Aboriginal Courtwork Program, Formative Evaluation
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
The purpose of this formative evaluation of the Aboriginal Courtwork (ACW) Program was to determine if the program is being implemented as intended and whether the performance information required for the summative evaluation is being collected.The primary audiences for this study are the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Tripartite Working Group (TWG) of the ACW Program. This report is a Treasury Board requirement.
1.1. Program Profile
The ACW Program began in the early 1960s to help meet the unique justice challenges of Aboriginal people. Federal financial support began in 1969, and by 1978, the ACW Program was a permanent cost-shared program between the federal, provincial and territorial governments. ACW programs currently operate in eight provinces (all but P.E.I. and New Brunswick) and all three territories. The cost-shared arrangements are set out in multi-year Aboriginal courtwork contribution agreements in the provinces and Access to Justice Services Agreements in the territories.. The Program is guided by the Tripartite Working Group, which serves as a forum to address program and operational issues.
Where the ACW program exists, all Aboriginal people (First Nation, Inuit or Métis) are eligible for courtworker services, regardless of status, age or residency. Since 1987; the program also provides services to Aboriginal youth.In most jurisdictions, ACW services are provided by Aboriginal Service Delivery Agencies (SDAs) under contract or agreement with the provincial and territorial (P/T) governments.
The ACW Program seeks to ensure that Aboriginal people charged with criminal offences receive fair, equitable and culturally sensitive treatment before the criminal justice system.To accomplish this objective, SDAs:
- provide non-legal advice and information to Aboriginal accused and their family members information at the earliest possible stage of the criminal justice process;
- refer Aboriginal accused to appropriate legal resources at key stages of the justice process (e.g., arrest, trial, sentencing);
- refer Aboriginal accused to appropriate community resources, including alcohol, drug and family counselling, and educational, employment and medical services, to ensure Aboriginal accused have help addressing the underlying problems that have contributed to their criminal behaviour or problems that have led to the laying of criminal charges. Where appropriate, advocate for services to Aboriginal accused and ensure that those services are delivered;
- provide assistance, as appropriate, to other Aboriginal persons involved in the criminal justice process;
- promote practical, community-based justice initiatives, and work with other agencies to build community capacity to address problems that could end up in the courts or in a community justice system;
- serve as a liaison between criminal justice officials and Aboriginal people and communities by advocating for Aboriginal accused and promoting communications and understanding; and
- prepare and accompany the accused to court, and in their role as a “Friend of the Court” assist Legal Aid lawyers, Crown prosecutors, other court officials and judges.
2. Methodology
The evaluation issues were:
- To what extent has the ACW Program been implemented as intended?
- Has the ongoing performance measurement strategy been implemented so that the necessary data will be available for the summative evaluation to be conducted in 2007-08?
To address these issues, three evaluation methods were used:a document review, 31 in-depth interviews (with DOJ representatives, P/T representatives, SDA representatives, and community justice officials), and a survey of 130 courtworkers.
3. Key Findings and Conclusions
3.1. Implementation and Delivery
- Several service delivery models are used by jurisdictions, but the common features are that delivery is Aboriginal-led and community-based.
- The P/T contribution agreements are flexible enough to meet the jurisdictions' objectives and priorities. The recent increase in federal funding helped alleviate some of the immediate pressures on the courtworker program.
- The provinces are not submitting the workplans or interim financial reports on time because of capacity challenges and competing priorities.
- The territorial representatives face challenges collecting the required statistical information due to the limited capacity of the SDAs in the North.
- The audit requirements are being implemented by the Department and are on track to be met.
- The mandate of the Tripartite Working Group (TWG) is clear and relevant, but the TWG is not fully meeting its mandate. Its annual priorities are too ambitious, and as a result some priorities are not yet complete.Although some participants value the information-sharing component of the TWG meetings, most feel that the TWG does not encourage equal participation by all members. They also suggest the annual meetings would benefit from more active P/T involvement in setting the agenda and discussing the issues.
- The TWG Steering Committee (SC) is currently not an effective mechanism for accomplishing or guiding the work of the TWG.Its mandate, role and decision-making authority are not documented or clear to the TWG or TWG SC members.
- The objectives of the ACW Program are clear to the key parties involved in the program, as are the roles and responsibilities of the courtworkers, P/Ts, SDAs, and DOJ.
- Overall, courtworkers are satisfied with the way in which the services are delivered in their jurisdictions.
- Courtworkers have successfully established relationships between community justice programs and the formal justice system.
- The national training initiatives have been useful and appreciated, but more training is needed on a range of topics, including the changing roles of the courtworker and new developments in the law.
3.2. Performance Measurement
- With the exception of some definitional issues (e.g., the definition of client), meeting the requirements for core measures 1 to 6 does not appear problematic.Most courtworkers reported that they have regularly been providing this data to their SDAs.
- Most P/T officials foresee problems with core performance measures 7 to 12, which are related to the client and judiciary surveys.Pilots of the surveys are underway in B.C., Nova Scotia and Alberta but P/T officials and SDAs are concerned about the capacity of the smaller SDAs to conduct the surveys, especially without any additional resources or training. In addition, several issues need to be addressed, including the protection of clients' privacy, the appropriateness of courtworkers collecting information from their own clients, the potential negative bias towards the program from clients displeased with the outcome of their case, low literacy and response rates and the impact on courtworkers' workload in the absence of additional funding.
- There are also concerns that the performance measurement requirements are the same for all SDAs, regardless of the amount of funding they receive, their size, or their capacity.
- Date modified: