Thank you, Mr. Chair, and there is a lot to unpack there. I am going to do my best, but I certainly would welcome follow-up questions as well. First, I think I have to challenge the notion that the department was unwilling to work with the coalition. I think we are very appreciative of our community partners, but I think there might be a bit of a disconnect. We do commend our community partners for their commitment to addressing this issue, but I think where there might be a bit of a disconnect is in the department's recognition that this is not a program that will fix all family violence issues or even is appropriate for all offenders and men who use violence in their intimate relationships. It is a program that is very specific, is designed for men of a certain risk profile, and cannot be the solution to all of our family violence programs or issues. It is not a one size fits all solution.
I think what we hear our partners saying is they are looking for additional supports and additional avenues to address all aspects of family violence, and we agree. We are happy to work with any community partner with a proposal that could be complimentary and that could tackle some of these related issues perhaps in another way, perhaps for a different segment of the population with a different risk profile. But when we talk about A New Day, when the department talks about A New Day, it is talking about that very specific curriculum and very specific program, and our challenge was really to do the best we can with that program and the resources that we have available.
I would suggest we did not make any significant changes apart from focusing the administration to make sure that we get the best results possible, and we did look at the evaluation very carefully. We are also informed by our experience delivering the program and looked at what needed to be improved. Clearly, we recognize that outreach is one component, but if you look at the number of men who were made aware of the program, very few actually enrolled in the program and made the commitment to do the work required. We think, frankly, there are better ways to connect men with the services that they need. That tells us that a very small number of the men who were made aware of the program felt it was the appropriate program for them or maybe they were not ready at that time. The new program designed does offer the opportunity in that structured assessment phase to connect people with different supports, and we hope that leads to improved outcomes.
Certainly, one of the biggest changes was that modularity, that flexibility to recognize that we need to deliver it in a more flexible model, so we did focus on that change. As I mentioned, we are very willing to work with community partners. I think there has been some disappointment expressed that the department didn't go to the coalition to discuss the changes. I think it has to be appreciated, at the balance, the need for and the potential benefit for further input, with the reality that we had a pretty clear understanding of what changes needed to be made. Again, we are not saying this is the program that is going to fix everything. We do recognize that there are going to be continued conversations required, but we also had to balance the need to have a fair procurement process, as well. It wouldn't have been appropriate for us to talk about things that would show up in an RFP, which is a select group of organizations recognizing that that might create some unfairness to other potential proponents who aren't members of that organization. I think it is also fair to note that not every member of the coalition supported that letter. Thank you, Mr. Chair.