Evaluation of the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Initiative

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

The evaluation of the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Initiative was conducted by Justice’s Evaluation Division and covers a four-year period (2013-14 to 2016-17). The evaluation was completed in accordance with the Treasury Board’s Policy on Evaluation and the Financial Administration Act. Its main objective was to assess the relevance and performance (effectiveness and efficiency) of the Initiative.

The evaluation examined the relevance of the Initiative based on:

In addition, the evaluation assessed the effectiveness of the Initiative, that is the extent to which its expected outcomes are being achieved, as well as the Initiative’s efficiency.

2. Initiative Profile

The purpose of the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Initiative is to provide Canadians from official language minority communities with access to legal information regarding their rights and responsibilities in the official language of their choice and, where necessary, to a justice system that meets their needs in that language.

The Initiative is part of the Roadmap for Canada’s Official Languages 2013-2018: Education, Immigration, Communities (the Roadmap). This Roadmap constitutes Canada’s horizontal initiative to promote official languages and enhance the vitality of official language minority communities (OLMCs).

The Initiative is based on two main pillars.

3. Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation strategy was based on an approach using multiple sources of evidence. The information gathered was analyzed by comparing the results of the various sources of evidence, which in this case included documentation and various types of key informant interviews. To the extent possible, emphasis was placed on results that were confirmed by the various sources as part of a triangulated approach. The evaluation lines of evidence included a document and data review, interviews with 45 individuals including federal government employees, project representatives and various stakeholders, and mini case studies.

4. Findings

Relevance

The evaluation found that the Initiative is aligned with the priorities of the Department of Justice and the federal government. It is also in line with the Roadmap, which references the Justice Information Hubs and training.

Evidence demonstrates that the federal government has a legitimate and necessary role in the area of access to justice in both official languages from the perspective of the Canadian official languages legal framework. According to the evidence, there is an ongoing need to support language training for legal professionals, including judges, to ensure equal access to justice in both official languages. There is also a need for actions to ensure that OLMCs in general, and specific populations within those OLMCs such as recent immigrants, become aware of their rights and obligations, as well as a need to provide legal information in both languages, especially to support self-represented litigants.

Effectiveness

Effectiveness of Information Pillar

Legal information was disseminated to a wide range of legal system users, with many of the services being delivered through the Legal Information Hub organizations. The information was deemed useful and tailored to the needs of groups and subgroups within OLMCs, such as newcomers to Canada. Despite efforts in the area, additional work needs to be done to coordinate the various projects, especially those delivered online, in a more integrated approach.

Effectiveness of Training Pillar

Activities under the Training pillar were targeted towards justice professionals to improve their second language skills. Most respondents agreed that the training was effective, resulting in an increased ability of justice system professionals to offer their services in French outside Quebec and in English in Quebec. Jurilinguistic centres were effective in producing materials serving legislative authorities, translators and the academic community, though questions were raised as to whether some of their activities could be funded by other groups.

Performance Measurement and Project Selection Processes

According to findings, the funding recipients reporting template has a number of limitations leading to inconsistent reporting, which lacks precise information about the longer-term impacts of the activities funded by the Initiative. Despite these limitations, the reports provided by recipients allow the program to meet accountability requirements (i.e. reporting back to JUS and PCH).

With respect to the project selection process, most respondents indicated that the program documentation and the selection process are clear, useful and easily accessible. Program staff assistance was deemed useful, with respondents indicating that the staff is eager to help applicants understand the Initiative and the funding application process.

Consultation Structures

Overall, respondents mentioned that the two consultation structures (i.e. the Advisory Committee and the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on Access to Justice in Both Official Languages [FPT Working Group]) were conducive to cooperation between partners. The Advisory Committee meetings serve as good opportunities for JUS and members of the community to share ideas and obtain feedback on these ideas. They also provide networking opportunities. A number of interviewees mentioned that the Advisory Committee structure and mandate could be updated to increase its reach, including the participation of representatives of other disciplines and of other federal departments involved in justice issues.

The FPT Working Group increases interjurisdictional cooperation and helps the participants understand concerns about a number of issues in certain provinces/territories, and potential solutions. However, because travel costs are not covered by the Initiative, between 30% and 50% of participants attend the meetings by telephone, which affects the quality of their participation.

Efficiency

Most of the recipients said that the Grants and Contributions (Gs&Cs) agreements were appropriate and that the level of funding was adequate. From the perspective of JUS, the agreements limit the Department’s capacity to share content created with the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Support Fund (Support Fund) resources between recipients due to the restrictive intellectual property clauses used in the Gs&Cs agreements. There is also an opportunity to have more specific calls and agreements to allow for a more integrated approach.

The Initiative has been in an underspending situation over the three years of the period covered by the evaluation for which expenditure data was available. However, the percentage of program costs dedicated to administration is deemed acceptable.

5. Recommendations

The evaluation made the following five recommendations concerning the Access to Justice in Both Official Languages Initiative:

Recommendation 1:
That the Official Languages Directorate undertake a needs assessment with respect to the Initiative’s Information pillar to identify gaps and with the view of better understanding where coordination between projects can occur.
Recommendation 2:
That the Official Languages Directorate review the structure and mandate of the Advisory Committee in consultation with Committee members.
Recommendation 3:
That the Official Languages Directorate determine the extent to which the activities of the jurilinguistic centres are in line with the objectives of the Support Fund.
Recommendation 4:
That the Official Languages Directorate develop a more rigorous reporting template for funded projects, including standard indicators and measures to be used by recipients to report on progress.
Recommendation 5:
That the Official Languages Directorate explore the possibility of modifying the intellectual property clauses in its agreements

In its management response, the Official Languages Directorate agreed with all of the recommendations, and has prepared an action plan to respond to each of them.