Justice Partnership and Innovation Program Evaluation, Final Report

3. CONCLUSIONS

3.1 Program Relevance

3.1.1 The Program addresses continuing needs, and is aligned with Department of Justice and government priorities

From the stated objectives of JPIP, four themes may be considered as representing core objectives. These themes call for the promotion of greater knowledge among the public respecting justice issues, the promotion of greater public access to the justice system, the promotion of greater dialogue and understanding among justice stakeholders respecting justice issues, and the identification of new justice issues. Other objectives pertain to particular organizations to which JPIP funding is directed, i.e., ten provincial public legal education and information (PLEI) organizations, organizations identified in the Main Estimates, the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation (NAAF, which administers the Legal Studies for Aboriginal People, or LSAP Program), and the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy (ICCLR).

The evaluation found all four main 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.

Public knowledge and access (promoted through the work of the 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 justice 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 Department of Justice 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.

3.2 Program Performance

3.2.1 Objectives were largely achieved

Evidence from multiple sources 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. The evidence suggests that 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 across the Program as a whole a gathering place of new ideas. Innovations were also developed within individual projects.

While financial support is being provided to Métis and non-status Indians pursuing legal studies, it is difficult to determine to what extent this 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.

3.2.2 JPIP is generally well run, efficient and economical, though awareness of the Program may be limited to its past applicants

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: