Access to Justice Services Agreements Evaluation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Background

Since 1997, the federal government and the three territories (Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon) have entered into Access to Justice Services Agreements (AJAs) that provide federal support for legal aid[1], Aboriginal Courtwork (ACW)[2] and public legal education and information (PLEI)[3] services in each territory. These agreements replaced individual agreements for each of the aforementioned program components.

The most recent evaluations of the Legal Aid Program (LAP), the ACW Program, and the Justice Partnership and Innovation Program (JPIP) (which provides funding to PLEI organizations in each of the provinces) establish the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and economy of these funding programs. The primary purpose of the AJA evaluation is to consider these results in light of the territorial context, as well as to examine the relevance and performance of the consolidated agreement as an alternative to three separate funding agreements. The evaluation primarily covers the period from 2006/07 to 2010/11.

2. Methodology

The methodology of the AJA evaluation consisted of document and file reviews, site visits and key informant interviews. A review of program-related documents, including AJA terms and conditions, the AJA Evaluation Framework and research studies regarding legal aid, ACW and PLEI in the territories was conducted. AJA program files, including administrative files, correspondence, meeting minutes, and work plans and reports were reviewed. Additionally, the available annual claims from each territory for the fiscal years covered by the evaluation were reviewed. Site visits to each of the territorial capitals provided the opportunity to observe first-hand service delivery in each jurisdiction in order to better understand the context in which the territories operate. In total, 32 interviews were conducted with various AJA stakeholders.

3. Findings

3.1.Relevance

There is a continued need to provide funding to the territories for legal aid, ACW services and PLEI activities, and the consolidated agreement meets a need that would not otherwise be met with three separate funding agreements.

The program evaluations for LAP, ACW and JPIP (which provides funding to PLEI organizations in each of the provinces) establish the need for each of these national programs. Due to the size and remote nature of their jurisdictions, an alternative approach to the funding of these programs is warranted in the territories. With a consolidated agreement, territorial governments have a greater service delivery flexibility, which is considered a necessity due to their relatively smaller, more remote populations. This flexibility is critical, since the lines between legal aid and ACW and PLEI services are not as clearly drawn in all three territories as they are in the provinces. Additionally, the consolidation of the contribution agreements offers the potential for administrative efficiencies and cost savings to the territories.

There is alignment between the roles and responsibilities of the federal government and the provision of funding to the territories for legal aid, ACW and PLEI services.

The federal government has a role to play in the provision of criminal and civil legal aid, ACW and PLEI funding to the territories, as access to justice is a shared responsibility between the federal and territorial governments. Further, funding for legal aid, ACW and PLEI services enables the federal government to “ensure that Canada is a just and law-abiding society with an accessible, efficient and fair system of justice”, as articulated in the Department of Justice’s mission statement.

Taking a specialized approach to the provision of this funding to the territories is aligned with the priorities of the federal government.

The federal priorities of “promoting social and economic development in the North”, and of “improving and devolving northern governance so that Northerners have a greater say in their own destiny” are delineated in Canada’s Northern Strategy. As pointed out by AJA stakeholders, the federal government has demonstrated its commitment to the North by establishing agreements which allow for a flexible approach to be taken in the delivery of legal aid, ACW and PLEI services that recognizes the contexts and circumstances that are unique to each of the three territories.

3.2. Effectiveness

Without the federal contribution, the capacity of the territories to deliver criminal and civil legal aid and ACW and PLEI services would be significantly affected. Key informants acknowledged the importance of the federal funding to support these initiatives.

The delivery of criminal legal aid is effectively providing territorial residents with the assistance they need to ensure a fair and accessible justice system. Stakeholders identified gaps in the provision of civil legal aid in the territories.

The minimum standards for legal aid – both criminal and civil – are met in all three territories. However, the increasingly high costs of legal services in the territories do impede the jurisdictions from providing assistance in all the areas for which there is demand, and gaps in the areas of family law and civil matters were noted.

The effectiveness of ACW services in the territories varies by jurisdiction and depends on the capacity of the individual courtworkers. However, stakeholders agree that the Program is operating as effectively as possible within the constraints inherent in each delivery model, and that Aboriginal accused greatly benefit from the services provided.

The minimum standards regarding the provision of courtworkers services are being met in the territories. Aboriginal courtworkers bridge the gap between Aboriginal accused and the justice system that is even more heavily felt in the territories than in the rest of Canada. The level of effectiveness of the services depends on the individual courtworkers providing the services, and challenges to the effective management of the ACW component, such as high turnover rates and isolation, impede some territories’ ability to deliver a program that is consistent from community to community.

PLEI activities, when undertaken, are done in a manner appropriate to the context of the North. Officials recognize that more activities could be done, but are reluctant to designate funds to this area at the expense of providing legal aid to residents facing possible incarceration.

As PLEI is generally delivered in an informal way by the same people who provide legal aid and ACW services in two of the territories, it is difficult to quantify the number of PLEI activities that are undertaken or to establish their impacts. However, this alternative delivery approach is appropriate given the realities of the North, and territorial governments and/or service delivery agencies find innovative ways of providing PLEI services to residents despite challenges such as multiple official languages, high distribution costs and low levels of Internet accessibility.

There is general agreement among Program stakeholders that the consolidated agreement is a better alternative to separate funding agreements.

Interview respondents agreed that the consolidated agreement recognizes the unique context of the territories, providing them with the flexibility to deliver the services appropriately. In some instances, the provision of legal aid, ACW and PLEI services is coordinated by one body, and delineating the resources and time spent between the three program components is not always feasible. In other instances, where not all of the budgeted resources in a specific program area are able to be spent, the AJA flexibility allows territorial officials to use the funds in one of the other program components rather than lapsing resources.

Further, territorial officials recognize the administrative efficiencies achieved as a result of completing one annual claim instead of three. Some respondents also noted the benefit of their having a single point of contact within Justice Canada.

Territorial officials noted various obstacles to effective performance measurement and to the completion of audited financial statements. As a result, the submission of annual claims can be delayed.

Although there are varying degrees of performance measurement capacity in each of the territories, officials from all three territories agree that there is room for improvement in this area. Based on interview comments, the expense and time required to complete an audit of financial statements present the greatest challenge; however, other factors such as inconsistent data collection methods and high staff turnover also contribute to the difficulty in collecting the required financial and performance data.

3.3. Efficiency and Economy

The AJAs are economical and efficient. All stakeholders agree that a reduction in federal funding would result in a reduction in services.

The LAP, ACW and JPIP evaluations all conclude that these programs are efficient and economical.

A certain level of economy is achieved at the departmental level as a result of the consolidated agreements. Interviewees from Justice Canada highlighted the financial benefit directly realized by having one agreement to negotiate with each of the territories instead of three, as well as having only one claim to review from each territory. At the territorial level, officials underlined the administrative efficiencies obtained by having one consolidated agreement in the place of three. For the most part, efficiencies are achieved as a direct result of the efforts made by the territorial governments and/or service delivery agencies to maximize the impacts of legal aid, ACW and PLEI services within the current funding levels.