Department of Justice Component of Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism

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); interventions for victims and perpetrators of hate crimes; and countering Internet-based hate crime. The previous evaluation findings found that although the Department had attempted to pursue activities in all three areas, work had been concentrated in some areas, such as work on countering Internet hate, and had not yet occurred in others, such as interventions for perpetrators of hate crime. The findings of this evaluation indicate that the priority work areas have shifted. For example, a great deal of developmental work occurred early on in the initiative to develop a tool for combating on-line hate. Later in the initiative, work in this area was restricted to inter-departmental policy work. Interview and file review findings indicate that work has been concentrated mainly in the area of interventions for victims and perpetrators of hate crime, and the overrepresentation of certain groups, in particular Aboriginals, in the justice system.

4.1.2. Contributions component

The G&C component of the Action Plan is administered under the JPIP, which supports activities that respond effectively to the changing conditions effecting Canadian justice policy. In terms of CAPAR, funding is available through the Justice Partnership and Innovation Program for projects that explore race-based issues in the justice system and what role the Department may have in working with others to combat hate motivated crimes.[5] A Program Analyst manages the G&C component of CAPAR. This was the result of a recommendation that came out of the formative evaluation in 2007, in an effort to provide increased support and greater collaboration with the Departmental Coordinator. This approach has yielded positive results in the coordination of funding proposals.

JPIP is an already well established program with its own Terms and Conditions. The advantage of having CAPAR activities funded through the JPIP was that the Department did not have to design a whole new program to carry out G&C activities under CAPAR and this allowed for a quicker set-up time.

Take-up:

According to Table 1- Distribution of funds for the Justice Component of Action Plan Against Racism (page 6), $50,000 was allocated to contributions in 2005-2006 (which the Department never actually received because Justice did not receive approval for the Justice component of the initiative until November 1, 2005), $350,000 in 2006-2007 and $850,000 in 2007-2008, $750,000 in 2008-2009 and $450,000 in 2009-2010. The Department has funded projects on a wide range of race-based issues in the justice system. Since the implementation of the Justice component of CAPAR, in total, thirty-one (31) organizations have applied for funding and fifteen (15) have actually received funding through JPIP.

The formative evaluation noted the limited take-up of the G&C component in the early stages of CAPAR mainly due to lack of visibility of the Fund.[6] Although there have been some changes made to the management and administration of the G&C funding component to address the previous issues, and the fact that a number of projects have been funded and gone forward, there still continues to be limited take-up on the G&C component.

Since the program was first implemented, there has been more publicity and communication about the availability of project funding for anti-racism activities. The Departmental Coordinator for CAPAR actively seeks out proposals and promotes the funding available through CAPAR at conferences and meetings, during site visits and by contracting anti-racism and related organizations. Additionally, a fact sheet that describes CAPAR 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. Despite this, it is possible that there continues to be a lower level of awareness about the Fund, in part because the initiative is a relatively small program in a department with other larger initiatives. The departmental mandate for anti-racism activities may not be very apparent to the public. When asked about how they were made aware of the funding for CAPAR, project funding recipients most often cited representatives within the Department (i.e. the Justice Coordinator or Programs Analyst, sometimes as a result of having applied for funding from a different program within the Department) and one project funding recipient was referred by a partner organization involved in their project. Several others stated they were first made aware at the launching announcement for CAPAR in 2005.

One Department of Justice interviewee also noted that perhaps the capacity to prepare and submit proposals might not be there for some organizations. It takes a great deal of initiative, time and work to prepare and submit a proposal, and some organizations may not have the capacity to make an application. Further, it is possible that the criteria, as described for funding, may not be clear to them, as the initiative is quite broad in its objectives.

An additional reason for limited take-up of the Fund may also be related to one of the challenges in implementing some activities, in particular project funding, under CAPAR. These challenges will be discussed further below. Almost all departmental interviewees noted delays in the approval process as a possible hindrance to organizations applying for funding. Some project funding recipients also commented on this as an obstacle in gaining access to funding from the Department of Justice. They found this frustrating, as the work involved may not be worthwhile for them in applying again in the future. Despite these challenges, all project funding recipients interviewed felt they had a very positive experience with departmental representatives who they found to be extremely helpful, informative, supportive and available to answer any questions. Additionally, all recipients expressed their appreciation for the funding and most indicated that without the funding, their project would not have gone forward, or would have gone forward on a much smaller scale.

Design and Delivery Challenges:
Delays in approval process for project funding proposals:

The delay in obtaining approval to fund G&C projects has continued to be a challenge. Several examples can be provided. In two instances, organizations who applied for funding received approval after their activity (in both cases it was a conference) had taken place. Despite actually receiving the funding in the end, one of the organizations noted the frustration and worry of not knowing if they would receive the funding or not. Several other organizations applied for funding, but due to the length of time it was taking to be approved (in one case the activity that was to be funded was taking place in a week and they had not yet heard anything), they withdrew their application. Although improvements have been made to the funding process since the last evaluation, such as having a Program Analyst working on the fund and proposals, there are still areas for improvement.

Difficulties in undertaking some planned activities:

One of the key activities planned, and the focus of much of the work under CAPAR at the time of the formative evaluation, was the development and implementation of tools to help identify and report Internet hate. A great deal of developmental work occurred in the early stages of the Justice component of CAPAR both departmentally and collaboratively with external stakeholders. Proposals were requested and submitted to the Department of Justice in February 2008. The proposals were not approved and applicants were notified in August 2009. Interviewees explained that activities related to this project were affected by the related review of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Canadian Human Rights Commission contracted Dr. Richard Moon to write a report relevant to hate on the Internet. He recommended that section 13 be eliminated. Since section 13 is one of the tools that are used in Canada to combat hate on the Internet, the review has contributed to the uncertainty of what should be done to combat Internet hate. Even though activities have not been completed in this area, there is still ongoing discussion and communication. For example, since June 2008, a departmental working group began meeting regularly to review articles and discuss issues relevant to the topic of hate speech and freedom of speech/expression.

4.1.3 Justice Steering Committee for Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism

All of the members of the Steering Committee (there are currently 10 in total) who were interviewed as part of the evaluation (n=4) indicated that Steering Committee meetings continue to be an effective mechanism for information sharing – on research findings, policy strategies and lessons learned. Some further indicated that meetings provide members with the opportunity to test ideas, discuss approaches and gain a better understanding of who is doing what under CAPAR within the Department and how it relates to other areas of the Department’s mandate. Additionally, one interviewee noted it has been a good conduit for policy work on the section 13 issue. As well, the Justice 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. Relevance

4.2.1 Consistency with departmental and government-wide objectives and priorities

All interviewees agreed that the Justice component of CAPAR, and the larger initiative as a whole, is consistent with departmental and government-wide objectives and priorities.

Diversity in Canada has increased significantly over the past decade and will continue to expand. Obstacles, including systemic barriers, exist that continue to prevent some Canadians, because of ethnicity, culture, race and language, from fully accessing essential services and programs. By working on activities relevant to Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism, the Department is demonstrating a commitment to addressing these complex and important issues.

Interviewees stated that CAPAR embodies the Department of Justice mandate and mission, in particular promoting and working to ensure that Canada is a just and law-abiding society with an accessible, efficient and fair system of justice, as well as promoting respect for rights and freedoms, the law and the constitution. Race-based issues in the justice system are seen as extremely relevant to this mission.

4.2.2 Continued need for initiatives to counter racism and discrimination in Canada

In the 2007 Speech from the Throne, a commitment was iterated: “Canada is built on a common heritage of values, which Canadians have fought and died to defend. It is a country that continues to attract newcomers seeking refuge and opportunity, who see Canada as a place where they can work hard, raise families and live in freedom…Canadians can be proud of their country and its achievements. Working together, we have built a nation that is prosperous and safe; a place where people from around the world live in harmony.” By working on activities relevant to Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism, the Department is demonstrating a commitment to addressing complex and important issues.

Almost all interview respondents pointed out that racism and discrimination exist in Canadian society and that there is a continued need for initiatives to counter racism and discrimination. Many respondents viewed the Department’s role as one of educating and raising awareness among both criminal justice professionals and the public about race-based issues. Additionally, it was noted there is a need to continue talking about these issues, and strategize to develop ways in which to address inequalities in the justice system.

One interviewee explained that in consultations with community stakeholders, many felt that the traditional punitive approach is not an effective response to offences that are racially motivated, and that a program or response, such as those activities under CAPAR, that tries to increase understanding among parties is preferable. The continued importance of such programs and responses was stressed by several interview respondents who pointed out that the nature of racism continues to change and is changing. In turn, particular issues related to race and hate (i.e. Anti-terrorism Act, airport security) are becoming more acute and will require innovative responses.

4.2.3. Consistent with federal roles and responsibilities

The federal government has a specific mandate to counter racism in Canada. Over the past 40 years, the Government of Canada has established a solid legal framework that integrates a substantial collection of laws and policies. Most interview respondents agreed that the Justice component of CAPAR and the entire initiative as a whole is consistent with federal roles and responsibilities. They pointed to the clear federal role of upholding policies, the constitutional responsibility to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and ensuring that the Criminal Code provisions are just.

On the issue of equality, section 15 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Moreover, section 35 recognizes and affirms the historical and treaty rights of Aboriginal peoples. Other legislation includes: the Canadian Human Rights Act; the Canadian Bill of Rights; the Employment Equity Act; the Official Languages Act; the Canadian Multiculturalism Act; the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and the Citizenship Act.

At the international level, Canada is party to several international human rights instruments and fora, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Ratified by Canada in 1970, it calls on governments “to prohibit and eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” In 2002, Canadian representatives appeared before the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to report on the Convention’s implementation in Canada.

Respondents felt racism, discrimination and crimes against particular marginalized groups require a coordinated national approach, as well as a leadership role internationally for the Canadian federal government and that Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism is consistent with this federal responsibility to combat and strongly denounce hate crimes against particular groups and anti-racist and discriminatory practices.

4.3. Effectiveness

Evaluation findings from the file and document review, key informant interviews suggest that the Department achieved many of its short and medium-term objectives through a series of activities. Long-term objectives have been difficult to measure; however, some work being done, in particular by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) through CAPAR funding, can be seen as contributing to several of the long-term objectives of the Justice component of CAPAR. The following section presents the results and outcomes to date of this component.

Increase in awareness among justice system personnel of race-based issues in the justice system

There have been a number of activities internal to the Department that have increased awareness among Justice and other federal government staff of race-based issues in the justice system. In particular, four forums have been held in Ottawa, organized by the Department of Justice’s Collaborative Working Group responding to violence in Aboriginal communities. These forums have been particularly successful at informing attendees about Aboriginal justice issues and specifically, the overrepresentation of Aboriginals in the justice system. Funds for these forums were provided through CAPAR O&M resources. Below is further detail about each forum and evaluation findings.

A forum entitled “Justice System Responses to Violence in Remote and Aboriginal Communities” was held March 30, 2007. The intention of the forum was to inform attendees about 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. The Department’s Research and Statistics Division developed a report summarizing the discussions that occurred during the seminar which was published in JustResearch, a periodical shared widely on the Department’s intranet and Internet Websites.

The second forum was held March 19, 2008 and was entitled “Forum on Justice Programs in Northern and Remote Aboriginal Communities.” Its purpose was to showcase community-based justice programs that have the potential to assist in reducing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system and to build on the momentum of the previous year’s event discussed above. The Department’s Evaluation Division conducted a short telephone survey with 50% of participants (n=29) several weeks after the event in order to assess its success. The survey findings indicated that 93% of participants found the forum useful and that same percentage now has a better understanding of community-based justice programs in northern and remote Aboriginal communities. Additionally, a strong majority (93%) agreed with the statement: “I have learned valuable information that can be applied to my work” and indicated that the forum met their expectations.

The third forum which took place March 3, 2009 was entitled “Seeking Justice in Aboriginal Communities.” This event provided an opportunity to better understand some of the issues that contribute to the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the justice system, both as victims and offenders. An evaluation was distributed at the end of the event to gain feedback; however, there was a very small response rate (n=6). Those who did complete the evaluation indicated that the event met its stated objectives completely. Those who provided comments found the speakers and presenters to be the most useful aspect of the forum, noting that they were very informative. Several others also mentioned the positive opportunity the forum provided to network and build relationships with others.

The fourth forum took place December 11, 2009 and was entitled “Hope in the North”. The event highlighted concrete initiatives that have, at their root, the goal of reducing violence in Canada’s North. Justice Evaluation Division distributed a short evaluation form at the end of the event in order to measure its success. Approximately 40% (n=24) of participants completed the evaluation. All participants agreed/strongly agreed that the event was a good opportunity to learn about innovative and hopeful initiatives occurring in Canada’s North. Most (92%) of survey respondents agreed/strongly agreed that by attending the event, they increased their knowledge about positive approaches relevant to addressing race-based issues in the justice system, as well as learning valuable information that can be applied to their work. Sixty-seven percent (67%) indicated that the event gave them an opportunity to connect and network with other federal officials. For the most part, comments provided by survey respondents were very positive and overall, most found the forum to be extremely engaging, well organized with informative speakers and presentations.

Additionally, the CAPAR Justice Coordinator organized four sessions on Religious Diversity for the Department’s employees in 2008. Three of the four sessions were presented in partnership with the Advisory Committee on Visible Minorities, and one session was organized in collaboration with the Advisory Committee on Aboriginal Persons. The goal of the sessions was to increase understanding of Canada’s religious diversity to Justice employees.

Other conferences and forums have also been supported through CAPAR such as the March 21 International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination activities within the Department in 2007. 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”. 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 on mentoring to the Employment Equity Steering Committee 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. The coordinator of CAPAR has participated on the organizing committee for these annual forums in 2008 and 2009 as well, though funds from CAPAR were not required.

In terms of activities outside the Department aimed at increasing awareness of race-based issues in the justice system, work done by The Black Law Students’ Association of Canada is an example. The Association has received funding from CAPAR for the last three years to host its annual conference. Although the theme changes every year, the conferences seek to promote access to justice and increase the representation of minorities in the legal profession, as well as to discuss and strategize among participants and presenters on various issues related to diversity in the legal profession and the objective of anti-racism through education and discussion of legal issues on the topic. Based on exit survey responses, participants at the conferences have overall been satisfied with the conference sessions and activities.

The Research and Statistics Division has also produced a number of research papers and has presented findings and data at various conferences on race-based issues in the justice system. Some of the reports have yet to be published, but interviewees believe these reports will contribute to an increased awareness among not only those within the Department, but those outside the Department of race-based issues in the justice system.

An improved understanding of the problem of overrepresentation of ethnocultural groups

Interviews findings and file reviews indicate that there is a good understanding of the problem of overrepresentation of ethnocultural groups, and ongoing work in progress that will continue to improve this understanding. It was acknowledged by the Justice Coordinator that the focus within the Department has not been on a wide variety of ethnocultural groups, bur rather mainly on African Canadian and Aboriginal populations. However, the Department has relied heavily on Statistics Canada data, where statistics show these two particular groups as being significantly overrepresented in the justice system, so there is sound rationale for that focus. The Aboriginal justice related forums discussed above are a good example of learning opportunities that have sought to increase this understanding, and evaluation results from the forums demonstrate an increase in this understanding.

Project funding recipients were asked the extent to which their activities and/or project(s) were relevant to improving understanding of the problem of overrepresentation of ethnocultural groups. Three out of the five organizations interviewed indicated that their project was relevant to a great extent, and one indicated to some extent. The following are several examples:

The Ontario Justice Education Network (OJEN) is a Toronto-based organization dedicated to promoting understanding, education and dialogue to support a responsible and inclusive justice system. They have undertaken several projects with funding from the Department. One of their projects, “Navigating the Justice System: Justice Education Training Sessions for Youth Workers and Student Success Teachers Program”, are training sessions for front-line youth worker staff working with youth interacting with the criminal justice system. Five sessions have been held so far. The sessions aim to educate participants (mainly youth workers) about the experiences of racialized youth in the justice system and the response to racism in the demonstration of justice. The goal is to give the youth workers the correct information they need about the justice system, and to better prepare these youth workers and success teachers to respond positively to the experiences, actual or anticipated of racism in the justice system in order to be able to assist the youths they are working with. The neighbourhoods within which the sessions are being run are almost exclusively racialized neighbourhoods and the vast majority of youths in outreach programs are from racialized groups that are overrepresented in the justice system.

This project has been extremely successful and has been met with much positive response, so much so that OJEN has requested and been granted additional funding from the Department to expand the program. Feedback obtained from participants at the sessions indicated an increase in knowledge and understanding. Interview findings indicated the organization believes their project has been successful, and this is exemplified by the increased demand for this project and having to expand it and provide additional sessions. They are beginning to see the impact, in that there has been an increase in knowledge and capacity for youth workers working with youths by addressing the issue of racism within the justice sector.

OJEN’s other project is the Aboriginal Justice Education Project. This project has several different components to it, but the main focus has been the development of a mock trial scenario about the jury process with student participation, as well as the development of jury materials for community legal workers and community residents and translation for jury materials for community members. Aboriginal people are overrepresented as victims and offenders in the criminal justice process and underrepresented as court workers, prosecutors, judges and others. The intent of this project is to help open dialogue between Aboriginal youth and members of the judiciary and legal professions and improve perceptions and greater understanding of Aboriginal experiences within the justice system. The project also aims to build understanding about the importance of jury duty with the potential result being an increased proportion of Aboriginal jury members in the region. The translation of the materials also seeks to address linguistic barriers.

According to the interview and file review findings, the development of the mock trial with students has progressed well. It was noted that the project was initially met with resistance by the community but that the community is now very supportive and engaged. The feedback so far has been positive. Although the project is still being carried out and has not been completed, the organization still notes there has been an initial impact, especially for youth involved with the mock trial, in that it has given them an opportunity to see how they can participate and engage in the justice system. The community as a whole responded positively to the idea of the justice system coming to them, including them in the process and working closely with them. There has also been a great deal of relationship building and partnerships evolving as a result of the projects.

A final example is the Wiinaadmaadying Symposia. Walpole Island Community Service Program received funding to host a two-and-half-day symposium which brought together both Aboriginal and mainstream judicial and law enforcement officials to provide information and awareness about emerging practices related to the overrepresentation of Aboriginal peoples in the justice system. Feedback from participants who attended the symposium indicate that the event has strengthened relationships among stakeholders, increased awareness of Aboriginal issues and created a foundation for future dialogue, as well as the capacity to develop best practices and solutions to address the overrepresentation of Aboriginal victims and perpetrators in the justice system.

It was noted in the formative evaluation that the Research and Statistics Division was planning several projects related to an improved understanding of the problem of overrepresentation of ethnocultural groups; however, no research has been undertaken in this area. It should be pointed out that funding for research under CAPAR ended in 2008-2009 and the previous focus and priority had been on hate crimes.

A better understanding of the needs of victims of hate crime and its effects on individuals and communities:

As a priority of the Department, work being done on victims of crime has been a strength under the CAPAR initiative with Justice and most interview respondents were unanimous that the Justice component of CAPAR has made an impact in this area.

The Research and Statistics Division 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 the Department’s Internet and intranet Websites. Additionally, 130 copies of this report were distributed at a forum on hate crimes in Toronto in February 2010. Another paper entitled “The Community Impact of Alleged Hate-Motivated Crimes: Two Case Studies” is presently being drafted; however, departmental representatives from the Research and Statistics Division have presented preliminary findings from the report at the Canadian Society of Criminology National Conference in October 2009 and the National Victims of Crime Awareness Week Federal Symposium in April 2010.

Project funding recipients were asked the extent to which their projects were relevant to increasing awareness and understanding among both justice system personnel and the general public about the needs of victims of hate crime and the effects of hate crime on individuals and communities. All organizations interviewed indicated that their projects to varying degrees were relevant. A concrete example is provided in the section below, on the African Canadian Legal Clinic’s Anti-black Hate Project, which addresses the needs of both victims and interventions for perpetrators of hate crimes.

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

A recommendation was made in the previous evaluation to address the gap in focus on interventions for perpetrators of hate crime, an area where little progress had been made at that time. This issue has been addressed to an extent with ongoing work being completed both internally with research and reports by the Research and Statistics Division, and in particular outside the Department with funding provided to two organizations whose projects specifically target this need.

Although there has not been as much progress in terms of conducting consultations and research to identify meaningful interventions and sentences for those who commit hate and racially motivated crimes, there has been effort put forth. The Research and Statistics Division has completed several research projects relevant in this area, one entitled “Hate as an Aggravating Factor in Sentencing”, which is awaiting permission for public release; the other, “Non-Custodial Measures and Hate Crime Offenders: An Annotated Bibliography and Media Scan”, has been distributed internally. Both papers are used by the Justice Canada Coordinator for CAPAR to inform policy decisions and community consultations.

Two particular projects funded through the G&C funding component of CAPAR are contributing towards a better understanding of effective interventions for perpetrators of hate crimes. Examples are provided below.

The National Anti-Racism Council of Canada (NARCC) is undertaking a project during the 2009-2010 fiscal year, with the assistance of CAPAR funds, entitled “An Exploration of the Need for a Youth Restorative Action Project Model in Toronto”. The organization is studying the feasibility of a youth restorative action project (YRAP) in Ontario using the YRAP in Alberta as a model. YRAP is a youth justice committee sanctioned under section 18 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It is the first committee of its kind mandated to work in youth court with young people who have caused harm as a result of racism, intolerance and significant social issues. YRAP meets with young offenders to discuss harm caused by criminal actions and come up with creative, effective resolutions to repair the harm and address the action of the youth in a way which is both educational and rehabilitative.

NARCC has undertaken research into restorative justice for youth, and held interviews and consultations with key stakeholders. They have completed the first part of the project, which was an assessment of the project in Alberta, a comparative study. The second part will be the needs assessment in Toronto which is currently ongoing. It is expected that the findings will be instrumental in helping to establish a YRAP in Toronto which would work with youth court with youth offenders whose crimes are motivated by hate, racism or other social issues.

Although the project has not yet been completed, there has been strong community engagement, dialogue and support with a great deal of youth input. It is not possible to directly measure the long-term impact at this point; however, what has come out of the work so far has been an increased awareness about options available to address motivated crimes. Interview findings also indicate that the interest and enthusiasm from the community about the project have had at the very least the effect of opening dialogue about hate crime.

The Department provided a contribution to the African Canadian Legal Clinic (ACLC) during the 2008-2009 fiscal year for two related projects. Firstly, the development of the Anti-Black Hate Crimes Manual (also referred to as a “toolkit”) with two components: one aimed at victims of anti-black hate, the other for institutions and community advocates. It was developed to educate and assist African Canadian victims in responding to hate crimes and educate prosecutors, police, lawyers, educational institutions and community advocates on the specific needs and concerns of African Canadian victims and their communities. The Department also provided suggestions and input into the Manual.

Secondly, the ACLC organized and held a forum on anti-black hate crimes which brought together community members and justice stakeholders to raise awareness and develop strategies and partnerships to combat anti-black hate crime. The impact of both activities has been positive. Approximately 300 participants attended the conference. Of those who completed an evaluation, 80% reported that the presentations and workshops helped them to identify key policy priorities and set a policy agenda. Over 80% rated the tool kit good to excellent and 99% gave the conference and forum a rating of good to excellent. Most also felt that the conference played an instrumental role in developing the capacity of the African Canadian community, key government officials, justice stakeholders and public institutions in effectively identifying and responding to anti-black hate.

Over 500 copies of the toolkit/manual have been distributed and the organization continually gets requests for the manuals in other cities. An unexpected result has been that police services and other institutions have requested training from the ACLC on the issue of anti-black hate.

Tools developed and implemented to combat Internet hate:

The Department began a large amount of work in this area when CAPAR was first implemented. Although a great deal of developmental work has occurred, proposals submitted were not approved. Interview findings suggest that this is mainly the result of the related review of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Canadian Human Rights Commission contracted Dr. Richard Moon to write a report relevant to hate on the Internet. He recommended that section 13 be eliminated. Since section 13 is one of the tools that are used in Canada to combat hate on the Internet, the review has contributed to the uncertainty of what should be done to combat Internet hate. Respondents expressed disappointment that this work has been unable to continue. Interview findings also indicate that there continues to be a strong will to move forward with these activities in the future and that there is still an important role for the Department in this area. It was pointed out that any reform of section 13 might be something to look at in future CAPAR initiatives because any changes that are made may affect the perception of minority communities that feel section 13 is a mechanism they can use. If the particular section is limited, the government and perhaps the Department of Justice will need to engage in consultation about what other initiatives and mechanisms could be used.

Here is one example of the developmental work that occurred in the early stages of the Justice component of CAPAR. The Department provided a contribution 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 a report submitted to Justice by Dr. Andrea Slane, Executive Director of the Centre for Innovation Law and Policy (University of Toronto). The report entitled "Combating Hate Crime on the Internet: Current Canadian Efforts and Recommendations of Non-Governmental Organizations to Improve upon Them" 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. In response to one of the recommendations contained in  Dr. Slane's report, the Justice Coordinator created the Working Group on Combating Hate Crime.

The National Stakeholders meeting examined 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 caliber of the participants, as well as the presentations and the workshop format that enabled focused discussion. The next steps arising from the meeting were to 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; however, as mentioned, the initiative has been suspended for the time being and very little follow-up work has occurred.

An increase in networking and information sharing opportunities:

All Justice interviewees indicated that there has been some increase in networking and information sharing. Various conferences and outreach activities have provided opportunities to share information about the work the Department has been doing on anti-racism initiatives and to learn more about what others are doing. Within the Department, the Aboriginal Justice Forums and the CAPAR Steering Committee meetings were cited as opportunities that have allowed for a sharing of information and networking among colleagues. One respondent stated that the CAPAR Steering Committee is especially useful and interesting as it is comprised of experts from different areas within the Department (policy, research, other funding programs, evaluation), each bringing unique perspectives and providing the opportunity to share with one another what each is doing in the area of hate crimes and anti-racism.

Representatives from the Research and Statistics Division commented that other departments and organizations often look to their division for getting information in the area of race-based issues and hate crimes. For example, in their presentation of hate crimes statistics, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (CCJS) refers to research conducted by the Division, recognizing that Justice is doing this kind of work.

Another example is the Metropolis Project. It 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. 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 and symposiums. The Research and Statistics 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 Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Project funding recipients were asked about the extent to which information sharing and networking had occurred or increased as a result of their particular project(s). All organizations indicated that it had occurred in a significant way. In fact, interview findings show that one of the main strengths of almost all funded projects was the networking and information sharing opportunities, and the ability to share and disseminate results, findings and best practices. The development of partnerships and community support was also listed as a strength factor.

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

Training materials were developed and delivered by Hate Crime Solutions, contracted by the Policy Centre for Victims Issues (PCVI) at Justice during the 2006-2007 fiscal year. The materials and accompanying training are 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. They are intended to help victim services workers provide better services to victims of hate crimes, their families and communities. The training materials have been used for presentations to the federal-provincial/territorial Working Group on Victims Issues and during the opening ceremony for the National Victims of Crime Awareness Week to a public forum. There is also an opportunity for jurisdictions and NGOs to apply to PCVI for funding to bring the training to their respective communities. To date, several jurisdictions and NGOs have received funding to hold the training. Feedback has generally been positive with participants indicating an increased awareness of issues and legislation related to victims of hate.

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. Requests for the manual are received by the PCVI on a regular basis for training volunteers and regular service providers, researchers and other service providers. To date, approximately 3,400 manuals have been distributed.

Project funding recipients were asked the extent to which their project(s) were relevant to the development of approaches and/or products to help victims and deliver services. Four out of the five respondents indicated that their projects were to a great extent relevant. Interview findings with NARCC indicated that the end goal of their YRAP project would be an approach/product to help and deliver services to victims, in particular victims of hate crime.

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

Although only a small amount of work has occurred within the Department with respect to interventions for perpetrators of hate crime, it has been strongly supported through funding provided to the African Canadian Legal Clinic and the National Anti-Racism Council of Canada for their ongoing work in this area, as demonstrated by the examples provided in section 4.5. The potential and success of these models and activities are being shared. For example, the Justice Coordinator for CAPAR suggested the YRAP program at the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime Conference in 2009. The Centre is creating an international youth source booklet and the Coordinator put them in touch with NARCC to have the YRAP model presented in this international resource.

Interview findings with project funding recipients found that all five projects were relevant to sharing and implementing best practices on effective interventions for perpetrators of hate crime. Three out of the five indicated to a great extent, and two to a lesser extent. The example of NARCC and their YRAP project, which ultimately aims for a rehabilitative and restorative justice approach to perpetrators and offenders of hate crime, intends to take the lessons learned and best practices from the Edmonton model and implement those into their Toronto model. In the case of ACLC and their work on anti-black hate, due to the lack of available research in Canada, they looked to examples and models outside of Canada, mainly in the U.S. They considered those best practices and lessons learned in developing their anti-black hate crimes projects. Both organizations continue to share their preliminary results as well as the challenges and lessons learned from their projects with their partners and the community.

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

Project funding recipients were asked the extent to which their project(s) were relevant to the identification and implementation of new/improved approaches to service delivery for overrepresented groups. Four out of the five organizations indicated their project(s) was to a great extent relevant. The OJEN felt that this goal and objective was the strongest in terms of what their projects (the Justice Education Training Sessions and the Aboriginal Justice Project) are trying to achieve. Both projects have identified new/improved approaches to delivering services, in particular justice-related services to particular ethnocultural groups, with the intent of implementing these approaches and services.

Other concrete examples are past and current projects the ACLC and NARCC have completed and/or are working on with funding dollars from the Department of Justice. NARCC received a contribution in 2007 to conduct four regional sessions to highlight programs and activities that address overrepresentation of Aboriginal people and people of African descent in the criminal justice system. Twenty-four different strategies for reducing the problem of overrepresentation in the Canadian criminal justice system were shared during the four focus group sessions. In addition, this fiscal year, if NARCC is able to implement their current YRAP model, this will be a very innovative approach to service delivery, in particular service delivery to victims and offenders of hate crimes who tend to mainly be of an ethnocultural background.

The four Aboriginal justice forums held in Ottawa have presented and explored innovative approaches to service delivery among Aboriginal populations and in Aboriginal communities as well. Even if each forum has had a different theme, the common goal has been to present initiatives and programs aimed at addressing the overrepresentation of Aboriginals in the criminal justice system (as both victims and offenders), the issues that contribute to overrepresentation, and reducing violence in Aboriginal communities. Feedback from all four events speaks to the success of the forums.

Improvements in services for victims of hate crime:

Although one of the long-term intended outcomes of the Justice component of CAPAR is an improvement in services for victims of hate crime, all interview respondents agreed that this is a very difficult outcome to measure. The perception of those within the Department is that it is possible that this has occurred as a result of activities funded by CAPAR, but there is no concrete way of being certain. It was suggested that the training offered by Hate Crimes Solutions could have increased awareness and the capacity of those who work with victims; however, the feedback from this training is not significant enough to draw any solid conclusions. It was also pointed out that the networking and information sharing among government officials, provincial/territorial representatives and NGOs working with victims via conferences, presentations, working groups and others venues may have resulted in increased awareness and capacity to serve victims of hate crime; however, again, there are no clear indicators to demonstrate this.

Interview findings with project funding recipients and file reviews indicate the same uncertainty. Funding recipients were asked about the role their project(s) and activities may have played in contributing to improvements in services for victims of hate crime. Most indicated that they hoped that improvements had occurred and for those projects still ongoing, there is optimism that this will occur in the long term. Respondents pointed out the difficulty in being able to measure this goal and objective, even over time. Their perception is that small things can and are contributing to an improvement in services. For example, the ACLC believes the training they are doing on anti-black hate crimes with police is certainly at least raising an awareness and knowledge required to improve police services for victims of hate crime.

In addition, interview findings with project funding recipients from the Walpole Island First Nation suggest that they believe there will be some level of improvement in the court system over time, even if just one judge is aware of the issues facing Aboriginals in the criminal justice system as a result of their symposia and follow-up activities. One of the goals of their project has been to educate and raise awareness about how organizations who work with victims can improve their services, so that in turn those victims overrepresented in the system can equally access these services.

An increase in access to legal resources and assistance among overrepresented groups:

Similar to the results and findings above, this is another outcome that many felt was not one the Department or NGOs had the capacity to know or measure. Project funding recipients indicated that it was the intention of their projects to increase access to legal resources and assistance among overrepresented groups, but saw this as a continued work in progress over a longer term. The OJEN did indicate that their youth worker sessions in some ways had achieved this by providing information and local access to resource phone numbers and legal aid, introducing participants to duty counsel, providing referrals and distributing resource booklets.

One interviewee explained that the initial long-term issues and questions set out under CAPAR in the logic model may have been too broad and unrealistic to achieve, thus the difficulty in measuring and demonstrating the impact.

4.4. Economy

Efficiency and effectiveness

The evaluation found that some components and projects under the Justice-led initiative were efficient and effective ways to address race-based issues in the justice system, while other initiatives failed to either materialize or produce the intended results (i.e. Internet tip-line). It was pointed out by interview respondents that CAPAR was given a very wide mandate, with very small-scale financial and human resources, which has made it difficult to move forward with all intended activities.

The work completed by the Research and Statistics Division appears to be a strength of the initiative. A great deal of useful, valuable information and research has been produced and shared both inside and outside the Department. Interview respondents noted that the reports and research completed on hate crimes and race-based issues in the justice system are continually requested and referred to by universities, academics, community groups as well as other departments and organizations.

Although the G&C component has suffered from limited take-up since 2006, it is still viewed as a useful and positive mechanism for the Department to carry out its mandate as it relates to race-based issues in the justice system. It was seen as especially appropriate as it allows the community, those who directly work on issues of racism, discrimination and hate to carry out activities and projects, with support from the Department. The projects funded under CAPAR are seen as very important to contributing to the overall goal of the Action Plan. However, it was noted that the G&C component has not been utilized or achieved to its full potential as intended and that changes would increase its effectiveness and efficiency.

Duplication, overlap and other programs and work complementary to CAPAR

The only area within the Department that CAPAR may duplicate is the work being done under the Department’s Aboriginal Justice Strategy (AJS). There was some speculation among interviewees that there may be some duplication, as CAPAR initiatives have focused on Aboriginal justice issues, for example the four forums that have taken place. However, interviewees also commented that in some ways it may complement the work being done by the AJS as it has resulted in collaboration, for example the Collaborative Working Group: responding to violence in Aboriginal communities and the four forums organized with AJS colleagues.

A lot of the work under CAPAR stands alone, as most of the projects funded under G&C funding have not focused solely on one particular issue or ethnocultural group. The file reviews and interviews with project funding recipients demonstrate a wide variety of issues being addressed and different ethnocultural groups being targeted. While broad in its mandate, in this way, CAPAR is somewhat unique within the Department as an initiative and strategy to combat and address racism and hate crimes.

There is also a great deal of work that has occurred and is occurring in the Criminal Law Policy Section, that, although not specifically funded or directed under CAPAR, complements the initiative in a very relevant way. Two particular examples were provided. One, the Cross Cultural Roundtable on Security which 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 CAPAR presented the Internet hate tip line project at the November 2007 meeting of the Roundtable. The Department still continues to do work with the Cross Cultural Roundtable, including looking at various issues related to terrorism and anti-terrorism legislation.

The Department is also involved at the international level on issues relating to hate crimes. A representative from the Criminal Law Policy Section attended a meeting of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in Vienna on hate crimes in 2009. At the time of the evaluation, representatives from the Criminal Law Policy Section were contacted about holding a seminar on Internet hate in Warsaw at the next OSCE meeting in 2010.

Although these particular outreach activities and participation in international sessions and conferences are not part of CAPAR per say, the examples demonstrate that the Department is engaged in complementary mechanisms all relevant to race-based issues in the justice system, which can be seen as strengthening the work of CAPAR. It was noted by one interviewee that it is important not to look at CAPAR in isolation but rather as complementary to other activities within the Department, demonstrating the need to continue on both and that together, the work contributes to the ultimate objectives of CAPAR.

Value for money

Almost all interviewees felt that the Justice component of CAPAR had been an efficient use of resources to a certain extent. Most interviewees pointed out that the challenges, in particular with the G&C funding and certain projects not moving forward have had a negative impact on the initiative. The result of certain projects not being funded outside the Department, as well as the suspension of the work on hate on the Internet, was viewed by most as not being a particularly efficient use of resources. However, it was also acknowledged that given these barriers and the limited resources that were provided, good and significant work had been accomplished. Despite the challenges with G&C funding and the lack of completion of some initiatives (i.e. Internet tip line), most felt that CAPAR resources had been utilized as best as can be expected under the circumstances. It was also noted in particular that the CAPAR Coordinator has done a great deal of work across all three work priority areas and has developed many partnerships through her outreach efforts, and that this had been a positive benefit to the initiative.