Family Violence Initiative

Lessons Learned from Projects Funded Through the Family Violence Initiative 1998/99 to 2002/03

• [ Previous page |
• Table of Contents |
• Next page ]

4. METHODS

4.1. Definitions

For the purposes of this study, a project is defined as a discrete undertaking, with specific objective, activities, outputs, and a clear beginning and end. Projects are assigned a specific file number within the Project Control System (PCS).[2] In some cases, projects are linked to, and/or take place within, a broader set of actions or initiatives that may involve some interrelated activities and/or other projects.

4.2. Project Selection — A Sample of Twenty

Twenty (20) project files were selected and reviewed from a pool of projects that reflected the types of projects that had been funded through the FVI during the study period. This pool was selected from a representative sample of FVI General and PLEI projects with final reports or evaluations on file (by project/territory, target group and by type of abuse) that had been identified in the first phase of this review of DOJ FVI Project Funding.[3] Of these, seventeen (17) projects were identified for follow-up, based on an in-depth review of the project file and subject to being able to make contact with the Project Sponsor. We were able to secure participation (interview or email correspondence) with sixteen (16) of these projects within the study period.

The following table provides an overview of the selected project files reviewed.

Overview of Selected Projects

Topic[4]	Location	Project sponsor and title	Fiscal Year
Children: Conflict Resolution	Kingston/Eastern Ontario	Kingston Learning Centre: A School-based Anti-violence Program (A.S.A.P.)	2001/02
Children: Sexual Abuse	Vancouver, British Columbia	Vancouver School Board: Let's Talk About Touching	2000/01
Children: Sexual Abuse	Whitehorse and other communities in Yukon	Yukon Justice: Keeping Kids Safe : A Victim-Centered Approach for Managing Child Sexual Offenders	1997/98
Children: Emotional Abuse	Winnipeg, Manitoba	Family Centre of Winnipeg: Giving Children Hope	1998/99 1999/2000
Youth: High Risk	National	National Youth In Care Network: Network Buffet Manual and Video	1998/99
Youth: Dating Violence	Vancouver, British Columbia	Law Courts Education Society of B.C.: Educating on Family Violence — Web site	2001/02
Youth: Prostitution	Toronto, Ontario	Ontario Anglican Houses Street Outreach Services/ LOFT Community Services: Street Exit Program	1996/97 1997/98
Youth: Sexual Abuse	Montreal, Quebec	Théâtre Parminou: Sur le dos de l'amour	1997/98 1998/99
Women and Children: Battering	National	Canadian Red Cross: Walking the Prevention Circle	2000/01
Women: Abuse	Toronto, Ontario	Victim Services of Peel: Why do female victims of domestic abuse recant?	2001/02
Women and Children: Battering	Stuart Lake, British Columbia	Stuart Lake Community Services Society: Community Safety Strategy Protocol	2002/03
Women: Battering	Manitoba	Community Legal Education Association (Manitoba) Inc.: Women in Abusive Relationships	1999/2000
Women: Battering	Saskatoon, Saskatchewan	Public Legal Education Association of Saskatchewan: Family Violence Information Brochure Project	2001/02
Men: Men Who Batter	Grey Bruce County, Ontario	Grey Bruce Court Coordination Committee: Men's Track of the First Charge Intervention Process	1999/2000
Elder: Abuse	Toronto, Ontario	Community Legal Education Ontario: Elder Abuse: The Hidden Crime	1999/2000
Elder: Abuse	National	University of Toronto: Second National Conference on Elder Abuse	1999/2000

4.3. Project Scope

The projects reviewed in this study also varied by scope.

• Two (2) were linked to related organizational service initiatives.
• Six (6) were part of, or linked to broader community or regional initiatives.
• Three (3) were national level projects (conferences, and two national initiatives with regional and community-level links).
• Four (4) were public legal education projects (including one Internet-based initiative).
• One (1) was a research project conducted at the community-level.

4.4. Key Informant Interviews — Project Sponsors

Fourteen (14) representatives of the organizations that had sponsored the projects were able to participate in interviews during the study period. In eight (8) of the cases, we were able to speak to the actual person who had been responsible for and/or involved in the project at the time or a delegate. In seven (7) cases, we spoke with the current organizational head, who was able to draw upon the organization's corporate memory. In two cases, the organizational head at the time of the project was no longer with the organization. In one of these two cases, we were referred to the Project Partners. In the other case, the Project Sponsor was not able to provide a contact from within the organization and we obtained some information through our initial contact, but had to rely primarily on project file information.

4.5. Key Informants — Partners

We also asked Project Sponsors to identify Project Partners (defined as organizations that actively participated in some aspect(s) of the planning and/or implementation of the project and distinct from Project Funders, who may have provided financial resources for the project, but did not play an active role in the project). Thirteen (13) of the sixteen (16) projects identified partners. Where possible, we sought to contact the primary partners to gather their insights on the project results and impacts. This proved challenging, particularly in projects that had taken place several years ago. We were able to contact and interview eleven (11) primary partners who actively participated in 7 (seven) of the projects. In 2 (two) cases, Projects Sponsors felt that too much time had lapsed from when the project took place to interview the partners. In the remaining four cases, the partnership role had been limited to the review of products.

4.6. Project Description Information — Files, Reports and Other Sources

We reviewed the project information contained in the DOJ FVI file[5] and verified the project description insofar as the interviewee could recall (or could determine if they had access to the project file[6]). In some cases, this information had been archived within the organization, and it was thus not possible for organizations to fully confirm the details.

We also reviewed organizational Web sites (available in thirteen (13) of the sixteen (16) cases) to determine if there was any further information about the project (and/or its impacts) on those sites.

4.7. Project Funding Sources

We also identified the key funders involved in each project. This information was derived from the project file, and where possible, confirmed with Project Sponsors. It was particularly challenging for interviewees to specifically confirm the details of funding arrangements when the DOJ FVI project was part of a larger project or phased initiative with various parts funded by various funders. Thus, we caution that funding information provided in this report are best estimates.

4.8. Limitations

The purpose of this study was to obtain information on project results beyond the date when funding ended. In all of these cases, we were able to successfully track the status of the project and also to obtain some level of information on further results achieved. In most cases, there was some corporate memory or individual capacity to recall what had happened during the project and since it was completed. It was, however, more difficult to track partners (unless their involvement had been very substantive, or was continuing to present day). We are, nonetheless, confident that the information provided in this report provides a reasonably complete and accurate picture.

• [ Previous page |
• Table of Contents |
• Next page ]