Aboriginal Justice Strategy, Summative Evaluation

5. Conclusions and Lessons Learned

• 5.1.  Program relevance
• 5.2.  Design and delivery
• 5.3.  Success
• 5.4.  Cost-effectiveness and alternatives

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

5. Conclusions and Lessons Learned

This final section of the report presents conclusions and lessons learned based on the findings presented in the previous sections. The information is structured along the evaluation issues and questions that are included in Appendix A.

5.1. Program relevance

1. To what extent are the stated objectives of the AJS still relevant to Aboriginal

The three stated objectives of the AJS are:

• To assist Aboriginal people to assume greater responsibility for the administration of justice in their communities;
• To reflect and include Aboriginal values within the Canadian justice system; and
• Over the long term, along with other justice programs, contribute to a decrease in the rate of victimization, crime and incarceration among Aboriginal people in communities operating AJS programs.

A disproportionate number of Aboriginal people are still in conflict with the law. They are over-represented in correctional facilities, and the rates of crimes and victimization in Aboriginal communities are still well over those found in non-Aboriginal communities. AJS programs represent an alternative to the mainstream justice system as they effectively reflect Aboriginal beliefs and values.

Multiple government initiatives, including programs like the AJS and changes to the Criminal Code with respect to sentencing and alternative measures, have contributed to reflecting and including Aboriginal values within the Canadian justice system. Despite this progress, there continues to be fundamental differences between the notion of justice among Aboriginal communities and in the mainstream justice system. These differences may contribute to the problem of over-representation of Aboriginal people in the justice system and as such, it remains important for the AJS, along with other programs and initiatives, to continue to make progress toward attaining this over-arching and longer term AJS goal.

To what extent are the objectives of the AJS still relevant to the federal policy and program priorities?

The federal government has repeatedly acknowledged the problems that Aboriginal communities face when it comes to enforcing Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal laws and also to address criminal and non-criminal conflicts, as well as the importance of having Aboriginal communities directly involved in the administration of justice in their communities. In that sense, the AJS is still relevant to federal policy and program priorities. Furthermore, the program directly supports the federal government's efforts to implement self-government agreements in Aboriginal communities.

5.2. Design and delivery

2. Has the AJD implemented effective and clear procedures for selecting projects funded through contribution agreements (community-based initiatives, training and development initiatives, and self-government capacity building initiatives)?

Under the current AJS funding allocation, federal, provincial and territorial governments have selected few new community-based justice programs. When they did select new projects, respective governments jointly reviewed the existing proposals and reached a joint decision on which new program to fund. They did not issue calls for proposals in order to avoid creating large expectations among the Aboriginal communities. In that sense, the process has proven to be efficient, but restrictive.

Regional coordinators and program analysts with the Aboriginal Justice Directorate have worked in collaboration with the provincial and territorial governments and the Aboriginal communities to select training and development initiatives and self-government capacity-building initiatives. Since the vast majority of these projects have served communities that already have community-based justice programs, it appears that the selection process was also largely focussed on continuing to serve these communities, instead of serving the communities that are planning to implement new programs.

Due to the cost-shared, partnership-based nature of the AJS, decisions on how to select new programs cannot be made unilaterally by the AJD and will need to involve provincial, territorial and Aboriginal partners.

Specific details on this new funding component, including funding criteria and a communications strategy, will be developed in fiscal year 2007-08 in collaboration with AJS partners, including provinces, territories and Aboriginal communities.

Recommendation 1

Should the AJD seek funding to expand the reach of the AJS, AJD should consider implementing measures so the selection of new programs is done in a more formalized and accessible manner.

Recommendation 2

The AJD should take measures so communities that can benefit from training and development initiatives—particularly those communities that are planning to implement a new program—are aware that support is available and can access it.

3. Does the AJD provide effective management to oversee the funding awarded through contribution agreements? Does the AJD have the required tools and procedures to ensure proper accountability and performance measurement?

Through its regional coordinators and program analysts, the Aboriginal Justice Directorate is particularly involved in the daily management of projects funded through contribution agreements. The only exception to this are projects in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, where the Aboriginal Justice Directorate has signed flow-through agreements. Both the Aboriginal communities managing AJS programs and their provincial and territorial partners appreciate the support provided by these regional coordinators.

At this point, tools and procedures for performance measurement vary across regions, particularly as a result of provincial and territorial reporting requirements that also vary among jurisdictions. When combined with the challenges experienced by Aboriginal communities in meeting some of their reporting requirements, these variations still make it challenging to provide a national picture of what the AJS is supporting and achieving.

Participating AJS communities will be able to apply for funding under the new “Capacity Building” component for resources for training initiatives on improved program reporting.

Recommendation 3

The AJD, in collaboration with provincial, territorial, and Aboriginal partners, should implement measures so that, at a minimum, a set of core performance indicators from the community-based justice programs can be systematically collected and reported upon at a national level. As part of these measures, AJD should enhance the capacity of those programs to report on relevant performance measures.

4. Are the activities described in the contribution agreements carried out as required by the contribution agreements?

Since both the Aboriginal Justice Directorate and the provincial and territorial governments closely monitor (through both formal and informal means) the implementation of the AJS programs, they are in a position to determine whether contribution agreements are carried out as required and no significant concerns have emerged during the consultations. It should be noted that, in the cases of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, where flow-through agreements have been signed, the territories have primary responsibility for the administration of contribution agreements and share all relevant program information with the Aboriginal Justice Directorate.

5. Are the roles and responsibilities among all parties involved in contribution agreements clearly defined and understood?

The roles and responsibilities among all parties involved are generally well-defined and understood. This evaluation has found that federal, provincial and territorial partners do play a complementary role in supporting the implementation of the AJS programs. The fact that the Department of Justice has been funding community-based justice programs for the past 16 years (through the Aboriginal Justice Initiative and the AJS) has allowed partners to gain experience and effectively define their roles.

6. Are the activities carried-out internally within the AJD (policy development and support, Outreach and Partnerships, and Self-government negotiation support) delivered effectively?

7. Are the roles and responsibilities of those involved in the delivery of activities carried out internally within the AJD clearly defined and understood?

As a result of the June 2006 realignment of roles and responsibilities, the Aboriginal Law and Strategic Policy group leads the policy development and support functions, in collaboration with the AJD. At this point, it is too early to assess the full impact of that realignment.

Furthermore, funding cutbacks to the Outreach and Partnerships component have largely brought that program component to a halt. The current level of resources assigned to it makes it unlikely that it will achieve any significant outcomes.

The self-government negotiation support is a conventional advisory role that legal counsel within the Department of Justice are expected to fulfill. This program component appears to be effectively delivered.

8. To what extent have the recommendations from the formative evaluation been implemented?

The recommendations from the 2005 formative evaluation of the AJS have only been partially implemented. Since the formative evaluation report was finalized, the AJS has been largely focussing on maintaining existing programs and preparing the renewal process. It has had neither the time nor the resources to implement significant changes to the program.

5.3. Success

9. To what extent are alternative measures and other related services made available in Aboriginal communities as a result of AJS?

This evaluation has found that program reach represents the greatest challenge to the achievement of the AJS's expected outcomes at any large scale. Only a fraction of Aboriginal offenders have access to the AJS programs. While these programs are generally having a positive impact on those individuals who access them, many more Aboriginal offenders, who would benefit from such programs, are sent into the mainstream system, often triggering the negative consequences that have been documented over the years.

How are Aboriginal communities fairing in administrating and enforcing Aboriginal laws?

The AJS has a limited role in allowing Aboriginal communities to administer and enforce Aboriginal laws and Band by-laws. It must nonetheless be noted that AJS programs could technically be used to enforce Aboriginal laws and Band by-laws. In this sense, it is important to recognize that the AJS programs are not limited to dealing with Aboriginal individuals who have committed a criminal offence.

Recommendation 4

Should the AJD secure additional funding for AJS renewal, increasing the number of, and participation in, community-based justice programs should be a funding priority.

10. To what extent has the AJS fostered a coordinated approach to addressing issues facing Aboriginal people (within DOJ, and with other federal departments, provinces and territories)? Has the AJD taken a leadership role in coordinating an integrated approach to addressing issues facing Aboriginal people?

There is an expectation that both the Aboriginal Justice Directorate and the Aboriginal Law Strategic Policy Group will play a leadership role in coordinating activities that relate to the implementation of community-based justice programs across Canada. There is no expectation, however, that these two groups will coordinate an integrated approach to addressing all issues facing Aboriginal people, and this view is consistent with their established mandate.

Both resource limitations and a relatively high staff turnover, particularly at the management level, within the Aboriginal Justice Directorate have limited its ability to fully coordinate provincial, territorial and federal efforts in relation to the implementation of community-based justice programs. Provincial and territorial partners have expressed a desire to have the Directorate play a more active role in that area in the future.

The Aboriginal Law and Strategic Planning unit, in collaboration with the AJD, will also enhance effective partnerships at the federal level through the establishment of a Director General level working group. Examples of areas where the AJD can build on partnerships and improve horizontality under the renewed AJS mandate include federal partners such as Aboriginal Policing (Public Safety Canada), Aboriginal Corrections (Public Safety Canada) and the Urban Aboriginal Strategy (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada).

Recommendation 5

The AJD should take measures to increase the level of coordination of provincial, territorial, and federal efforts in relation to the implementation of community-based justice programs.

11.  To what extent has the AJS fostered relationships between community-based programs and the mainstream justice system?

12.  Has the work of the AJS had an impact on the attitudes of justice personnel working in the mainstream system?

Communities that do have community-based programs generally also benefit from the support of mainstream justice personnel. Where challenges exist, they appear to predominantly result from staff turnover among police officers or prosecutors. While all the groups within the mainstream system generally support the AJS programs, by referring cases and holding a positive view of these types of programs, judges appear to be particularly supportive of them.

13. What role have victims had in community-based programs?

Involving victims is fundamentally linked to restorative justice and does reflect the Aboriginal values of healing and caring. Case studies conducted in support of this evaluation illustrate the benefits that victims may achieve by participating in community-based justice programs. Another fundamental principle is for the involvement of the victims to remain voluntary, and, in some communities, the consultations indicate that some victims hesitate to participate in these programs. This is a challenge that justice coordinators in participating communities are likely to face on an ongoing basis.

14. Is the legal advice on the administration of justice component sufficient to enable self-government negotiators to be effective in their role?

The legal counsel associated to the AJS has provided ongoing support to self-government negotiators. He provides expertise related specifically to the administration of justice chapters within these self-government agreements, and as this negotiation process is likely to continue for some time, so will be the need for this type of support.

15. To what extent have Aboriginal people been able to assume greater responsibility for alternative measures and other community services in the administration of justice in Aboriginal communities?

The reach of the AJS programs has largely determined the extent to which Aboriginal people have been able to assume a greater responsibility for the administration of justice. Those communities that have implemented community-based justice programs, particularly diversion programs, have considerably increased their involvement in the administration of justice. Since these programs apply to more than just criminal offences, they have also allowed Aboriginal communities to tackle family conflicts or implement preventative measures. Communities that have signed self-government agreements are also in a position to use the AJS programs to enforce Aboriginal laws that relate to a variety of circumstances other than criminal offences.

As this evaluation indicates, implementing AJS programs does not imply that all Aboriginal individuals who could benefit from such programs will systematically have access to them. Many Aboriginal communities still have a limited capacity to offer community-based justice programs. And many other communities have yet to implement any community-based justice programs.

16. To what extent has the work of the AJS contributed to greater inclusion of Aboriginal values in the administration of justice in Canada?

Undoubtedly, AJS programs have contributed to a greater inclusion of Aboriginal values in the administration of justice within the participating Aboriginal communities. These programs have also had a generally positive impact on mainstream justice personnel (judges, prosecutors, and police officers) who collaborate in the implementation of these programs by referring Aboriginal offenders or participating in sentencing initiatives.

17. To what extent have community-based programs had an impact on crime rates in the communities where they are implemented?

Individuals who participate in the AJS programs are more likely to get rehabilitated than those who are sent into the mainstream justice system. The recidivism study conducted in support of this evaluation indicates that offenders who participate in AJS-funded programs are approximately half as likely to re-offend as are offenders who do not participate in these programs.

18. Which programs and activities other than those directly funded through the AJS contribute to the achievement of AJS's long-term outcomes?

A number of other programs, such as crime prevention initiatives, First Nations policing, youth justice initiatives, the Aboriginal Court Worker Program, and family violence initiatives, play a complementary role to the AJS programs. The amendments to the Criminal Code on alternative measures and sentencing and a number of provisions in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, also contribute to the achievement of the AJS's long-term outcomes.

19. What lessons have been learned from the various community based programs? What works? What does not work? Why/why not?

This evaluation points to a number of lessons learned:

• The reach of the AJS is still limited, and this appears to be the result of both limited available resources and a limited capacity among some Aboriginal communities to implement these complex and labour-intensive programs.
• The support of participating communities and mainstream justice personnel is paramount to the success of community-based justice programs.
• When implemented, these programs represent a cost-effective model for dealing with Aboriginal offenders, which reflects Aboriginal values and beliefs. Considering the severity of the problems that Aboriginal offenders continue to face within the mainstream justice system, the AJS appears to be particularly relevant.
• The implementation of the AJS programs is a complex process, and the support that federal, provincial, and territorial governments offer on an ongoing basis is critical to the successful implementation of these programs.
• Reporting and ongoing performance measurement continue to be problematic for many participating communities. These challenges considerably limit the ability of the Department of Justice to systematically measure the set of results that these programs are achieving.

5.4. Cost-effectiveness and alternatives

20. Were sufficient resources allocated to each component of the AJS? Were there any unexpected costs? Were activities delivered in an efficient manner?

21. Should the current configuration of the AJS change? If so, how should it change and how would resources be allocated?

The level of resources allocated to the AJS's main component—namely the community-based justice program—has slightly increased over the past four years, while the level of resources dedicated to training and development and to Outreach and Partnerships activities has been substantially reduced. The level of funding for the other program components appears to have remained largely constant.

In this context, the extent to which sufficient resources have been allocated to each program component largely depends on the objectives that the AJS is expected to pursue. At this point, the current level of resources could, at best, maintain the set of program activities presently available to participating communities. It will certainly not favour an expansion of the AJS or address the gap in program reach identified in this evaluation.

22. Are there more effective ways of achieving the objectives of the AJS?

This evaluation has not identified a different program model for achieving the objectives of the AJS. Allowing Aboriginal communities to administer community-based justice programs represents a cost-effective alternative to the mainstream justice system, and it supports the broader self-government objectives that both the federal government and Aboriginal communities are pursuing.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page