The Child-centred Family Law Strategy,
Summative Evaluation
6. ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES (cont'd)
6. ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES (cont'd)
6.4. International Activities
International activities undertaken as part of the family policy component of the Strategy were addressed in the evaluation framework by two questions:
- Is there evidence that the Canadian position has been used in the review of Hague international conventions related to custody and access, and maintenance enforcement?
- As a result of this Strategy, has there been an observed increase in the knowledge of the Canadian support enforcement system among international communities?
Canada has played a leadership role, internationally, at Hague meetings in areas regarding the 1980 and 1996 Hague Conventions on Child Abduction and the Protection of Children.
Canada is a signatory of the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and is analyzing the implications of becoming a party to the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-Operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children. Department of Justice officials have also been active in a Special Commission review and other international meetings related to these two conventions. In review meetings, the Canadian delegation has been perceived as a leader with regard to supporting the conventions and furthering cross-national communications to the benefit of the children and the conventions.
As one of the key players in the latest review of the 1980 and 1996 Conventions in the fall of 2006, several of Canada’s positions regarding the practicability and implementation of the conventions were reflected in the report on the review of both conventions. Canadian positions included the development of “country profiles” to facilitate communication and cooperation between the Central Authorities[43] in the individual member states – a concept originally developed by the Canadian delegation involved in the negotiations on a new Hague convention on family maintenance enforcement – as well as several other aspects ranging from a clearer definition of the role of the Central Authorities to regulations with regard to issuing a passport to a child/minor. Overall, Canadian positions are represented throughout the report.
This theme was echoed by international officials and representatives of other jurisdictions who stressed that the Canadian delegation was a key player in achieving a position of compromise and consensus on matters discussed at the review meeting, which was noted to have been a key development in maintaining the integrity of the 1980 Convention.
Canada has a leadership position internationally in the development of a new Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and other forms of Family Maintenance (the Maintenance Convention).
Since 2003, negotiations on a new Hague Convention dealing with Support/Maintenance Enforcement matters have been ongoing at an international and national level. The new convention is drafted as a response to outdated existing maintenance enforcement conventions. Canada has been involved in these negotiations since 2003. Numerous activities, nationally in consultations with the provinces and territories, as well as internationally at The Hague and in meetings and discussions among several Hague member States, have been initiated by the Canadian delegation over the past four years.
Interview respondents noted that, in drafting the Convention, Canada’s experience as a bi-jural jurisdiction and a member of Canada’s Hague delegation was considered. Members of Canada’s delegation were assigned significant roles in the successive Special Commissions developing the new Hague Maintenance Convention including membership on the drafting committee for the new Hague Maintenance Convention. Canada’s role has included “holding the pen” on much of the drafting and negotiations of the template for a Country Profile, which is expected to play an important role in the administration of the new Convention. In fact, the Country Profile template has since been identified as a best practice tool and is now being adopted in other Hague Conventions.
However, it has to be noted that Canadian positions may not always align with others on an international level due to the differences in justice systems. Another key informant from Europe noted that, while enforcement mechanisms such as denying the issuance of a new driver’s license are interesting and innovative ideas, differing justice systems particularly in EU-linked countries present barriers to giving these ideas more substance in the development of the new Maintenance Convention.
Canada has established significant relationships with other jurisdictions through communicating Canadian positions and practices in support enforcement.
The international negotiations at The Hague for the new Maintenance Convention have led to new/improved bilateral relationships between Canada, the US and several Commonwealth states such as Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. International negotiations were intended to lead to new bilateral relationships with regard to reciprocity arrangements between Canadian provinces and other states. Recent negotiations with the US federal government, Hungary, and Caribbean countries have been reported; other negotiations may currently be underway. In interviews, some provincial/territorial representatives mentioned that the numerous activities nationally and internationally have enhanced options for the provinces/territories to form new bilateral relationships.
According to officials from the Enforcement Unit, the Canadian position regarding support enforcement was very well received internationally. Canada’s work on support enforcement internationally has been recognized in a number of ways. Some examples include:
- the appointment of the Enforcement Unit’s Senior Counsel as International Commissioner for the U.S. based National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA),
- ongoing requests to share developments on Canada’s support enforcement activities at meetings of the Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association (ERICSA), at the NCSEA and the European Union (EU); and
- collaborative work with the United States federal government on specific issues (e.g., currency conversion issues, use of forms).
6.4.1. Observations and Conclusions
#18: The Canadian delegation and representatives are recognized internationally for their efforts to further cross-national communication and sharing Canadian policies, positions and experiences with other jurisdictions.
6.5. Information, Communication and Research
Three evaluation questions were addressed to explore issues and outcomes related to public and legal training, communications and research activities undertaken as part of the Strategy. The questions are as follows:
- Based on the training and knowledge provided to the legal community, has there been a reported increase in the capacity (knowledge, skills and abilities) to apply CCFLS objectives by lawyers, judges, and service providers?
- To what extent was the CCFLS successful in informing Canadians about parenting arrangements, child support guidelines, and support enforcement measures?
- To what extent has research and performance information been used by CCFLS partners in their work? To what extent has research built capacity to examine family law issues?
Education, training and knowledge building activities/tools are the result of activities of multiple units involved in delivering the CCFLS.
There are various education, training and knowledge building activities/tools that are supported in all of the components of the CCFLS and are implemented through the different units. Department officials from the Family Law Policy Unit felt that there was sufficient effort and support put forth under the Strategy to inform and train family justice professionals. Tools and activities identified included reference materials/information such as: a collection of articles for lawyers, the Federal Child Support Guidelines Step-by-Step Booklet and various consultative exchanges with family justice professionals. The FCY Section also provides a full inventory of family justice services in each province on its website, based on data/information collected by the Family Law Policy Unit as well as detailed information on national and international enforcement activities including the new Hague Maintenance Convention provided through a new website, newsletters, annual updates and forms and guides launched by the Enforcement Unit.
Communications activities, such as meetings, e-mails and a newsletter for family law professionals are also carried out as knowledge-building tools. One member of the judiciary specifically noted the newsletter distributed to members of the judiciary as being informative. The Communications Unit and the Family Law Policy Unit recently developed a children’s booklet, which has been receiving positive attention from educators and other professionals in Canada and the United States. It should be noted that awareness of the booklet among family justice service providers and family law professionals was limited; however, only a short period of time had passed since its release in May of 2007 and the completion of the evaluation. So far, the feedback about the book has been positive from teachers and family law professionals who have seen it. In addition, many individuals who participated in the evaluation were interested in learning more about the booklet and how to access it and it has generated interest internationally.
The Research Unit also makes knowledge-building information available, such as the result of special studies completed by the unit and assistance provided to the provinces/territories in completing their own research. Additional activities include the development of standardized client exit surveys to be delivered to clients at Family Law Information Centres, at the completion of mediation and after participating in parent education programs, as well as the development of consent forms to obtain client permission to be contacted for participation in a client follow-up survey.
Education and training were also supported through the PLEI/PT funding component, with the distribution of funds to eligible applicants, typically non-government organizations. There was a total of seven PLEI/PT applications for funding to professional training, with five approved, one rejected and one withdrawn. A total of $319,476 of PLEI/PT funds was allocated to these projects over the life of the Strategy. In addition, $295,685 was allocated to the National Judicial Institute to conduct the High Conflict Custody and Access Seminar (two years) and for Curriculum Development in Area of Child Protection (one year). These funds were mainly for the coordination of education/training activities.
Individuals involved in providing services/assistance in the areas of family justice utilize education/training.
Approximately half (51%) of family justice service providers surveyed reported that they had been involved in developing or delivering information, services or training for family justice professionals at some point in the past five years. More than half (55%) of family justice service providers indicated that they had participated in a training program for family justice professionals over the previous five years. Out of these, 84% found the training they received useful or very useful.
Legal professionals surveyed at the 2006 National Family Law Program reported increased utilization of training for lawyers, judges and other family law professionals on family law issues related to the Strategy. As can be seen in Chart 6-8, approximately 7 in 10 family law professionals reported having taken some form of continuing education/training in 2006, up from 2004. However, the providers of this education/training cannot be established.
Table 6-8: Continuing Education and Training of Family Law Professionals in Previous 5 Years
Source: Survey on the Practice of Family Law in Canada, 2005-2006
Several members of the judiciary felt that additional training of a more inter-disciplinary nature (e.g., psychology, health, etc.) would be useful, particularly for those specializing in family law, as the “trial judge” role is being replaced to some extent by a case management role, depending on the family justice model.
Canadians make use of a variety of available resources for information and education on family law issues; however, there are areas that could be improved.
Family justice Websites are one of the most frequently accessed of all Department of Justice websites. From January to June 2007, 23 of the top 50 Department of Justice sites or pages visited were family justice related. This translates into 40% (1,195,751 visits) of the almost 3 million visits to the top 50 Department of Justice sites.
In the 2006 Survey of Family Law Professionals, respondents reported that 88% of clients are somewhat or very well informed about available services at the outset of their case. As noted previously, family law professionals have noticed that parties use the appropriate language more now than in the past. However, the level of information for Canadians about available family justice services varies by service with the level of information being highest for child support issues and services. In general, clients are better informed about support and support enforcement issues and least informed about parenting plans, parent education services and variation.
Several lawyers were interviewed over the course of the evaluation and had limited awareness of the objectives and services related to the CCFLS, particularly of available training for the legal community in the context of the Strategy. It was also noted that available communication materials such as booklets and guides are not always helpful for the clients due to the general nature of the materials and complexity of many matters in family law. Several lawyers noted that, as a result, many clients are misinformed about issues relevant in their individual case and situation.
The information materials and tools developed to support the implementation of the Federal Child Support Guidelines are utilized the most.
A number of materials were developed by the FCY Section, the Communications Unit and the Research Unit to help Canadians apply the Federal Child Support Guidelines, including information materials and booklets for parents and children, simplified tables and child support calculators, as well as worksheets, research reports, case law summaries and other related material. All these materials are available on-line at the Department of Justice website.
Website statistics reveal that information materials are the most accessed links/sites on the website. Visitor counts for the year 2006 identified the Federal Child Support Tables (PDF) 2006 as the most accessed site with 97,082 visits, followed by Child Support with 68,991 visits. The Federal Child Support Guidelines: Step-by-Step was accessed 43,082 times.[44]Over the same time period, the "Child Support" website received an average of 4,596 visits per day and the "Parenting After Divorce" website, 2,661 visits per day.
Department of Justice officials interviewed felt that the child support materials/resources have advanced the objectives of the CCFLS by providing child support advice and greater guidance to lawyers and were widely available through major continuing legal education programs. Family law professionals (judiciary, mediators and lawyers) generally found the materials pertaining to the Federal Child Support Guidelines, particularly the Step-by-Step Booklet, to be of substantial use to them in determinations of child support and for resolving child support related issues.
Research efforts have been relevant to family issues facing the provinces/territories; however, there are existing and emerging issues that require further research.
Representatives from the provincial/territorial governments felt that the Strategy’s research priorities aligned well with family justice issues in their province or territory. Specific areas mentioned by the officials included the CCSO-FJ ensured cohesion in the research activities and that the federal research unit was the “driving force” behind the provincial/territorial evaluation strategy.
Department of Justice officials identified several projects (either federal, provincial or territorial) that they felt were particularly noteworthy in each of the key areas of the Strategy. The areas of studies are provided in Table 6-9.
| Area | Particularly Useful Study[45] |
|---|---|
| Policy development at the federal level |
|
| Deciding on priorities for federal financial assistance |
|
| Assessing effectiveness of projects and services to which the federal government contributed |
|
| Operational or administrative process |
|
A particularly noteworthy study that was conducted by the provinces/territories, according to officials in the Research and Program Development Units, is the longitudinal study on mediation undertaken by British Columbia. It is the first longitudinal study undertaken by a jurisdiction in Canada.[46] Findings from this study will include both short- and long-term outcomes, which will help assess the effectiveness of projects and services funded by the CCFJF.
Other provincial/territorial studies that were noted in the interviews included the evaluation of the recalculation services in Manitoba and a collective provincial/territorial study on the maintenance enforcement program. The first study looked at a number of objectives (including outcomes) and was the first evaluation of the recalculation services in Canada. The second study, consisted in a survey of clients, both debtors and creditors, which allowed for the development of demographic profiles that can be used for programming decisions.
Despite the numerous studies completed throughout the CCFLS, respondents felt that additional research is required in certain areas. Many of the suggested areas for further research correspond to the emerging trends and issues noted in Section 2 and Section 4, such as blended families, co-parenting and custody and access issues. Additional research suggestions are summarized in Table 6-10.
| Area | Research Study or Subject of Interest |
|---|---|
| Guidelines |
|
| Support enforcement |
|
| Social context |
|
| Custody and access |
|
| Other |
|
Provincial/territorial officials felt that with additional federal support they could contribute more to the national research effort.
The FJI funding model sets forth that 5% to 7% of the funds provided to the provinces/territories are allocated to evaluation and research activities. The jurisdictions are encouraged to undertake research and evaluation activities by the CCSO-FJ Research sub-committee and through other forums. However, Department of Justice officials feel there have been mixed results in this area. For example, while large jurisdictions have not had any problems, medium and smaller sized provinces/territories have had difficulties implementing research activities. The problems are generally associated with these jurisdictions having fewer funds and limited capacity to undertake large or expensive research. Further, the provinces/territories give research and evaluation activities lower priority than delivery of family justice services and programs.
A few provincial/territorial officials suggested that another funding pot for larger research projects would be beneficial, indicating that there was insufficient time or resources available to their jurisdiction to conduct research within the existing FJI funding allocations. It was also suggested that more support was needed by the provinces/territories in conducting research, such as assistance in developing requests for proposals.
Provincial/territorial officials offered a number of suggestions as to how the federal government could better collaborate on research related activities:
- Facilitate multi-jurisdictional research and evaluation activities (three respondents);
- Resolve funding issues (i.e. increase funding, provide sustained funding) (two respondents);
- Do more consultations and collaborate more (three respondents);
- Assist with the identification of experts or consultants capable of conducting the research (one respondent);
- Provide more time and make more resources available (one respondent);
- Streamline the reporting process (one respondent); and
- Make research findings more accessible, for example through a web portal (one respondent).
6.5.1. Observations and Conclusions
- #19: Information materials provided or supported by the federal government are well used by family law professionals and the general public.
- #20: Communication/knowledge-building efforts have been successful in some areas, but there are some areas that require additional communications efforts.
- #21: Research activities have been relevant but there are emerging topics that require further exploration.
6.6. Lessons Learned
The evaluation questions that explored unintended impact, strengths and weaknesses of the Strategy are as follows:
- Were there any unintended impacts either positive or negative or broader outcomes that have resulted from the Strategy?
- What were the lessons learned?
- What were the strengths and weaknesses of the Strategy?
- Should this Strategy continue past 2007-2008?
- What would be the impacts if any, on the family justice system of the sunsetting of the CCFLS after 2007/2008?
Key informants identified strengths of the Strategy that may lead to activities being continued without support after the sunsetting of the Strategy in 2008.
Provincial/territorial officials as well as family lawyers and members of the judiciary noted a number of key strengths of the Strategy, particularly the enhanced collaboration and communication between the federal government and provincial/territorial and non-governmental partners as well as enhanced communication among the provinces/territories. It was noted that informational structures that were put in place or expanded and enhanced during the Strategy are legacies that will be maintained after the sunsetting of the CCFLS. Similarly, it was noted that performance measures and accountability structures would likely be maintained in many jurisdictions.
In addition to maintaining communication and accountability structures, it was noted that while federal funding is crucial for many provinces/territories to be able to provide family justice services, the services developed and provided under the CCFLS are in demand and cover public needs in the family justice system. Several officials noted that they would attempt to maintain some of the services. However, it was stated that particularly economically disadvantaged provinces/territories would not be able to cover costs for most of the services alone and would have to either abandon or limit the availability of existing services.
In general, informants from various groups interviewed for the current evaluation felt that a key legacy of the CCFLS has been to support and further the move towards less adversarial, collaborative law in family law.
There were both positive and negative unintended outcomes associated with the Strategy.
Informants identified several unintended outcomes associated with the Strategy, which included the following:
- the development of good working relationships with partners such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Canadian Judiciary Council;
- exchange of information and enhanced communication between the provinces/territories;
- adapting or adopting elements of other province’s/territory’s systems/services; and
- creation of a certain level of expectation on the part of the provinces/territories regarding the leadership and coordinating role of the federal government.
There are specific aspects related to the delivery/implementation of Strategy that could be improved.
As noted throughout this report, the approach to delivery of the Strategy by the FCY Section is for multiple units to act as an integrated team. While this approach is generally successful, it has resulted in a few drawbacks in terms of the coordination of some activities across the units. There appears to be an overlap across the different units in information collection and dissemination activities. There is a substantial amount of information collected at the federal level to support the family justice system. As well, there is no single “tracking” system of the information available from the different units and activities undertaken, making it a challenge to easily access data or information sources between the units and track processed or resources that require updating.
- Date modified: