratively to identify and implement a more strategic, coordinated and systematic approach for soliciting proposals (e.g. through a call for proposals) and for communicating the funding available (e.g. by sending out letters to organizations who undertake work in the area of anti-racism alerting them that Justice funding is available).

4.1.3. Justice Steering Committee for Canada’s Action Plan against Racism

All of the members of the Steering Committee (there are currently eleven in total) who were interviewed as part of the evaluation (n=8) indicated that Steering Committee meetings are an effective mechanism for information sharing.  Some further indicated that meetings provide members with the opportunity to test ideas, discuss approaches and garner a better understanding of who is doing what under the Action Plan within the Department.  Several, but not all, Steering Committee members interviewed suggested that the frequency of meetings should be increased to once every two months rather than twice a year.  One member suggested it meet quarterly, adding that an increased frequency of meetings might help keep members more engaged in the file.  Additionally, now that work under the Action Plan is gaining more momentum within the Department, one interviewee suggested that the focus of the meetings should be on sharing work plans and timelines and discussing how each division’s/section’s activities fit together under a longer-term plan.

A review of the meeting minutes and interview findings indicate that Steering Committee meetings are not always well attended by committee members.  Even though discussions through the more formal channel appear to be somewhat limited due to the lower level of attendance, the informal discussions and communication among committee members seem to be very frequent, if not continuous.  These more informal discussions between meetings occur both among committee members and between the Departmental Coordinator and certain members.  Committee members who were interviewed indicated that they often test ideas and seek advice and input from other members.  As well, the Coordinator often circulates project funding proposals to members as appropriate, so that those with expertise in a particular area have the opportunity to provide comments and feedback on proposals that are relevant to their work. 

4.2. Implementation

Initially, the implementation of the Justice component of the Action Plan began slowly: the Department did not receive approval for its component until November 1, 2005 and the appointment of a Justice Coordinator for the Action Plan did not occur until March 6, 2006 due to hiring procedures.  As a result, with the exception of some preparatory work within the Public Law Policy Section and Research and Statistics Division, new work relevant to Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism did not occur during the 2005-06 fiscal year (the first year of the initiative).  However, interview findings indicate that, with only a few exceptions, which are discussed later in the report, the Department’s work under the Action Plan is starting to gain more momentum now that contacts have been made (e.g. with NGOs working on anti-hate activities), networks (steering committees and work groups) have been established, preparatory work has been completed (e.g. research ideas have been developed), a framework for providing G&C funding is in place, and approval processes for the G&C portion of the Action Plan have been clarified.

4.2.1. Implementation Challenges

Several different implementation challenges were identified during the course of the interviews with departmental staff, which have been categorized as follows:

Lack of administrative support:

During approximately the first eight months of her term, the Departmental Coordinator for Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism did not have any administrative support.  As such, she was not only responsible for the day-to-day activities of a Coordinator (e.g. representing the Department at interdepartmental meetings, soliciting proposals, meeting with non-governmental organizations, etc.) but also for the administrative tasks associated with these activities, resulting in a very heavy workload.  However, at the time of the evaluation, funding had been approved to staff an administrative support position within the Strategic Initiatives and Law Reform Unit to support the Departmental Coordinator and assist with organizing meetings, arranging travel, etc. The staffing of this position is expected to ease the administrative workload of the Coordinator.

Delays in approval process for project funding proposals:

The delay in obtaining approval to fund G&C projects has been a challenge.  As an example, the Department received an application for funding in August 2007 for a meeting that was to occur on October 25/26, 2007.  However, funding was not approved until November 5, 2007, after the meeting was to take place.  As a result, the original work and room bookings were lost and the applicant had to redo his work.  Of note, the Department was in the midst of implementing a new approval process for JPIP project funding proposals during that time, which contributed to the delay.  The new approval process has now been clarified and as such, the Programs Branch does not anticipate any other delays like the one noted above. 

Difficulties in undertaking some planned activities:

According to the Action Plan, "Justice Canada, in cooperation with federal agencies and departments, will develop options to address concerns about racial profiling" .  The Public Law Policy Section of the Department received funds in 2005-06 and 2006-07 to carry out activities in the area of racial profiling that included public opinion research pieces, during approximately the same time the Government of Canada was taking steps to put in place the Federal Accountability Act and Action Plan to reinforce Canadians’ confidence in the procurement process for public opinion research.  While it was not possible to implement some of its planned activities, resulting in a lapse of 40% of funding, the Department, and in particular the Public Law Policy Section, has nevertheless undertaken and completed a significant amount of work, which is discussed in detail later in the report.

[1]   This includes the $20K in contributions that was provided through the Youth Justice Renewal Fund and does not include the funds that were allocated in 2005-06, which the Department never received.