Department of Justice Canada Client Feedback Survey

• [ Previous Page |
• Table of Contents ]

Other Findings of Interest

Awareness of Service Standards

The draft Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) Policy Framework for Service notes that the identification and communication of service standards is an important element in an overall service quality strategy. As part of the Department of Justice Client Feedback Survey, respondents were asked whether to their knowledge the Department of Justice had mutually agreed upon service standards for the delivery of legal services to their department.

Approximately 39 per cent of respondents who had used legal services in the preceding 12 months identified that they were aware of service standards, while about one in ten respondents indicated there were no service standards in place. Just over one half of the respondents indicated that they did not know if there were service standards.⁴

When this survey was first launched in 2006, there were locally driven service standards with some departments and in some regional offices across the country. However, the Department did not have a set of consistent service standards for the delivery of legal services that were applicable to all government departments and agencies.

In 2008-09, the Department developed a set of common service standards that has been rolled out across the country and is being incorporated into Memoranda of Understanding between the Department of Justice and client departments for the provision of legal services.

Understanding of Key Legal Risks

Legal risk management is an important element of managing ongoing operations and the development of new policy, program and service delivery initiatives across government. Responsibility for legal risk management is shared between the Department of Justice and its client departments and agencies. The Department plays an important role in developing tools, demonstrating leadership and providing client departments with advice and assistance in identifying and mitigating key legal risks. Client departments are responsible for the day-to-day management of their legal risks as part of an integrated risk management framework.

To gain a better sense of the context within which legal risk management is occurring across government, the survey asked respondents to self-assess their levels of understanding of the key legal risks facing their departments.

Approximately two thirds of the respondents (65%) self-assessed their levels of understanding of the key legal risks as “good” or “very good”. A further 23 per cent of respondents self-assessed their levels of understanding as “fair”. The remaining 12 per cent of respondents indicated that they were unable to assess their levels of understanding or self-assessed their levels of understanding as “poor”.

The Department should continue to assist client departments in raising levels of awareness across government on some of the key legal risks that they are facing. A good client understanding of key legal risks will ensure that decision-makers are able to factor the legal implications into their chosen courses of action in delivering policies, programs and services to Canadians.

Conclusion

The findings from this the first full cycle of the client feedback survey have permitted the Department to establish baseline measures of client satisfaction with the integrated suite of legal services provided across government. These baseline measures demonstrate that the Department is meeting client expectations and needs.

In general, the client feedback shows that the Department is meeting or surpassing the performance target established prior to the launch of the project. There were no areas where client feedback demonstrates the need for concerted management attention.

Nevertheless, there are some areas where performance falls slightly below the targets. The survey findings demonstrate the Department’s commitment to providing high quality legal services to support government. A second cycle of surveys will be implemented beginning in October 2009. This second cycle will provide the Department and our clients with a means for tracking any changes over time.

Annex A - Response Rates by Portfolio and Department/Agency

Portfolio / Department / Agency	Population	Response Rate5	Users of Services6	Period7	Target Population
1. Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio	1,458	349 (24%)	244 (70%)	Sept 2006	EX minus two and above levels
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada	1,458	349 (24%)	244 (70%)
2. Business and Regulatory Law Portfolio	10,611	3,157 (30%)	1,930 (61%)	Feb. 2007	EX minus one and above levels
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada	1,030	307 (30%)	125 (41%)
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency	129	37 (29%)	23 (62%)
Canadian Food Inspection Agency	355	88 (25%)	78 (89%)
Canadian Heritage	360	171 (48%)	111 (65%)
Canadian International Development Agency	316	98 (31%)	59 (60%)
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission	109	53 (49%)	41 (77%)
Canadian Space Agency	166	73 (44%)	51 (70%)
Quebec Region Economic Development Agency	93	25 (27%)	21 (84%)
Environment Canada	961	237 (25%)	166 (70%)
Department of Fisheries and Oceans	909	220 (24%)	143 (65%)
Foreign Affairs and International Trade	820	109 (13%)	70 (64%)
Health Canada	1,100	324 (29%)	194 (60%)
Industry Canada	1,017	373 (37%)	255 (68%)
Natural Resources Canada	1,034	286 (28%)	127 (44%)
Parks Canada	183	73 (40%)	47 (64%)
Public Works and Government Services Canada	751	165 (22%)	92 (56%)
Human Resources Development Canada	525	253 (48%)	159 (63%)
Transport Canada	611	213 (35%)	132 (62%)
Veterans Affairs	142	52 (37%)	36 (69%)
3. Public Safety, Defence and Immigration Portfolio	4,745	1,689 (36%)	697 (41%)	Feb 2007 to March 2009	EX minus one and above levels
Citizenship and Immigration	400	125 (31%)	89 (71%)	June 2007
Canada Border Services Agency	402	105 (26%)	66 (63%)	June 2007
Correctional Service of Canada	338	145 (43%)	84 (58%)	June 2007
National Parole Board	59	31 (53%)	19 (61%)	June 2007
Public Safety Canada	142	51 (36%)	27 (53%)	June 2007
Department of National Defence	2,169	894 (41%)	210 (23%)	Sept 2008
RCMP	1,100	272 (25%)	149 (55%)	Mar 2009
Communications Security Establishment	135	66 (49%)	53 (80%)	Feb 2007
4. Tax Law Services Portfolio	484	336 (69%)	201 (60%)	Feb 2008	EC-01 to EC-06
Canadian Revenue Agency	484	336 (69%)	201 (60%)
5. Central Agencies Portfolio	2,164	951 (44%)	490 (52%)	Sept. 2008 to Jan. 2009	EX minus two and above levels
Finance – General Law Services	296	124 (42%)	68 (55%)	Sept 2008
Finance – Tax Counsel Division	87	38 (44%)	27 (71%)	Sept 2008
Financial Consumer Agency of Canada	21	9 (43%)	5 (56%)	Sept 2008
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada	230	72 (31%)	31 (43%)	Sept 2008
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions of Canada	315	139 (44%)	56 (40%)	Sept 2008
Treasury Board Portfolio (TBS, CSPS)	929	408 (44%)	225 (55%)	Sept 2008
Public Service Commission	286	161 (56%)	78 (48%)	Jan 2009
Total	19,462	6,482 (33%)	3,562 (55%)

Annex B - Profile of Respondents Who Had Used Legal Services in Preceding 12 Months

Classification

	Number	Percentage
EX	1,587	45%
Non-EX	1,975	55%

Level

	Number	Percentage
ADM or DM	100	3%
Director or DG	1,487	42%
Other	1,975	55%

Location

	Number	Percentage
National Capital Region	2,686	75%
Regions	876	25%

Type of Services Received ^*

	Number	Percentage
Legal Advisory	3,365	95%
Litigation (non-criminal)	695	20%
Legislative and/or Regulatory Drafting	752	21%

^{* Respondents could select more than one type of legal service}

---

• ⁴ Of particular interest, survey respondents who indicated that they were aware of service standards were in general the most satisfied with the legal services provided by the Department of Justice.

• ⁵ Number of respondents having completed and returned a questionnaire. Response rates are presented in brackets.

• ⁶ “Users of Services” represents the number and percentage of respondents who indicated having used DoJ services at least once in the 12 months preceding the survey.

• ⁷ Period during which the survey was conducted.

• [ Previous Page |
• Table of Contents ]