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

3. Evaluation findings

This section presents the findings of the evaluation, organized by the three major evaluation areas (relevance, performance and alternatives) and by major identified themes.

3.1. Relevance

3.1.1. Alignment with departmental and federal priorities

Finding: The Data Collection Strategy was explicitly aligned with federal government priorities at the time of its implementation. When situated within Canadian Heritage, the Data Collection Strategy was linked to departmental strategic outcomes. No similar linkage has yet been made with CIC, where it is currently housed, although the department’s Program Activity Architecture (PAA) is being revised to reflect the mandate of the Multiculturalism Program. The role of the federal government in managing and delivering the Data Collection Strategy is appropriate, as national coordination is a key component of the initiative.

Alignment with federal priorities

Documentation reviewed for the evaluation provides strong evidence that the Data Collection Strategy was well-aligned with federal government priorities to address gaps in hate crime information. In June 2003, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration recommended that the Government of Canada (GoC) monitor hate crimes and report the findings to Parliament.^{Footnote 6} The Speech from the Throne that followed in October 2004 stated that the GoC was committed to being a “steadfast advocate of inclusion” and would take measures to “strengthen Canada's ability to combat racism, hate-speech and hate crimes”.^{Footnote 7} Further, CAPAR (2005) recognized the need to collect nationally standardized hate crime data and specifically stated that the Multiculturalism Program, in collaboration with CCJS, was implementing a “nationally standardized data-collection strategy on hate-motivated crime and a training and assistance program for police to support collection and reporting”.^{Footnote 8}

The Data Collection Strategy can be seen to fit within the current Government’s more recent stated commitment to further social inclusion and harmony. The 2010 Speech from the Throne identified “Strengthening a United Canada in a Changing World” as part of the GoC’s “broader agenda”, and noted that “to be Canadian is to show the world that people drawn from every nation can live in harmony”.^{Footnote 9}

The Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch representatives interviewed for the evaluation also suggested that the Data Collection Strategy is a priority for the GoC and indicated that it supports GoC priorities related to inclusion and law and order.

Alignment with departmental strategic outcomes and priorities

The Data Collection Strategy was aligned with one of Canadian Heritage’s strategic outcome as listed in its 2008-2009 Report on Plans and Priorities: “Canada is an inclusive society built on intercultural understanding and citizen participation.”^{Footnote 10} The department’s Multiculturalism Branch, which had responsibility for the Data Collection Strategy, was transferred to CIC in October 2008. Interviewees from the Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch at CIC suggested that the Strategy is aligned with CIC’s departmental outcomes related to integration and social cohesion. However, CIC’s Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch is not yet linked to CIC’s strategic outcomes in the department’s PAA, although this is currently in progress. It is worth noting that CIC now has responsibility for the Multiculturalism Act, which requires all federal institutions to develop policies, programs and practices that are sensitive and responsive to the multicultural reality of Canada, and specifically includes integration issues for both new and established Canadians.

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has also directly spoken out against anti-Semitism and other forms of hate in recent speeches. The Minister recently referred to the statistics on anti-Semitic hate crime produced by the Data Collection Strategy in speeches to the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism (February 8, 2010) and at a Conference of Ministers of Education Center for Dialogue and Prayer during the 65th Anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau in Oswiecim, Poland (January 27, 2010).^{Footnote 11}

Alignment with federal roles and responsibilities

Managing and delivering the Data Collection Strategy is an appropriate role for the federal government. As mentioned by CIC interviewees, the federal government is best placed to manage the Data Collection Strategy, as the initiative requires coordination and collaboration with numerous types of organizations and levels of government (including municipal, provincial, federal, and First Nations police services) across all ten provinces and three territories. The federal government is naturally placed to compile data and work with police services from across these multiple jurisdictions.

The federal government is also well-placed to respond to Canada’s international commitments. Canada is a signatory to the United Nations’ International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racism (ICERD), and, as per Article 9 of the Convention, submits periodic reports on its implementation of the convention, which includes reporting on such matters as hate crimes.^{Footnote 12}

Canada is also a participating state of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), who’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) works with members to combat intolerance and discrimination, including through collecting hate crime data. ODIHR publishes reports on hate crime statistics compiled from its member states.^{Footnote 13}

3.1.2. Need for the Data Collection Strategy

Finding: The evaluation found that there is a continued need for the Data Collection Strategy. Monitoring hate crime is important in the context of Canada’s increasing racial, religious and sexual diversity. Police services and other stakeholders were overwhelmingly supportive of the Strategy and it supports Canada’s international reporting commitments.

Context and prevalence of hate crime in Canada

According to research on hate crime, those individuals most at risk of being victimized by hate and bias activity include: racial and ethnic minority groups or individuals; religious minorities; and gays and lesbians.^{Footnote 14}

Research also shows that that Canada’s population is becoming increasingly diverse, with its racial, cultural, religious, linguistic and demographic compositions continuously changing. Canada is home to more than 200 ethnic groups, with 16% of its population identifying as a visible minority. Information from the Census (referenced in the CCJS 2009 Hate Crime Report) showed that Canada’s visible minority population grew 27% from 2001 to 2006, five times faster than the population as a whole. The country is also experiencing increasing visibility of gays and lesbians, as demonstrated through increasing numbers of same-sex couples, which increased by 33% over the same period. Further, the religious composition of the country is also changing, with some of the largest increases between 1991 and 2001 seen in Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist denominations.^{Footnote 15}

There is evidence to suggest that within the context of this growing diversity, there are signs of intolerance. For example, the Ethnic Diversity Survey (2002) found that nearly one-half of Blacks and one-third of South Asians and Chinese respondents reported having been the victim of discrimination and unfair treatment in the previous five years.^{Footnote 16} A 2003 Ekos survey found that 46% of Aboriginal people living off-reserve stated that they had been a victim of racism or discrimination over the previous two years because of their origin.^{Footnote 17}

There were 1,036 hate-motivated crimes reported by Canadian police in 2008, the most recent year for which data had been released by CCJS at the time of the evaluation. This number was up from 765 incidents in 2007 and 892 in 2006, the first year that near-national statistics on hate crimes were available. Note that this increase may be due, in part, to heightened public awareness of these types of incidents as well as improved reporting practices by police. The vast majority of hate crimes reported in 2008 were motivated by race (55%), religion (26%) or sexual orientation (16%). A little less than one-half of hate-motivated crimes were mischief offences such as graffiti and about 5% were violent offences. While less than 1% of crimes are motivated by hate, research suggests that hate crimes can have a resounding effect on larger communities, and on Canada as a whole.^{Footnote 18} Perry (2009) states that in addition to the impacts on the victims themselves, hate crimes can also be perceived as a warning to all members of the victim’s community and hate crime can result in a collective fear within the victim’s cultural group or community.^{Footnote 19}

Information gathered from interviews and the survey is consistent with this research. Almost one-half of interviewees, and 59% of survey respondents, indicated that hate crime was prevalent in Canada. Survey respondents also generally indicated that the prevalence of hate crime in recent years had remained unchanged (41%) or had increased (23%).

Stakeholder views on need for nationally standardized Hate Crime data

Police services and other stakeholders consulted for the evaluation overwhelmingly supported the rationale for collecting nationally standardized hate crime data. Overall, 96% agreed that hate-motivated crime was an important issue. In addition, 97% agreed that there is a need for nationally standardized data on hate-motivated crime in Canada, primarily because the data are useful in informing the work undertaken by police services (91%) and for comparing hate-motivated crime statistics from their own area with those of other areas, and with Canada overall (92%).

Those interviewed for the evaluation were all of the opinion that the Data Collection Strategy is needed, primarily because there is a general need for data on the prevalence of hate crime, there is a need for consistency in hate crime data across Canada, and because nationally standardized data is needed to inform policy decisions.

International commitments

International bodies have also emphasized the need to collect and report hate-motivated crime statistics. During its assessment for the period of June 2001 to spring 2005, ICERD’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination noted the absence in Canada of general statistical information on hate crimes, disaggregated by ethnic and racial group, at that time.^{Footnote 20} OSCE has called for countries to adopt data collection procedures that are rigorous and standardized.^{Footnote 21} This is consistent with the declaration that followed the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (Durban, South Africa, 2001), which urged member states to collect and report, at the national and local levels, statistical data to assess regularly the situation of individuals and groups of individuals who are victims of racism and related intolerance.^{Footnote 22}

Canada will also be a signatory to the London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism, which states that governments should provide publicly accessible statistics on hate crimes, and police services should ensure that anti-Semitic incidents are routine components of crime reporting.^{Footnote 23} The London Declaration emerged from the London Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism (2009), hosted by the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism and the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Collecting nationally standardized hate crime data is also consistent with practices outside Canada. Other countries have begun to collect and report nationally standardized hate crime data, although this is not consistently the case even across Europe and North America. In the United States, hate-motivated crime data collected by individual law enforcement agencies is compiled and presented in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report, but only approximately 20% of relevant police agencies were in compliance with this initiative in 2008.^{Footnote 24} Canada was, in fact, a leader in this practice. The Vienna Hate Crime Conference (November 2006) urged countries to follow the Canadian model of hate crime data collection.

3.2. Performance

3.2.1. Use of Uniform Crime Reporting 2.2 survey

Finding: The number of police services reporting hate crime data using UCR 2.2 has been increasing each year. Hate crime data are now representative of a large percentage of the Canadian population and are increasingly more comprehensive, as more services switch from using the supplemental survey to UCR 2.2.

Use of the Uniform Crime Reporting survey, version 2.2

Information provided by STC shows that, while the numbers vary slightly from year to year, as of January 2010, there were 1,198 separate police detachments, comprising 201 different police services in Canada. Since the Data Collection Strategy began, the number of those services/detachments that have converted to UCR 2.2 has significantly increased (Table 3-1).

Source: Statistics Canada, Respondent Library.

In the first year that the Strategy received funding under CAPAR (2005-2006), a total of 51 police services/detachments were reporting hate crime data using UCR 2.2. This included 28 municipal police services and 23 RCMP detachments in British Columbia. Since that time, the number of municipal police services using UCR 2.2 has climbed steadily, with a total of 136 (of 197) services using UCR 2.2 as of January 2010 (Table 3-1).^{Footnote 25} Similarly, the number of RCMP detachments using UCR 2.2 has steadily increased over time; however, the majority of detachments did not convert to UCR 2.2 until 2010 (all 703 RCMP detachments are using UCR 2.2 as of January 2010).

Canada’s three provincial police forces have now also converted to UCR 2.2. All three Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (RNC) detachments began using UCR 2.2 in 2006. The Sûreté du Québec (SQ) began participation in 2007 and currently 95 of its 96 detachments are using UCR 2.2. While the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) saw a few detachments convert to UCR 2.2 in 2008 (i.e., 3), virtually all of the detachments (198 of 199) converted as of January 2010.

Therefore, as of January 2010, a total of 1,135 separate detachments (95% of all detachments) were using UCR 2.2 (Figure 1). There are no First Nations police services currently using UCR 2.2, although information from STC indicates that one will begin participation this year. Note that STC does not necessarily expect to have full participation of all Canadian police services, recognizing that not all will have the capacity (e.g., technical, financial) to convert to UCR 2.2. This is consistent with information provided by interviewees, who also noted these capacity barriers. As a result, full participation in UCR 2.2 will not be possible within the current resources available to police services.

Figure 3-1: Percentage of police services using UCR 2.2, by type of service (2006-2010)

Text version: Percentage of police services using UCR 2.2, by type of service (2006-2010)

Population coverage

As discussed, in the first year of the Data Collection Strategy (2005), a total of 51 police services were reporting hate crime data using UCR 2.2 (Table 3-2). For that year, STC calculated that the data were representative of 16% of the Canadian population. As more services/detachments have begun using UCR 2.2, the percentage of the Canadian population represented by the data has also increased, up to 52% in 2008. With the introduction of the supplemental survey, in 2006, the percentage of the Canadian population represented by the hate crime data increased to 87%, and to 88% by 2008.

Over time, the percentage of the Canadian population represented by UCR 2.2 has increased, while the percentage of the Canadian population represented by the supplemental survey has decreased, thus suggesting that more services have switched from using the supplemental survey to UCR 2.2. This has had an impact on the overall comprehensiveness of the data, as the information gathered through UCR 2.2 is more detailed than that gathered via the supplemental survey, as described in Section 1.2 (Profile of the Nationally Standardized Data Collection Strategy on Hate-Motivated Crime). Due to the number of new services using UCR 2.2 as of March 2010, the percentage of the population covered by UCR 2.2 reporting is expected to further increase.

3.2.2. Training and tools for police services

Finding: Training and tools have been provided to police services and are viewed as useful by those who have received training. Training is viewed as important to ensure consistency in the application of the definition and the subsequent identification of hate crimes. The number of services using UCR 2.2 exceeds the number of services being trained and given the recent increase in the number of services using UCR 2.2, this training gap will likely grow, which can affect the consistency of the data reported by police services.

UCR 2.2 training and tools

CCJS has provided a number of training options for police services. It has developed a formal training course for UCR 2.2 as well as a training manual for participants. This training course and related manual is available to any services/detachments that are interested. The manual is made available in various formats (e.g., hardcopy, electronic) and is accessible via CCJS or its extranet site. Between 2005-2006 and 2008-2009, a total of 156 police services/detachments, totalling 681 participants, received UCR 2.2 training from CCJS (Table 3-3). More recently, CCJS has begun to deliver regional training workshops in order to reach a broader number of participants. CCJS also aims to train those who can subsequently offer training within their own police service.

In addition to the formal training offered, CCJS provides police services with phone assistance as needed and has been working to develop an e-learning training panel panel-default(s).

Need for training to support hate crime reporting

Interviewed POLIS members were overwhelmingly (8 out of 9 members interviewed) in agreement that there was a need for the Data Collection Strategy to provide training sessions and materials to police services on hate crime data collection and reporting. POLIS members suggested training was important to ensure consistency/reliability in the data (3 of 5), to raise the levels of awareness/knowledge of police officers on hate crime reporting (2 of 5), and because police services did not have resources to do the training themselves (1 of 5). The two CCJS interviewees similarly agreed that training was important to ensure the consistency/reliability of data. The importance of training was specifically linked to ensuring that police services had a common definition and understanding of hate crime.

These findings were consistent with the findings from the survey of police services. All relevant survey respondents (25 of 25) were in agreement that it is important for police services to receive training from CCJS prior to collecting and reporting data on hate crime in their area. Among those survey respondents who were familiar with the training provided by CCJS, the majority (16 of 19 respondents, or 84%) indicated that the training sessions improved the quality of the data reported by police services on hate-motivated crime. This information suggests that training is an important component of the implementation of the Data Collection Strategy.

Satisfaction with training

Information from the evaluation shows a high level of satisfaction with the UCR 2.2 training provided by CCJS. Training feedback forms, administered to training participants by CCJS in 2005-2006, indicated that participants were extremely satisfied with the training and no areas for improvement were identified.

Evaluation interviewees and survey respondents also rated the quality of the training and tools very high. Three of four POLIS interviewees who were able to comment on training, suggested that the training was very good (the other noted that it was not being targeted to the right people but did not comment on the quality of the training itself). One-third (33%) of survey respondents indicated that their police service had received training and/or training materials from CCJS. These respondents rated the training and tools positively, suggesting that the sessions were useful (94%) and that the training materials were useful (95%). Respondents also reported that the sessions improved the quality of the data reported by their police services (84%) and that the training provided them with the knowledge and information needed to collect and report on hate-motivated crime. This suggests that there are important benefits associated with the training being provided to police services.

Gaps in training coverage

As indicated in the section above, CCJS has provided on-site training to many police services/detachments (i.e., 156 over a four-year period). This is a significant amount of training, given that it has all been delivered by one individual at CCJS.

The evaluation found, however, that the training being provided has not been commensurate with the number of services/detachments using UCR 2.2. In fact, over time the gap between the number of services/detachments using UCR 2.2 and the number of services/detachments trained by CCJS (Table 3-4) has remained significant. In 2005-2006, approximately 37% of services using UCR 2.2 received training while in 2008-2009, approximately 44% of services using UCR 2.2 received training.

It should be noted that it is not possible to determine to what extent police services may be conducting training within their own police service following receipt of the UCR 2.2 training (e.g., an RCMP participant conducting training in other detachments). In addition, CCJS offers alternative methods of training (e.g., manuals are available on-line) and it is unknown to what extent police services may be accessing these other methods for their own use. Therefore, it is possible that more services have been trained than these numbers indicate. Nonetheless, there likely still remains a large gap in the training and there is the potential that the training gap will continue to grow. As discussed in Section 3.2.1 (Use of Uniform Crime Reporting 2.2 Survey), in 2009-2010, 778 police services/detachments began using UCR 2.2 for the first time. This rise in numbers will present challenges with respect to training and training has been identified as an important element to ensure consistency in the application of the definition of hate crimes.

One other issue was raised by the evaluation with respect to training coverage. While few interviewees and survey respondents identified areas for improvement with training, there was information to suggest that the training is not necessarily always targeting the appropriate people. One interviewee and three survey respondents (of 6 who suggested improvements) indicated that the training had not been provided to the right people (e.g., it was provided to subject matter experts in hate crimes but not to the majority of staff who respond to calls). Given that police officers are directly involved in identifying and reporting hate crime, it would be important to reach this group with training to ensure that all officers have a common understanding of the definition of hate crime and thus are reporting hate crime in a consistent fashion.

3.2.3. Data quality

Finding: CCJS has a systematic process in place to validate and confirm data on hate crime submitted by police services. The submitted data have become more complete as more police services have started reporting hate crime—increasing the geographic coverage of the data—and as more police services using the supplemental survey have moved to the more detailed UCR 2.2 Survey. Under-reporting of hate crime by police officers has affected the usefulness of the data and training is seen as a means to help address this issue.

Overall, the quality of hate crime data has been improving since the Data Collection Strategy was initiated. As discussed in Section 3.2.1 (Use of Uniform Crime Reporting Survey, Version 2.2), the geographical coverage of the UCR 2.2 data has improved continuously since the Strategy began. In addition, the amount of information available on hate crime incidents has improved over time as more police services have moved from the supplemental survey to the UCR 2.2 Survey.

The quality of this data is further enhanced by the fact that CCJS has a systematic data verification process in place. The data reported by police services are subjected to validation checks, which include, for example, flagging unknown responses for follow-up and ensuring that some crimes (such as public incitement of hatred and advocating genocide) are consistently scored as hate crimes. CCJS works with police services to address any inconsistencies or errors in the data. All validated data submissions are sent back to each police service for their sign-off and consent for public release.

While the scope, breadth and accuracy/consistency of hate crime data are good, under-reporting of hate crime remains an issue affecting the overall quality of the data. Under-reporting of hate crime is not unique to Canada and has been raised internationally as an issue in academic literature on hate crime.^{Footnote 28} Although the rate at which hate crime is currently under-reported is not known, findings from the 2004 GSS showed that only 40% of hate crimes were reported by victims to police, according to surveyed Canadians self-reporting as victims of hate crime.^{Footnote 29} Victims do not always report hate crimes to police for a number of reasons that may include fear or not wanting to identify themselves as a member of an identified group. In addition, some police officers may not recognize or choose to report a crime as a hate crime.^{Footnote 30}

Nearly one-half (8 of 18) of POLIS members and other stakeholders from academia and NGOs raised the issue of under-reporting of hate crime during interviews. When asked if the data could be improved, most interviewees (12 of 19) provided suggestions for improvements and these were often related to the need to help address the issue of under-reporting by officers. POLIS members interviewed discussed the lack of consistent reporting of hate crimes by police, and that, although the reporting was improving over time, there were still gaps. As one member of a police service noted: “there is still a perception among some [police officers] that, like how domestic abuse was once considered a family issue, hate crimes are issues to be dealt with by the community and not by police.”

As a result of under-reporting by victims and police, some stakeholders are sceptical about the numbers of police-reported hate crimes at present. This has affected the degree to which the data are seen as useful or informative. A few stakeholders interviewed indicated that, as a result of under-reporting, they did not have sufficient confidence in the data to draw conclusions about hate crime rates. As one member of a police service who had consulted the data noted, as a result of under-reporting “we do not know if what is reported is reflective of reality.” An academic researching hate crime similarly noted that “the data is just not there yet to tell us [the prevalence of hate crime] with complete confidence.”

Training undertaken by CCJS on hate crime reporting is seen as a means to help address under-reporting by police. The training provides information to help police officers recognize the signs of hate crime and promotes the benefits of reporting hate crime. As discussed in section 3.2.2 (Training and Tools for Police Services), interviewees and survey respondents believe that CCJS training was important to improve the consistency of police reporting and can effectively work to help diminish reporting gaps.

3.2.4. Awareness of Hate Crime data

Finding: CCJS has made the information produced by the Data Collection Strategy available through the Statistics Canada website and has publicized the data and its findings through participation in conferences and other events. Awareness of the information appears to be inconsistent.

Information from the Data Collection Strategy is made available primarily through the STC website, where an annual report on hate crime in Canada, the main information product, can be accessed by the public free of charge. In addition, statistical tables are available on the extranet site, and custom tabulations can be requested from STC at a cost. CCJS has also provided the annual hate crime reports directly to its contacts at POLIS and to other stakeholders who have an interest in the field through a distribution list it has developed. Finally, CCJS participated in 16 domestic and international conferences between 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 related to its work on hate crime collection and reporting. At these conferences, CCJS promotes the hate crime reports. CIC also conducted outreach to stakeholders at two Metropolis conferences in 2009 and 2010). Despite the promotional activities, target groups appear to vary in their level of awareness of the information.

While only three annual reports have been produced to date, the extent to which this information has been accessed has increased with each release. According to STC’s web traffic data, the 2006 report was downloaded 280 times, whereas the 2007 report was downloaded 1,400 times, which suggests an increased level of interest in the data.^{Footnote 31} Also, stakeholders interviewed for the evaluation demonstrated a fairly high level of awareness of the information products, with 15 of 19 stakeholders indicating they were aware of the products. It should be noted that the evaluators encountered difficulty with contacting academics that were aware of the Strategy and thus able to provide information on their awareness of the data it produced.

Police services surveyed were not very familiar with the data, with only 37% of respondents indicating that they were familiar with the information produced by STC on hate-motivated crime. Even among those who indicated that their police service reported hate crime data to CCJS, only 43% said they were familiar with the information products.

Of all those who were familiar with the information, the most commonly identified sources were the analytical reports (79%). Fewer were familiar with data tables and custom data requests (59%) or conference presentations (32%).

It should be noted that academics and those working in criminal justice are seen by CIC as the main target groups for the data, therefore it perhaps was not reasonable to expect the police services surveyed to be widely familiar with the data.

3.2.5. Use of Hate Crime data

Finding: The available data suggest that the information is generally considered to be useful by police services and stakeholders who have consulted it. Police services are using data as an analytical tool to inform their work, while CIC has used the data to inform its messaging, communications and policy work. Stakeholders reported that the data have increased their understanding of hate crime, although the data are not likely yet being used to its full potential. The use of the data will likely improve as more years of data are available.

The expected outcomes of the Strategy include, in the intermediate term, that stakeholders have an understanding of the nature and extent of hate-motivated crime in Canada, and, in the long-term, that stakeholders use their knowledge of hate-motivated crime to improve programs, policies and services, and to monitor the impacts of changes on this type of crime.

The extent to which these outcomes are being achieved was examined through interviews and the survey of police services. There are two major limitations to be considered. First, as discussed in Section 2.3 (Limitations and Considerations), the evaluation did not have access to a list of recipients of the information products produced by CCJS on hate crime. The interviews and survey of police services provided valuable sources of information on usage, but were not comprehensive. As such, the true extent of usage of the hate crime data could not be accurately gauged. Second, there have been only three annual reports on hate crime in Canada produced to date. As more years of information become available and trends over time in hate crime can be identified and studied, it is reasonable to assume that use of the information will also increase.

Improved understanding of Hate Crime

Among those police service survey respondents who were familiar with the information products produced by STC on hate-motivated crime, most (64%) agreed that the information had increased their understanding of hate-motivated crime. Just over one-half of the interviewees who had consulted the hate crime data (6 of 10) were positive on the extent to which they believed the data had improved their understanding of hate-motivated crime (i.e., rated the extent as a three or four, on a four-point scale). Four interviewees were negative in this respect (i.e., rated the extent as one or two on a four-point scale). These respondents explained that they lacked complete confidence in the data, were waiting for more years of data in order to identify trends, or that the information products had not been sufficiently timely to be useful for their purposes.

Use of data to improve programs, policies, services and to monitor the impact of changes on this type of crime

The evaluation identified few specific examples of changes to policies, programs or services that had been made as a result of the hate crime data. One interviewee noted that police services had adopted the standard, national definition of hate crime as a result of the Strategy. One respondent to the survey indicated that a unit specifically dedicated to hate-motivated crime had been developed as a result of their police service's participation in the initiative.

According to the program theory, the Data Collection Strategy is expected to result, in the long-term, in stakeholders “using their knowledge of hate-motivated crime to improve programs, policies and services”. However, the nature of knowledge transfer and mobilization is inherently complex and it may have been difficult for survey and interview respondents to directly link the information produced by the Data Collection Strategy to specific changes to policy, programs or services. However, it is generally considered sufficient evidence of utility if respondents indicate that information has increased their knowledge in a particular area or if they have used the data to inform policy and program development. Further, with only three years of data available, it is too early to expect the data to impact directly on changes to policies, programs and services.

Information from the interviews and survey showed that the information is being used to various extents and that different stakeholders are using the data for different purposes. Police service survey respondents who said they were familiar with the information products were asked if, to their knowledge, the information products had been put to use in their police service. About one-half of these respondents (47%) said it had been put to use. Among all survey respondents, then, 17% indicated that the information produced by STC had been put to use.

When asked how information had been used, more than half of survey respondents (9 of 16) indicated that the information had been used for analytical purposes. Examples included that the information had been used for a report to the Chief of Police, that it had informed the police service on trends in crime in the area, and that comparisons of hate crime rates had been made between areas. Two respondents indicated that the information had been used to make (unspecified) changes to programs or practices, while two others indicated the information had helped to inform the allocation of resources. Others mentioned that the information had informed police work, had been used for presentations and promotional work, and had been used to inform hate crime investigative training.

Most interviewed POLIS members and other stakeholders (11 of 13) indicated that they consulted the hate crime data. Many of these stakeholders indicated that they had consulted the information for information / research / reporting purposes (9 of 13) and to compare the rates of hate crime in their area with other areas (4 of 13). One member of POLIS indicated that the data produced had resulted in their police service undertaking more outreach in the gay and lesbian community.

Respondents from CIC mentioned that the information had been used to inform the Minister of CIC on hate crime issues and in ministerial communications, particularly related to anti-Semitism (including in the lead-up to the signing of the London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism). This was evidenced in specific references to the Data Collection Strategy statistics on anti-Semitic hate crime made by the Minister in recent speeches. CIC respondents also indicated that the data were used to inform policy work. In particular, the information was used to lead discussions with provincial/territorial partners and other participants in roundtable discussions on racism.

3.3. Alternatives

3.3.1. Alternative design/delivery approaches

Finding: The Data Collection Strategy’s data are the only available national source of police-reported hate crime statistics, although STC’s General Social Survey (GSS) compiles and reports on hate crime victimization. The evaluation found that Statistics Canada is a well-regarded delivery agent for the Data Collection Strategy and most stakeholders were supportive of its role in the initiative. Further, CCJS has demonstrated that it can meet its reporting and delivery requirements.

Other sources of Hate Crime data

The Data Collection Strategy is the only annual source of pan-Canadian police-reported hate-motivated crime data. It is one of two sources of hate crime statistics for Canada. STC also undertakes a regular survey of victimization through its GSS. The GSS is undertaken every five years and is based on personal accounts of hate crime, rather than hate crimes coming to the attention of police officers.^{Footnote 32} The GSS data and the police-reported hate crime data complement, rather than duplicate each other, as they examine data on hate crime from two different perspectives, using different approaches.

There are few other sources of related information and none are as comprehensive as the Strategy. The B’nai Brith, for example, collects and reports its own data on anti-Semitic hate crimes, based on incidents that are reported directly to the organization. Further, as noted by interviewees, other available sources are not subject to the same level of verification as that provided through STC.

Alternative delivery organizations

No credible alternatives to STC for delivering the Data Collection Strategy were identified in the evaluation. As previously discussed, while other organizations collect hate crime data related to specific communities (e.g., B’nai Brith related to the Jewish community), and some police services have long been collecting and reporting hate crime data for their own areas, there were no other organizations compiling, validating, and reporting comprehensive, national police-reported hate crime. In addition, CCJS provides the only training to support a nationally standardized approach to police-reporting of hate crime.

Responsibility for 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 the government of Canada. The hate crime data from the UCR 2.2 Survey form part of the larger data management system, which also includes basic crime data and new variables related to crime types such as organized crime, cyber-crime and others. CCJS’s current function as the centre for national crime statistics of all kinds complements the additional training, analysis, support and reporting undertaken through the Strategy.

There was strong support for STC’s role in the strategy by those interviewed. Interviewees were overwhelmingly supportive (19 of 21) of STC being responsible for delivering the program. A potential alternative mentioned by two interviewees was for the initiative to be delivered by community organizations. However, many interviewees noted that STC is the most objective, expert and credible organization to deliver the strategy. A few interviewees also noted that STC has the capacity and the positive pre-existing relationships with police services to effectively deliver the Strategy.

According to interviews with members of CIC’s Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, STC has also demonstrated that it can consistently meet its reporting and delivery commitments. The evaluation confirmed that CCJS submitted complete annual reporting of activities and outputs as part of its reporting requirements. For each fiscal year from 2005-2006 to 2008-2009, CCJS submitted year-end status reports to CIC as per the agreement between the two organizations and also submitted to the CAPAR Secretariat, the annual report required of all CAPAR-funded initiatives. Furthermore, CCJS has completed expected activities within the resources provided by CIC for the Data Collection Strategy.

Cost of current delivery

As discussed in Section 1.2.2 (Delivery Approach), CCJS received $1.66 million for the Data Collection Strategy over a five-year period. This is an average annual cost of $332,100.

Note that the LOAs in place between CIC and STC do not require CCJS to provide any reporting of its actual costs to deliver the Strategy, and as such, that information was not available for the evaluation. It is therefore not known to what extent the amount of funding provided has been appropriate relative to the actual costs required to deliver the Strategy. However, based on the information gathered from the evaluation, the costs to CIC appear to be reasonable given the level of activities and outputs undertaken by CCJS. Also, given the fact that UCR 2.2 is an existing data collection system, there are no costs associated with the actual collection of the hate crime data, which makes the Data Collection Strategy more cost-effective. Further, information provided by CCJS indicates that the funding provided for the Strategy allows for the administration of the supplemental survey, analysis of the data collected, and the delivery of training to police services. The supplemental survey and the training in particular have contributed to the completeness and consistency of the hate crime data, and may have not otherwise been undertaken.

• Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7 (current)
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• Next