Evaluation of the Youth Justice Initiative Funding Components

4. KEY FINDINGS

This section combines information from all lines of evidence and presents the findings according to the broad evaluation issues of relevance, program design and implementation, effectiveness, and economy and efficiency.

4.1. Relevance of the Youth Justice Initiative Funding Components

The YJI funding components reflect the shared authority between federal and provincial/ territorial governments over the criminal justice system in Canada. While the federal government is responsible for criminal law, the provinces and territories are responsible for the administration of justice and youth correctional services. Respecting these complementary responsibilities, the funding components (particularly the YJSFP and IRCS, and to a more limited extent, the YJF) provide funding to the provinces and territories so that programs and services necessary to support the legislative and policy objectives of the YCJA are available.[12]

In its policy statements, the federal government has recognized the unique issues posed by youth crime and the justice system’s response: the need to balance appropriate sanctions with the importance of rehabilitating young offenders. This balance is reflected most recently in the 2010 Speech from the Throne, where the Government discussed youth criminal justice reform in the context of both “ensuring the safety and security of our neighbourhoods and communities” and “protection of children”. The Government stated that it will “ensure the youth criminal justice system responds strongly to those few who commit serious and violent crimes, while focusing on the rehabilitation of all young offenders” (Government of Canada, 2010, March 3, p. 12).

The objectives of the YJI align with this notion of a balanced response. As noted in Section 1.0, they include “appropriate use of courts”, “appropriate use of custody”, justice system responses that are “proportionate to the severity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”, and “enhanced rehabilitative and re-integration opportunities”. They also have their antecedent in the principles of the YCJA, which articulate this balance by stating that the “youth criminal justice system is intended to (i) prevent crime by addressing the circumstances underlying a young person’s offending behaviour; (ii) rehabilitate young persons who commit offences and reintegrate them into society; and (iii) ensure that a young person is subject to meaningful consequences for his or her offence” (YCJA, 2002).

The YJI supports the federal priority of targeting the justice response so that it is proportionate. An explicit aim of the YJI, dating back to the YJRI in 1999, is to address youth crime through means other than courts and custody for youth engaged in relatively minor, non-violent crime. At the time of the YJRI, Canada had one of the highest rates of youth incarceration, and lowest rates of youth diversion, in the world (Doob & Sprott, 2004 in Solomon & Allen, 2009, p. 32). However, a small proportion of youth (approximately 10%) was accused of violent crimes (Dauvergne, 2008, p. 7). This was considered problematic, not only because the disparity did not reflect a recognition of the differential needs of young people, but also because court processes and custody are usually more costly than extrajudicial measures (Department of Justice, 2009, September 4; Scott, 2004; Safe Passages, 2004, October) and considered less effective in many circumstances (Latimer, Dowden & Muise, 2005).

The evaluation found a continued need for the funding components. The problem of youth crime remains, as demonstrated by youth crime rates that have remained relatively stable over the past decade (Dauvergne, 2008, p. 8; Taylor-Butts & Bressan, 2008, p. 2).[13] In contrast, the youth violent crime rate has steadily increased since the mid-1980s (Dauvergne, 2008, p.7). There is also an increasing amount of research showing high rates of mental illness among youth in the criminal justice system (Ulzen & Hamilton, 1998; Rosler et al., 2004), as well as the links between mental disorders and violent crime (Paterson et al., 2004; Sinha, 2009, p. 23). The policy direction of the YJI is responsive to these trends and emerging issues in youth crime by targeting court and custody to the more serious young offenders, ensuring the availability of specialized services for youth who suffer from mental illness and have received an IRCS sentence, and continuing efforts to rehabilitate and reintegrate all young offenders through the YJSFP. In addition, the YJF provides flexibility to focus on other emerging youth justice issues, such as the relationship of gang involvement and drug abuse with recidivism (MacRae et al., 2008; MacRae et al., 2009). This responsiveness to youth justice issues directly links the funding components to the Department’s strategic outcome of “a fair, relevant and accessible justice system that reflects Canadian values” (Department of Justice, 2009, July). Key informants also stressed the continued need for the funding components as, without targeted funding, programs/projects in line with federal priorities would be restricted (YJSFP) or non-existent (IRCS and YJF), resulting in higher rates of crime, custody and recidivism.

4.2. Program Design and Implementation of the Youth Justice Initiative Funding Components

This section outlines the findings from the evaluation questions concerning the design and performance measurement of the YJI funding components.

4.2.1. Design of the YJI Funding Components

Overall, the evaluation found the design of the funding components to be appropriate; each component has design features that provide the flexibility to respond to the evolving legal framework. The evaluation identified several design strengths, as well as opportunities for improvement, as outlined below.

Design of the Youth Justice Services Funding Program

The design of the YJSFP is intended to create flexibility within a framework that promotes programming in support of federal objectives, moving away from prior arrangements that shared provincial/territorial costs regardless of programming type or outcome.

The design includes a choice between two agreement models and in the programming within each agreement type. The standard agreement provides flexibility within the definition of the high, medium, and low priority categories (determined through federal-provincial/territorial negotiation), while providing a sliding scale of reimbursement encouraging programming in support of federal objectives. Provincial and territorial representatives reported that the categories are appropriate and sufficiently broad to encompass a range of programs and services tailored to the needs of each jurisdiction. The results-based agreement appeals to jurisdictions that prefer to set targets in support of federal objectives, as opposed to using defined categories of programs and services. Some jurisdictions prefer to define their own programmatic priorities, with a potential penalty if they do not reach the target, while others prefer the more secure funding of the standard model, as it does not involve a potential penalty for failing to meet a pre-determined target.

Jurisdictions regularly claim their maximum allowable amounts under the YJSFP, with larger jurisdictions often reaching their maximum through high priority expenditures alone. The YJSFP Agreements have played an important role in ensuring the direction of a minimum level of provincial/territorial funding towards high priority programs and services, particularly during times of fiscal restraint; otherwise, savings from reduced custody would not necessarily have been redirected to community programming. The same incentive does not necessarily apply under the results-based model, and would be lost should the agreements move to a 50:50 cost-share model, as often advocated by the provinces/territories.

Given the changes in funding for the YJSFP (end of bridge funding, removal of the inflation escalator), the percentage of total funding provided by the federal government decreased over time; federal funding stayed constant while provincial expenditures generally increased (Table 4, Appendix B). In 2007­–2008, the percentage of total provincial/territorial funding contributed by the federal government ranged from 12% in Saskatchewan to 43% in Prince Edward Island. Over time, the funding cap and the absence of a federal inflation escalator could potentially lead to the erosion of provincial/territorial capacity to deliver programs and services. Because jurisdictions have to maintain their custodial capacity, any service reduction would likely come from high priority programming.

The evaluation cannot draw firm conclusions on the effect of the changes in funding on provincial/territorial programs and services due to limited information on how programs and services were modified to accommodate reductions in funding. Savings from decreases in custody helped to maintain high priority programs and services; however, savings have plateaued in some jurisdictions, in part because of the greater concentration in custody of youth with complex needs. A few jurisdictions provided examples of individual programs and services, from both the high and low priority categories, that have been modified or eliminated because of the funding cap.[14] There is some indication that the cap may have affected programs and services in smaller jurisdictions to a greater degree than larger ones; however, these effects were especially difficult to assess during the short time horizon of the evaluation, since many jurisdictions had not prepared their annual reports for 2007–2008 or 2008–2009 at the time of the evaluation. Without an inflation escalator, there is the potential that continued decreases in the federal contribution would increasingly challenge provincial/territorial maintenance of high priority programs and services.

Design of the Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision Program

The IRCS Program provides case managers access to a range of treatment options for violent youth with mental health issues, including services external to provincial/territorial programming. The 100% federally funded design is particularly helpful for smaller jurisdictions that find it more challenging to offer specialized services without federal support. Although the number of IRCS sentences for Part B was initially overestimated, the addition of Parts C and D helped to redirect unused funds toward related objectives.[15]

In some jurisdictions, there is no clear ‘path’ to an IRCS sentence; in other words, there may be no process in place for identifying potential IRCS cases, ordering assessments, and/or following the cases prior to or after sentencing. In general, the consideration of an IRCS sentence was up to the Crown or defence. This may account for the lower number of IRCS sentences than originally projected. Some provinces/territories have undertaken initiatives to educate stakeholders in the criminal justice system about the IRCS sentence, and these were reportedly effective at raising awareness of the sentencing option; however, awareness and understanding of the IRCS sentence, including which charges and diagnoses that qualify, could still be improved in many places.[16] A few jurisdictions have IRCS manuals that outline protocols for their province/ territory and/or have, or are in the process of developing, databases or tracking systems to identify and follow potential cases. Opportunities for enhanced communication and information sharing among IRCS coordinators could allow jurisdictions to learn from one another to inform the development of their own IRCS processes, leading to greater consistency of practice across the country, while still allowing for necessary jurisdictional variation.

Design of the Youth Justice Fund

A key strength of the YJF is the Fund’s flexibility to target funding to address emerging issues in particular regions or communities (e.g., gang involvement, drug use, mental health issues, female offenders, Aboriginal youth involved in the justice system); fund projects or approaches that are not yet tested; and include non-traditional stakeholders who might not otherwise be involved in youth justice projects. YJF funding criteria are sufficiently broad to encompass a variety of projects and stakeholder groups, as demonstrated by the range of organizations and projects that received funding (see Section 4.3.3). Although some interviewees thought YJF criteria should be expanded to include projects with a preventative focus for youth at risk, this would substantially broaden the Fund’s mandate. Given limited funding and the availability of other resources for prevention projects (e.g., National Crime Prevention Centre [NCPC]), the evaluation determined that the Fund’s focus on youth involved in the justice system is appropriate.

The evaluation identified a need for more outreach on the part of the Fund to encourage more applicants and a greater variety of them. Currently, the Fund lacks visibility, as reported by key informants and corroborated both by GCIMS data, which indicated a drop in applications and projects after 2006–2007 (Table 6, Appendix B), as well as financial information, which showed actual funding well below planned figures (Table 3, Appendix B). The Fund issues only occasional calls for proposals; applicants may know about the YJF through word-of-mouth, announcements at conferences, previous applications to the Fund, or the Department Website (Department of Justice, 2008, December 13). In spite of funding 100% of applications in 2008–2009, the YJF still lapsed funding in that fiscal year. Given the extent of the need among the target group and the potentially large pool of applicants, the Fund should consider additional outreach.

The Fund’s visibility could be improved by making more detailed and up-to-date information available online.[17] A public Website with a listing of current projects would also respond to provincial/territorial interest in greater awareness of Fund activities; alternatively, a reasonable minimum standard might include a list of ongoing projects provided to jurisdictions on an annual basis. The availability of Fund information relates to a further issue identified by the evaluation: insufficient analysis and dissemination of the results of YJF-funded projects. Key informants and case study interviewees often had little awareness of other YJF-funded projects in their jurisdictions and/or project areas. Improved dissemination and sharing of best practices could be achieved through an online listing with project descriptions and results, Web networks of funded projects, regular newsletters or bulletins, or greater use of conferences and round tables.

The evaluation found that the reach of the Fund is somewhat geographically limited, with almost half (47%) of all project funding going to support projects in Ontario. By contrast, for example, only 1% went to projects in Quebec, which is less than the amounts received by any of the Maritime provinces, despite Quebec having almost a quarter of the country’s youth population (Table 7, Appendix B). As noted in the evaluation of the YJRI, the disproportionate amount of funding for projects in Ontario may reflect the number of active organizations in that province; however, this cannot entirely explain the distribution of funding given the sizable differences noted above. Differing crime rates could explain some but not all of the geographical differences in funding levels. Quebec, for example, has the lowest youth crime rate in the country (Taylor-Butts & Bressan, 2008, p. 13). These results could also indicate a need for greater outreach to other parts of the country (including perhaps more regular calls for proposals), and/or a need to reconsider the potential use of allocation targets. There are currently no notional provincial/ territorial allocations of funding; geographic location factors into decision-making only insofar as it is relevant to the predicted success of the project (e.g., gang-related projects tend to be funded in major urban centres with gang problems). There are also no predetermined allocations among the YJF components (i.e., CCP, IP, PLEI, and PTP) or project types (e.g., Aboriginal, Evaluation, Information Gathering).

In terms of the application process, funding recipients (in interviews, the survey, and case studies) reported that the application process was straightforward and proposal requirements were clear (Table 8, Appendix B). Interested applicants are encouraged to contact YJF staff for information and, since October 2008, a copy of the letter of intent template to submit for preliminary vetting.[18] A positive feature of the process was the ability of applicants to receive feedback on project ideas prior to the submission of complete applications. Recipients reported that YJF staff was helpful, supportive, and easy to reach by phone (Table 9, Appendix B). There was room for improvement, however, on the establishment and communication of targets for turnaround time on applications, as some key informants reported that they waited a long time to hear back on proposals. The Fund would also benefit from greater clarity and transparency regarding the proposal review process, including whether and in what circumstances provinces/territories would be consulted on funding for community-based projects. Currently, there does not appear to be any formal information available on the criteria against which proposals are evaluated. Formalizing the review process, and making more project information publicly available, as discussed above, may limit the Fund’s flexibility somewhat; a new balance between the goals of flexibility and transparency may need to be found.

The YJF is involved with other federal departments and NGOs through both the GGD and YJADS initiatives; however, greater and/or more consistent or formal communication could be useful to improve strategizing and/or keep other departments apprised of current activities.[19] That said, the extent of project co-funding with other federal departments is limited by differing Terms and Conditions, organizational structures (national vs. regional administration), project funding terms, and project reporting requirements.

4.2.2. Performance Measurement for the YJI Funding Components

The evaluation found room for improvement in the area of performance measurement, particularly for the YJSFP and IRCS Program. Modifications to reporting requirements will need to be geared toward collecting the information required to demonstrate achievement based on the activities, outputs and outcomes identified in the YJI logic model. A first step to improve reporting should include revisiting the logic model and developing a performance measurement strategy for ongoing use that clearly links performance measures to intended outcomes. This is necessary to ensure that the data required to demonstrate the YJI’s effectiveness in achieving its outcomes are regularly collected. Reporting requirements can then be defined based on a clear link to the intended outputs and outcomes of the funding components.

Performance measurement for the Youth Justice Services Funding Program

Reporting requirements for the YJSFP are limited, consisting primarily of annual reports and claims detailing expenditures in priority categories. There is no standard reporting template, and there is substantial variation in the amount and types of information reported. Reports were often submitted late.[20] A review of YJSFP files found that the annual reports provided limited information on outputs and outcomes, although the Department has been able to collect useful information on jurisdictions’ programs and services via more informal means.[21] YJSFP program staff is also in the process of developing a method for collecting more comprehensive information on programs and services. This new reporting should involve the development of a standardized template that is linked to the information requirements of the evaluation framework.

The future performance measurement and evaluation strategy for the YJSFP must consider how to balance the provincial/territorial constitutional prerogatives in youth justice with the federal government’s need to demonstrate the effectiveness of the YJI in achieving its outcomes. The strategy should be clear that it does not focus on the effectiveness of individual programs or services, but on system changes. This will require support from the provinces and territories with data collection.

Performance measurement for the Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision Program

IRCS reporting requirements include the submission of annual reports and claims, and for individual cases, a copy of the IRCS order, a Face Sheet, and a chronology.[22] The file review found that the amount of performance information provided varied by jurisdiction, as did the timeliness of reporting. Jurisdictions used the IRCS reporting templates the Department developed for annual reports and claims to varying degrees (including not at all), which affected the comparability of the information collected. Reporting appears to have caused some difficulties, as nine jurisdictions had late and/or missing reports, and some interviewees said that reporting could be onerous for jurisdictions with multiple IRCS cases. Most jurisdictions did not track the number of potential IRCS cases or the reasons why IRCS sentences were not given.[23] Data collection could be improved and streamlined through minor modifications to the Face Sheet and the development of a simplified and standardized template for chronologies.[24] The collection of individual-level outcome data for IRCS cases would also help to support future evaluations.

Performance measurement for the Youth Justice Fund

Reporting requirements for YJF projects typically included quarterly or semi-annual and final reports, as well as financial documentation. Most survey respondents thought the requirements were clear, reasonable and not difficult to meet (Table 10, Appendix B), and the file review indicated few problems with reporting.[25] However, reports often contained limited substantive information to evaluate project results.[26] The file review found that project outcomes, in many cases, were not clearly defined, and often represented activities and outputs rather than outcomes. GCIMS has the potential to provide some performance measurement data; however, the software is used primarily as a file management system, and has limitations in its ability to generate relevant reports for the purposes of evaluation.[27] As well, Departmental personnel do not always update GCIMS after project approval; the YJF could benefit from devising a system to ensure the completion of file closing procedures and documentation of project evaluation results.[28]

In response to the Policy on Transfer Payments (October 2008), the YJF recognized some shortcomings in its reporting processes and, in 2009, instituted the use of standardized reporting templates for projects. The consistent use of these templates may provide more useable information for subsequent evaluations. The collection of participant tracking and recidivism data following project involvement could serve as a useful source of information for evaluating program effectiveness.

4.3. Effectiveness of the Youth Justice Initiative Funding Components

This section considers the evaluation questions concerning the effectiveness of the YJI funding components. There were several outcomes identified for each component outlined in the program logic model (Appendix D).

The key intended outcomes for each funding component were:

All three components shared the intended outcome of an integrated, coordinated approach to youth justice. This section outlines the findings for each of these outcomes. All lines of evidence were used for the analysis in this section.

4.3.1. Effectiveness of the YJSFP

lignment of provincial/territorial spending on youth justice programs and services with federal priorities

The movement away from previous 50:50 cost-sharing arrangements to the YJSFP agreements indicates the federal intent to influence the direction of provincial/territorial funding. As described in Section 2.1, the sliding reimbursement scale based on identified priorities encourages provinces and territories to direct funding to programming that promotes federal objectives.[29] The evaluation found that this has occurred, as provincial/territorial spending on programs and services is strongly aligned with federal priorities as articulated in the YJSFP agreements.[30]

Based on the design of the agreements, alignment with federal youth justice policy objectives is reflected by provinces and territories meeting the requirements to receive their full federal contributions. For the priority-based agreements, the financial information provided to the evaluation (jurisdictions’ annual reports and departmental documentation) shows that all jurisdictions for which information was available exceeded the minimum high priority expenditures and qualified for their full federal contribution during 2005–2006 to 2008–2009 (Table 11, Appendix B).

While, for some jurisdictions, much of this alignment occurred during the YJRI, several provinces and territories continued to increase their spending on high priority programs and services compared to the 1998 base year (e.g., Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories) (Table 12, Appendix B). Key informants corroborated the evidence from financial documentation and annual reports. Provincial/territorial representatives confirmed that the objectives of their jurisdictions were largely aligned with the principles of the YCJA, the YJSFP, and federal policy objectives. Several attributed initial programming changes, at least in part, to both the YCJA and the YJSFP, though others thought the YCJA was primarily responsible.

Compatibility of federal objectives with existing provincial policy direction and re-profiled savings from reductions in custody also enabled jurisdictions to maintain their spending on high priority programs and services following the 2006–2007 funding cap.[31] A relatively stable proportion of total funding spent on the high priority category over time demonstrates the continued maintenance of high priority programs and services (Tables 11 and 12, Appendix B). However, key informants did identify some individual programs and services that have been eliminated or modified because of reduced funding, as described in Section 4.2.1.

Alternatives to court and custody

The YJSFP was introduced as part of the YJRI to address high rates of youth incarceration and limited use of alternative measures. At the time, Canada had one of the highest youth incarceration rates in the world, and custody was often used for relatively minor offences (see Section 4.1). The YJSFP was designed to ensure that jurisdictions had in place a range of alternatives to court and custody to support the application of the YCJA as intended. Consequently, the availability and use of these alternatives are indicative of the level of effectiveness of the YJSFP.

The evaluation found that provinces and territories are offering a wide variety of alternatives though the evaluation is limited in its ability to report on these given the lack of comparability in annual reports. Based on key informant interviews, commonly available alternatives included diversion, extrajudicial measures and sanctions, and Intensive Support and Supervision Program (ISSP). Diversion and extrajudicial measures were available across the country, though sometimes operated by police and without funding through the YJSFP agreements. Extrajudicial sanctions programs were universally available in most jurisdictions. ISSPs were generally available across the country and province/territory-wide. Although they were not necessarily designated under the YCJA, several jurisdictions offered ISSP-type programming without the associated sentencing option, or more informally through regular probation services, particularly where population numbers did not warrant a formal program. All jurisdictions offered a range of rehabilitative and reintegration programming, and reports and assessments were regularly used both prior to and following sentencing. Conferencing was commonly used at different stages of the process, though in some jurisdictions and locations more than in others. Attendance centre and judicial interim release programs were less common, with less than half of jurisdictions having formal programs available; however, as with ISSPs, provinces/territories sometimes offered comparable programming without the sentence designation. Rather than formal judicial interim release programs, for example, jurisdictions sometimes used bail combined with non-residential day programming, or similar arrangements.

There were some geographic limitations to the delivery of high priority programs and services, with more specialized (e.g., specialized rehabilitative programming) or formal programs (e.g., formalized ISSP, judicial interim release, and attendance centre programs) generally located in larger urban centres. Certain programs and services were targeted to more serious offenders or those at high risk to reoffend (e.g., ISSPs, intensive rehabilitative efforts), while other programs and services would not be appropriate for these groups (e.g., diversion).

Jurisdictions report on the availability of alternatives to court and incarceration in their YJSFP annual reports, but are not required to report on the use of the services. That said, the above finding that jurisdictions met and exceeded their minimum expenditures on high priority programs and services offers some evidence that alternatives are being used, since the high priority category consists primarily of alternatives to court and custody as outlined in Schedule A of the agreements.

In addition, available criminal justice data provide further evidence of the increased use of alternatives to court and custody. For example, the number of ISSPs used across the country increased from 71 in 2004–2005 to 469 in 2008–2009 (Statistics Canada, 2010, April 27); seven jurisdictions reported using the ISSP sentencing option in 2007–2008, with the majority of cases from British Columbia (305), Quebec (45), and Alberta (18) (Kong, 2009, p. 13). Similarly, the rate of youth admitted to the community under a Deferred Custody and Supervision Order rose 15% between 2003–2004 and 2007–2008 (Kong, 2009, p. 5).[32] Overall, although crime rates remained relatively stable from the late 1990s onward, the rate of accused youth dealt with through other means rose 32% between 2002 and 2006 (Taylor-Butts & Bressan, 2008, p. 5). [33]

Associated with the increased use of alternatives is a decrease in the use of court processes and custody, as borne out by youth justice statistics. Criminal justice statistics showed that the rate of youth against whom charges were laid or recommended by the police dropped 14% between 2002 and 2007 for property or “other” criminal offences, and approximately 9% for serious violent crimes (Dauvergne, 2008, p. 8); and the youth court caseload dropped 26% from 2002–2003 to 2006–2007 (Thomas, 2008, p. 1).

Decreases in charge rates and court use were accompanied by reductions in custody. Youth incarceration rates had been declining prior to the YCJA in most provinces and territories for several years (Milligan, 2008, p. 18). However, there was a dramatic decline in incarceration rates for all jurisdictions between 2002–2003 and 2003–2004 in response to the implementation of the YCJA (Bala, Carrington, and Roberts, 2009). In Canada as a whole, the rate dropped 29% between 2002–2003 and 2003–2004 compared to declines of 6–7% between 2000–2001 and 2002–2003 (calculated using rates from Milligan, 2008, p. 18). Incarceration rates continued to decline in subsequent years for most jurisdictions, though not to the same degree as immediately following the introduction of the YCJA. As of 2008–2009, incarceration rates were still lower than pre-YCJA levels in most provinces and territories; however, there was substantial variation among jurisdictions, ranging from 4 per 10,000 youth in British Columbia and Quebec to 35 per 10,000 youth in the Northwest Territories (Table 13, Appendix B).

It is important to note the different patterns for sentenced custody and remand that comprise custody statistics. Overall incarceration rates have declined since the introduction of the YCJA, primarily as a result of decreases in sentenced custody. The average daily count of youth in sentenced custody fell 36% from 2003–2004 to 2007–2008 (Kong, 2009, p. 13), while rates of remand remained relatively stable over the same time period (Kong, 2009, p. 5; Solomon & Allen, 2009, p. 37). These trends have resulted in remanded youth representing a growing proportion of the youth custody population, such that youth in remand outnumbered youth in sentenced custody for both 2007–2008 and 2008–2009 (Kong, 2009, p. 13; Solomon and Allen, 2009, p. 37; Calverley et al., 2010, p. 9).[34]

It is unclear why remand rates are not decreasing to the same extent as sentenced custody. Several key informants pointed to remand rates as an important issue to be addressed, particularly since remanded youth are often ineligible for programming but may spend a substantial amount of time in custody, sometimes being released for ‘time-served’ (Latimer & Casey Foss, 2004, p. 18). The literature identifies several possible reasons for stable remand rates, including comparatively fewer restrictions to remand than sentenced custody in the YCJA (Solomon & Allen, 2009, p. 27); the use of custody as a social welfare measure (Department of Justice, 2007, p. 11, 5); and the increased use of community-based orders with conditions of release that are unrelated to offender risk and that result in detention if broken (Department of Justice, 2007, p. 5, 12).[35] Other factors include differing local legal cultures that result in varying rates of detention (Moyer & Basic, 2004; Department of Justice, 2007, p. 10, 22), parental encouragement for detention (Moyer & Basic, 2005, p. 38), as well as relatively infrequent but high profile incidents, involving released youth, that have prompted recommendations for greater use of pre-trial detention (e.g., Nunn Commission of Inquiry, 2006). There are also several stakeholders involved in the process of detaining youth (e.g., police, Crowns, judges and justices of the peace), and a lack of familiarity with the specific provisions of the Act at any of these levels may impact rates of pre-trial detention. A 2005 study found, for example, that while Crowns were aware of the provisions in the Act, there were differences, as well as some confusion, in its interpretation (Moyer & Basic, 2005, p. iii). The relative rarity of pre-trial detention programs as noted in this evaluation offers another potential explanation for existing remand rates. The Department of Justice is currently conducting a consultation on pre-trial detention to inform its response to this complex issue (Department of Justice, 2007).

The shift from custody to community-based systems has resulted in a few unintended impacts. The closure of some custodial facilities has meant that youth from certain rural areas or smaller urban centres who are sentenced to custody are moved further away from their home communities to custodial facilities, potentially creating additional challenges to reintegration. As well, the reduction in custody in smaller jurisdictions has occasionally led to the discontinuation of high priority programs and services because of an insufficient client base.

As with the other funding components, a key challenge to the evaluation is determining the extent to which impacts are attributable to the program, the YCJA, or to other funding components. A previous evaluation of the YJRI concluded that decreases in youth court caseload and custody rates in the first year of the Act were “attributable to the start-up of the new legislation and not to other factors” (Department of Justice, 2006, October, p. 9). However, the evaluation suggested that the YJSFP contributed to a reduction in custody between 1998 and 2002, prior to the introduction of the YCJA (p. 9). Continued decreases over the period of the current evaluation, combined with stakeholder reports and statistics indicating improved availability and use of alternatives, suggest the program may be having some “independent” impact, though it is important to keep in mind the interconnectedness of the Act and the components.

Proportionality of accountability measures to the severity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender

As noted in Section 4.1, prior to the YCJA, Canada had one of the highest rates of youth incarceration, and lowest rates of youth diversion, in the world (Doob & Sprott, 2004 in Solomon & Allen, 2009, p. 32). The offence profile of Canadian youth, as described below, indicates that most youth engage in singular and relatively minor criminal incidents. To address this apparent misalignment, an intended outcome of the YCJA and the YJSFP was that the use of incarceration and other accountability measures was proportionate to the nature and severity of the offence. Based on the lines of evidence used in the evaluation, this outcome appears to have been partially achieved.

Research has shown that a relatively large proportion of youth engage in illegal behaviour. In one study, for example, over one-third (37%) of grades 7 to 9 students in Toronto indicated that they had committed one or more delinquent acts in their lifetime (Savoie, 2007, p. 1). Much of this criminal activity is relatively minor and may be considered by some people as “part of growing up” (Matarazzo, 2006, p. 2). A smaller proportion of youth (19%) are involved in recorded criminal incidents by the age of 18, with a minority (18%) alleged to have committed a violent offence (Carrington, 2007, pp. 57-58). Most youth who come into contact with courts are one-time offenders (Carrington, Matarazzo, and deSouza, 2005); chronic youth offenders constitute a relatively small proportion of alleged offenders (16%), but are responsible for the majority (58%) of alleged criminal incidents (Carrington et al., 2005, p. 6).[36]

Statistics on charge rate and court caseload by seriousness of offence offer some insight into the issue of proportionality. There was a smaller decrease in charge rate for serious violent crimes (9%) compared to property crimes (14%) between 2002 and 2007 (Dauvergne, 2008, p. 8), and greater declines in youth court caseload for property-related crimes (31%) compared to violent offences (18%) from 2002–2003 to 2005–2006 (Taylor-Butts and Bressan, 2008, p. 7). In addition, youth court cases increased in complexity, such that the proportion of cases involving multiple charges rose 14% between 1991–1992 and 2006–2007, with the largest single-year increase occurring in 2003–2004, the first year of the YCJA (Thomas, 2008, p. 4). CCJS statistics also demonstrated a shift in the offence profile of youth entering sentenced custody consistent with the principle of proportionality. In 2003–2004, 29% of youth were admitted for violent offences and 36% for property crimes; by 2007–2008, these proportions had reversed, so that 39% of youth were admitted for violent crimes and 27% for property crimes (Kong, 2009, p. 11).

However, as discussed in the previous section, the YCJA and YJSFP seem to have had less impact on pre-trial detention than sentenced custody, and there was little change in the mix of offences for youth entering remand between 2004–2005 and 2007–2008 (Kong, 2009, p. 8).[37] As well, regional variation in incarceration rates increased somewhat following the introduction of the YCJA; it is not clear whether the increase is attributable to the YCJA or other factors (Bala, Carrington, and Roberts, 2009, p. 157). Further, compared to the YOA, more youth, including some less serious offenders, were detained by police under the YCJA, resulting at least in part from relatively high rates of police charging for administration of justice offences (Moyer, 2005, p. 8; Department of Justice, 2007, p. 14).

Evidence from the key informant interviews confirmed these findings from the document review. Key informants in all jurisdictions reported progress towards the objective of targeting the court and custody processes to the most serious offences, through the implementation of diversion, extra-judicial measures, and community-based alternatives to custody, and through the targeting of these services to youth charged with less serious offences. In terms of the use of custody, key informants reported lower custody counts for less serious offences; proportionately longer sentences for more serious offences; and the more serious offence profile of incarcerated youth. Several key informants reported that youth custodial facilities increasingly contained youth convicted of the most serious and violent offences and having the highest levels of risk and need, resulting, in some cases, in the need to review custody environments, lower staff caseloads, and provide additional staff training.[38] However, evidence gathered through the key informant interviews also confirmed continued variation in sentencing within and across jurisdictions.

An issue raised through the interview process concerned the ability of the evaluation to consider the intended outcome of proportionality, given its dependence on courts and the multiplicity of factors involved in sentencing decisions that would not be taken into account in a simple comparison of charges and sentences. Although present data are limited, key informants did think progress had been made via federal funding that allowed for the creation of sentencing alternatives that provided courts with a wider range of options. Accordingly, in addition to the availability of programs and services, an important factor affecting progress towards this outcome was reportedly the level of communication and coordination with other stakeholders in the criminal justice system, such as police, courts and Crowns, to ensure a high level of awareness regarding available programs and services.

4.3.2. Effectiveness of the IRCS Program

Jurisdictions’ capacity to provide specialized services for IRCS sentences – Part A

The purpose of IRCS Part A and one of the key outcomes of the IRCS Program is to ensure that jurisdictions have sufficient capacity to provide the specialized services necessary for the administration of IRCS sentences.[39] The evaluation found that the IRCS Program has increased jurisdictions’ capacity to provide specialized services for serious violent young offenders suffering from a mental illness or disorder, and that all jurisdictions have sufficient capacity to administer IRCS sentences.

All jurisdictions signed IRCS agreements with the federal government for both the previous and current round of agreements, and jurisdictions regularly claim the maximum allowable under IRCS Part A, which provides funding for basic capacity (Table 14, Appendix B).[40] Common reported uses for Part A funding include hiring psychologists, mental health nurses, or other staff specialized in mental health assessments and treatment for young people and/or IRCS Coordinators. Some jurisdictions have partnered with departments responsible for mental health services for youth or contracted these services out to external agencies or private practitioners. Some smaller jurisdictions have developed inter-jurisdictional agreements for the provision of specialized services. Quebec is unique in that it has transferred IRCS funds to a separate organization that offers assessment and rehabilitation services for youth involved in the justice system, most of whom had committed serious crimes and have mental health issues. Part A funding also supported workshops and training for staff on managing various client disorders. According to interviewees, incremental funding for 2008–2009 was also largely used to hire specialized staff such as mental health nurses and social workers, though several 2008–2009 reports had yet to be submitted and finalized at the time of data collection, and two jurisdictions did not report on the incremental funding separately from other Part A funding.

Most interviewees confirmed that, through these various activities, the jurisdictions have the basic capacity necessary for the administration of an IRCS sentence. Smaller jurisdictions reportedly face more challenges in this regard and in some cases would still need to rely on external assistance. Provincial/territorial representatives generally reported that their jurisdictions would not be able to provide the specialized treatment required for IRCS sentences without federal funding. These youth would instead be sentenced as adults, because of the inability of the youth system to deal with their mental health issues adequately. This could potentially result in higher rates of violent recidivism among these youth.

Access within jurisdictions to specialized services for rehabilitation and reintegration – Part B

The purpose of IRCS Part B is to support the delivery of programs and services to individual youth who received IRCS sentences. As discussed in Section 2.2, there were fewer IRCS sentences than anticipated; a total of 42 sentences were given during the evaluation period, mostly in Ontario and Alberta. The majority of IRCS sentences were given for charges of manslaughter or second-degree murder. Despite fewer IRCS cases than initially anticipated, the IRCS Program has increased access to specialized rehabilitative and reintegration services for serious violent young offenders with mental illnesses or disorders.

Part B funding is used to provide services such as one-to-one counselling, family counselling, educational programming, independent living supports, peer mentoring, recreational programming, and accompaniment for outings, among others. Assistance with reintegration includes activities such as coordinating visits and conferencing with family during the custodial period; arranging family care placements or alternative living arrangements upon release; and/or providing support for continued counselling, treatment, mentorship, and cultural or recreational programming in the community, etc. While key informants recognized the importance of specialized rehabilitation during custody, some emphasized that IRCS funding to support reintegration during the community portion of sentences was especially critical. Geography posed major challenges for the delivery of specialized mental health services to youth in small, rural or remote locations. In general, it was considered preferable to house youth as close as possible to their home communities; however, delivering services locally could be prohibitively expensive. This issue was particularly problematic once youth were serving the community portion of the sentence.

It was noted in several instances that jurisdictions claimed less reimbursement than entitled for both Parts A and B, though more commonly Part B (Tables 16 and 17, Appendix B). It is not clear why jurisdictions have not claimed their maximum eligible amounts under Part B. Youth may be receiving sufficient programming through the lesser amounts claimed, or through programs funded under the YJSFP agreements. A few interviewees suggested the amount of work required to submit claims may be a deterrent. Based on the information available for Part B, however, it can be noted that jurisdictions that provided data tended to claim higher amounts, and were more likely to claim their maximum eligible amounts, for eligible custody days (average $265) as opposed to community days (average $195). This conflicts with comments from some provincial/territorial representatives that the more costly expenditures occurred during the community portions of sentences, and may reflect the lack of detailed reporting from some jurisdictions. The lower amount claimed for eligible community days may also indicate greater difficulty coordinating programming for youth once they leave custodial facilities, reflecting a common sentiment that more emphasis is needed on transitional supports.[41]

Jurisdictions do not consistently collect data on potential IRCS cases and their outcomes, which complicates the task of determining why there have been fewer IRCS cases than initially anticipated. Potential explanations identified through consultation with provincial/territorial representatives include a lack of judicial awareness or understanding of the sentence; lack of consent to the sentence on the part of the youth or defence; and reluctance to order sentences that would require youth to be relocated further from home.[42] Some key informants indicated that initial estimates were unrealistic and not reflective of the offence profiles of the jurisdictions. Improved data collection on potential IRCS cases and their eventual outcomes would be useful for analyzing the extent to which IRCS sentences are used. However, there are challenges to this type of data collection, including the consideration of the sentence outside of the court setting and solicitor-client privilege. Input from judges, Crowns and defence attorneys on their decision-making processes may also help to inform the issue.

4.3.3 Effectiveness of the YJF

Profile of Youth Justice Fund projects

The YJF funded a wide variety of projects over the years of the evaluation. Table 18, Appendix B contains selected characteristics of YJF-funded projects by fiscal year, based on GCIMS data.

Most projects were funded through the Core Fund and under the CCP component.[43] There was substantial regional variation in the number and proportion of total projects; Ontario had one-third of projects, followed by British Columbia, Manitoba and Nova Scotia with about one-tenth each. Projects were commonly located in or based out of Toronto (15%); Ottawa (10%); Halifax (8%); Winnipeg (8%); Summerside (6%); Vancouver (6%); St. John’s (5%); Fredericton (4%); Edmonton (3%); Montreal (3%); Regina (3%); and Saskatoon (3%). Overall, the average project size was $72,350. Although the majority of projects received less than $50,000, GGD and YJADS projects tended to receive larger amounts of funding, with average project sizes ($111,624 for GGD, $117,660 for YJADS) over twice as large as the average Core-funded project ($53,357).

According to survey results, intended project outcomes aligned with YJF intended outcomes to a great extent: over half (52%) of projects aimed to address 10 or more of the 11 YJF outcomes listed, while an additional 33% aimed to address five or more.

The following subsections outline achievement on the key intended outcomes of the YJF. There are no apparent differences in achievement among the three funding streams. However, it may be too soon to compare, given the relatively recent start dates for both the GGD and YJADS streams, and the small number of YJADS projects to date.

Enhanced involvement of and collaboration among diverse partners in the youth justice system

The YJF, and its predecessor the YJRF, aimed to enhance community involvement in the youth justice system by including non-traditional partners such as community organizations and those working in fields other than justice. The intent was to encourage a wider acceptance of responsibility for addressing youth crime and to promote the use of more holistic approaches to dealing with young people involved in the criminal justice system.

All applicable lines of evidence indicate achievement on this intended outcome. Almost two-thirds (63%) of funding recipients surveyed represented non-profit community organizations, while an additional 20% were provincial/territorial governments or agencies (Table 19, Appendix B). Organizations varied widely in their primary focus. More than one-third of survey respondents focused on justice or youth justice (33%), followed by education (19%), social services (11%), mental health (7%), and a variety of other areas (Table 20, Appendix B). About half (52%) of funding recipients surveyed represented non-traditional youth justice partners, while a large minority (37%) were traditional youth justice partners.

Survey respondents reported that partnerships among a variety of stakeholders were common at the project level (91%), and worked effectively towards the achievement of project objectives (88%), often through the delivery of coordinated services to youth; the sharing of information and expertise; and/or the provision of funding or referrals. Projects most commonly involved partnerships with both traditional and non-traditional youth justice partners (76%), though some projects involved partnerships with only traditional (6%) or non-traditional (7%) partners, and some projects had no partners (7%). Almost two-thirds (63%) of projects surveyed developed new partnerships with YJF funding, including almost half (48%) that developed new partnerships with both traditional and non-traditional youth justice partners, and 11% that developed new partnerships with only non-traditional partners. Project partners commonly included non-profit community organizations (65%), provincial/territorial governments or agencies (57%), and municipal governments or agencies (43%), among others (Table 21, Appendix B). Case studies supported the survey findings, as all projects involved a diverse range of partners, including both traditional and non-traditional partners from the provincial/territorial government and not-for-profit sector.

More than half of survey respondents whose projects included the outcomes of increased collaboration between traditional and non-traditional youth justice partners (59% fully achieved) and opportunities to share knowledge and best practices amongst justice system stakeholders (54%) reported that their projects had fully achieved the intended outcomes. Examples of collaboration identified through the survey, interviews and case studies included community-based organizations partnering with youth corrections to deliver programming to youth in custody and/or in conflict with the law, enhancing the services available to the target groups and connecting them to resources in the community to assist with reintegration following the completion of their custody or probation. In other cases, it meant inviting a broader range of stakeholders to participate in conferences or training workshops, for example. In some instances, the YJF played an important role in connecting partners to one another, and through the encouragement of multidisciplinary partnerships, contributed to the breaking down of “silos” of practice.

Examples of project partnerships explored through the case studies are illustrative of the kinds of collaboration undertaken with YJF funding, and provide support for the YJF’s continued emphasis on partnership development.

Many partnerships were intended to facilitate the sharing of information and best practices, in order to improve service delivery to youth. For example, the partnerships developed through a pilot project designed to offer community-based culturally appropriate services and referrals to African Canadian youth involved in the criminal justice system resulted in greater awareness among justice system stakeholders of the cultural issues affecting African Canadian young offenders and more consistent use of culturally specific programming for these youth.

Several examples involved multidisciplinary approaches to improve criminal justice responses to youth facing complex issues, such as FASD. A pilot project designed to provide FASD diagnostic assessments to youth involved in the criminal justice system, for example, successfully developed a multidisciplinary team approach involving the collaboration of the provincial departments of Justice and Health, the youth correctional and treatment facilities, a specialty FASD clinic, and a non-profit organization. Similarly, an information-sharing project developed partnerships across different systems (e.g., police and corrections, health, education, family and children’s services) with the aim of building a coordinated approach to respond to FASD youth in conflict with the law.

A further example demonstrates the ways in which expertise from different fields can be combined through collaborative partnerships to address emerging youth justice issues. A pilot/model project designed to develop and incorporate culturally appropriate substance abuse programming for Aboriginal youth within a youth correctional facility relied on partnerships among the correctional facility, an Aboriginal community organization, and experts in the field of substance abuse programming, to develop a unique treatment program that combined conventional cognitive-behavioural skills development with culturally tailored content and activities.

Another important indicator of success for this outcome was the proportion of projects that received funding and in-kind support from other sources. Based on survey results, over three-quarters (76%) of projects had other sources of funding and in-kind support in addition to the YJF, commonly including provincial/territorial governments (43%), non-profit community organizations (35%), and municipal governments or agencies (17%), among others (Table 22, Appendix B). Key informants reported that YJF funding was important to leveraging support from other funders.[44] However, most projects in the survey received the majority of their funding through the YJF, and over three-quarters (76%) of the projects would not have been possible without YJF funding, while an additional 15% would have required substantial modifications.[45]

For most projects in the survey (87%), YJF funding had ended. Of these (n=47), around half continued to operate with support from other funders (32%); support from both the YJF and other funders (2%); or without the support of either the YJF or other funders (15%). Approximately one-fifth of projects were no longer operating, and an additional 17% were not intended to be ongoing. Projects that were not solely reliant on funding from the YJF were more likely to continue after YJF funding ended. This highlights the importance of projects establishing partnerships with other stakeholders to secure additional sources of support, and identifies the group most in need of transitional assistance from YJF staff.[46] The importance of partnerships for project continuation was also evident in the case studies, as almost all case study projects that were intended to be ongoing did continue after the end of YJF funding with the support of the province/territory and/or other sponsors.

Responsiveness to emerging youth justice issues and youth with unique needs

The YJRF aim of supporting the implementation of the YCJA shifted under the YJF to focus on responding to emerging youth justice issues. Over the period of the evaluation, these emerging issues have included, for example, increasing youth gang involvement, high rates of drug addiction and mental health issues among youth in the criminal justice system, and the need for gender-specific programming for female offenders. The YJF demonstrated responsiveness to emerging issues through the annual revision of priorities and criteria; the provision of targeted funding to address identified gaps and test innovative pilots; and the successful incorporation of projects into provincial/territorial, institutional or organizational practice.

Projects often targeted youth with unique needs (e.g., Aboriginal youth, gang-involved youth, youth in need of drug treatment programming). The large majority of surveyed projects targeted youth exclusively (52%) or in addition to others such as justice-related professionals, community members and governments (43%) (Table 23, Appendix B). Of survey respondents who intended to reach particular target groups (n=43), the large majority (93%) reported reaching those groups to a great extent (65%) or somewhat (28%). Projects delivered services to differing numbers of individuals. About half of projects (46%) provided services to less than 100 people. Another 24% delivered services to between 100 and 499 individuals, and 19% of projects provided services to over 500 people.

Some projects did not reach as many youth as planned. However, they often reported positive outcomes for those youth who did participate, including increased self-esteem and self-respect; increased follow-through and ability to finish projects; reengagement with academics and reintegration into mainstream school; greater connection to cultural heritage and cultural self-awareness; development of life skills and/or employable skills; fewer behavioural problems; and reduced recidivism. Many projects also received positive feedback from a variety of stakeholders (e.g., youth, parents, schools, Crown, police).

There have been several examples, explored through key informant interviews and case studies, of instances in which projects, particularly pilots, impacted or prompted modifications to established policies or practices (e.g., revising assessment and treatment protocols for youth with FASD; modifying organizational standards to accommodate hiring youth with criminal records; attaining accreditation of learning skills course for at-risk youth). Interviewees also stated that conferences and training workshops translated into changes in practice through participants taking that information back to their programs, though there appeared to be little tracking information in this regard. In some cases, projects identified additional gaps or opportunities, and/or generated unanticipated “spin-off” programming.[47]

Knowledge of new and innovative approaches to emerging youth justice issues

A key function of the YJF was to test innovative approaches to emerging youth justice issues, in order to support program development in jurisdictions that incorporated best practices and supported federal policy objectives. During the years covered by the evaluation, the YJF funded several pilot projects that tested new and innovative models. Interviewees involved in pilot projects often said they shared information on their projects with youth justice system stakeholders in their communities and sometimes in broader networks, thereby contributing to awareness of new or enhanced models. This approach has succeeded to some extent, as demonstrated by the continuation of several projects and/or the adoption of pilots into provincial/territorial or organizational programming. However, as noted previously in this report, there is still insufficient analysis and dissemination of the results and lessons learned from YJF-funded projects, particularly across jurisdictions. In order to achieve the intended outcome of increasing knowledge of new and innovative approaches, the YJF needs to not only fund projects, but also ensure that findings are documented and shared with relevant stakeholders including other YJF projects, provincial/territorial partners, potential applicants, and the public. There are many options for improving knowledge translation, some of which are outlined above (e.g., online listings, Web forums), and all of which relate back to the importance of adequate reporting and evaluation of projects (i.e., measuring and documenting the achievement of project outcomes).

In addition to pilot projects, the YJF also supported several activities designed to advance skill development and share information on emerging issues and/or best practices, such as conferences and training workshops. Several projects, particularly those in the PLEI component, centred on the development and/or dissemination of informational materials. Overall, half of YJF-funded projects involved a conference or workshop, 44% included educational activities, and 39% involved information sharing as one of the project’s key activities (Table 24, Appendix B).

4.3.4. Integrated Coordinated Approach

The evaluation found progress toward the intended outcome of a more integrated, coordinated approach to youth justice both for individual funding components and for the components in concert with one another. All three components enhanced coordination and collaboration with traditional and non-traditional provincial/territorial and community-based partners to deliver a range of high priority programs and services; the specialized services required for IRCS sentences, including cross-sectoral case planning; and projects involving innovative and holistic approaches to address emerging youth justice issues. Further, the funding components were complementary, used together to target different issues and areas of the youth criminal justice system. Finally, the increased alignment of federal and provincial/territorial objectives contributed to a more coordinated approach to youth justice generally, in that momentum at both levels was moving in the same direction—toward the objectives of the YJI.

However, gaps in programs and services remain, often at the intersection of differing departmental mandates (e.g., justice and health, justice and education). Need is greatest in the areas of housing and transitional supports for youth entering the community; services for youth with mental illnesses and/or FASD; culturally based programming for Aboriginal youth; gender-based programming for female offenders; alternative school options; and specialized service delivery to northern or remote regions.[48] There are limited opportunities within the funding programs to address some of these issues for youth in conflict with the law. For example, the YJSFP could strategize on critical issues with provincial/territorial representatives[49]; and the YJF could target identified gaps through innovative approaches and multidisciplinary partnerships, including enhanced coordination with other federal departments.

With respect to the YJSFP, certain categories of high priority programs and services may be offered in particular jurisdictions through different departments and without the financial support of the YJSFP Agreements. The departments responsible for the delivery of youth justice services vary by jurisdiction; however, greater coordination of services may be possible in jurisdictions where departments were more closely aligned.

4.4. Economy and Efficiency

The evaluation addressed questions on economy and efficiency using financial data and qualitative findings from interviews and case studies. Economy is achieved when the cost of resources used approximates the minimum amount of resources needed to achieve expected outcomes. Efficiency is the extent to which resources are used such that a greater level of output is produced with the same level of input or, a lower level of input is used to produce the same level of output. The level of input and output could be increases or decreases in quantity, quality, or both (TBS, 2009, Appendix A).

The YJSFP and IRCS administration requires the negotiation and administration of contribution agreements with each provincial/territorial jurisdiction. The contribution budgets for the programs are $177,302,415 and $11,048,000 for a combined total of $188,350,415 (as described in sections 2.1 and 2.2). The two programs share the same administrative team, with approximate annual costs of $485,000 or 0.3%, making the administration costs very efficient.

Interviewees noted that the YJF’s current model, including national oversight of grants and contributions to other organizations, was a cost-efficient model for supporting youth justice projects. As described in section 2.3, the total YJF annual grant and contribution funding is $5,005,000. The administrative costs are approximately $320,000 annually, or 6.4%. The YJF, like many project-based funding programs, is more expensive to administer due to the costs associated with the project selection process, administering contribution agreements, and support to funding applicants and recipients. Interviewees commenting on the economy of YJF projects often used the comparison of the cost per participant with the costs of incarceration for a similar duration. A few projects provided figures on the cost per participant, which ranged from approximately $10 to $5,000 depending on the target groups, the type of programming, and the number of individuals identified as being impacted by the project. In contrast, estimates of $75,000 to $100,000 per year were given for keeping a youth in custody.

Another important indicator of economy for the YJF was the proportion of projects that received funding and in-kind support from other sources. Based on survey results, over three-quarters (76%) of projects had other sources of funding and in-kind support in addition to the YJF, including provincial/territorial governments (43%), non-profit community organizations (35%), and municipal governments or agencies (17%), among others (Table 22, Appendix B). Key informants reported that YJF funding was important to leverage support from other funders.[50] However, most projects in the survey received the majority of their funding through the YJF. Over three-quarters (76%) of the projects would not have been possible without YJF funding, while an additional 15% would have required substantial modifications.[51]

For most projects in the survey (87%), YJF funding had ended. Of these (n=47), around half continued to operate with support from other funders (32%); support from both the YJF and other funders (2%); or without the support of either the YJF or other funders (15%). Approximately one-fifth of projects were no longer operating, and an additional 17% were not intended to be ongoing. Projects that were not solely reliant on funding from the YJF were more likely to continue after YJF funding ended. This highlights the importance of projects establishing partnerships with other stakeholders to secure additional sources of support, and identifies the group most in need of transitional assistance from YJF staff.[52] The importance of partnerships for project continuation was also evident in the case studies, as almost all case study projects that were intended to be ongoing did continue after the end of YJF funding with the support of the province/territory and/or other sponsors.

The IRCS program is another area where economy is expected to be achieved in the long-term. Provincial/territorial representatives generally reported that their jurisdictions would not have been able to provide the specialized treatment required for IRCS sentences without federal funding. Instead, interviewees thought these youth would likely have been sentenced as adults, because of the incapacity of the youth system to deal with their mental health issues adequately. Interviewees thought that the specialized sentences could potentially reduce rates of violent recidivism among these youth, which would lead to cost-savings in the long-term; however, it is too early for the data to be available.

Interviewees reported that the YJI funding components provided value for money, because community-based programming was less expensive than the costs of custody, and rehabilitative programming reduced the likelihood of youth re-offending and improved their chances of becoming contributing members of society. It is not possible to respond definitively to this evaluation question, given the lack of data available to conduct an analysis of economy and efficiency. Enhanced data collection could potentially improve the ability to conduct such analyses for future evaluations. For all three funding components, revised performance measurement and evaluation strategies will need to specify the source of data required, and involve the support of the provinces and territories with data collection.