| Continued need for Aboriginal Justice Strategy (AJS) |
1. To what extent is there a continuing need for the AJS? |
| 2. Are there any emerging needs? |
| Alignment with government priorities and departmental strategic outcomes |
3. To what extent are the AJS objectives aligned with Government of Canada priorities? |
| 4. To what extent are the AJS objectives aligned with the strategic priorities of the Department of Justice? |
| Alignment with federal roles and responsibilities |
5. To what extent do the AJS activities/objectives align with federal roles and responsibilities? |
| A justice system that responds to the needs of Aboriginal people by providing culturally relevant information and services |
6. To what extent have the AJS community-based programs contributed to a justice system that responds to the needs of Aboriginal people by providing culturally relevant programming, information and services? |
| 7. Has the AJS contributed to increasing access to community-based programs for Aboriginal people? |
| 8. To what extent has the AJS increased knowledge, skills and capacity to offer community-based programs (new and enhanced)? |
| 9. To what extent has there been increased capacity for networking and collaboration at the community level? |
| Federal policy that addresses the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the Canadian justice system |
10. To what extent has there been increased federal, provincial and territorial collaboration and integration to address Aboriginal overrepresentation in the Canadian criminal justice system? |
| 11. What policy activities were undertaken to address the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the Canadian justice system? |
| Aboriginal communities are more involved in local justice administration |
12. To what extent do the AJS programs increase Aboriginal community involvement in the administration of justice services? |
| 13. Are there other ways that the AJS programs could be more involved in the administration of justice services? |
| 14. What are some promising practices? |
| Relevant Aboriginal cultural values are reflected in the Canadian justice administration |
15. To what extent are the community-based justice programs recognized as a culturally relevant alternative to the mainstream justice system? |
| 16. To what extent have the community-based programs established links with the mainstream justice system? |
| 17. To what extent have links with the mainstream justice system improved the delivery of community-based justice programming and services? |
| Reducing crime and incarceration rates in communities with AJS programs |
18. To what extent is the AJS contributing to reduced rates of crime and incarceration among Aboriginal people in communities operating AJS programs? |
| 19. What factors contributed or prevented individuals from completing AJS programs? |
| Safer and healthier communities |
20. To what extent and in what ways do AJS programs contribute to increasing community safety and community wellness? |
| Design and delivery |
21. Are there any best practices or lessons learned in the delivery of the AJS? |
| 22. Since the last evaluation, has the data collection system been adequate to support AJS monitoring and reporting requirements? |
| 23. How has the cost-shared design contributed to the efficiency of the AJS? |
| Economy |
24. How did the resources used affect the results achieved? |
| Operational efficiency |
25. Are the Community-Based Justice Fund and the Capacity-Building Fund being administered efficiently? |
| Allocative efficiency |
26. What cost savings were achieved for the mainstream justice system as a result of the AJS? |
