Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Program Evaluation
Appendix B: Evaluation Matrix
| Issue/question | Indicators | Data sources and methods |
|---|---|---|
| Relevance - Issue 1: Continued need for the Program | ||
| 1.1 Is there a continued need for the Program? | 1.1.1 Evidence and perception as to whether the context or environment related to war crimes and crimes against humanity have changed (e.g., war crimes continue to be committed/international community still committed to prosecutions) |
Baseline information:
|
| 1.1.2 Evidence and perception as to whether national and/or international legislative or policy changes or new international accords have enhanced or reduced the need or requirement for the Program |
|
|
| 1.1.3 Evidence and perception as to the extent that the Program as currently configured meets partner department and international partner needs for identification and follow-up regarding war crimes and crimes against humanity |
|
|
| 1.1.4 Evidence and perception as to whether partner department and international partner needs and priorities are reflected in the current configuration of the Program |
|
|
| Evidence and perception of the continuing demand for the Program |
|
|
| 1.2 To what extent are the objectives of the Program still relevant? | 1.2.1 Level and perceived changes of international commitment to this issue and pressure on Canada to participate |
Baseline information:
|
| 1.2.2 International evidence of the impact of other similar initiatives |
|
|
| Relevance - Issue 2: Alignment with government priorities | ||
| 2.1 To what extent does the Program meet the policy priorities of the government with respect to war crimes and crimes against humanity? | 2.1.1 Evidence and perception as to whether the objectives are consistent with the federal government’s policy priorities with respect to war crimes and crimes against humanity |
|
| 2.2 To what extent does the Program align with the departmental strategic outcomes of each partner? | 2.2.1 Evidence and perception as to whether the objectives are consistent with departmental strategic outcomes of each Program partner |
|
| Relevance - Issue 3: Alignment with federal roles and responsibilities | ||
| 3.1 Is there still a role for the federal government to deliver the Program? | 3.1.1 Extent to which the federal government and/or international entities believe the GoC should deliver the CAHWCP or aspects of it | Structured Interviews with Key Stakeholders |
| 3.1.2 Extent to which international obligations require the GoC to deliver the CAHWCP or aspects of it | Structured Interviews with Key Stakeholders | |
| Performance (effectiveness, efficiency, and economy) - Issue 4: Achievement of expected outcomes | ||
| 4.1 To what extent has the Program contributed to an increase in knowledge and awareness of the Program among stakeholders? | 4.1.1 Level of outreach activities (e.g., dissemination activities, tools, training, international support) |
|
| 4.1.2 Extent to which training adequately prepares staff to exercise their responsibilities in relation to the Program |
|
|
| 4.1.3 Level of delivery partners’ knowledge of other components of the Program |
|
|
| 4.1.4 Perceived extent and adequacy of knowledge management |
|
|
| 4.2 How well have allegations been managed under the CAHWCP with respect to determination? | 4.2.1 Change from 2008-09/2011–12 to 2012–13/2015–16 in the number of decisions rendered by Federal Court where revocation was considered | Review of Performance Information, Files and Databases Baseline information: Total inventory of revocation cases for period 2008–09 to 2011–12 |
| 4.2.2 Perception among stakeholders of Canada’s ability to address allegations |
|
|
| 4.2.3 Change from 2008–09/2011–12 to 2012–13/2015–16 in the number of removals, extraditions and successful defence by respondent/defendant | Review of Performance Information, Files and Databases Baseline information: Total inventory of removals, extraditions and successful defences for period 2008–09 to 2011–12 |
|
| 4.3 To what extent has the Program deterred and prevented persons believed to have committed or been complicit in CAHWC from coming to Canada? | 4.3.1 Level and type of publicity surrounding cases | Review of Performance Information, Files and Databases |
| 4.3.2 Trend analysis of the allegation inventory and case outcomes from 2008-09/2011–12 to 2012–13/2015–16 | Review of Performance Information, Files and Databases Baseline information: Total inventory of allegations and case outcomes for period 2008–09 to 2011–12 |
|
| 4.3.3 Perception among stakeholders that the Program has deterred persons believed to have committed or been complicit in CAHWC from coming to Canada |
|
|
| 4.4 How and to what extent has Canada demonstrated leadership regarding CAHWC issues? | 4.4.1 Perception among stakeholders that Canada is a leader in CAHWC issues |
|
| 4.4.2 Extent to which other countries continue to learn from and emulate the Canadian model |
|
|
| 4.4.3 Adequacy of Canada’s legislative framework to address CAHWC issues |
|
|
| 4.5 To what extent has the Program assisted Canada to meet its international obligations? | 4.5.1 Perception among domestic and international stakeholders that Canada has met its international obligations regarding CAHWC |
|
| 4.5.2 Benefit of Canada meeting its international obligations as signatories to the Genocide Convention; the Geneva Convention concerning war crimes and Additional Protocols; the Convention Against Torture; and the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court |
|
|
| 4.6 To what extent does Canada protect Canadians and successfully remove persons believed to have committed or been complicit in CAHWC through the Program? | 4.6.1 Perception that the Program contributes to the protection of Canadian residents, particularly those formerly from regions where CAHWC have been committed, from the actions of persons believed to have committed or been complicit in CAHWC through the removal of such persons from Canada |
|
| 4.6.2 The number of offenders prosecuted in Canada | Review of Performance Information, Files and Databases | |
| 4.6.3 The number of inadmissible individuals removed from Canada | Review of Performance Information, Files and Databases | |
| 4.6.4 The number of inadmissible individuals whose Canadian citizenship is revoked based on misrepresentation | Review of Performance Information, Files and Databases | |
| 4.6.5 The number of inadmissible individuals refused visas | Review of Performance Information, Files and Databases | |
| 4.6.6 Justice/RCMP Inventory of suspected war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide cases | Review of Performance Information, Files and Databases | |
| 4.7 To what extent does Canada contribute to the domestic and international fight against impunity and is not a safe haven for persons believed to have committed or been complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide? | 4.7.1 Perception among stakeholders that Canada is not a safe haven |
|
| 4.7.2 The number of inadmissible individuals refused visas | Review of Performance Information, Files and Databases | |
| 4.8 Were there any unintended impacts? | 4.8.1 Lessons learned from the delivery of the CAHWCP |
|
| 4.8.2 Evidence the horizontal approach contributed/detracted from the achievement of outcomes |
|
|
| Performance (effectiveness, efficiency, and economy) - Issue 5: Demonstration of efficiency and economy | ||
| 5.1 To what extent has the Program achieved its results to date efficiently? | 5.1.1 Description of the resources (FTEs, operations and program funding) allocated to the Program each year from 2012–13 to 2015–16 plus additional departmental/partner resources contributed to achieve objectives |
|
| 5.1.2 Evidence that the resources were used for the purposes intended |
|
|
| 5.1.3 Evidence and perception of the extent to which each Program partner could have increased outputs with the same level of inputs, or whether the same level of outputs could have been achieved with a lower level of inputs |
|
|
| 5.1.4 Evidence the horizontal approach contributed to the efficiency and economy of the initiative |
|
|
| 5.2 To what extent has the Program achieved its results to date economically? | 5.2.1 Evidence and perception as to whether there are alternative ways of achieving Program objectives that might be less costly than the current approach, and description of any alternative approaches |
|
| Performance (effectiveness, efficiency, and economy) - Issue 6: Design and Delivery | ||
| 6.1. Was the Program designed appropriately and did it operate in the manner intended? | 6.1.1 Evidence and perception of the factors that influenced the horizontal collaboration |
|
| 6.1.2 Evidence and perception that the governance is effective (evidence that it supports accountabilities, decision making, control and risk management) |
|
|
| 6.1.3 Evidence and perception of the impact of different departmental cultures on the management of the Program |
|
|
- Date modified: