Family Violence Initiative

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

• [ Table of Contents |
• Next page ]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Background and Study Objective

In 1988, the Department of Justice Canada (DOJ) joined efforts with other federal government departments to establish the interdepartmental Family Violence Initiative (FVI), an ongoing federal initiative to reduce the occurrence of family violence in Canada. Between 1998/99 and 2002/03, the DOJ component of the FVI funded approximately 70 projects that addressed a range of family violence issues from a variety of perspectives. The majority of these projects involved either:

• creating tools, models and strategies;
• developing and implementing workshops and training;
• developing or revising public information and educational materials; or
• conducting research on specific aspects of family violence.

When Project Sponsors report at the end of project funding, it is often too early to obtain a full sense of the project's impact, which may not be observable until some time after DOJ FVI project funding has ended. This study was designed to take a retrospective look at a selection of projects that received DOJ FVI funding to determine whether the project had continued in any way — and if so, the nature of further impacts or results. It was also designed to gather any lessons learned from the ground that could facilitate improvements for policy development and program design.

2. Methods

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 DOJ FVI during the study period. This pool was selected from a representative sample of DOJFVI General and Public Legal Education and Information (PLEI) projects with final reports or evaluations on file (by project/territory, target group and by type of abuse) that had been identified in an earlier phase of this review. Together, these projects obtained $397,108 in DOJ FVI funding. We were able to secure the participation of sixteen (16) of these Project Sponsors within the study period. Projects included two (2) organizational service initiatives, six (6) projects linked or part of broader community or regional initiatives; three (3) national level projects (conferences, and two national initiatives with regional and community-level links); four (4) public legal education projects (including one Internet-based initiative) and one (1) community-level research project. Interviews were conducted with fourteen (14) representatives of the organizations that had sponsored the projects and eleven (11) interviews were conducted with partners who actively participated in 7 (seven) of the projects. The study also involved a review of DOJ FVI project file information, as well as a review of organizational Web sites (available in thirteen (13) of the sixteen (16) projects funded, to determine if there was any further information about the project (and/or its impacts) on those sites.

3. Key Findings

3.1. Co-funders

In eight (8) of the sixteen (16) cases, we were able to identify other funding that was contributed to the specific project, representing an estimated total of $577,300 in co‑funding resources, bringing the total value of these eight projects to $974,408. The percentage of DOJ FVI funding in relation to the total value of these eight projects varied from a low of 7.5 percent to a high of 68 percent of the project budget. Projects obtained most of their financial support from other federal and provincial/territorial sources, and to a lesser extent from philanthropic organizations and the private sector.

3.2. In-kind support

All of the projects appear to have obtained in-kind support from the Project Sponsor, and/or other community agencies or organizations. Although it was not possible to quantify information about the specific level or amount of in-kind support, key informants indicated that the most common types of in-kind resources provided were human resources and physical space. All key informants expressed the view that the project would not have been successfully implemented without the in-kind investments.

3.3. Partners

Thirteen (13) of the sixteen (16) projects in this study employed an active partnership approach to project implementation. The most common way to involve partners was to strike an advisory committee or group. In most cases, the primary function of these committees was to provide advice on project implementation and review project products and/or services. Others used a more consultative partnership approach, involving various stakeholders and experts in the review of project materials as opposed to striking an actual advisory group. In other cases, there was overlap between advisory and consultative mechanisms. In the case of projects that involved broader community-based initiatives a more co-ordinated and often collaborative partnership approach was used, which reflects the broader and longer-term mandate of these initiatives.

The benefits of partnerships included: enrichment, by providing access to a varied source of ideas, expertise, skills and support; credibility and "buy-in"; a way to ensure that the project was focussed and relevant to needs; and, a way to vet the products and services. Project Partners also benefited from working with each other. For example, meetings provided opportunities for agencies to share information and learn from each other. Working on a tangible project also helped to strengthen a common base for collective action.

The main challenges associated with using a partnership approach relate to structure and process, including creating a shared understanding of the commitment and tasks associated with being a partner, communication and coordination, and managing expectations.

4. Project Results

All of the projects yielded tangible products and/or services, in accordance with the expectations that had been established at the outset. This included interactive education; awareness and training and public legal information tools (in written and interactive formats); a community protocol; therapeutic intervention tools; and research and knowledge products.

5. Project Status at Time of Review

Ten (10) of the sixteen (16) projects reviewed remain active in some way at the time of the review. All PLEI products, with one exception, continue to be available, in demand, and distributed; a video on youth in care networks continues to be an effective promotional and motivational tool; two educational curricula are being used as the basis of expanded community-based training initiatives and a part of a third product has been adapted and integrated into another educational curriculum. One therapeutic intervention project has been able to continue, although there is ongoing uncertainty about its funding. Six (6) of the sixteen (16) projects are, for the most part, inactive, including a research project and a national conference, an activist theatre production, and two therapeutic intervention projects.

6. Knowledge Transfer/Dissemination

In all of the projects, Project Sponsors promoted and/or shared information about the project with other stakeholders at various levels (community and/or provincial/territorial and/or national). Some products continue to be available (including via the Web).

7. Contributions to Practice

The most common contribution that projects made to practice is related to increasing the level of awareness and knowledge of family violence across a range of target audiences, including (among others) educators, service providers and other practitioners and (primarily in the case of PLEI projects) the general public. A related contribution of DOJ FVI project funding is that it helped Project Sponsors to innovate and test new ways and approaches to building awareness and educating. This has included, for example, the use of interactive learning tools, multi-media, theatre, and on-line learning.

Most projects also made a direct contribution to increasing knowledge of family violence related legislation, as well as the role of the criminal justice system. Training initiatives in particular have addressed this at a practitioner level, and a variety of new and updated public legal education tools have also helped to ensure that the public has access to up-to-date information as well.

Finally, DOJ FVI projects contributed to the development of organizational and community capacity to respond to family violence by investing in organizational and community human capital, and by supporting education and training to increase practitioner knowledge and skills to prevent and respond to family violence. DOJ FVI also invested in social capital, by supporting the development of partnerships and networks that strengthen collective action. Finally, DOJ FVI projects also increased the availability of state-of-the art tools and resources — products that continue to have relevancy and are being used for various purposes.

8. Lessons Learned: Implications for DOJ FVI Policy and Program Development

Overall, all of the projects reviewed were successful in meeting their specific project objectives, and two thirds are still active in some way. Their collective experiences lead to a number of observations and lessons learned, in terms of the conditions that can contribute to successful implementation and results. These conditions for success can be grouped around a number of broad themes:

The Importance of Adequate Infrastructure: Most of the Project Sponsors were relatively well-established organizations with some type of organizational infrastructure in place that provided significant in-kind support. Some Project Sponsors were also able to co-ordinate with, or draw on, other organizations and individuals in the wider community for support, which was particularly helpful when Project Sponsors were just getting underway. One suggestion for ensuring that there is sufficient infrastructure for projects to be successful is to use assessment tools to map capacities available within the organization, as well as to identify what can be developed and/or acquired, through links with other individuals and organizations.

Leadership, Commitment and Connection: All of the Project Sponsors and their partners articulated and demonstrated leadership and a strong commitment to addressing family violence issues and to ensuring that their work connected to the needs, problems and solutions of a specific population or situation. Being open, taking the time to understand the contextual and cultural dimensions of the work (and adapting approaches and methods to fit the situation) is also linked to successful implementation.

Partnerships: The majority of the Project Sponsors had working relationships with other key stakeholders and were able to build and expand on those relationships in the course of planning and implementing their projects. Working together with others — whether in a formal partnership, through an advisory group, or a consultative process — brought several key, tangible benefits to the projects. Some suggestions for ensuring that working together happens smoothly and efficiently can be drawn from the Project Sponsors' experiences, including: the importance of being strategic in determining what type of partnership approach makes most sense for the project; who the best partners are, how they should be involved and how formalized the partnership should be; clarifying the goals and ensuring that processes put in place work together efficiently; ensuring that partners understand their roles and responsibilities; remembering that partnerships will continue to evolve and change over the course of the project; and ensuring that there is sufficient capacity to co-ordinate and communicate with partners. Having a strategy in place to address problems and issues that might arise is important, as is revisiting the terms of the partnership from time to time.

Project Funding as a Tool: Overall, project funding is a valuable tool, however it is important to recognize its limitations. Project funding helped organizations to undertake activities that they would not have been able to do otherwise; allowed for innovation; enabled the creation of specific tools, and advanced and reinvigorated existing initiatives. At a broader level, the results of DOJ FVI project funding continue to accrue and continue to contribute to capacity. Yet at the same time, project funding being time limited, is problematic when Project Sponsors have a wider or more long-term vision that they wish to implement. Often other sources of funding to continue or advance implementation cannot be secured.

On the administrative side, project funding also posed some difficulties. In some cases, Project Sponsors received approval for their projects late in fiscal year and had to scramble in order to complete their projects in a timely way. The lesson learned here is that there has to be a realistic time frame for planning and implementation, particularly when there are other partners or stakeholders involved.

Project Sponsors felt that having more than one funder enabled their projects to have a broader scope than they could have otherwise. At the same time, however, having multiple sources of funding also placed a considerable administrative burden on Project Sponsors. It would be helpful if funders could better co-ordinate and harmonize their project management and reporting requirements.

Importance of In-kind Support: Project Sponsors clearly indicated that their projects would not have been successful without in-kind support. It is important to recognize that in-kind support includes the "opportunity-cost" that partners absorb when they voluntarily participate in projects.

Project Sustainability: An important lesson learned is that Project Sponsors may continue to innovate and be active in some form after project funding is ended. Whether a project continued once funding had ended depended on various factors, including whether the results of the project were positive, whether there is an ongoing need or more to be gained from continuing, and whether resources to continue could be identified.

The current project-oriented funding environment has been difficult for some Project Sponsors whose projects yielded successful results, and who believe in their products or services, yet have been unsuccessful in their efforts to access appropriate resources to sustain or advance their work.

8.1. DOJ FVI Policy and Program Implications

Overall, this study found that DOJ FVI funding has had a positive influence in addressing family violence at national and community levels. Given the scope of the problem of family violence, it is important that work on the criminal justice dimensions of this issue continue. Some suggestions for consideration are provided below:

• The project's link to improving the responsiveness of the criminal justice system and to DOJ/FVI priorities should be clearly articulated in funding decisions for both stand-alone and co-funded projects.
• Project Sponsors should clarify the role of partners within the project and confirm the nature of that role once the project has ended. For future studies, it would be helpful if partners were made aware that they may be contacted in the future for research and evaluation purposes.
• Ways to better harmonize and coordinate the administration of co-funded projects should be explored with the DOJ/FVI co-funders, to lessen the administrative burden on Project Sponsors. Ways to coordinate and plan projects with longer-term funding implications should also be explored.
• The DOJ FVI should clarify the evaluation expectations and reporting requirements with Project Sponsors, to ensure that the Project Sponsors have adequate capacity, and have taken steps to evaluate their efforts (including securing the appropriate expertise and resources) at the outset of the project.
• DOJ FVI could consider playing a more proactive role in profiling the funded projects, and in disseminating project results to ensure knowledge transfer. A more proactive role would help to ensure that policy makers and program developers, organizations and communities could connect with others and learn from their experiences. This could occur in a variety of ways, for example by posting and promoting project results or descriptions on the DOJ FVI Web site, and by assisting Project Sponsors in making their project information and results available to others (e.g. through their organizational Web sites, through newsletters, presentations, publications). It would also be beneficial if the DOJ FVI would host workshops or forums to bring together Project Sponsors working on similar themes or issues so that they could share project experiences, insights, results and lessons learned with others working at the community level, as well as with policy makers and program developers. Such workshops would facilitate knowledge transfer and would also enable the DOJ FVI to obtain feedback on the results of its activities, as well as advice on future directions.

• [ Table of Contents |
• Next page ]