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

4. KEY FINDINGS (cont'd)


4. KEY FINDINGS (cont'd)

4.3. Early Results

Evaluation findings from the literature review, key informant interviews and case studies suggest that the Department has made progress in contributing to many of its short and medium-term objectives through a series of activities, as follows:

1. An increased awareness among justice system personnel of the special needs of victims of hate crime/the effects of hate crime on individuals and communities:

The Research and Statistics Division of the Department has completed a research paper entitled "An Exploration of the Needs of Victims of Hate Crimes" that highlights the special needs of and services for victims of hate crimes.  This report has been widely distributed and shared both within and outside the Department, and is posted on its Internet and intranet Websites.

Case Study of Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Justice Policy Centre for Victim Issues (PCVI):  During 2006-07, the departmental PCVI contracted with Hate Crime Solutions to revise its successful police training materials for use with victim services workers.  The materials and accompanying training is a resource for front-line victim services workers, designed to provide them with basic information about hate crime, its impact, as well as strategies to address the needs of victims.  The training module consists of five parts: Understanding Hate Crime, Why Hate Merits a Special Response, What Victim Service Providers Need to Know, Case Studies, and a Pocket Guide to Hate Crime.

At the time of the evaluation, the training materials had been used for presentations to the F-P/T Working Group on Victims Issues and during the opening ceremony for National Victims of Crime Awareness Week to a public forum.  Additionally, there is an opportunity for jurisdictions and non-governmental organizations to apply to PCVI for funding to bring the training to their respective communities.  At the time of the evaluation, only the University of Windsor, School of Social Work and the province of Alberta (Victims Programs, Alberta Solicitor General and Public Security) had received funding to hold the training.  In order to assess the quality of the training materials as well as the training itself, pre- and post-training survey questionnaires were administered to participants to assess their level of knowledge of the training subject areas before the training began and after the training had finished.  Data from the survey questionnaires administered during the Windsor training indicated that 87.9% of participants were more aware of hate crime legislation, patterns of incidents and victim needs after the training.  Additionally, a strong majority of attendees (79%) indicated that they were more confident in assisting a hate crime victim after having received the training.  A letter on the file from the University of Windsor, School of Social Work to the presenters indicated that it had "received excellent feedback from the workshop attendees about (their) delivery of the information as well as (their) ability to engage and capture an audience". The training in Edmonton, Alberta occurred in November 2007 and was delivered to approximately 35 Victim Services Coordinators from across the province.  At the time of the evaluation, the Department had not yet received feedback on the success of this training session.

 In addition, at the time of the evaluation, the Research and Statistics Division was in the process of contracting out the data collection for a survey to assess the community impact of hate crimes and was conducting interviews with members of Interfaith Ottawa to examine how they respond to hate crimes.  The impacts of this research project will be examined as part of the final summative evaluation.

2. An increased awareness among justice system personnel of effective interventions for perpetrators of hate crime:

The Action Plan indicates that the Department will conduct consultations and research to identify meaningful interventions and sentences for those who commit hate and racially motivated crimes.  At the time of the evaluation, no projects in this area had been completed.  However, the Research and Statistics Division was developing projects that would address this gap, such as a study on alternative measures for hate crime offenders,  and was working on a research project on "Hate as an Aggravating Factor in Sentencing" , which had not yet been completed.

3.  An increased awareness among justice system personnel of race-based issues in the justice system:

The current logic model for the Justice component of the Action Plan does not identify this as a short-term outcome.  However, during preliminary discussions with the Departmental Coordinator for the Action Plan in preparation for this evaluation, several activities internal to the Department aimed at increasing awareness among Justice staff of race-based issues in the justice system were identified, and thus examined as part of the evaluation. 

Funds ($9,500) were provided through the Action Plan to support a forum held at the Government Conference Centre on March 30, 2007 entitled "Justice System Responses to Violence in Northern and Remote Aboriginal Communities" .  Rupert Ross (Assistant Crown Attorney responsible for a number of fly-in remote communities in North Western Ontario), was a featured speaker along with several other panellists.  Departmental staff and staff from other federal departments (e.g. Indian and Northern Affairs, Public Safety, RCMP, Canadian Heritage and Status of Women) attended the event.  The intention of the forum was to inform attendees about the hard truths in relation to life in northern and remote First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities and to discuss more effective responses for dealing with the problem of violence in these communities.  Of note, the Department’s Research Division has developed a report summarizing the discussions that occurred during the seminar, which it plans to publish in JustResearch, a periodical shared widely on the Department of Justice intranet and Internet Websites.

In 2007, Action Plan funds ($10K) were provided through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department’s Human Resources Directorate to support March 21 day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination activities within Justice. The departmental Advisory Committee on Visible Minorities (ACVM), with the assistance of the Employment Equity Unit of the Human Resources Directorate, organized a learning event entitled "Mentoring: Building Bridges to Enhance Diversity" .  During the event, two Ontario Court of Justice judges (one Japanese Canadian and one African Canadian) spoke about the importance of visible minority representation in the judiciary and in the legal profession more generally, as well as about their experiences with mentoring programs. All departmental managers and staff were invited to attend the conference.  In total, there were approximately 60 participants.  A report summarizing the findings of the conference was drafted by the Justice Research and Statistics Division, and was used by ACVM to assist in the development of a submission to the Employment Equity Steering Committee on mentoring to help address visible minority under-representation within the Department.  The report is also available to all employees on the Research and Statistics Division’s intranet site.  Interview findings indicated that a departmental mentoring program has been approved and is expected to be implemented by the end of the 2007-08 fiscal year.

4. Enhanced information to support policy development around racial profiling:

The Public Law Policy Section (PLPS) of the Department has completed extensive preparatory work to support policy development on racial profiling.  More specifically, it has consulted with a number of Justice Regional Offices, the Federal Prosecution Service, the Anti-terrorism Act Review Team and the Criminal Law Policy Section. Consultations centred on the use of race as a decision-making factor in law enforcement and security operations and how the issue of racial profiling arises in their work.  The Section has also met with other federal government departments and their legal services units (Public Safety, RCMP, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Canada Border Services Agency, Communications Security Establishment, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Transportation Canada, Department of National Defence and Correctional Service of Canada).  PLPS prepared discussion papers for these consultations, the goal of which was to inform and assist policy makers in their attempts to understand possible distinctions between racial profiling and appropriate decision-making. Additionally, 30 issue papers (e.g.  United States Department of Justice Policy on the use of race by federal enforcement agencies) as well as sample policies and guidelines on the use of race as a decision-making factor in law enforcement and security agencies have been developed.  The Section has established a list of stakeholders for external consultations on racial profiling which includes national organizations, academics/experts, ethnocultural groups, religious groups, justice groups and Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security members in seven regions.  The intention of the PLPS was to further its work through the conduct of national focus group research and consultations; however, as noted earlier, it was not possible to proceed with this work.  PLPS has nevertheless continued its policy analysis work.

5. An improved understanding of the problem of overrepresentation of ethnocultural groups:

Case Study of the National Anti-Racism Council of Canada (NARCC) focus group sessions: NARCC conducted four regional sessions to highlight programs and activities that address the overrepresentation of Aboriginal peoples and people of African descent in the criminal justice system.  A total of 111 participants representing more than 40 different community-based non-governmental organizations, governmental and policing organizations took part in the focus group sessions.  The sessions took place in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Halifax and Toronto between February 3 and March 10, 2007 and provided participants with the opportunity to learn about other community-based projects addressing the overrepresentation of racial minorities in the criminal justice system and their impact on the identified communities.  In particular, participants discussed shared experiences, strategies and best practices for responding to the problem of the overrepresentation of racial minorities in the Canadian criminal justice system as well as barriers and challenges.  Twenty-four different strategies for reducing the problem of overrepresentation in the Canadian criminal justice system were shared during the four focus group sessions.  The population targeted varied with each strategy and included Aboriginal women and youth, young African Canadians and African Canadian women, young offenders whose crimes were motivated by hate or racism, and young people in general as part of educational and cross-cultural awareness programs in schools to combat racism.  A number of the strategies also targeted members of racial minority groups overrepresented in the criminal justice system in general, regardless of age.

An extensive report outlining the research and underlying factors in the overrepresentation of racial minorities in the Canadian criminal justice system was prepared following the focus group discussions, which NARCC intends to disseminate to more than 150 organizations, post on its Website and encourage members to post on theirs once it is finalized by the Department.  The report also assesses existing measures to reduce or prevent the overrepresentation of racial minorities and Aboriginal peoples in the Canadian criminal justice system, describes the findings of the focus group sessions and includes 26 recommendations for next steps.  Participants were asked to complete a survey questionnaire at the end of the focus group sessions.  The results of this survey indicate that the sessions provided a strong majority (79%) of participants with a better understanding of the issues of overrepresentation of Aboriginal peoples and people of African descent in the criminal justice system and increased knowledge of effective practices in combating overrepresentation in the criminal justice system among the majority of participants (57%).  Additionally, 77% of participants indicated that it would be possible to replicate the best practices discussed during the focus group sessions in other jurisdictions.

Very prominent in the logic model for the Justice component of the Action Plan is the work that the Department proposes to undertake to address the problem of overrepresentation of ethnocultural groups in the justice system.  In particular, the logic model indicates that the Department will provide G&C funding and will conduct research to improve understanding of the problem.  Although at the time of the evaluation, the Research and Statistics Division was planning several projects, research had not yet been undertaken in this area.

6. A better understanding of what constitutes hate among general public/Internet service providers:

The Department of Justice intends to produce educational material that would help key Internet service providers identify hate propaganda.  At the time of the evaluation, this activity was still in the developmental stages.

Funding ($20K) was provided in August 2006 to the League for Human Rights and Institute for International Affairs of B’nai Brith Canada to help support its Third International Symposium on Hate on the Internet.  The Symposium was held on September 11 and 12 in Toronto and provided more than 150 participants (law enforcement, government agencies, legal experts, industry partners and educators from around the world) with the opportunity to increase their awareness and knowledge of both domestic and global issues of Web-based hate, extremism, and terrorism-related activities.  The objectives of the Symposium were to share information on issues related to hate crimes on the Internet, including current global legal protections, and to develop tools to aid people working to combat hate crimes on the Internet.

7. The identification of options to combat Internet hate and the potential role of the Department of Justice:

Case Study of Combating Hate on the Internet: In August 2007, Dr. Andrea Slane, Executive Director of the Centre for Innovation Law and Policy (University of Toronto), submitted a report, entitled "Combating Hate Crime on the Internet: Current Canadian Efforts and Recommendations of Non-Governmental Organizations to Improve upon Them" , to the Department of Justice.  The objective of the report was to identify and understand the work done by various Canadian organizations, primarily non-governmental organizations (NGOs), on identifying and combating hate crime on the Internet.  This information was collected through 39 interviews with key personnel at NGOs and prominent individuals with expertise in online hate.  Public documents provided by these and other anti-racism oriented organizations were also reviewed in order to garner a better understanding of the work occurring in Canada to combat Internet hate crime.  Each organization was provided with the opportunity to express their views on what role the Department may have in combating the problem of hate crime on the Internet, including whether a national tip line would be beneficial. Dr. Slane’s report identified a number of options for improving Canada’s ability to address online hate, such as: establishing a national tip line for online hate, court ordered take down or blocking of Internet materials, voluntary take down of Canadian-hosted Websites and voluntary blocking of foreign hosted Websites. All participants in the study agreed that combating hate on the Internet requires a multi-front approach, including public education, counter speech, specialized law enforcement units and training, and an accessible human rights complaints process. In response to one of the recommendations contained in Dr. Slane's report, the Justice Coordinator created the Working Group on Combating Internet Hate.  The Working Group is chaired by the Justice Coordinator and the group had met twice at the time of this evaluation (once on March 20, 2007 and once on July 10, 2007).  This multi-sector Working Group is comprised of twenty members and includes representatives from NGOs, government officials, Internet service providers and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, many of whom were identified during the fieldwork phase of Dr. Slane’s report.  The role of the working group is to advise the Department of Justice on the implementation of a tool to help combat Internet hate.  Interview findings suggest that, to date, the Working Group’s expertise and advice has been valuable in helping the Department pursue its work in this area.  Also, in response to the options for improving Canada’s ability to address online hate contained in Dr. Slane’s report, the Department is planning to pursue several new projects in the 2008-09 fiscal year, including the development of educational material to help Internet service providers identify hate propaganda.

As a follow-up to Dr. Slane’s report, the Department provided a contribution ($67K) to the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations for a National Stakeholders Meeting on Combating Hate on the Internet that occurred on December 6-7, 2007 in Toronto.  The purpose of the meeting was to solicit community participants’ reaction and input concerning the recommendations of the report and to examine concrete follow-up actions and other solutions suggested by the report.  The meeting was attended by 43 selected participants, 25 of whom submitted an evaluation form at the conclusion of the meeting (a response rate of just under 60%).  The meeting was assessed unanimously as "meeting expectations" and "worthwhile" .  Respondents rated the meeting overall as "excellent to very good" .  The majority were of the opinion that the meeting met the goal of identifying the best role for the Department in the development of a tool for combating Internet hate.  The success of the meeting was attributed largely to the calibre of the participants, the presentations and the workshop format that enabled focussed discussion.  The next steps arising from the meeting include continued consultation with stakeholders, the development of steps for implementation of a tip line, the submission of proposals and the conduct of a pilot project.

8. An increase in networking and information sharing opportunities:

All Justice interviewees indicated that there has been an increase in networking and information sharing and provided a number of concrete examples, such as:

Cross Cultural Roundtable on Security:

The Roundtable brings together 15 citizens from various ethnic, cultural and religious groups across Canada who are leaders in their respective communities.  The group provides advice and perspectives to the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice concerning matters of national security.  As part of her outreach activities, the Coordinator for the Action Plan presented the Internet hate tip line project at the November 2007 meeting of the Roundtable. 

The Metropolis Project:

Exists as both an international and a Canadian initiative.  In Canada, it consists of five university-based Centres of Excellence and a Secretariat based at Citizenship and Immigration Canada that manages the project on behalf of a partnership of federal departments and agencies.  Some 350 university researchers are affiliated with the Centres. The Secretariat is dedicated to ensuring communication between researchers and government (policy development).  Justice, Policing and Security is one of six federal policy-research priorities that focus the Centres’ research.  The Department of Justice has a Memorandum of Understanding with Metropolis that has resulted in a number of deliverables under the Action Plan, including annotated bibliographies, literature reviews, symposiums, etc.  The Research Division attends and presents research findings at Metropolis conferences and participates in research agenda planning sessions between Justice, the Atlantic Metropolis Centre and other government departments such as Public Safety, Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP.

9.  The development of approaches and/or products to help victims and deliver services:

Ultimately, the training materials being delivered by Hate Crime Solutions (discussed in Section 4.3.1 of this report) are intended to help victim services workers provide better services to victims of hate crimes, their families and communities.  The results of post-training questionnaires administered to training participants at the University of Windsor, School of Social Work indicate that a strong majority of attendees (79%) felt more confident in assisting a hate crime victim after having received the training.

Additionally, a chapter on Victims of Hate Crimes has been added to a manual entitled "Working with victims of crime: A manual applying research to clinical practice" by Dr. James Hill, which is used by criminal justice professionals and particularly victim services workers.  At the time of the evaluation, this chapter, along with a chapter on working with victims of terrorism, was in the review/editing process. The intent is to include both chapters when requests are made for the manual. Requests for the manual are received by the Policy Centre for Victim Issues on a regular basis for training volunteers and regular service providers, researchers, and other service providers. The chapter on hate crimes has been sent out (in its draft form) to researchers at the University of Windsor, the Centre for Diversity, among others.

10. Sharing and implementing best practices on effective interventions for perpetrators of hate crime:

The Action Plan indicates that to ensure fair, meaningful interventions and sentences for those who commit hate and racially motivated crimes, the Department will test interventions that ensure accountability while encouraging rehabilitation.  Relative to other departmental priority work areas under the Action Plan, "interventions for perpetrators of hate crime" has received little attention.  For a recommendation on this issue, see Section 5.3.

11. The development and implementation of tools to help identify and report Internet hate:

Although at the time of the evaluation the Department had not yet developed and implemented tools to help identify and report Internet hate, it had made significant strides in this area, as discussed in Section 4.3.7 of this report.  Additionally, at the time of the evaluation, proposals were being accepted to advance the project through the creation of a pilot "Internet hate tip line" with educational and auditing components.  Of mention, several interviewees indicated that this activity has taken more time than originally anticipated, in part because NGOs are taking longer to submit their proposals than expected.  One interviewee indicated that she started soliciting proposals last March 2007 and is in contact with organizations who have indicated that they plan to submit a proposal, but have not yet done so.

12. Policy/program options that clarify appropriate and inappropriate uses of race in law enforcement/national security:

As indicated in Section 4.3.4 of this report, the PLPS of the Department has undertaken extensive preparatory work in this area.  At the time of the evaluation, PLPS was preparing a report on its work to date, including proposals for national policies/guidelines for the appropriate and inappropriate use of personal characteristics (race, religion, ethnic or national origin and colour), which may serve as a basis for future work by government departments.

13. The identification and implementation of new/improved approaches to service delivery for overrepresented groups:

As indicated in section 4.3.5 of this report, one of the purposes of the NARCC focus group sessions was to identify community-based projects addressing the overrepresentation of racial minorities in the criminal justice system.  In fact, 24 different strategies for reducing the problem of overrepresentation in the Canadian criminal justice system were shared during the four focus group sessions.  However, at the time of the evaluation, the report summarizing the discussions and findings from the focus group sessions had not yet been finalized or disseminated.

In June 2006, the Department provided funding for the African Canadian Youth Justice Program that is administered by the African Canadian Legal Clinic.  Funding was provided for three Court Liaison workers who act as a resource and support within courts in the Greater Toronto Area to encourage alternatives to incarceration for Black Youth through alternative measures, and to provide assistance in providing effective and culturally appropriate referrals.  The results of the file review indicate that, during the first quarter of operation (June 06 – September 06) alone, the African Canadian Youth Justice Program received 161 referrals for the court worker component of the program.

During the forum on "Justice System Responses to Violence in Northern and Remote Aboriginal Communities" , discussed in Section 4.3.3 of this report, panellists spoke generally about more effective approaches to dealing with violence in northern and remote First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities, rather than through the traditional criminal justice system, and some provided examples of successful programs in their jurisdictions.  As a follow-up to the forum, a Department of Justice working group was formed to further develop the ideas raised during the event.  At the time of the evaluation, the working group had plans to hold another seminar at the end of March 2008, where participants would discuss concrete measures that use a healing model to address the problem of violence in Northern and rural Aboriginal communities. 

In October 2006, the Department provided $50K (the first of three payments of $50K) to the Government of Yukon, Department of Justice for the development of an evaluation framework and the eventual conduct of an evaluation of the Yukon’s Community Wellness Court.  The purpose of the Court is to test a therapeutic court monitored approach aimed at addressing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal persons in the Yukon courts.  The Court will provide a specialized court for offenders with substance abuse addictions problems (both drug and alcohol), Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and/or other diagnosable mental health problems, which are significant motivating or influencing factors in the commission of offences.  The Court is designed to address the unique circumstances of life in Northern communities.  According to the funding proposal provided by the Government of Yukon, upwards of 75% of offenders who participate in this program will be from First Nations communities.

4.4. Progress toward Long-Term Results Achievement

Evaluation findings indicate that the Department has made progress toward long-term results achievement in that activities have been undertaken that address many of the short and medium outcomes identified in the RMAF, with only one exception, that is, interventions for perpetrators of hate crime.

An improved response to perpetrators of hate crime

According to the Action Plan, to ensure fair, meaningful interventions and sentences for those who commit hate and racially motivated crimes, Justice will conduct consultations and research to identify effective approaches.  Additionally, in cooperation with stakeholders, it will test interventions to ensure accountability while encouraging rehabilitation.  Information gathered through these tests will be shared with the legal community to promote best practices.  However, relative to other departmental initiatives under the Action Plan, significant progress in terms of the achievement of the short and medium-term outcomes in this area (i.e. an increased awareness among justice system personnel of effective interventions for perpetrators of hate crime and sharing and implementing best practices on effective interventions for perpetrators of hate crime) had not yet been made.  Although at the time of the evaluation, the Research and Statistics Division was developing projects that would address meaningful interventions and sentences for those who commit hate and racially motivated crimes (e.g. a study on alternative measures for hate crime offenders) and was working on a research project on Hate as an Aggravating Factor in Sentencing, to date research within the Department has tended to focus more on interventions for and the needs of victims of hate crimes.  Interview findings suggest that this is due in part to the fact that there has been more enthusiasm within the Department for research on victims, making it easier to justify and proceed with research in this area.  As well, no funds had been provided to test interventions.  For a recommendation on this issue, see Section 5.3.

Interview findings indicate that the Department does still plan to pursue activities in the area of interventions for perpetrators of hate crimes (e.g. a study on alternative measures for hate crime offenders and a panel on inter-racial conflict resolution).  As such, it would be worthwhile revisiting the outcomes in the RMAF and making adjustments as necessary, in order to ensure that they accurately reflect the work that is planned.  A recommendation to this effect is included in Section 5.5.

4.5. Performance Measurement

Canadian Heritage is responsible for the overall coordination and administration of the Action Plan, including reporting and evaluation activities.  In order to fulfill its reporting requirements, the Department of Justice, along with the three other partner departments, submit data annually to Canadian Heritage on the outputs and outcomes of Action Plan activities for its Annual Report on the Operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

Representatives from Canadian Heritage were interviewed as part of this evaluation to determine whether, in their view, the data that Justice has provided over the last two reporting periods (2005-06 and 2006-07) since the implementation of the Action Plan, has been sufficient to meet Canadian Heritage monitoring and reporting requirements.  They indicated that, in general, the data provided by Justice annually has been adequate.  However, they did suggest that the Department provide more concrete examples of the results and impacts of the activities it has funded under the Action Plan as they found that portions of the Department’s 2006-07 report were vague.  Furthermore, Canadian Heritage key informants indicated that for the next reporting period (2007-08) there will be a requirement for partner departments to provide more qualitative data and concrete descriptions of the results of the activities funded through the Action Plan, in order to make the Annual Report more meaningful to the public/readers.

Similarly, using the data collected by the different sections/divisions within the Department of Justice, it was possible to compile a list of activities and outputs of the various priority work areas within the Department (race-based issues in the justice system, interventions for victims and perpetrators of hate crimes, and Internet hate crime) under the Action Plan.  In some cases, it was possible to illustrate how these activities have contributed to immediate and intermediate outcomes of the Justice component of the Action Plan.  For example, in the Hate Crime Solutions case study, it was possible to illustrate that the hate crimes training had contributed to an increased awareness of the needs of victims of hate crimes among participants through the use of pre- and post-training survey questionnaires.  However, in other cases it was difficult to illustrate concrete results/impacts of the some of the initiatives because either it was too early on in the project (e.g. the Internet hate tip line), or data was not readily available on results/impacts (e.g. forum on "Justice System Responses to Violence in Northern and Remote Aboriginal Communities" ). This information will be necessary for measuring and illustrating the impact of the Justice component of the Action Plan as part of the summative evaluation.

Of note, key informants at Canadian Heritage were not aware that the Department of Justice had implemented an evaluation framework that includes a logic model for the initiatives that it delivers under the Action Plan.  They indicated an interest in receiving a copy so that they have a better understanding of the initiatives/work that the Department is undertaking under the Action Plan and what it has identified as short, medium and long-term outcomes.

Additionally, Canadian Heritage key informants indicated that an evaluability assessment of the Action Plan they undertook in Spring 2006 recommended that a management review be conducted in 2008 to assess the design and implementation of the initiatives underway in the partner departments (including Justice) as well as the measurability and meaningfulness of success indicators.  This approach was approved by Canadian Heritage’s Audit and Evaluation Committee and is planned for Spring 2008.

The evaluation also explored whether the indicators and outcomes in the RMAF are still measurable and meaningful for the initiatives involved, and whether the Department can improve the evaluation framework.  In particular, the evaluation found that the medium-term outcome of greater use of proven interventions for perpetrators of hate crime and the long-term outcome of an improved response to perpetrators of hate crime are not realistic and feasible intended outcomes for the Department’s component of the Action Plan.  Additionally, a gap in the RMAF was identified. More specifically, the Departmental Coordinator for the Action Plan has taken the Plan mandate to include work within the Department to increase awareness of race-based issues in the justice system through, for example, March 21 day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination activities, a learning event for Justice employees on "Mentoring: Building Bridges to Enhance Diversity" (as discussed in Section 4.3.3 of this report).  However, work in this area is not identified in the logic model for the Justice component of the Action Plan.  It will be important to ensure that these types of activities are reflected in the RMAF so that they are captured at the time of the final summative evaluation.