Evaluation of Federal Support for Family Justice

Appendices

Appendix A: Evaluation Matrix

Issues and Questions	Performance Indicators	Lines of Evidence (Described in Appendix C)
Issues and Questions	Performance Indicators	Surveys	Justice Canada Studies	Documents and File Review	Focus Group	Process Mapping Costing	Key Informants
Relevance
1. Is there evidence of an ongoing need for the Department to work in the area of family justice?	1.1 Legal trends/policy gaps/emerging issues and policy needs related to family justice and children’s law	● Yes	● Yes		● Yes		● Yes
	1.2 Perceptions of continued need for family justice, and children’s law legal and policy work			● Yes	● Yes		● Yes
2. Is there a continued need to support the delivery of family justice services?	2.1 Number/nature of applications for SFI and CFJF project funding/number of projects funded			● Yes
	2.2 Perceptions of the continued need for support			● Yes	● Yes		● Yes
3. To what extent do the core family justice activities remain relevant?	3.1 Constitutional and statutory authority for core activities			● Yes
	3.2 Perceptions of relevance of core activities			● Yes	● Yes		● Yes
4. To what extent are the family justice activities consistent with government priorities, federal roles and responsibilities?	4.1 Federal government and Department documents demonstrate alignment			● Yes
	4.2 Department mandate documents and FCY policy documents demonstrate consistency		● Yes	● Yes
	4.3 Evidence and perceptions of consistency of FCY with the federal role and responsibilities in the administration of justice (including collaboration and coordination with provinces and territories)			● Yes	● Yes		● Yes
Effectiveness
5. To what extent has the FCY delivered high quality legal and legal policy advice on domestic and international family law and children’s law issues?	5.1 FCY legal and legal policy advice is responsive to client needs (e.g. relevant, timely, useful)	● Yes	● Yes	● Yes			● Yes
	5.2 Extent to which FCY is consulted on family law and children’s law issues			● Yes			● Yes
	5.3 Extent to which FCY legal and legal policy advice is considered by decision makers (e.g. decision makers are aware of policy options, legal risks, legal options).	● Yes					● Yes
6. To what extent has the Department contributed to strengthen federal capacity to respond/ address the needs of families, children and youth in the areas of family justice and children's law?	6.1 Number/type of legal and legislative policy developments supported	● Yes	● Yes	● Yes
	6.2 Number/type of collaborative mechanisms used (within Justice, interdepartmentally, and with FPT and stakeholders)	● Yes		● Yes
	6.3 Number/type of public or professional legal information, learning/ training activities/products			● Yes
	6.4 Number/type and use of funds as policy levers and implementation of program efficiencies (e.g. SFF, CFJF, FLAS)			● Yes
	6.5 Perceptions that FCY’s activities products and family justice services have contributed to federal capacity to respond and address family justice issues	● Yes				● Yes	● Yes
	6.6 Identification of capacity gaps in federal response to address legal and policy family justice issues	● Yes	● Yes			● Yes	● Yes
7. To what extent has the Department contributed to increased awareness, knowledge and understanding of family justice and children’s law issues?	7.1 Evidence that FCY has contributed to increased awareness, knowledge and understanding of family justice and children’s law issues			● Yes
	7.2 Perceptions that the Department has contributed to increased awareness, knowledge and understanding of family justice and children’s law issues	● Yes					● Yes
8. To what extent has the Department contributed to improved capacity in the provinces and territories to provide and deliver family justice services?	8.1 Evidence that the Department has contributed to PT capacity to provide and deliver family justices services			● Yes
	8.2 Perceptions that FCY has contributed to capacity to address family justice in Canada	● Yes				● Yes	● Yes
9. To what extent has the Department contributed to increased access to family justice for Canadians?	9.1 Perceptions that the Department has contributed to increased access to family justice for Canadians in the areas of family justice and children’s law	● Yes				● Yes	● Yes
Efficiency
10. How have departmental resource levels affected the results achieved?	10.1 Assessment of level of resourcing allocated and expended overall and by each core activity			● Yes			● Yes
11. Are the CFJF and FLAS being administered efficiently? Was the SFF administered efficiently?	11.1 Assessment of operational efficiency of CFJF and FLAS			● Yes		● Yes	● Yes
	11.2 Percentage of time that the IAID met the departmental service standards in the administration of CFJF projects			● Yes			● Yes
12. What are the costs and benefits of supporting programs and alternatives to court for families and the family justice system?	12.1 Assessment of costs and benefits of programs and services supported through the SFF and CFJF			● Yes		● Yes
13. Are there any best practices or lessons learned in the delivery of core activities?	13.1 Perceptions of best practices or lessons learned (e.g. governance, integration, coordination and policies of the different functions/activities; delivery of CFJF and FLAS)				● Yes		● Yes

Appendix B: Logic Models

The Logic Model for Federal Support for Family Justice, provided below, outlines five key components or activities as well as the intended outputs and outcomes.

Logic Model for the Federal Support for Family Justice

A Logic Model has also been developed specifically for the Canadian Family Justice Fund. The Logic Model provided below outlines the priorities, core activities and intended outcomes of the CFJF.

Logic Model for the Canadian Family Justice Fund (2017-2022)

Logic Model for the Canadian Family Justice Fund described below

Appendix C: Methodology

The evaluation relied on multiple lines of evidence that were triangulated and used to arrive to major conclusions. Data collection occurred throughout the period covered under the evaluation (e.g. annual surveys), although the majority of research was completed during 2017 and 2018. The lines of evidence included a document review, a review of project data and files, directed studies, key informant interviews and a focus group. A more detailed description of various data sources is provided below.

Surveys

Several surveys were conducted to assess the outcomes of the Department’s support to family justice. Surveys helped measure the extent to which the FCY Section offered high quality legal and legal policy advice on domestic and international family law and children’s law issues, the extent to which SFF funded PEPs and mediation services increased awareness, knowledge and understanding in the areas of family justice, and the impact of the CRDP, FOAEAA and GAPDA-related training on participants. A separate survey gathered information on the characteristics of cases handled by family law practitioners in Canada and current family law issues.

FCY Partner/Stakeholder Survey

An online survey was administered to key FCY federal contacts who accessed FCY legal or policy advice or litigation support. The survey was administered to measure their awareness of the policy options, legal risks and legal options. The questionnaire was sent to 34 partners/stakeholders who had received legal and/or legal policy advice from the FCY Section, of whom 10 responded.

SFF Funded Exit and Follow-up Surveys

Surveys were administered to participants in the PEP and mediation services through years 2014 and 2018 directly after their participation (Over 16,000 PEP participants and 650 mediation clients have completed surveys over a four-year period (2014-15 through 2017-18). These surveys were conducted to measure expected outcomes of these SFF funded programs, such as the increased awareness, knowledge and understanding of family justice.

FCY Event Surveys

Ten event surveys were conducted between 2014 and 2018 to those participating in training, workshops and conferences hosted by the FCY Section in order to measure awareness, knowledge and understanding of family justice (appropriate to learning events). These surveys were administered to participants involved in training related to the CRDP, FOAEAA and Part I, Division I of GAPDA. A total of 26 participants from six regions participated in the CRDP survey and 20 participants from five regions participated in the FOAEAA and GAPDA surveys.

National Family Law Program Surveys

Two electronic surveys were administered to participants at the 2016 National Family Law Program: one for lawyers and one for judges. The purpose of these surveys was to obtain information on the characteristics of cases handled by family law practitioners in Canada and current family law issues. Surveys were received from 217 participants.

Justice Canada Studies

Several studies were conducted to help identify legal trends, policy gaps, costs, emerging issues and policy needs related to family justice and children’s law, the Department’s mandate with respect to family justice activities, as well as FCY’s legal and legal policy responsibilities.

Environmental Scan (2017-18)

An environmental scan was conducted to examine trends and changes that have occurred in the Canadian landscape for families experiencing separation and divorce and identify international trends with respect to family and children’s law.

Family, Children and Youth Legal and Legal Policy Study (2016)

In 2014, the legal and policy component of the SFI was renewed for two years (2014-2016) while the Supporting Families Fund was renewed for three years (2014-2017). There was a need to report on results of the SFI legal and policy work the Department conducted in advance of renewal. This study explored and documented in more detail the legal and policy work carried out by the FCY Section.

Overview and Assessment of Approaches to Access Enforcement: An Update (2017)

This 2017 study updated an earlier report that undertook a comparative review of legal approaches to the problem of enforcement of access orders, investigated and analyzed Canadian case law and legislation.

Process Mapping and Costing Studies

Eight process mapping and costing studies were undertaken to examine potential cost savings to the family justice system and the individual as a result of financially supporting family justice services through the SFF and CFJF. The studies included five studies that assessed the costs associated with one- and two-step ISO processes. This will provide a baseline for examining the future impact of potential legislative changes. One study compared the costs of having a child support order varied through the courts versus through an administrative recalculation service. Two studies reviewed the costs of court-based family services.

File and Document Review

Two file reviews were conducted with respect to funding provided under the SFF in years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. The first file review focused on activities, outputs and achievements reported in annual activity reports submitted by provinces and territories, while the second file review focused on completion reports prepared by NGOs and provinces and territories for pilot projects funded under the SFF. The file reviews were conducted to highlight examples of project outcomes and the ways in which project funding has been used to strengthen capacity, address the needs of families, children and youth, and improve efficiency of the Federal Support for Family Justice.

A review of documents (including performance data in the form of FCY Section Metrics, financial data, CCSO meeting minutes, Speeches from the Throne, briefings, budget documents, the Ministerial Mandate Letter, and departmental planning and reporting documents) was conducted to systematically extract relevant secondary data and information.

Key Informant Interviews

Interviews were conducted with key informants representing the Department (16) and different PT governments (10). The information gathered from these interviews helped inform analysis of the ongoing need for federal support in family justice and how the Department’s family justice activities remain consistent with government priorities and federal roles and responsibilities.

Focus Group

A focus group was held involving 20 representatives from PT governments, members of the CCSO-FJ. The session focused on how the work of the Department and program funding addresses needs in the area of family justice, the effectiveness of the Department in addressing those needs, and how activities could be improved moving forward.

Appendix D: FCY Section Committees and Working Groups

Date modified:: 2022-05-13

Language selection

Search

Phone Scam Warning