Department of Justice Canada Client Feedback Survey

PDF version

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


Date modified: