Aboriginal Courtwork Program, Formative Evaluation

2. Findings – Implementation and Delivery (cont'd)

2.8. Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities

The formal roles and responsibilities of the federal government and the P/Ts are outlined in the agreements with the provinces and territories.  Courtworker services eligible for DOJ funding are outlined in the contribution agreements.

P/T and DOJ officials feel the roles and responsibilities of the P/Ts, SDAs and the Department are clearly understood by the key parties involved in the deliver of the program, but that in some jurisdictions, the role of courtworker is not clearly understood by the justice system, the Aboriginal communities or the public.

Most SDAs did not believe that the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders were clear to all. Almost all SDA respondents identified conflicts in the roles and responsibilities of key players and half believed there is overlap in the roles. 

The courtworkers surveyed felt they understood their roles and responsibilities. On a scale of one to ten, where one meant not all understood and ten mean fully understood, the average rating was 9.2; 56 percent felt that they fully understood their roles and responsibilities.  The results for each jurisdiction are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 – Courtworker Understanding of their Roles and Responsibilities, by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Average Rating Number of Respondents
Newfoundland and Labrador 9.3 3
Nova Scotia 10.0 3
Quebec 9.6 14
Ontario 9.3 29
Manitoba 9.0 10
Saskatchewan 9.2 19
Alberta 8.9 15
British Columbia 9.4 18
Northwest Territories 9.1 8
Nunavut 8.4 8
Yukon 7.0 3
Total 9.2 130

The courtworkers also felt that lawyers understand courtworker roles and responsibilities the best, whereas judges (other than presiding or circuit) understand them the least.

Conclusions:  The roles and responsibilities of the P/Ts, SDAs and the Department appear to be clear and clearly understood by most parties involved in the program. The courtworkers themselves understand their roles and responsibilities, but they as well as a few P/T officials believe that the roles and responsibilities of the courtworker could be better communicated to the judiciary.

2.9. Perceived Impact of Increase in Federal Funding

From 1993 to 2000, the federal government funding for the ACW Program was fixed at $4.5 million annually.  In the December 2001 budget an ongoing funding increase of $1 million was approved, starting in fiscal year 2002-03, allocated as follows:

According to DOJ documents, the additional funding was to help jurisdictions address:

The additional funding to the P/Ts was available on the condition that:

The funds therefore needed to be matched by the provinces and used for eligible services.  The previous notional allocations were $3,997,500 to the provinces and $502,500 to the territories, for a total of $4.5 million.  With the new funding, the notional allocations increased to $4,836,363 to the provinces and $588,637 to the territories, for a total of $5,425,000.

According to P/T officials, although the increased federal funding has been of some benefit, it has not been sufficient to meet the increased program costs.  Most P/Ts and SDAs used the additional funds for existing salaries and benefits or for training. One SDA has not benefited from the increased federal funding as its jurisdiction has not matched the federal increase.

Conclusions:  The recent increase in federal funding helped alleviate some of the immediate pressures on the Courtworker Program, but according to P/T officials, the additional fundining has not fully met increases in program costs.

2.10. Strengths and Weaknesses in the Delivery of the Program

The strengths and weaknesses of ACW Program delivery are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 – Strengths and Weaknesses of Program Delivery
Respondents Strengths Weaknesses
SDAs
  • Aboriginal driven
  • Flexible enough to meet needs
  • Community connection, sensitivity and integration
  • Integration of service with other justice programs and/or community-based programs
  • Available network of problem solvers
  • Enhanced accountability (Legal Services Board)
  • Not enough courtworkers to cover the geographic area
  • The federal and P/T reporting requirements are burdensome and take away from service delivery capacity
  • Where there are several SDAs or sub-contracted organizations, there is varying capacity
P/Ts
  • Aboriginal delivered
  • Community based and integrated with other justice programs and/or community-based programs
  • Good standardization, particularly in centralized delivery
  • Consensus among multiple SDAs, when reached, is strong

Where there are multiple SDAs or sub-contracted organizations, there is varying capacity and it takes longer to get consensus and the required information

DOJ
  • Aboriginal delivered
  • Community based

Where there are multiple SDAs within a jurisdiction, there is the potential for duplication of administration and varying capacities to deliver the program (training, costs).  One DOJ role is to identify potential areas of increased efficiency in meeting the federal requirements.

Table 4 on the next page shows courtworker satisfaction with various aspects of service delivery. Courtworkers were asked to rate various delivery elements on a scale of one to ten, where ten means that the courtworkers were fully satisfied.  As can be seen, the mean ratings range from 6.7 to 8.1.

Conclusions: All respondents agreed that program's strengths are that it is Aboriginal-delivered and community based. One challenge associated with multiple SDAs is the varying capacity of these SDAs to deliver services and to respond to the accountability requirements. Overall, the courtworkers are satisfied with the way in which the services are delivered in their jurisdictions.

Table 4 – Satisfaction of Courtworkers with Program Delivery Elements by Jurisdiction

2.11. Extent to which Aboriginal Courtworkers have Reached their Client Groups

The client groups of the ACW Program are as follows:

  1. Aboriginal accused and in the territories, where courtworkers are active in both civil and criminal matters, Aboriginal people involved in civil matters; and
  2. Others:Families of Aboriginal accused, co-accused, Aboriginal victims, Aboriginal witnesses, “Sureties,” court officials (legal aid, defence counsel, Crown counsel, clerks/judicial assistants), judiciary (judges and Justices of the Peace), law enforcement (police/RCMP/tribal police, sheriffs, fisheries and conservation peace officers), agencies responsible for transport and/or custody of Aboriginal Accused, parole/probation officers), Aboriginal community, including Aboriginal agencies and community justice initiatives, other non-Aboriginal agencies, including children and family services, treatment programs, law enforcement and judicial complaint agencies, criminal injuries compensation funds.

P/T officials and SDA respondents say reaching clients involves overcoming human resource challenges, including a lack of courtworkers and high turnover, and other challenges such as the need to travel to small, scattered communities and competing demands for services between communities. SDA respondents also mentioned language barriers, cultural differences, a need that exceeded capacity, and overlap in court circuits.

DOJ program officials noted the demand for services exceeds capacity in the criminal court system, which is aggravated by the fact that courtworkers are often asked to perform duties beyond the norm.  It was also noted that in some jurisdictions, demand has led to an expanded program, such as in Ontario and Alberta, which also have family law courtworkers.

At the time of this evaluation, the data on the number of clients served had not yet been collected or aggregated from all jurisdictions.

Conclusion:  There was no accurate data on the number of clients reached by the program. There are a number of challenges reaching clients including the lack of courtworkers and the need to travel to reach clients.

2.12. Extent to which Aboriginal Courtworkers have Facilitated Linkages between the Formal and Community Justice Systems and the Aboriginal community

Almost all interviewees felt that courtworkers have successfully facilitated links on behalf of the accused between established and evolving community justice programs and the formal justice system.

Almost all P/T officials felt there are good relationships between the courtworkers and community justice officials, and were able to provide specific examples. Overall, P/T officials are positive about these links.  One territorial official noted, however, that there are fewer opportunities for relationships as the community justice program in the territory had been significantly reduced. Several P/Ts have combined the courtworker and community justice officials' positions, and a few others have joint or cross training for courtworkers and CJO workers.  Several P/T officials and SDAs are also responsible for restorative justice initiatives. P/T officials believe that the relationships between the ACW and restorative justice initiatives lead to better services, better access to services, and greater community involvement in decision making.

P/T officials identified a few negative impacts arising from the increased linkages:

A few P/T officials mentioned the need to explore a more integrated approach or better linkages with the Aboriginal Justice Strategy nationally and locally.[5]

SDAs and CJOs have established relationships in a number of different ways. Courtworkers or CJOs have held joint forums to nurture their relationship, facilitate local communication, and conduct community tours of correctional facilities.  In other cases, courtworker credibility with the courts (over such issues as Gladue) promotes relationships and creates an effective lobby within the court and with policy makers.  Some courtworkers are involved in peacemaking, youth and restorative justice programs and others participate in monthly alternative sentencing or sit on interagency committees where community justice officials are members.  Courtworkers and CJOs also share training resources, exchange referrals and coordinate services.  In fact, in one community, if there is no CJO or the CJO lacks the training, experience or confidence to perform well in their role, then the courtworker either does the work or helps to train the CJO.

One community-based justice program credited the ACW program for its creation.  Other benefits of the relationships identified by SDAs included:

Nearly half of the SDAs were unable to identify drawbacks to these established links. In fact, the only drawback seemed to be the time that must be invested to establish and maintain relationships.

Half of the courtworkers indicated that they were on a committee, council, task force, commission, or formal network that was outside the ACW program per se and believed that this helped them better serve their clients. In addition, 98 percent of surveyed courtworkers indicated that they were aware of other programs and services available to their clients in their community.

Conclusion:  Courtworkers have been successfully facilitating links between established and evolving community justice programs and the formal justice system.  The linkages are strongest in SDAs that also deliver community justice programs, share courtworker or community justice positions, or conduct cross-training.


[5] It should be noted that the Aboriginal Justice Strategy became part of the Programs Branch in June 2006, which could provide more opportunities to combine the groups to share information about roles, responsibilities and training.