Relevance |
1. |
How relevant is the Initiative in terms of the priorities of the Department of Justice and the federal government with respect to access to justice in both official languages? |
- Comparison between the Initiative’s expected outcomes and the Department of Justice’s strategic outcomes;
- Comparison between the Initiative’s expected outcomes and the federal government’s official language priorities;
- Opinion of key informants.
|
- Review of relevant literature (Speech from the Throne, the Department’s policy documents, etc.);
- Interviews;
- Expert panels.
|
2. |
Is there a legitimate and necessary role for the federal government in the area of access to justice in both official languages? |
- Sharing of roles and responsibilities in the area of official languages;
- Opinion of key informants.
|
- Review of relevant literature (Speech from the Throne, the Department’s policy documents, etc.);
- Interviews;
- Expert panels.
|
3. |
To what extent do the activities undertaken through the Initiative meet the needs of justice stakeholders? |
- Change in the legislative context connected with justice in both official languages;
- Change in the demographic context of official language communities;
- Opinion of key informants;
- Results from studies on access to justice in both official languages.
|
- Review of writings;
- Literature review;
- Interviews;
- Expert panels;
- Training requirements study;
- Survey among recipient organizations.
|
4. |
Is there a continued need for the activities funded by the Initiative? |
- The extent to which the training needs remain.
|
- Interviews;
- Results from the training requirements study.
|
Effectiveness |
5. |
Does implementation of the training-related component align with the objectives of the Initiative and the Roadmap for Canada’s Linguistic Duality? Was it implemented effectively? |
- Nature of the link between the activities undertaken and the objectives set out in the Roadmap;
- Degree of fit between the implementation plan and the means available to the Department;
- Progress level in implementing the training component.
|
- Literature review;
- Interviews;
- Expert panels.
|
6. |
How clear and transparent is the process for selecting projects funded through the Support Fund and the training component? |
- Number and format of information materials made available to eligible organizations;
- Level of clarity in the project selection process;
- Opinion of key informants.
|
- Literature reviews;
- Interviews;
- Surveys among recipient organizations;
- Case studies.
|
7. |
Do the coordination structures connected with the Initiative operate effectively? |
- Level of clarity in the roles and responsibilities of the coordination structures;
- Level of involvement in the coordination structures;
- Opinion of individuals involved on the coordination structures;
- Number of meetings of the coordinating structures;
- Participants’ satisfaction level.
|
- Literature review;
- Interviews.
|
8. |
To what extent are the data relating to performance measurement and accountability collected and incorporated into the day-to-day management of the Initiative? |
- Level of fit between the information gathered and the Department’s reporting commitments;
- Quality level of the data gathered;
- Level of use of the data in managing the Initiative.
|
- Interviews;
- Data analysis;
- Literature review.
|
9. |
To what extent did the Initiative contribute to the implementation of projects that help ensure increased, ongoing access to justice services in both official languages? |
- Number and types of projects funded;
- Level of advancement in the supply of services in both official languages within the justice system;
- Opinion of key informants.
|
- Literature review;
- Interviews;
- Survey among recipient organizations;
- Expert panels;
- Case studies.
|
10. |
To what extent has the training component contributed to the development of an academic program, recruiting tools and strategies for ensuring increased, ongoing access to justice services in both official languages? |
- Number and types of projects funded;
- Level of advancement in developing a curriculum and access to tools and strategies;
- Opinion of key informants.
|
- Literature review;
- Interviews;
- Survey among recipient organizations;
- Expert panels;
- Case studies.
|
11. |
To what extent were the identified training needs met? |
- Percentage of the identified training needs that are addressed by the projects;
- Nature of the outcomes achieved through the projects funded in the area of training;
- Opinion of key informants.
|
- Literature review;
- Interviews;
- Survey among recipient organizations;
- Expert panels.
|
12. |
To what extent was there complementarity among the activities undertaken by the Support Fund and those undertaken by the training component? |
- Nature of the connections between the Support Fund projects and those of the training initiative;
- Opinion of key informants.
|
- Literature review
- Interviews;
- Survey among recipient organizations;
- Expert panels.
|
13. |
Did the Initiative have unanticipated impacts (positive or negative)? |
- Evidence of unanticipated outcomes;
- Opinion of key informants.
|
- Literature review;
- Interviews;
- Survey among recipient organizations;
- Expert panels;
- Case studies.
|