Justice Federal Victims Strategy Evaluation

5. Conclusions, Recommendations and Management Response

This section summarizes the key findings arising from the evaluation in relation to the broad issues of relevance and performance.

5.1. Relevance

Although there have been changes with respect to the landscape for victims of crime (e.g., impact of technology, increase in specialized services, development of a CVBR), the core needs of victims have not changed. There continues to be a need for a victim’s strategy to ensure a coordinated federal response to ongoing and emerging victims of crime issues. The Justice FVS continues to be relevant, and the four core activities are seen as appropriate levers to ensure that the outcomes are achieved.

During the evaluation period, the Justice FVS was fully aligned with the priorities of the Government of Canada (victims have enforceable rights in Canada’s criminal justice system, be treated with the respect and fairness that they deserve, and will have a stronger voice) and the strategic outcome of the Department of ensuring a fair, relevant and accessible Canadian justice system.

The Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime recognizes that there is a shared role and responsibility for the federal government, provinces and territories to improve the experience of victims in the criminal justice system, while working within each jurisdiction’s respective mandates. Although the provision of victim services and assistance is primarily a provincial responsibility under the administration of justice, federal jurisdiction for victims of crime consists in the development of criminal law and federal policies. The Department also provides a federal leadership role, as Secretariat of the FPTWG, in coordinating an inter-jurisdictional approach to addressing the needs of victims.

5.2. Performance

5.2.1. Achievement of Expected Outcomes

The evaluation found that the Justice FVS was successful in achieving its objectives and expected outcomes. This was most evident with regards to increasing awareness and knowledge of victim issues, legislation and services available; enhancing the capacity for the delivery of appropriate, responsive victim services; and increasing access to services for victims of crime.

However, recognizing that there is variability in service delivery across Canada, the Department could play a role in enhancing the availability of services through the Victims Fund. This could be achieved by placing higher emphasis on capacity building and innovative projects that expand the scope and reach of new services to under-served areas and clientele. PCVI could also play a leadership role to facilitate discussion with provinces and territories on how to address the variability of access to services across the country.

Recommendation 1:

That PCVI and IAID use policy and program instruments to engage the provinces and territories on the issue of variability of access to services across Canada.

Management Response:

Agreed. There is a strong history of FPT coordination and cooperation in areas of mutual interest relating to victim issues, however it should be noted that the extent of federal influence is limited regarding the variability of access to services across the country.

The delivery of core victim services is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments as they are primarily responsible for the administration of justice. There is significant variability between jurisdictions in victim program delivery models (e.g. systems-based, police based, volunteer based, or community based), eligibility criteria and resources available. Provincial and territorial governments have varying primary resources for their victim services.

The FPTWG is the main vehicle for moving national and regional priorities forward for victims of crime. The bi-annual in-person meetings, conference calls and collaborative work are considered invaluable to achieving the objectives of the Justice FVS. As a result of departmental limitations on hosting events and travel, one of the FPTWG in-person meetings in 2014-15 was not held. Key informants (11%) indicated that the 18-month gap between meetings had an impact on the sharing of information and best practices, collaboration on projects, and coordination of FVS activities at the federal level to reduce duplication of efforts and inconsistencies in activities.

Recommendation 2:

That PCVI hold regular FPTWG meetings to ensure continued coordination, collaboration and sharing of information.

Management Response:

Agreed. The FPTWG of Victims of Crime is a critical forum for collaboration and coordination in the area of victim legislation, policy and program delivery. While ongoing FPT dialogue has been advanced, the focus of that dialogue was on implementation of specific legislative and policy reforms. Broader discussions are critical to the FPTWG and will be scheduled.

5.2.2. Economy and Efficiency

Integration and Coordination

The four functional areas of the Department (PCVI, IAID, RSD and Communications Branch) involved in the Justice FVS are well integrated and coordinated, which is a result of long-standing relationships between the groups. Although the governance structure changed between 2012 and 2014, the level of coordination and integration continued in 2015. Bringing together the different functional areas for regular meetings, ongoing communication, and continued identification and delivery of activities in a coordinated manner will ensure that the four functional areas remain integrated.

Economy of Resources

An analysis of the resources available for the Justice FVS between 2010 and 2015 found that PCVI was not able to fully expend all of the salary and O&M resources as per TBS authorities, as a result of a number of government-wide and departmental spending limitations (e.g., travel, hospitality, contracting caps, Deficit Reduction Action Plan, staffing). This impeded the ability of PCVI to fully undertake the core Justice FVS activities, namely hosting in-person FPTWG meetings, and undertaking a range of federal public awareness activities.

Recommendation 3:

That PCVI prioritize their activities based on available resources.

Management Response:

Agreed. Taking into consideration government-wide and departmental spending limitations, PCVI will continue to advance core Justice FVS activities.

Operational Efficiency of the Victims Fund

The administration of the Victims Fund is operationally efficient. For every dollar invested in Gs&Cs, the Department spends $0.06 in administrative costs (or $0.11 when the involvement of other functional areas in addition to the IAID are considered) to support the delivery of the Victims Fund. Although a systematic comparison with other federal Gs&Cs programs is beyond the scope of this evaluation, the $0.06 in administrative costs and the resulting efficiency ratio is modest considering that all components of the Victims Fund involve a significant amount of interaction with funding applicants and recipients to deliver and manage the Gs&Cs.

Although the Victims Fund is operating efficiently, the IAID, in collaboration with PCVI, could put in place measures to help increase the efficiency of the funding review process. These include managing the demand for project funding through the communication of eligibility criteria and messaging provided around calls for project proposals, and developing clear policy guidelines over what can be funded under the Victimized Abroad Component.

Recognizing concerns from the last evaluation, the IAID increased the flexibility to move funding between the various Victims Fund components. However, there still continue to be issues with committing and expending the full amount of the Victims Fund each year. Although the IAID does not have control over the final approval for funding, it can put in place measures to reduce late lapsing of funding for multiyear agreements so that there is time to reallocate funding to other projects.

Recommendation 4:

That in collaboration with PCVI, the IAID increase the efficiency of the Victims Fund review process through the clear messaging of eligibility criteria and availability of funding.

Management Response:

Agreed. IAID will work in close collaboration with PCVI to ensure that the funding criteria is clear. The IAID will also work closely with PCVI in developing a sound policy to manage the program related to Canadians who have been victimized abroad. This policy will provide clear guidance to applicants as well as to departmental staff.

Recommendation 5:

That in collaboration with PCVI, the IAID put in place measures to minimize the late lapsing of funds for multiyear agreements.

Management Response:

Agreed. The IAID has already initiated a process whereby earlier communication with recipients of multi-year agreements is undertaken with a view to ensuring that the allocated amount is fully utilized by the end of a fiscal year. The IAID will formalize this process for fiscal year 2016-2017.

5.2.3. Monitoring and Reporting

Although there was performance information through the use of surveys (e.g., webinar, Victims Week, financial assistance) and a review of some of the Victims Fund projects, the availability of performance information for the policy activities was more limited (e.g., meeting minutes, international work). This meant that the evaluation of the policy function relied heavily on key informant interviews.

To ensure that there is sufficient data for future evaluations, regular collection of performance data for policy initiatives is essential. It is also essential that all outcome-related information from the Victims Fund projects are systematically captured in the Gs&Cs Information Management System. This would allow for a review of outcomes for all projects funded, not just a selection.

Recommendation 6:

That PCVI and IAID review performance indicators and data collection mechanisms to ensure the regular monitoring, collection and reporting of all Justice FVS activities.

Management Response:

Agreed. While PCVI, in collaboration with the Evaluation Division, has developed tools to report on outcomes of the Justice FVS, there is a need to explore additional methods to collect performance data related specifically to policy initiatives. In addition, IAID will update existing data collection mechanisms to ensure that funding activities provide useful measures.