Evaluation of the Nationally Standardized Data Collection Strategy on Hate-Motivated Crime

4. Overall conclusions and recommendations

The following section provides a summary of the overall conclusions of the evaluation, which are organized by evaluation issue.

Relevance

The Data Collection Strategy is aligned with federal priorities and roles.

Overall, the evaluation found that the Data Collection Strategy demonstrates a high degree of relevancy both in the context of aligning with federal priorities related to social inclusion and crime and in light of Canada’s international commitments to collect hate crime data. The federal government is also naturally placed to provide the pan-Canadian and cross-jurisdictional activities that are required of the Strategy.

Due to the recent transition of the Multiculturalism Branch from the Department of Canadian Heritage to CIC, it remains unclear how the Data Collection Strategy links to CIC’s strategic outcomes.

Recommendation: CIC will need to ensure that the link between the Data Collection Strategy and CIC’s strategic outcomes is clear in its updated Program Activity Architecture (PAA), which is currently under development.

Canada’s demographics are changing and certain groups are at risk of being the victims of hate crimes.

Canadian society is experiencing increasing diversity, with growing populations of visible minorities, same-sex couples, and an increasingly varied religious composition. These social and demographic changes are risk factors for hate crimes. Further, evidence suggests there is continued intolerance in Canadian society against racial, sexual and religious minority groups.

There is overwhelming support for the National Data Collection Strategy.

Police services, academics, members of NGOs and other stakeholders consulted for the evaluation overwhelmingly supported the rationale for the Data Collection Strategy, suggesting that there is a need to have consistent data on hate crime across Canada.

Performance

The Data Collection Strategy has been successfully implemented, with a large majority of police services using the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey Version 2.2 (UCR 2.2) and a large percentage of the population is represented by the data.

The number of police services using UCR 2.2 has steadily increased over the past five years. The hate crime data have, as a result, become more national in scope and now represent 52% of the Canadian population, or 88% when combined with the supplemental survey. With the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) recently converting to UCR 2.2, the representativeness of the data will further increase.

Current gaps in training coverage and the growing use of UCR 2.2 will present training challenges and may affect the consistency of the data being reported.

The training provided by CCJS has not been able to keep up with the number of police services beginning to report hate crime using UCR 2.2. Given the fact that nearly 800 new police services/detachments have recently converted to using UCR 2.2, this gap is likely to grow. The information from the evaluation shows that training is perceived as important in ensuring the consistency and quality of hate crime reporting, thus the demonstrated gap in training coverage may be negatively affecting the data to date.

Recommendation: CIC should work with CCJS to ensure that current gaps in training coverage do not affect the consistency of the data being reported.

Training provided by CCJS is viewed as useful and of good quality and is key to ensuring that police services apply a standard definition of hate crime.

The training sessions and materials provided by the Strategy were seen by those familiar with them as high quality and very useful and appear to be a critical component of the initiative. It was reported that the training provided police services with the knowledge and tools required to identify and report hate crime data and helped to improve the quality of the hate crime data, by ensuring that a common definition of hate crime is used. The use of a common definition ensures that hate crime data are reported consistently across the country.

The hate crime data need to be better marketed to stakeholders.

The hate crime statistics have been presented in three annual reports developed by CCJS. These reports, as well as data tables and conference presentations, have provided stakeholders with near-national information on hate crime, as well as the ability to compare rates of police-reported hate crime for different cities in Canada. CCJS has undertaken dissemination activities common to STC, and participated in a number of conferences and workshops that have publicized the Data Collection Strategy and its findings. Marketing to date by CIC’s Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, has comprised presentations at the 2009 and 2010 Metropolis Conferences.

There appear to be gaps in awareness of the information produced by the Strategy, at least among those police services and stakeholders consulted for the evaluation. This is likely related to the fact that there have only been three years of data to report to-date. Note that although academics and those working in the criminal justice system are seen as the main target groups for the information produced by the Data Collection Strategy, it would appear that police services also view the information products as useful and beneficial to their work.

Recommendation: As coverage increases and more years of data are added, CIC should explore methods to increase awareness of the Strategy and subsequent usage, including to police services.

Those who are aware of the information are using it and say it has had an impact on their understanding of hate crime.

It was a challenge to identify stakeholders for the evaluation, particularly academics, and those interviewed and surveyed do not represent all users of the information. However, of those that were interviewed and surveyed, many reported that the information increased their understanding of hate crime in Canada. While there are limited data on the usage of the information produced by the Data Collection Strategy, the available data suggest that the information is generally considered to be useful by police services and stakeholders that have consulted it. The evaluation identified few specific changes to policies, programs or services made as a result of the Strategy, although it may not be reasonable to expect such changes to be achieved as a result of the data.

Reasons why the information is not being used, as reported by interviewees, were related to a lack of confidence in the data (i.e., only three years of data are available, concerns of under-reporting of hate crime, and information products had not been sufficiently timely to be useful for their purposes). As more police services use UCR 2.2 and as more years of data are available, the utility of the data will increase.

Alternatives

CCJS is the most appropriate delivery agent for the Data Collection Strategy.

There are no other sources of national, police-reported data on hate crime in Canada. There was wide support for CCJS delivering the Data Collection Strategy and no strong evidence of viable delivery alternatives. CCJS is perceived as the most objective, expert and credible organization to deliver the strategy and has the capacity and the positive pre-existing relationships with police services to effectively deliver the Strategy. The Data Collection Strategy is also well-situated with CCJS given that CCJS is already collecting national data on crime as part of its established role in Canada, that is, through the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey.

The Data Collection Strategy is providing value for the cost.

Given the amount of resources provided to CCJS for the Data Collection Strategy relative to its activities, the costs to CIC appear to be reasonable. Its delivery using an existing data collection system has reduced the cost of implementation. The funding has also resulted in value in that it allows for the carrying-out of activities (e.g., administration of the supplemental survey, delivery of training to police services) which have contributed to the completeness and consistency of the hate crime data, and which otherwise may not have been undertaken.

Recommendation: As above.
CIC should work with CCJS to ensure that current gaps in training coverage do not affect the consistency of the data being reported.

Page details

Date modified: