Aboriginal Justice Strategy, Summative Evaluation

2. Description of the Aboriginal Justice Strategy


2. Description of the Aboriginal Justice Strategy

This section of the report describes the AJS. It discusses the policy context relating to the Strategy and describes its program logic, its management structure, and its financial resources.

2.1. Context

The AJS is one component of the federal government's response to the well-documented fact that a disproportionate number of Aboriginal people are in conflict with the law. A recent account of this problem came from the Correctional Investigator, who reported that the incarceration rate for Aboriginal people is still approximately 10 times higher than the rate for non-Aboriginal persons:

“Aboriginals account for a disproportionate share of the prison population. They represent 18 per cent of the federal prison population although they account for just 3 per cent of the general Canadian population. (…) [T]he best estimate of the overall incarceration rate for Aboriginal People in Canada is 1,024 per 100,000 adults. Using the same methodology, the comparable incarceration rate for non-Aboriginal persons is 117 per 100,000 adults.”[3]

In previous years, numerous studies have documented the problematic relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the mainstream justice system. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples issued a particularly disturbing conclusion on this issue:

“The Canadian criminal justice system has failed the Aboriginal peoples of Canada – First Nations, Inuit and Métis people, on-reserve and off-reserve, urban and rural – in all territorial and governmental jurisdictions. The principal reason for this crushing failure is the fundamentally different world views of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people with respect to such elemental issues as the substantive content of justice and the process of achieving justice.”[4]

The Supreme Court of Canada also emphasized the far-reaching consequences of maintaining Aboriginal offenders in a system that largely fails to serve and rehabilitate them:

“Not surprisingly, the excessive imprisonment of aboriginal people is only the tip of the iceberg insofar as the estrangement of the aboriginal peoples from the Canadian criminal justice system is concerned. As this Court recently noted (…), there is widespread bias against aboriginal people within Canada, and “[t]here is evidence that this widespread racism has translated into systemic discrimination in the criminal justice system.”

(…) These findings cry out for recognition of the magnitude and gravity of the problem, and for responses to alleviate it. The figures are stark and reflect what may fairly be termed a crisis in the Canadian criminal justice system.”[5]

Other related developments were specific amendments to the Criminal Code that Parliament adopted in 1995 to deal with diversion and sentencing:

In sum, both the funding provided to community-based justice programs and the changes to the Criminal Code reflect a desire to divert, when applicable and reasonable, offenders from the mainstream justice system, and to consider a variety of sanctions other than imprisonment when offenders—and particularly Aboriginal offenders—do end-up in the mainstream justice system.

It is in this context that the Department of Justice has been funding community-based justice programs for the past 16 years, including the past five years under the current AJS funding allocation that is the object of this evaluation.

2.2. Program logic

The AJS supports a range of activities that are expected to contribute to the achievement of specific policy goals. This section describes the AJS' program logic and is based on the model included as Figure 1 on page 9.

2.2.1. Program goals and objectives

The AJS pursues objectives that relate both to the administration of justice within Aboriginal communities and to the administration of the mainstream justice system. More specifically, the AJS pursues three objectives:

2.2.2. Program activities and outputs

The AJS includes six program components that can be grouped into two categories, namely community-based activities, which are supported through contribution agreements, and support measures, which are carried out internally within the Department of Justice.

Community-based activities
Support measures

2.2.3. Expected impacts

Activities listed in the preceding subsection are expected to contribute to the achievement of the following initial outcomes:

The AJS activities are also expected to contribute to the achievement of three intermediate outcomes:

Finally, the AJS activities are expected to contribute to the achievement of three long-term outcomes:

Figure 1, Logic Model - Aboriginal Justice Strategy

2.3. Organizational structure

During the first four years of the current AJS funding allocation (2002-03 to 2005-06), the Aboriginal Justice Directorate managed all components of the AJS. In June 2006, the Department of Justice realigned the AJS management structure as follows:

Figure 2, AJS Management Structure

2.4. Resources

When the federal government first launched the AJS in 1996, it allocated $4.5 million annually to the program, a figure that increased to $8.6 million annually by the end of the first funding allocation in 2000-01. While it initially allocated $11.5 million annually to AJS in the current funding allocation, the federal government applied budget-reallocation and adjustments to the AJS such that the program's actual allocation has been varying between $9.4 and $10.3 annually (see Table 1 for details).

Table 1 : AJS funding allocation

Both the Department of Justice and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada allocate funding to the AJS. The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada contributes $2 million annually while the Department of Justice contributes the remaining portion.

The Department of Justice allocates most of its AJS funds to the funding of community-based justice programs. In 2005-06, close to 70 percent of the total AJS funding went to support such programs, which provincial and territorial governments also support through direct funding or in-kind contributions.