Evaluation of the Justice Partnership and Innovation Program
6. Recommendations
Issue 1: Further Streamline Program Objectives
The 2011 evaluation of the JPIP recommended streamlining the objectives of the Program to focus on its primary goals. JPIP objectives were indeed revised to better reflect the intended outcomes of the Program and government priorities, and their number was reduced from ten to eight. Although most of the objectives now align with the Program’s primary goals, some are still specifically linked to the agencies or organizations receiving funding. The Program would benefit from objectives that are more clearly defined and aligned with intended outcomes in that it would help ensure that it continues to be flexible and able to fund a broad range of initiatives.
Recommendation 1
Further streamline objectives and clarify expected outcomes.
Management Response
Agree. The objectives of the Program will be reviewed and further streamlined by eliminating those objectives specifically linked to organizations receiving funding. The revised objectives will be aligned with government priorities. The expected outcomes of the Program will also be reviewed in light of the new objectives.
Issue 2: Performance Measurement
The evaluation noted several limitations related to the consistency and quality of performance data, particularly with regard to named grant recipients. In order to better assess the achievements of named grant initiatives, more complete performance data should be collected.
Another limitation with regard to performance measurement identified during the evaluation, is the frequency in which performance data is collected and reported. Although the Program collects annual performance information, this information is not analyzed and used to report on the achievement of Program results. The Program could strengthen performance measurement by starting to monitor and report annually on key indicators that measure the performance of the Program. Being able to regularly report on aggregate key performance data is particularly relevant in light of the Treasury Board Secretariat 2016 Policy on Results that no longer requires grant and contribution programs that have five-year average actual expenditures of $5 million or less to be evaluated every five years.
Recommendation 2
Strengthen performance measurement to ensure that data is regularly available and addresses the intended outcomes of the Program by:
- Encouraging named grant organizations to report annually on their performance using a consistent approach determined by the Program;
- Revising reporting templates to collect some performance and results data in a manner more conducive to aggregation (for example, on the reach of initiatives) in order to facilitate performance reporting; and
- Monitoring and reporting regularly on aggregate key performance data.
Management Response
Agree. Program managers will be reminded of the importance of ensuring that funding recipients provide useful performance data to the Department. Staff in the Directorate will be engaged in the development of new reporting tools. In addition, staff will be responsible for ensuring that information provided by recipients meets performance measurement needs in order to facilitate regular reporting on performance.
- Date modified: