Justice Partnership and Innovation Program Evaluation, Final Report

Appendix B: Interview Guide

You have been identified as an individual who may be able to assist in the evaluation because of your involvement in the Program. We want to stress that participation in this interview is voluntary and that your acceptance or refusal to participate will not affect your relationship with the Department of Justice or any other Government of Canada department. The information you provide is for evaluation purposes only and will be administered in accordance with the applicable privacy laws. No administrative decisions will be made about any individual or organization as a result of this evaluation. Your specific interview responses will not be shared with the Department of Justice, nor will they be attributed to you as an individual in any evaluation report resulting from this study.

We anticipate that the interview will be about 45-60 minutes in length.

Your input will contribute to the success of this evaluation process and we thank you for your participation.

Questions

Introduction

  • 1. What is your role with respect to JPIP?

Relevance

  • 2. To what extent is each of the following objectives of the Justice Partnership and Innovation Program (JPIP) still relevant? (Evaluation question 1.1)

    • To promote and encourage involvement in the identification of emerging trends, issues and/or gaps and possible responses with respect to the justice system.
    • To promote innovations in the justice system to ensure greater access to the justice system.
    • To build knowledge, awareness, understanding and informed dialogue among justice stakeholders and/or the public on justice issues including access to justice, racism, official languages, anti-terrorism, sentencing and other emerging justice issues, including justice-related issues in the international fora.
    • To inform Canadians about access to justice issues and the justice system in order to contribute to increased public understanding, participation, confidence and trust in the justice system.

  • 3. To what extent is JPIP needed? (Evaluation question 1.1)

    1. To what type of justice need does the Program respond? (Evaluation question 1.1)
    2. Expenditure review question: Does the program area or activity continue to serve the public interest? (Evaluation question 1.1)
    3. What are the needs of Justice policy-makers? (Evaluation indicator 1.1.3)

  • 4. Has the Program met the policy and program priorities of the Department of Justice and the government? Please explain how. (Evaluation question 2.1)

    1. Has the Program been adapted to address changing priorities? If yes, how? (Evaluation question 2.1)

Performance (Effectiveness, Efficiency and Economy)

  • 5. To what extent were JPIP-funded activities, and their associated outputs – in particular, best practices/responses to emerging justice issues – communicated to Justice and used in the development of policy? (Evaluation question 4.3)

  • 6. [For Justice staff overseeing public legal education and information (PLEI) core funding:] To what extent were PLEI organizations assisted through core funding in promoting greater access to justice, i.e., by providing to the PLEI products? (Evaluation question 4.4)

    1. What is the nature of these products, and to the best of your knowledge, how many or what proportion of products have been made available to the public? (Evaluation indicator 4.4.1)

  • 7. To what extent did JPIP-funded activities promote innovations in the justice system to ensure greater access to the justice system? (Evaluation question 4.6)

  • 8. [For Justice staff overseeing the Legal Studies for Aboriginal People (LSAP) Program:] To what extent did JPIP-funded activities (i.e., the LSAP Program) promote equitable representation in the legal system of Métisand non-status Indians by encouraging them to pursue their studies in law? (Evaluation question 4.7; Evaluation indicator 4.7.2)

  • 9. To what extent did JPIP 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 Named Grant? (Evaluation question 4.8)

  • 10. To what extent are the resource levels for the Program appropriate? (Evaluation question 5.1)

    1. Expenditure review question: Are JPIP activities affordable? If not, what activities should be abandoned? (Evaluation question 5.1)

  • 11. The following questions relate to whether the Program is cost effective, and whether efficiency has been achieved. (Efficiency is defined as “resources have been used such that a greater level of output has been produced with the same level of input or, a lower level of input has been used to produce the same level of output [level of input and output could be increases or decreases in quantity, quality, or both]”). (Evaluation question 5.2)

    1. [For Director only:] What is the total cost of the Program? (Evaluation indicator 5.2.1)
    2. [For Director only:] What are the benefits expressed in dollar terms associated with the Program? (Evaluation indicator 5.2.1)
      1. Leveraging: How much additional funding, if any, was obtained from other sources as a result of JPIP funding?
      2. Incrementality: To what extent would JPIP-funded projects and activities gone ahead without JPIP– i.e., with other sources of funding? Did JPIP allow projects and activities to proceed sooner than they would have been able to without JPIP funding? Did JPIP allow projects and activities to proceed with greater scope than they would have been able to without JPIP funding?

    3. Has economy been achieved, that is, do you believe the cost of the Program is the minimum amount needed to achieve expected outcomes versus achieving the same outcomes another way for less money?). (Evaluation question 5.2)
    4. Expenditure review question: If the program or activity continues, how could its efficiency be improved? (Evaluation question 5.2)
    5. Are there more cost effective ways of achieving the stated objectives of the Program? (Evaluation question 5.3) If yes, what are the alternatives? What would be their benefits? What would be the potential cost? (Evaluation indicator 5.3.1)

  • 12. Has the Program been effectively communicated? (Evaluation question 6.1)

  • 13. The following questions relate to the efficacy of the application process. (Evaluation question 6.2)

    1. Does the application process elicit high-quality applications, containing enough information to make sound decisions, from appropriate organizations? (Evaluation indicator 6.2.1)
    2. Does the application process minimize the burden on program personnel? (Evaluation indicator 6.2.4)

  • 14. The following questions relate to the efficacy of program performance monitoring processes. (Evaluation question 6.4)

    1. How are project performance indicators collected? Reported on? Used? (Evaluation indicator 6.4.1)
    2. To what degree do applicants comply with project performance measurement requirements and processes? (Evaluation indicator 6.4.2)
    3. How satisfied are you with project performance measurements requirements and processes? (Evaluation indicator 6.4.4)

In Closing

  • 15. Is there anything else you would like to add that would assist us in this evaluation?

Thank you

Date modified: