• Home Page
• Publications
• 2007
• 2006
• 2005
• 2004
• 2003
• 2002
• 2001
• 2000
• 1999
• 1998
• 1997
• 1996
• 1995
• Triennial Plan
• Policies
• Contact Us

Grants and Contributions Fund of the Department of Justice

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In December 1995, the Department of Justice sought Treasury Board approval for modifications to its existing program of discretionary grants and contributions, including: the consolidation of the 25 different funds into one fund; the establishment of one set of terms and conditions for all monies falling under the Fund; the creation of new categories of grants and contributions; the establishment of six broad objectives for all discretionary grants and contributions; and the introduction of a framework for identifying priorities and allocating resources.

In its submission to the Board, the Department made a commitment to conduct an evaluation to determine whether the Fund was meeting its objectives. This report presents the framework for such an evaluation. The purpose of the evaluation framework is to: confirm and assess the logic of the program; describe the actual implementation of the program; identify the evaluation questions and data requirements and sources; and propose an appropriate plan of evaluation activities.

The information for this framework was obtained through a review of program files and departmental documents and interviews with present and former staff responsible for the administration of the Fund.

Our assessment indicates that the logic of the program is sound but that the intent of the program is not clearly reflected in the objectives set out in formal departmental documents. For the purposes of evaluation, it is recommended that the Fund's statement of objectives be stated as follows:

• to serve as a strategic lever for achieving departmental objectives by: 1) enhancing partnerships with professional organisations and individuals whose support is important to the attainment of departmental objectives, and 2) funding projects which support the implementation of departmental policies;
• to stimulate innovation, investment and improvement in the justice system; and
• to support policy and program development by providing new information in accordance with departmental needs.

The program logic implied in this statement of objectives requires that there be regular consultations with departmental policy and program officials to identify priorities for funding.

During the course of this study several implementation problems were identified, most of which could be attributed to staff turnover and staff shortages. These problems were brought to the attention of the Programs Branch mid-way through the study and a number of steps have been taken to address them. Of particular note was the observation that the Priority Setting and Strategic Planning Framework had not been implemented. This Framework was the principal means by which the Department hoped to increase the impact of the program and it is clear that the success of the program is contingent on the existence of a mechanism for identifying departmental priorities for funding. The Branch has since implemented a new approach for the identification of funding priorities.

The Department's intention at the time of the creation of the DOJ Grants and Contributions Fund was to evaluate the impact of the Fund roughly three years after the Fund was approved (i.e., December 1998). For a number of reasons, we recommend that such an evaluation be postponed.

First of all, a review of the project files indicated that there is insufficient information on the results of project funding for the purpose of evaluation. A number of steps will be taken to strengthen performance reporting. This will not only result in better evaluation data, it will also enhance program managers' capacity to monitor the program's ongoing performance in relation to its objectives.

Secondly, as mentioned above, a number of program improvements have been implemented or will be shortly. Of particular significance is the implementation of a new funding priority identification process. The impact evaluation should be conducted after these changes has been in place for some time, so as to provide a meaningful assessment of whether they have in fact improved the impact of grants and contributions funding.

Given this, we recommend that the impact evaluation be delayed until 2000/01. Chapter 4 of this report presents the evaluation issues, data sources and methods for the evaluation. In the interim, the Evaluation Division will assist program managers by providing advice on priority identification processes, concrete indicators for ongoing performance monitoring, and improvements to the recording and analysis of program results. It is also proposed that, in 1999/2000, the Evaluation Division conduct an assessment of the information being collected on performance in order to ensure that the necessary data will be available for the impact evaluation

Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page