3. Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation was guided by an evaluation matrix (i.e., evaluation questions, indicators, and data sources) which was developed through the evaluation scoping and design process. The methodology for this evaluation included multiple lines of evidence described in the table below. Appendix B contains a list of the evaluation questions.

Table 3: Lines of Evidence
Line of Evidence Description
Document Review A review of background documents was conducted, including relevant information on the two JPIP funding streams, agreements, financial information on planned and actual funding by FY, program terms and conditions, and eligibility criteria. A targeted review of literature was conducted to identify trends and issues related to GBV and IPV in Canada, access to justice and the need for the two JPIP funding streams.
File Review Project files were reviewed to assess the basic characteristics of projects funded during the FYs covered by the evaluation, as well as available performance data, (e.g., project reports, annual reports, client feedback surveys) to provide information on early impacts, promising practices, and gaps or emerging issues.
Key Informant Interviews

A total of 23 interviews were conducted with 37 key informants representing the following stakeholder groups:

  • Justice Canada representatives (n=5)
  • ILA/ILR funding recipients (n=17)
  • Additional supports funding recipients (n=15)
Case Studies Four case studies were conducted to provide an in-depth exploration of two ILA/ILR and two Additional Supports project activities and identify any challenges and best practices. Data collection included four interviews with a total of seven project stakeholders as well as a document and file review. Case studies were summarized in individual case study reports.

Table 4 below provides a brief description of each selected case study project.

Table 4: Case Study Project Descriptions
Case Study Project Description
ILA/ILR Funding Stream
Justice for Children and Youth: Ontario Multi-Community Clinic The Ontario multi-community clinic collaborates with eight other independent legal clinics across southwestern and eastern Ontario to provide supports and services for victims and survivors of sexual assault and IPV. The legal clinics provide ILA/ILR, training for legal professionals and conducts feasibility studies for the development of a community partnership model to deliver ILA/ILR.
Yukon Department of Justice: Strengthening Safety, Access and Justice for Yukon Victims of Crime The funding will provide an expansion to the ILA/ILR project by offering ILA for victims of IPV and/or sexualized violence and the ability to offer ILR for victims in hearings associated with sections 276, 278.4 and 278.92 of the Criminal Code.
Additional Supports Funding Stream
British Columbia Ministry of Attorney General: Family Violence Supports Innovation Hub This program aims to strengthen family justice system responses to family violence by developing and piloting a family violence supports innovation hub. Specifically, this project will consist of three main components: develop a family court support worker program; provide cross-examination services to unrepresented litigants when family violence is involved; and improve coordination in concurrent and related family, criminal, and child protection matters.
Alberta Council of Women’s Shelters: Training Alberta Family Lawyers in the Danger Assessment Tool (DAT) to Support Survivors of Domestic Violence This project’s goal is to improve support and access to justice for victims of IPV who are involved in the family justice system by providing certified training on the DAT to family lawyers throughout Alberta. In addition, the project aims to train staff from five women's shelters to be expert witnesses in danger assessment to build collaboration within the legal system.

3.1 Limitations and Mitigation Strategies

The evaluation encountered a few methodological limitations or challenges which are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5: Limitations and Mitigation Strategies
Line of Evidence Limitation or Challenge Mitigation Strategy
Key informant interviews and case studies Challenges included potential for response biases from the sampling approach (i.e., selective, non-random), the voluntary nature of participation, and self reporting (i.e., reporting on their own activities). The evaluation used multiple lines of evidence and triangulation to confirm results and also incorporated direct client perceptions through the use of client feedback surveys for ILA/ILR projects.
File review Limited responses were received, related to the client feedback surveys for ILA/ILR projects due to the voluntary nature of participation. Specific examples were gathered through other sources of information (e.g., annual performance reports, interviews) and have been included in the evaluation as anecdotal evidence, where relevant.