Justice Partnership and Innovation Program Evaluation, Final Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Justice Partnership and Innovation Program (JPIP) is a discretionary grants and contributions program, one of 17 funding programs that fall within the mandate of the Department of Justice’s Programs Branch. The Program evolved from the Department of Justice Grants and Contributions Program that was launched on April 1, 1996, drawing together at that time some 25 existing funding arrangements. In 2007, the Program was continued through fiscal year 2011-12 as the Justice Partnership and Innovation Program.

JPIP transfers funds to third parties to carry out activities corresponding to objectives focussed on the promotion of justice-related knowledge among the public, the promotion of public access to the justice system, the promotion of dialogue among justice stakeholders respecting justice issues, and the identification of new justice issues. In addition to general grants and contributions awarded to organizations based on the submission of qualified proposals, JPIP provides core funding to one public legal education and information (PLEI) organization in each province, as well as to the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy (ICCLR), grants to five organizations identified annually in the Main Estimates, and an annual contribution to the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation, which administers the Legal Studies for Aboriginal People (LSAP) program. For the 2010-11 fiscal year, JPIP provided a total of $4,103,888 in funding.

Seven methodological approaches were included as part of the evaluation, as follows:

  • 32 documents were reviewed.
  • Project files from 35 randomly selected funded organizations were reviewed.
  • 12 key informant interviews were conducted with both Program personnel and project proponents.
  • A survey of 127 PLEI organization proponents and stakeholders (68 by interview and 59 by online survey) was conducted.
  • 226 participants of three JPIP-funded conferences were surveyed.
  • A survey of 30 applicants (both successful and unsuccessful) was conducted.
  • Five case studies were conducted.

Notwithstanding limitations associated with the lack of data on long-term outcomes and the limited information from ultimate project beneficiaries (i.e., clients of funded organizations and the general public), the evidence was found to be consistent. Most evaluation questions were addressed with a combination of evidence from at least two to three sources. In virtually all instances, sources of evidence agreed with one another.

The evaluation found all of the themes to be relevant. By enabling the support of related projects and initiatives, including core funding for PLEI organizations, these objectives meet continuing needs of Canadians and are aligned with departmental and government priorities.

In particular, four themes represent important continuing needs. Public knowledge and access (promoted through the work of PLEI organizations as well as through numerous projects) enable members of the public to more effectively engage with the justice system. Subpopulations of particular interest in this regard – i.e., with high needs – include self-represented litigants, aging individuals, those affected by poverty, immigrants, minority groups, Aboriginal persons, persons with disabilities, other marginalized groups, and persons with aging parents. Stakeholder dialogue (promoted by projects involving conferences, seminars and other knowledge sharing and networking opportunities) enables experts in the justice system to advance justice policy ideas, develop innovations and improve coordination among different jurisdictions and other parties. Identifying new issues (promoted by the Program as a whole with its flexible terms and conditions, creating opportunities to test out new ideas and supporting the positive evolution of Canada's justice system) is important to the Canadian justice community and to policy-makers within the Department of Justice to enable these players to continue to address new needs as they emerge.

Alignment was found between the JPIP core objectives and Justice’s priorities for the Canadian justice system respecting accessibility, efficiency, fairness and relevance. Assessed contributions were found to be relevant. Continued funding in this category fulfills Canadian obligations to key international institutions.

Evaluation evidence supports the conclusion that the Program promoted to a significant extent (a) greater justice-related access and knowledge among the public, (b) greater dialogue and understanding among justice stakeholders respecting justice issues, and (c) the identification of new justice issues. Greater access and knowledge among the public was promoted by JPIP-funded projects and, in particular, through core funding provided to PLEI organizations. These impacts are largely incremental; many impacts would not have occurred in the absence of JPIP funding. The primary evidence for this conclusion comes from the extensive range of public legal information products and services produced, and the public uptake of these products and services. Evidence from survey respondents and key informants corroborates the finding.

Dialogue and understanding among justice stakeholders respecting justice issues was promoted by JPIP-funded projects and activities, including regular grants and contributions as well as Named Grants and funding for the ICCLR. Dialogue occurred in a variety of ways among a range of players, including through conferences and related events for members of the justice community, events that targeted or included members of the public, consultations and discussions between members of the justice community (including JPIP project proponents) and Department of Justice policy staff, and partnerships between JPIP project proponents such as PLEI organizations and other justice stakeholders. Positive results stemming from these events were reported in the form of increased understanding and innovation respecting issues and trends of current concern. Many of these impacts were also found to be incremental, i.e., they would not have occurred in the absence of JPIP funding.

JPIP-funded projects and activities led to the identification of new justice issues. Primarily owing to its flexible terms and conditions, JPIP funds a wide range of projects. This creates a gathering place of new ideas across the Program as a whole. Innovations were also developed within individual projects.

Although financial support is being provided to Métis and non-status Indian students pursuing legal studies, it is difficult to determine to what extent JPIP funding made the difference between students entering or not entering law programs. Key informants, however, indicated that LSAP was critical for pre-law students. Assessed contributions enabled Canada to meet its financial obligations respecting two international programs.

The evidence supports the finding that the Program is well administered. The webpage and the various Program materials were found generally to be clearly presented and comprehensive. The application process is relatively streamlined and effective. Communication with departmental officials was seen as prompt and helpful. Project monitoring was generally well viewed.

Information on the Program, however, does not appear to be easily found by those not already familiar with JPIP. Similarly, the application process is seen by some new applicants as complicated. Consequently, proposals for new projects tend to come from past applicants who know the Program. Unsuccessful applicants are often those with only a passing familiarity with JPIP and its objectives. Proponents who may otherwise have valid needs and ideas for projects may be excluded by virtue of a lack of awareness of the existence of the Program.

Program operations appear to be efficient, with low overhead relative to project dollars allocated. Projects themselves generally appear to be cost effective. JPIP dollars are often leveraged (i.e., used to secure additional funding from other providers). In-kind contributions are common. Qualitative evidence suggests that some project benefits are far reaching with a high value in relation to expenditures.

Date modified: