4. Findings

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

The following section presents the evaluation findings by evaluation issue. Where appropriate, Program strengths, challenges and best practices in other similar federal programs are identified with the following icons:

4.1 Relevance

4.1.1 Alignment with Federal Roles and Priorities

The evaluation found that the JPIP is well aligned with federal government priorities. In particular, the JPIP is well aligned with Justice Canada’s 2020-21 departmental priority that “Canadians in contact with the justice system have access to appropriate services enabling a fair, timely and accessible justice system.”^Footnote5 This is an ongoing priority for Justice Canada. The JPIP contributes to this priority by:

• Providing core funding to designated organizations with a mandate to provide justice-related services;^Footnote6
• Maintaining and establishing partnerships with other levels of government and stakeholders, nationally and internationally, on access to justice issues; and,
• Awarding project funding to eligible organizations for the implementation of projects in line with immediate government priorities related to access to justice.

In this way, the JPIP and the AJA-PLEI in the territories contribute to the federal government’s ability to fulfill its roles in areas such as promoting access to justice, and fulfilling its role in the shared jurisdiction with provinces and territories (PTs) for the administration of justice.

These programs are also aligned with federal and departmental roles and priorities in the following areas:

Access to justice

The JPIP aligns with Justice Canada’s commitment to working to advance a people-centred approach to justice that puts consideration of the individual at the heart of justice responses by providing access to information, programs and policies.^Footnote7 Justice Canada is the lead department within the Government of Canada for achieving sustainable development goal #16 of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.^Footnote8 This goal commits the global community to work together to “promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels”. The JPIP is aligned with this commitment as the long-term outcome of the JPIP is to increase access to justice in Canada, and its funded projects and organizations work towards this goal. To this end, JPIP funds organizations such as PLEI organizations that provide legal information and education to individuals to enable them for an informed access to the justice system.

Gender-based violence

The Prime Minister’s December 2019 mandate letter to the Minister of Justice asked that the Minister “work with provinces and territories to provide free legal advice and support to survivors of sexual assault and intimate partner violence.” In the context of the Government of Canada’s “Advancing a National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence,” Budget 2021 announced an investment of $35 million over five years through Justice Canada to provide additional supports for victims of IPV in the family justice system, including assisting these victims to access and navigate the family justice system, and improving justice system responses. In addition, $48.75 million over five years through two Justice Canada programs were also invested to ensure access to free legal advice and legal representation for survivors of sexual assault and IPV.

Under its “Family Violence Initiative”, the JPIP’s objectives are to strengthen the justice system’s response to family violence and promote continued public awareness of family violence and public involvement in the response to family violence. To this end, JPIP funded 23 organizations that were targeted to victims of family, partner or gender-based violence. Project activities such as the Pan-Canadian Conference on Gender-based Violence, development of video capsules on domestic violence, and research on causes, contributing factors and effects of gender-based violence on specific population were funded through this program component.

Truth and reconciliation

JPIP also delivers funding allocated through Budget 2021 to advance the CTAs of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission through the CTA 50 funding across Canada. Justice Canada is responsible for the implementation of 14 of the CTAs, including CTA 50, which calls for funding the establishment of Indigenous law institutes for the development, use, and understanding of Indigenous laws and access to justice in accordance with the unique cultures of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. To this end, the JPIP funded a total of 27 CTA 50 projects over the evaluation period, which were assessed with the support of a review committee, which included Indigenous individuals. The JPIP also made funding available for eight projects focused on “Violence against Aboriginal Women and Girls” between 2017-18 and 2019-20.

Systemic racism and inequalities

JPIP delivers funding allocated through Budget 2021 to support the provision of culturally appropriate legal information and resources, and to pilot legal advice services for racialized communities across Canada. This funding is intended to help fill gaps in legal services and supports for racialized communities in Canada.^Footnote9 JPIP launched a CFP for these services in November 2021, with implementation beginning in 2023.  This supports the Minister’s 2021 Mandate Letter commitment to invest in actions to address systemic inequities in the criminal justice system in recognition of the disproportionate impacts on groups including Black Canadians and Indigenous peoples.

4.1.2 Alignment with the Needs of Canadians, Including Marginalized and Vulnerable Groups

The number of projects that focus on current issues and needs are shown in Table 3, organized based on the needs identified in Justice Canada’s 2018 What we Heard: Transforming Canada’s Criminal Justice System)^Footnote10 report and the Department’s 2020 Looking to 2025 and Beyond report.^Footnote11

Alternatives to courts and incarceration

The Canadian justice system continues to explore alternatives to courts and incarceration through, for example, the use of restorative justice. Restorative justice refers to “an approach to justice that seeks to repair harm by providing an opportunity for those harmed and those who take responsibility for the harm to communicate about and address their needs in the aftermath of a crime.”^Footnote12 In line with this concept of restorative justice, some JPIP-funded projects have focused on alternatives to incarceration, as shown in Table 3, where there were four such projects under the JPIP General component over FYs 2017-18 to 2021-22. For example, one project aimed to accelerate the use of restorative justice across Canada through various means, including modeling an innovation incubator to support inter-jurisdictional collaboration for restorative justice innovation, and piloting a model for education and training curriculum for a restorative approach to justice.

Partnerships with social organizations

There is a continued need to increase partnerships and collaboration with social, health and other relevant sectors that work to address root causes of involvement in the justice system (e.g., poverty, homelessness, substance use, mental illness, trauma, including that of youth in care). This has been a focus of a number of JPIP-funded projects under components such as the Family Violence component. For example, one project developed a compliance guide destined to support the work of social workers, while another worked in collaboration with clinicians and external organizations to provide support to individuals with mental heath, substance abuse, and/or cognitive issues going through the justice system.

Affordability and accessibility of legal services

The expensive cost of accessing legal representation coupled with issues of insufficient legal aid have contributed to an upsurge in self-represented litigants, whose lack of legal and procedural knowledge can result in added challenges for courts and access to justice issues. Correspondingly, there is a need for reducing the financial barriers to accessing justice, including more opportunities to access free legal advice and legal representation, particularly for victims of gender-based and family violence. The initiatives funded under JPIP’s Independent Legal Advice and Representation and PLEI seek to address the affordability as well as accessibility (in part through public legal education) of legal services. PLEI organizations also respond to the need for greater public awareness about public legal education and information, and any free legal advice opportunities available.

Improving Access to Justice for marginalized and vulnerable groups

Marginalized and vulnerable groups, including but not limited to visible minority populations, Indigenous peoples, newcomers and those belonging to the 2SLGBTQI+ community, often face additional barriers within the justice system, such as literacy and language barriers.^Footnote13 There is an identified need to invest in enhancing public trust in the justice system, including for Indigenous and Black Canadians and other racialized communities. Efforts to build this trust involve addressing systemic racism within the justice system, and ensuring access to culturally appropriate services and trauma-informed legal information. Many of the projects funded under JPIP have sought to address the needs of specific groups facing marginalization, discrimination or over-representation in the justice system. JPIP-funded projects have focused on the needs of Indigenous peoples, victims of family/intimate partner or gender-based violence (who are most often women), children or youth, people identifying as 2SLGBTQI+; Northern communities and the wrongly convicted (note that some projects targeted more than one of these groups).

Out of the 128 projects funded through the project-specific components during the period covered by the evaluation, 76% (n=97) specifically aimed to respond to the needs of a marginalized or vulnerable group. Of those, 48% (n=47) are intended to benefit Indigenous peoples, and 53 (41%) are intended to benefit victims (more often, women). While PLEI organizations do not specifically target marginalized or vulnerable groups, evidence indicates that they have information and programming that benefit specific populations, most commonly newcomers, Indigenous peoples and women (including victims of violence and assault), but also youth/students, seniors, people with disabilities (including intellectual and physical disabilities), and incarcerated people.

4.1.3 Responsiveness to Urgent and Emerging Issues

As the JPIP supports activities that respond to changing conditions affecting Canadian justice policy landscape, responsiveness to urgent and emerging needs is a key element of the Program.

Emerging issues on which the JPIP focuses are often identified through Government priority documents (e.g., mandate letters, Speeches from the Throne, and Budget speeches), from senior management, or through JPIP’s network with PTs, non-for-profit organizations and other stakeholders. Priorities identified and assigned to JPIP often come with budget allocated to specific areas. As an example, the CTA 50 component was implemented in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s CTA 50, and the funding to support it was announced through the Budget 2019.

In other cases, urgent and time-sensitive issues that had not been anticipated might arise. This was the case, as an example, of the shooting down of the Ukrainian Airlines Flight PS752. In unusual cases such as this one, the JPIP might leverage its General component to provide support and address this unexpected need.

On January 8, 2020, the Ukrainian Airlines Flight PS752 was shot down shortly after takeoff from Tehran, Iran, where Canada has no consular presence. Fifty-five Canadian citizens and 30 permanent residents lost their lives in the plane crash. In response to this tragedy, funding from the JPIP General component was quickly provided to Pro Bono Ontario, to offer legal assistance across Canada to the families of Canadian victims. About two weeks after the plane was shot down, Pro Bono Ontario could begin providing support to the affected families.

The project-specific component of the JPIP General component represents a small portion of the JPIP. It has a small budget, and additional funding is usually obtained through departmental resource reallocation exercises. This Program component does not conduct CFPs, and instead, aims to respond to needs as they arise, sometimes reaching out to specific organizations to address time-sensitive or very specific emerging issues. In some cases, organizations submit unsolicited proposals directly to the Program to respond to such issues. Similar approaches are used in other federal departments, where programs aim to react quickly to emerging issues (e.g., societal movements such as Black Lives Matter).

Evidence demonstrates that using the General component to address emerging and urgent needs is a best practice, and enables the Program to respond to various types of issues. The JPIP General component’s broad objectives allow for flexibility and responsiveness in addressing priorities and emerging topics or issues. It should be noted, however, that the breadth of objectives can also lead to high demands for funding from organizations, as a high number of projects might contribute to those objectives.

4.2 Effectiveness

4.2.1 Increased Capacity to Build Knowledge, Awareness, and Understanding of Justice Issues

The JPIP funding increased recipients’ capacity to provide services and carry out activities that build and contribute to knowledge development, awareness, and understanding of various justice issues. According to all interviewed recipients, without the JPIP funding, they could not have undertaken their projects or expanded their capacities. In fact, half of the interviewed recipients indicated they could not have continued to operate without JPIP funding.

The JPIP supports various projects and organizations that sometimes operate in very specific and/or innovative justice-related areas, making it somewhat difficult to find funding opportunities to support their activities. By providing support to projects that promote innovations in the justice system, the JPIP contributes to increasing the capacity of organizations that would not have otherwise been able to conduct their activities. As example, the JPIP funds an organization that is undertaking a pilot project providing trauma-informed mental health support to citizens who have performed jury duty, assisted with a peer support program. This organization is reportedly the first such organization in the world. Similarly, the case study on the Réseau d’action pour l’égalité des femmes immigrées et racisées du Québec indicated that no other source of funding could have supported their project to increase awareness about female genital mutilation. Without JPIP funding, this project would not have been possible; the organization was able to hire a project manager and officers, move into its own space and begin its project activities in earnest.

Funding recipients use the JPIP funding to enhance their capacities through means such as funding salaries and expanding their services, locations, scope, or products. A few organizations undertook consultations, and used the funding for research and data collection. In some cases, the JPIP funding is also used to develop knowledge resources for internal use. In the Flight 752 Legal Relief Initiative project, the JPIP funding was used to develop a series of knowledge resources to ensure the provision of consistent, culturally appropriate and trauma-informed responses to clients. Those resources were shared with staff and volunteer lawyers contributing to the projects and used to update the organization’s procedures and ensure the promotion of a culture of safety, empowerment, and healing.

Furthermore, the Program provides additional opportunities for funding recipients to increase capacity by promoting and supporting the development of partnerships. The Program promotes and supports collaboration and information-sharing among program recipients and other stakeholders. In some cases, JPIP officers directly supported the establishment of partnerships by connecting various stakeholders from different jurisdictions. With the support of stakeholders, such as subject-matter experts or social organizations, funding recipients reported developing new and informed approaches and tools that supported the design and delivery of their activities. The collaboration of professionals and target populations provided the practical guidance needed to align project outcomes with the needs of the target audience. Further, stakeholder collaboration helped promote diversity, inclusiveness, and identify and address overlooked biases. In addition, collaboration and partnerships expanded the organizations’ legal network to better serve a more diverse and vulnerable population.

It is important to note that the resources, partnerships, training and new approaches developed through JPIP-funded projects are often sustained and further built upon even after the project’s completion. All case study respondents were planning on using the findings, products, or lessons learned developed as part of their JPIP-funded projects after the end of the funding period. As an example, one case study recipient reported developing new resources based on their research results, and using new knowledge and experience acquired during the project to contribute to consultations and reviews of different aspects of justice issues.

Provincial PLEI organizations, as well as AJA-PLEI organizations, receive annual funding to support their core operations. In 2019, funding amounts provided to these organizations were increased for the first time in over twenty years, which provided critical support for their operations. PLEI and AJA-PLEI organizations used this additional funding to hire new staff, and to create and update content. It is important to note that PLEI organizations operating in the territories face additional challenges and costs in disseminating information, as large portions of the territories are populated by small and remote communities, with sometimes limited access to telephone and internet services.

The JPIP’s response assisted the PLEI and AJA-PLEI organizations in addressing the increased demand for legal information and advice on pandemic-related issues. Further, it enabled the organizations to make this information available to the public in a pandemic environment. PLEI organizations used the funding to improve their virtual service offerings, including: changes to their websites, developing new COVID-related content, developing videos/webinars, and offering live chats and tools (e.g., fillable online forms).

4.2.2 Increased Knowledge of the Justice System for Canadians

The majority of JPIP-funded projects contributed to increasing Canadians’ knowledge of the justice system. Across its various components, the JPIP has funded projects that have increased the availability and accessibility of legal information on a variety of topics, such as Indigenous laws and legal traditions, family justice, and support for IPV survivors.

JPIP funding allowed organizations to develop a variety of tools and resources, aimed at increasing awareness and understanding of the justice system. These include the creation of legal information materials including publications, toolkits and handbooks, videos, webinars and workshops. For example, as part of its JPIP-funded project, one organization developed a six-part webinar series aimed at legal professionals on various areas of law and how to improve outcomes for 2SLGBTQI+ individuals, and posted the videos on its website for further access.

Dissemination of the materials developed occurred through different channels such as websites, emails, a variety of social media platforms and information sessions. 

As part of the Access to Justice for Family Violence in Nunavut project, the Law Society of Nunavut led an awareness campaign to provide information on dealing with family violence through the Family Abuse Intervention Act (FAIA) and other supports. Various materials and events, such as fact sheets, radio broadcasts and podcast, community events, and resource handbook were organized and shared to increase awareness.

PLEI organizations play a major role in increasing awareness and knowledge of the justice system within their respective PTs. They have developed information on a variety of topics, including laws, obligations and rights, key players in the justice system, the nature of the courts and related processes, navigating the justice system, the rule of law, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

4.2.3 Strengthened Legal Framework

The JPIP contributes to a strengthened legal framework in various ways. A few JPIP projects directly led to policy discussions and procedural changes and thus had a direct impact on the legal framework. Anecdotal evidence from case studies, such as the Nova Scotia Department of Justice (see example below), and the Law of Society of Nunavut, which provided input in the Nunavut Department of Justice review of the FAIA, demonstrates that JPIP-funded projects can directly impact the Canadian legal framework. 

As part of the Building a Comprehensive Framework that Can Support Acceleration of Restorative Justice in all Provinces and Territories project, the Nova Scotia Department of Justice collaborated with five other PTs and the federal government to support the development of a consistent framework to accelerate the use of restorative justice in the criminal justice system.

Through policy discussion, a paper presenting four key elements/best practices which can guide efforts to transform restorative justice into a formal justice option in Canada was developed. This framework subsequently received endorsement from Ministers at the FPT meeting of Ministers Responsible for Justice and Public Safety in November 2018, and the paper was published on the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat website.

While not all projects contribute directly to this Program objective, collaboration and partnerships between justice stakeholders, as well as training provided through project activities, contributed to a strengthened Canadian legal framework.

The majority (73%) of projects included in the file review reported having established partnerships with other justice stakeholders as part or as a result of their activities. For example, partnerships were established with provincial, territorial and national organizations (including provincial courts, pro bono organizations, various Indigenous groups, universities and schools, and social organizations representing marginalized and vulnerable populations (such as 2SLGBTQI+ individuals)).

Through these partnerships, project recipients reported receiving assistance in conducting research, identifying gaps and emerging trends, and enhancing the effectiveness, accessibility and reach of the PLEI materials developed. Interviewees noted that increasing awareness of various legal issues, developing and informing new models in the justice system, and encouraging the participation of diverse voices in the justice system would ultimately contribute to a strengthened legal framework.

Projects that developed and delivered training to legal professionals are also considered to contribute to a strengthened legal framework. Various projects funded through the JPIP aimed to provide training to judges, court staff, and other legal justice stakeholders. For example, in one case study, the recipient (i.e., Egale) developed and provided lawyers and other legal professionals with training on the challenges faced by 2SLGBTQI+ individuals and how best they can navigate the system. One of the webinars developed as part of this project touched specifically on the future of laws, addressing new dynamics that impact the 2SLGBTQI+ community of which legal practitioners should be aware. Other organizations, such as those receiving named grants, contribute to a strengthened legal framework by, for example, maintaining professional standards, providing educational programs for federal, provincial, and territorial judges, and working on the harmonization of laws of the PTs.

4.2.4 Increased Access to the Justice System

Access to the justice system is often complex, and entangled with various other issues such as housing, employment, and family violence. Access to information, resources and informal services, education and guidance is a key element in supporting an increased access to justice^Footnote14. By developing and disseminating information about the Canadian justice system and people’s rights and obligations, JPIP-funded projects contributed to an increased access to justice for Canadians.

While some issues remain in Canada, especially for marginalized and vulnerable groups, positive developments in access to justice were noted in the 2021 Canada’s Justice Development Goals^Footnote15report. Noted improvements included the delivery of public legal education and information in the COVID-19 pandemic environment using innovative approaches, the increased use of technology, work being done to provide more culturally appropriate services for Indigenous peoples, racialized individuals, 2SLGBTQI+ communities and other Canadians, as well as the development of new tools and resources for self-represented litigants.

While JPIP’s contribution to these improvements could not be precisely quantified in this evaluation, many of the projects funded through the Program implemented activities related to those areas. COVID-related projects, including the one-time funding provided to PLEI (and AJA-PLEI) organizations, is an example of the Program’s response that contributed to an increased access to justice for Canadians during the pandemic. The funding provided through the CTA 50 component supported the revitalization of Indigenous laws and access to justice in accordance with the cultures of Indigenous peoples in Canada.

Most projects funded by the JPIP contributed directly to an increased access to justice. This was done by increasing information for victims (e.g., IPV projects), supporting professional training, increasing access to court in their communities, etc. PLEI organizations also support access to justice by providing relevant information on processes.

Access to justice for minorities in Canada was also supported by JPIP-funded projects. A majority of projects reviewed as part of the file review supported the Official Language Minority Communities (OLMC - francophones outside of Quebec and anglophones in Quebec) through provision of translated materials and bilingual services. A few projects also provided bilingual services for Indigenous-language speakers.

4.3 Efficiency

4.3.1 Management of the JPIP

Funding Management

Generally, the evidence suggests that the funding is seen as flexible, allowing recipients to use the funds as necessary, for example, to engage human resources and administrative expenses. That said, some recipients highlighted that being allowed to move funds between FYs could facilitate the success of their projects.

The current levels of funding available through JPIP are seen as an important feature of the Program. Particularly, the PLEI recipients all noted and expressed appreciation that their funding had been increased in 2019. This increase in funding helped them address the erosion of the JPIPfunding in real dollars that had occurred over time. However, most PLEI recipients also commented that the core funding they receive from JPIP should be indexed to inflation.

Furthermore, since 2019, the provincial PLEI organizations receive JPIP funding through a five-year cycle. Prior to 2019, the organizations had to apply for funding every year, which represented a considerable burden for some of them. This new multi-year funding structure was greatly appreciated by the provincial PLEI organizations, as it reduces the administrative burden related to planning and reporting of their activities.

The evidence indicates that JPIP’s financial management is efficient, with some reprofiling^Footnote16 of funds due to external factors. For example, FY 2019-20 saw a larger amount of lapsing for Vote 1 (O&M); reprofiling was needed due to the September 2021 federal election. FYs 2020-21 and 2021-22 had lapses in Vote 5 (Gs&Cs); reprofiling was requested to help better support organizations and projects funded by the Program, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the inability of organizations to fully expend their funds. It was also noted that during the evaluation period, the Program has benefited from lapsed funds of other Justice Canada programs.

CFPs and Application Processes

JPIP’s CFPs and application processes were seen as efficient. JPIP issues most of its project-specific funding through specific CFPs, with the exception of the JPIP General component. The CFP process was seen as effective and qualified as “smooth” by recipients. It was also noted that the Program generally did a good job at identifying opportunities for CFPs, as well as the process to launch the calls.

Some constraints were identified regarding the CFP process. For example, although the outreach was generally seen as efficient (i.e. when Justice Canada program officers reach out to potential applicants to either advise them of the CFP and/or invite them to apply), some recipients, mostly IPV recipients, indicated that the outreach could be strengthened, as sometimes they were only made aware of the funding opportunity through another organization.

The JPIP General component is the only project-specific component that does not use a CFP process. While this may allow the Program to provide funding in a timely manner when urgent issues arise, the lack of transparency and accessibility to those funds was raised as an issue by both Justice Canada staff and funding recipients.

Programs assessed in the environmental scan, which operate broad funds, faced similar issues. It was noted that although open CFPs are administratively burdensome, they are more transparent and likely to engage a broader swath of recipients. On the other hand, invitational CFPs are timelier, but they often limit the Program to known service providers. The type of CFPselected (opened vs. invitational) was often chosen based on timelines, funding amounts available, and Program capacity to assess received applications. During the evaluation, it was suggested that a two-step process that starts with a letter of interest before applicants are asked to invest in the development of a proposal would be useful.

In terms of the application process, evidence suggests that overall, it is easy and straightforward. It is worth noting that JPIP staff provide direct support and tools (such as GBA Plus materials) to applicants to guide them in the application process. However, constraints were raised regarding some requirements (e.g., support letters from provincial governments). The short turnaround time to complete and submit applications was also raised as a constraint. The lack of time for consultation with project beneficiaries represented an issue for applicants, as consultation with target audiences and other justice stakeholders in the design phase of a project was identified as a means to ensure the effectiveness and appropriateness of the funded activities.

As for AJA-PLEI, the evidence suggests that the agreements are well-managed^Footnote17. Justice Canada receives reports from the territories that illustrate how the funding was spent (though there is less information available on outcomes of the funding) and each agreement is audited. Territories have the flexibility to move the funding between its Legal Aid, Indigenous Courtwork Services, and PLEI components to meet needs.

Reporting and Monitoring

In terms of information management systems, JPIP uses GCIMS^Footnote18 to capture information about funded projects. The evaluation found limitations to extract and/or generate information from the system. Although GCIMS is a corporate information management system used by other Justice Canada programs as well, it is seen as not fully meeting JPIP’s program management needs. A new corporate information management system is expected to be implemented in the near future, which will help address these limitations.

GBA Plus Considerations

Evidence confirms that applicants and funding recipients provide relevant GBA Plus information to the Program through the application process, assessment process, and interim and final reporting. During the application and assessment stages, the Program considered various GBA Plus factors such as the inclusion of a GBA Plus analysis in project design, demonstrated expertise working with racialized communities and delivering culturally relevant services, identification of the target populations that will directly benefit from their proposed project, and the explanation of how the project will demonstrate sensitivity to diversity and gender equality issues. Applicants also need to describe how the project will take into consideration the needs of OLMCs.

At the reporting stage, recipients are required to explain, when applicable, how their project impacted marginalized and vulnerable groups, whether they took any specific measures to increase or encourage the participation of these groups in the project, and how they integrated their different perspectives into the development and/or delivery of the project.

4.4 Looking Forward

This section of the reports adopts a prospective perspective based on the main the findings of this evaluation. Particularly, it looks at JPIP’s strengths and challenges, best practices from other similar federal programs, and array of opportunities with the objective of highlighting factors that should be taken into consideration by the JPIP moving forward. Although the level of influence that the Program has on these elements may vary, particularly for best practices and opportunities, the evaluation found that these are key elements to consider in the future.  

4.4.1 Strengths, Challenges, Best Practices and Opportunities

Throughout the report, specific elements for considerations were highlighted using the following icons:

Strengths, Challenges and Best Practices

By identifying strengths, the evaluation first aimed to identify what the Program does best. For the purpose of the evaluation, strengths are internal to the Program and under its control, and are key elements to the Program’s achievement of results. Challenges represent potential areas of improvement for the Program, or elements that could hinder the achievement of results. It is worth noting that the JPIP has been in place for almost 30 years. Over the years, improvements have been made to the JPIP, and while challenges remain, some of the identified challenges are outside of its control. Figure 1 depicts the strengths and challenges identified throughout the report.

Figure 1: Program Strengths and Challenges

All of the programs included in the environmental scan featured broad objectives to address general social or health challenges. These programs address multiple objectives and attempt to fund projects that have regional representation or are diverse in other respects. In that sense, they were considered similar to those of the JPIP. These were examined as part of the evaluation, with the intent of identifying best practices. While those programs often operate in similar ways to the JPIP, they operate in different areas. Relevant best practices were identified throughout the report. Figure 2 depicts best practices from other federal programs identified throughout the report.

Figure 2: Best Practices from Similar Programs

Opportunities for the JPIP

In light of the strengths, challenges, and best practices identified in the report, along with other findings, the evaluation aimed to identify how the JPIP could take advantage of some opportunities to improve its operations going forward.

The evidence suggests that the JPIP could benefit from seeking additional opportunities for increased communication and information-sharing, both with and between funding recipients, and with other groups within Justice Canada (such as with policy and research units, and the Communications Branch).

Increased Communication with Funding Recipients

Leveraging its strength in communication and outreach, and its experience with ad hoc recipients' meetings, the JPIP could consider repeating and expanding these exercises in a structured and regular manner. This best practice, identified through the environmental scan, may be an opportunity for the Program to promote and support additional networking between funded organizations, potentially leading to increased collaboration, information sharing, and the establishment of new and/or strengthened partnerships with and between funded organizations. As highlighted in section 4.2, this could increase funded organizations’ capacity to increase their knowledge, awareness, and understanding of the Canadian justice system. When appropriate, inviting additional justice stakeholders, such as subject-matter experts, or representatives from specific groups (such as Indigenous and/or 2SLGBTQI+ individuals), the JPIP could also help inform funding recipients of specific needs/challenges these populations may face, and contribute to informing the projects’ approaches. In addition to supporting the funding recipients in the planning and implementation of their activities, this could address one of the Program’s challenges, namely, the incorporation of the GBA Plus principles beyond the initial project selection assessment.

Organizing those meetings would also represent an enhanced learning opportunity for the Program itself. Meeting regularly and systematically with various justice stakeholders, including experts and practitioners who work directly with Canadians, could help the Program reinforce its monitoring of trends and emerging issues in the justice sector.

Increased Leverage of Justice Canada Expertise

It was noted in the environmental scan that other federal programs are working in close relationships with their policy and/or research units, enabling them to quickly identify emerging issues, and to understand the broader context in which those issues occur. Working in closer collaboration with those groups within Justice Canada could support JPIP’s efforts in the monitoring of emerging needs and further increase its responsiveness to those issues. Leveraging such departmental expertise could in turn support the JPIP in its response to address those needs through its funding activities. Having a better knowledge of specific emerging justice issues, and of the justice landscape in general, could also support the Program in the design of project assessment criteria for CFPs, which was identified as a challenge by funding recipients.

An increased internal collaboration could also represent an opportunity for JPIP to better support an enhanced awareness of the funded organizations and their projects. The high cost of raising public awareness about available resources and services offered was also identified as a challenge for the various organizations funded through the JPIP particularly pertaining to PLEI. By working with other groups within Justice Canada (such as the Communications Branch), the Program could seek opportunities to increase the reach of the dissemination of information regarding activities and materials produced by the organizations funded through the JPIP. The increase of public awareness of organizations, projects and related outputs could contribute to informing Canadians of their existence, and further increase access to justice.

Justice Landscape

The evaluation identified additional considerations for the Program. While those elements are not necessarily under the JPIP’s control, they should be considered for decision-making, as they were noted as important in the justice landscape, and are likely to have an impact on Canadians and organizations evolving in this area.

Legal issues are often complex and entangled with other factors such as mental health, housing, and employment. Addressing issues that have an impact on Canadians’ access to justice may require working on various fronts, with a multiplicity of stakeholders, such as PT organizations, community-level organizations, practitioners, and other funders. Some recipients noted an overlap between the work of various funders, sometimes between federal departments, which may fund projects with similar objectives, in the same geographic area, and/or with the same target audience. Coordination with other funders on connected issues and projects could minimize the risk for overlap, while targeting root causes of justice issues, and potentially increasing the reach and impact of funded projects.

In addition, the evidence suggests that the development of new technologies will affect both funding recipients and Canadians in the upcoming years. New technologies may affect the availability of resources and services, as well as the way that Canadians access information. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how technology could be used to provide alternatives to access information, and how quickly the use of technology, both by funding recipients and Canadians, can evolve. New technologies, such as artificial intelligence, may open new opportunities (or risks) for improving individual legal knowledge and increasing access to justice, particularly for low-income, marginalized, and more vulnerable Canadians. While this is not under its control, the JPIP should monitor the use of technology in access to justice, as it will continue to play a part in shaping access to justice, including information and services, in the future.  

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page