Justice Partnership and Innovation Program Evaluation, Final Report
Appendix A: Case Studies
International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy (ICCLR)
Founded in 1991, ICCLR is a non-profit organization based on the campus of the University of British Columbia. The JPIP objective related specifically to the ICCLR is: “To assist the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy in promoting human rights, the rule of law, democracy and good governance.”
The Centre aims to contribute to the priorities of Canada and the United Nations in the field of criminal law and criminal justice, e.g., transnational organized crime, and protection of women and children. Its role is to provide advice, information, research and proposals for policy development and legislation. ICCLR is receiving core funding for 2010-11 and 2011-12 to support its general mandate, i.e., promoting effective international cooperation; protecting victims of crime (in particular, children); helping to develop more effective and fair justice systems in Canada and abroad; and helping Canadians understand the importance of international cooperation and mutual assistance in the fight against serious crimes. ICCLR also received JPIP contributions from 2007-08 through to 2009-10. Interviewees associated with this case study, as well as key informants, reported that the JPIP-funded work of the ICCLR continued to meet an important need.
JPIP funding has enabled ICCLR to organize and/or contribute to a large number of knowledge-sharing and knowledge-building activities between 2007 and 2011. ICCLR has organized several forums and symposia, including for example “Criminal justice responses to violence against women: Linking local and international efforts” and “National and international perspectives on identity theft and fraud”. The Centre has participated in several expert round tables and panels on a number of criminal justice topics, e.g., human trafficking, violence against women, international human rights. Over 2,000 justice stakeholders and/or members of the public have attended these events. ICCLR has developed several manuals, e.g., “Responding to victims of identity crime: A manual for law enforcement agents, prosecutors and policy-makers”. In addition to printed copies, many of these publications are available on the Centre and/or partner website(s). ICCLR’s project was seen to have promoted innovations through its provision of advice on increasing the effectiveness of the Canadian justice system. The Centre is aware of what makes for a best practice, i.e., a practice which has been shown through an evidence-based approach to achieve desired results. ICCLR’s analytical approach to research means that its identified best practices are of a high standard. According to key informant interviews and file and document reviews, ICCLR has developed best practices in the areas of violence against women, human trafficking, identity theft, counter-terrorism, mental health and substance abuse services in correctional settings, and reintegration of offenders.
It was thought that JPIP funding was “critical” for ICCLR and that the organization’s “own survival could be affected if JPIP funding was not received”
; the organization “would be forced to chase the next project, and thus become less relevant and efficient”
. ICCLR was seen to have leveraged up to 3½ times more funding than that received through JPIP, e.g., from other federal government departments, provincial government departments, and provincial law foundations. The Centre has also received in-kind support from other federal government departments, NGOs and universities. The advice that ICCLR has provided to the federal government as well as provincial/territorial governments on the effectiveness of the Canadian justice system could represent millions of dollars in savings. Implementation of JPIP-funded activities was also seen to result in decreased human misery, less victimization and decreased mortality.
Uniform Law Conference of Canada (ULCC)
Founded in 1918, the ULCC was created with a view to harmonize the laws of the provinces and territories of Canada, and where appropriate, federal laws as well. The ULCC is one of five current recipients of Named Grants, the specific JPIP objective for which is: “To assist selected non-governmental organizations, as listed in the Main or Supplementary Estimates, whose mandate and/or activities complement the Department’s mandate, objectives and legal and socio-legal priorities by providing a grant.”
The Conference makes recommendations for changes to federal criminal legislation based on identified deficiencies, defects or gaps in the existing law, or based on problems created by judicial interpretation of existing law. ULCC organizes an annual conference that brings together federal, provincial and territorial government representatives as well as representatives from the legal sector and academics. The conference pulls together ongoing work that is completed by working groups throughout the year on specific topics. ULCC has received annual Named Grants, as well as two general contributions for individual projects that addressed the harmonization of specific Acts across the Provinces. All interviewees associated with this case study, as well as key informants who commented on this organization, reported that the JPIP-funded work of the ULCC continued to meet an important need.
Respondents indicated that JPIP funding has enabled ULCC to identify important justice/legal trends in Canada, such as the need for uniform laws in the areas of powers of attorney, advanced health care directives, reverse mortgages (particularly for seniors), and assisted human reproduction. The element of separation between ULCC and the federal government was seen to enable discussions that do not bind the provincial and federal governments, and thus open up dialogue and consultation among justice stakeholders. The uniform laws that are developed by ULCC were seen to have provided the federal (and provincial/territorial) governments with well-regarded products of the highest quality that have enabled the Canadian justice system to address emerging issues, innovate and evolve. ULCC’s annual conference was seen to build knowledge and understanding among judicial and academic participants, and allowed them to provide their time and expertise to meet, network and liaise on issues of common interest. Relationships and dialogue here continued throughout the year through working groups. JPIP funding also allowed for a number of ways for disseminating information about the work of ULCC, e.g., a website database, a commercial law newsletter, updates of the commercial binder, and publication of annual conference proceedings. Although ULCC was seen to be very effective with the resources it has at its disposal, funding was thought to be insufficient. The limited budget impacts the work that ULCC is able to undertake. For example, ULCC wants to update its website so that content is more current and accessible, ensure all historical documents are available in both official languages, convene some of its committee meetings face-to-face (instead of through teleconferences), make the part-time project coordinator position into a full-time one (to reflect the fact that work is actually full-time), and engage the services of academic institutions (some of which require regular compensation versus modest stipends).
This organization was seen as a Named Grant recipient which is “consistently looking for ways to do the best that they can with very little resources”
. It operates on a shoestring budget, with no office overhead. ULCC was seen to have leveraged up to four times more funding than what is provided through JPIP plus significant in-kind contributions from working groups (e.g., donation of time from high-level experts in the justice field). Funding has been received from provincial governments and provincial law foundations. In-kind support has been received from provincial governments and individual justice professionals. One key informant estimated that for one project alone, a legal professional had contributed the equivalent of $200,000 in billable time. In addition, ULCC’s annual conference pulls together the different provinces to address common issues, which in turn was seen to reduce duplication and increase efficiency and effectiveness. Provinces are able to adopt the uniform laws developed by ULCC, which represents enormous resource savings – both in time and money. This is particularly true for the smaller provinces/territories which lack the infrastructure to undertake the work themselves.
International Bureau for Children’s Rights (IBCR)
Founded in 1994, the IBCR is an international NGO dedicated to ensuring that children’s rights are respected. IBCR is a recipient of a general contribution. The Bureau identifies and draws attention to root causes of violations of children’s rights, and seeks practical solutions for those root causes by increasing knowledge, creating public awareness of child protection issues, and cooperating internationally. In particular, it focuses on the following issues: children in armed conflict, refugee and unaccompanied children, monitoring and reporting on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and sexual exploitation of children.
IBCR received a JPIP contribution in 2010-11, which was used to organize a forum – the third in a series – on the protection of children and adolescents from child sex tourism. It was held in collaboration with OneChild and Plan Canada, and hosted by Air Canada.
The IBCR’s forum on child sex tourism facilitated the identification and analysis of trends, issues, gaps and problems in identifying, prosecuting and penalizing offenders. Forum participants – which included representatives of federal and provincial departments/agencies, the tourism and travel industry, and child protection NGOs – were provided with information about best practices which are being implemented by travel and tourism companies to prevent child sex tourism. These best practices have included practices in the areas of staff training, production of information materials, and implementation of codes of conduct. The first national Canadian campaign against child sex tourism was also unveiled at this forum.
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP)
Founded in 1905 and incorporated in 1968 as a non-profit organization, the CACP is dedicated to the support and promotion of efficient law enforcement and to the protection and security of the people of Canada. The Association is a recipient of a Named Grant. These objectives are accomplished through activities and special projects of a number of committees as well as through active liaison with various levels of government and departmental ministries having legislative and executive responsibility in law and policing. CACP received Named Grants between 2007-08 and 2010-11 to assist with responding to criminal legislative policy development with regard to its impact on police; making recommendations on legislative initiatives; attending consultations with Justice, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and other partners in the criminal justice field; and providing advice to the Department of Justice on justice-related issues and recommendations on possible amendments to the law (through its Law Amendment Committee). The Association also received contributions between 2008-09 and 2011-12 for four criminal justice conferences. As indicated above, interviewees associated with this case study, as well as key informants who commented on this organization, reported that the JPIP-funded work of the CACP continued to meet an important need.
A total of 287 criminal justice professionals participated in CACP’s four annual JPIP-funded symposiums. Respondents that were interviewed as part of the CACP case study considered these conferences as having created a culture where it is now seen as acceptable to have representatives of the different branches of the criminal justice system – e.g., Crown counsel, criminal defense lawyers, court officials, police officers, academics – convene and talk collaboratively. This new culture has represented a major shift in thinking and approach among criminal justice stakeholders, as previously there was a lack of communication and consultation due to distrust among different professional groups. The conferences facilitated the breaking down of those communication barriers and enabled justice stakeholders to arrive at common understandings. As one participant wrote, the “conference tends to bring people together from different parts of the justice system. This result should not be overlooked. The process is rich in terms of having all players working on how to present to larger audiences so it makes sense and engages further dialogue. [Participating in the conference] helped change the way I thought about how the justice system could work better.”
As such, the conferences were seen to have benefited the Canadian criminal justice system as a whole. The promotion of innovation was also at work through the CACP conferences. The conferences explored ways of making more effective use of information technologies, e.g., web-based disclosure, voice-activated transcripts, many of which, when properly implemented, could decrease costs, for example, through eliminating of unnecessary court appearances. They also addressed new approaches to supporting active judicial case management and more effective judicial pre-trial procedures. The conferences encouraged the use of administrative solutions versus legislative solutions. Many similar initiatives for reform across Canada were seen to have their birthplace at CACP conferences, as participants often have the desire to go further with the ideas and best practices that they have learned.
All Association key informants thought that the conferences would not have taken place without JPIP funding, as without this funding, the quality of the conferences would not have been at a high enough level to be convened. Funding allowed the conferences to be more accessible to more participants, as the registration fee could be set at a more reasonable level, i.e. $400 per person, versus $800 per person. The main leveraging achieved by CACP was in the form of in-kind support; however, particular organizations were not named as donors. The change in mindset – from distrust to collaboration – that has been achieved in justice stakeholders through CACP’s JPIP-funded conferences was seen to have started the savings of significant dollars for provincial and regional/municipal governments. For example, the shift from changing legislation to changing administrative procedures, working on ways to be more efficient during mega-trials, understanding each other’s roles (such that court time and professional overtime are reduced), and pre-screening cases (saving policing costs) have all resulted from these conferences, and have led to increased cost efficiency in the justice system.
National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation (NAAF)
The NAAF, registered nationally in 1986 as a charitable organization, is located in Oshweken, Ontario. Its mission is to promote, support and celebrate the achievement of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples. NAAF raises funds to deliver programs for Aboriginal peoples, particularly youth, to achieve their full potential.
After several years of administering the Legal Studies for Aboriginal People (LSAP) Program directly, the Department of Justice approached NAAF to determine whether the organization would be interested in assuming the administration of this Program. The specific JPIP objective for LSAP is “to promote equitable representation in the legal system of Métis and Non-Status Indians by encouraging them to pursue their studies in law”
. LSAP provides funding to Métis and non-status Indian persons planning to enter a pre-law program (typically an eight-week program) or a law program (typically a three-year program). The Program is designed to promote equitable representation of Aboriginal persons in the legal profession. In 2009-10, NAAF agreed to assume administration of the LSAP Program and continues to do so presently. Finally, similar to the other case studies, interviewees associated with this case study, as well as key informants, reported that the JPIP-funded work of the NAAF continued to meet an important need.
Between 2009 and 2011, through LSAP funding, 19 students participated in an eight-week pre-law program and 47 students were supported in law school. A key informant pointed out the high success rate (i.e. 83%) of law students who have completed the summer pre-law program. One of the LSAP recipients who were interviewed for this case study says that s/he has been more active with advancing Aboriginal issues because s/he received LSAP funding (via NAAF). According to a recent web-based search, of the 17 students who received LSAP funding in 2007-08 (when it was administered by the Department of Justice directly), 9 are active members of a law society in Canada (and work in law offices), 3 are in the field of law, 2 as articling students in law offices and 1 as a law clerk for BC Supreme Courts, 1 is a "non-practicing" member of a law society, 1 is a management consultant in First Nations affairs, and the working status of 3 is unknown. This means that 13 of 17 of the former students are now working "in the legal system". Key informants thought that LSAP has advanced academic equity for Métis and non-status Indians in the study of law, and has increased the number of Aboriginal lawyers in Canada. Some law school graduates pursue further academic studies (e.g., LLM, Ph.D. in Law), others work with the Department of Justice or various legal aid commissions, while others teach law courses. However, in order to have truly equitable representation in the legal profession, there was thought that there should be approximately 4,000 Aboriginal lawyers practicing in Canada.
As NAAF administers numerous bursary and scholarship programs for Aboriginal persons, this non-profit organization was seen to be a less expensive structure (than Justice Canada) for administering the LSAP Program, and the Department “gets a lot of mileage”
from funds allocated. LSAP funding was seen as “invaluable” and “crucial to the success of Aboriginal people who attend law school”
. One key informant pointed to the historical disadvantages of Métis and non-status Indians in Canada, and believed that the LSAP Program gives an important “head start” to members of this group who wish to pursue legal studies. LSAP has meant that the law schools have been better able to attract more Aboriginal persons to study law. Some key informants thought funding should be available for all Aboriginal students. Although one LSAP beneficiary said that without LSAP funding, s/he would have still completed his/her degree, the other LSAP beneficiary said that without LSAP funding, pursuing his/her legal studies would not have been possible, stating that LSAP funding was a “significant” contribution towards his/her legal studies.
- Date modified: