Supporting Families Experiencing Separation and Divorce Initiative Evaluation

Appendix A:
Data Collection Instruments

Guide for the Review and Extraction of Data from the Supporting Families Experiencing Separation and Divorce Initiative (SFI) Sub-Studies & Other Data Sources

  • 1a. Data Sources: SFI Sub-studies and Related Reports
    • 1. Historical Evolution of Federal Family Justice Policy in CanadaFootnote *
    • 2. Family, Children and Youth Section (FCY) Parent Survey
    • 3. General Social Survey
    • 4. Statistics Canada
    • 5. Court File Review
    • 6. Survey of Family Courts
    • 7. Family Justice Strategic Framework
    • 8. SFI Outcomes StudyFootnote *
    • 9. National Family Law Program Survey
    • 10. Implementation Assessment of the SFIFootnote *
    • 11. National Trace and Locate Survey
    • 12. Systemscope Report (Website and 1-800#)
    • 13. Survey of Maintenance Enforcement Programs (SMEP)/Maintenance Enforcement Program (MEP) Data (including MEP Directors Working Group Reports)
    • 14. Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines Sub-studyFootnote *
    • 15. Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act (FOAEA) Management Reports
  • 1b. Specific Evaluation Questions to be Reviewed in Relation to these Sources
    • 16. To what extent does the SFI address the needs of Canadian families experiencing separation and divorce?
    • 17. To what extent has the SFI made progress toward strengthening the federal capacity to respond/address to needs of families experiencing separation and divorce?
    • 18. To what extent has the SFI made progress toward improved capacity in the provinces and territories (P/Ts) to provide and deliver family justice services?
    • 19. To what extent has the SFI made progress toward the expanded accessibility of family justice programs and services?
    • 20. To what extent has SFI made progress toward enhanced awareness and understanding of parental obligations, compliance and the family justice system?
    • 21. To what extent has the SFI made progress toward improved efficiency in enforcement tools and services?
    • 22. To what extent has the SFI made progress towards the enhanced capacity of parents to reach appropriate custody, access and support agreements?
    • 23. To what extent has the SFI made progress toward enhanced ability of parents to comply with custody/access responsibilities?
    • 24. To what extent has the SFI made progress toward increased parental compliance with financial obligations?
    • 25. To what extent has the SFI made progress toward increased effectiveness of the family justice system in addressing the needs of families experiencing separation and divorce?
    • 26. Has the SFI's resource utilization been appropriate in relation to the activities and outputs produced and its progress toward expected outcomes?
    • 27. To what extent has the SFI made progress toward increased parental compliance with financial obligations?
    • 28. To what extent has the SFI made progress toward increased effectiveness of the family justice system in addressing the needs of families experiencing separation and divorce?
    • 29. Has the SFI's resource utilization been appropriate in relation to the activities and outputs produced and its progress toward expected outcomes?
  • 2a. Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials-Family Justice (CCSO-FJ) Sub-committee and Working Groups Work Plans, Meeting Minutes, Reports
  • 2b. Evaluation Questions to be Addressed by these Data Sources
    • 30. To what extent does the SFI address the needs of Canadian families experiencing separation and divorce?
    • 31. To what extent are SFI goals and objectives aligned with federal government priorities?
    • 32. To what extent are SFI goals and objectives aligned with departmental strategic outcomes?
    • 33. To what extent is the SFI aligned with the federal government's roles and responsibilities in the areas of family justice?
    • 34. To what extent has the SFI made progress toward strengthening the federal capacity to respond/address to needs of families experiencing separation and divorce?
  • 3a. FCY Administrative File Data (meeting notes, records of decision, regulations)
  • 3b. Evaluation Questions to be Addressed by these Data Sources
    • 35. To what extent does the SFI address the needs of Canadian families experiencing separation and divorce?
    • 36. To what extent are SFI goals and objectives aligned with federal government priorities?
    • 37. To what extent are SFI goals and objectives aligned with departmental strategic outcomes?
    • 38. To what extent has the SFI made progress toward strengthening the federal capacity to respond/address to needs of families experiencing separation and divorce?
    • 39. To what extent has the SFI made progress toward improved capacity in the P/Ts to provide and deliver family justice services?
    • 40. To what extent has the SFI made progress toward the expanded accessibility of family justice programs and services?
    • 41. To what extent has the SFI made progress toward improved efficiency in enforcement tools and services?
    • 42. To what extent has the SFI made progress toward increased parental compliance with financial obligations?
    • 43. Has the SFI's resource utilization been appropriate in relation to the activities and outputs produced and its progress toward expected outcomes?
  • 4a. Exit Surveys (Mediation/Parent Education)
  • 4b. Evaluation Questions to be Addressed by these Data Sources
    • 44. To what extent does the SFI address the needs of Canadian families experiencing separation and divorce?
    • 45. To what extent has the SFI made progress toward the expanded accessibility of family justice programs and services?
    • 46. To what extent has SFI made progress toward enhanced awareness and understanding of parental obligations, compliance and the family justice system?
    • 47. To what extent has the SFI made progress toward enhanced capacity of parents to reach appropriate custody, access and support agreements?
    • 48. To what extent has the SFI made progress toward increased effectiveness of the family justice system in addressing the needs of families experiencing separation and divorce?
  • 5a. High Conflict Training Curriculum: Exit Surveys
  • 5b. Evaluation Question to be Addressed by this Data Source
    • 49. To what extent has the SFI made progress toward increased effectiveness of the family justice system in addressing the needs of families experiencing separation and divorce?
  • 6a. Government of Canada Policies and Direction
    • 50. To what extent are SFI goals and objectives aligned with federal government priorities?

Supporting Families Fund (SFF) File Review Guide: P/T Family Justice Initiatives (FJI)

  • I. Baseline
    • 1. Name of Project/Component in Annual Report:
    • 2. Description of purpose and nature of project funding:
    • 3. Jurisdiction:
      • British Columbia
      • Alberta
      • Saskatchewan
      • Manitoba
      • Ontario
      • Quebec
      • New Brunswick
      • Nova Scotia
      • Prince Edward Island
      • Newfoundland and Labrador
      • Yukon
      • Northwest Territories
      • Nunavut
    • 4. Year of Funding:
      • 2009-2010
      • 2010-2011
      • 2011-2012
      • 2012-2013
      • Multi-year
    • 5. Length of project
      • One year
      • Multi-year
    • 6. Funding:
      • Federal contribution to the project: $
      • P/T Contribution: $
      • Total funding: $
      • Percentage federal funding: %
    • 7. What Program Area Activity (PAA) is this project classified under?
      • 1
      • 2
      • 3
      • 4
      • 5
      • 6
      • 7
  • II. Description of Project
    • 8. What is the primary area addressed by this project/component? (Note: The categories below are usually listed under the indicated PAA, but are sometimes found under other PAAs)
      • PAA 1
        • 1. Supporting CCSO-FJ committee involvement by the P/Ts
        • 2. Managing/coordinating SFF fund at the P/T level
      • PAA 2
        • 3. Enhancement of parent education (general)
        • 4. Enhancement of parent education (high conflict)
        • 5. Enhancement of mediation or other alternative dispute resolution (e.g. conciliation)
        • 6. Enhancement of support enforcement services directed to parents (e.g. recalculation services)
        • 7. Family Law Information Services (e.g. Family Law Information Centres, Justice Access Centres or provision of other direct information)
        • 8. Other under PAA 2
      • PAA 3
        • 9. Developing or streamlining triage and referral services for separating and divorced parents (including Parent Coordination)
        • 10. Court-based programs to assist self-represented litigants
        • 11. Development and implementation of Supervised Access and Exchange Services, including follow-up programs related to S.A. issues
        • 12. Other under PAA 3
      • PAA 4
        • 13. Enhancement of P/T capacity to enforce child support through policies, search mechanisms, legislation
        • 14. Improvement to business procedures and software/hardware systems related to support enforcement
        • 15. Training of service delivery providers (e.g. MEP staff)
        • 16. Development or streamlining of court enforcement processes
        • 17. Development/improvement of communication and information services for the public related to support enforcement, including court forms
        • 18. Other under PAA 4
      • PAA 5
        • 19. Support to P/T staffing and legal costs to facilitate inter-jurisdictional enforcement processes (e.g. counsel for default hearings, notaries to swear ISO applications)
        • 20. Revision of legislation, forms, policies, systems for ISOs
        • 21. Other under PAA 5
      • PAA 6
        • 22. Needs/feasibility assessment research
        • 23. Program evaluation and evaluation framework studies
        • 24. General research or policy development
        • 25. Other under PAA 6
      • PAA 7
        • 26. Production and distribution of public legal education and information (PLEI) materials
        • 27. PLEI or communication mechanisms and activities (e.g. toll-free information lines, advertising campaigns, workshops, websites)
        • 28. Other under PAA 7
    • 9. Was this project/component intended as an outreach activity specifically related to increasing access to justice?
      • 1. Yes
      • 2. No
      • 3. Not applicable (e.g. project directed towards systems, not individuals)
    • 10. (If Yes to Q. 9) To what types of individuals or groups was this program directed (more than 1 answer possible?)
      • People in rural/remote communities
      • Aboriginal children and youth
      • Aboriginal women
      • Aboriginal men
      • People from the other official language (usually French)
      • People from a minority ethnic/cultural/linguistic group
        Specify:
    • 11. (If No to Q. 9) To what types of targeted individuals or groups was this program directed? (more than 1 answer possible)
      • General public (adults)
      • General public (children and youth)
      • Mothers who are separated/divorced (general)
      • Fathers who are separated/divorced (general)
      • Mothers from high conflict families
      • Fathers from high conflict families
      • Self-represented litigants
      • Parents who are leaving abusive relationships
      • Family justice program staff (program managers, staff lawyers, staff mediators, support staff, paralegal staff)
      • Court officials
      • MEP enforcement officials
      • Private mediators
      • Judiciary
      • Private lawyers
      • Other:
  • III. Outcomes of Programs
    • 12. Did this project complete all primary objectives or tasks? (From verification report)
      • NO – If not, what objectives or tasks were not addressed?
      • YES
      • NO DATA
    • 13. (If No to Q. 12) Was non completion attributable to:
      • Federal factors
      • P/T factors
      • Both
      • Other (Specify):
      • Explain reasons for non-completion:
    • 14. Does the performance report provide data on outputs of the initiative (e.g. numbers served or who participated in project; locations reached; # of PLEI products?
      • NO
      • YES
      • Describe key findings:
    • 15. Does the performance report provide data on outcomes of the initiative (e.g. settlement rates; changes in awareness of obligations; increased knowledge; satisfaction; diversion from court; changes in compliance with access; changes in exercise of access rights; impacts on clients)
      • NO
      • YES
      • Describe key findings:
    • 16. Did this project/component deal specifically with:
      • 1. The intersection with the criminal justice system
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No
      • 2. The use of technology
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No
    • 17. Which of the following objectives did this project address?
      • 1. Strengthened federal capacity to respond to or address the needs of families experiencing separation or divorce (4a1)
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No
      • 2. Improved capacity in P/Ts to provide and deliver family justice services (4a2)
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No
      • 3. Expanded accessibility of custody, access and support services (4b1)
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No
      • 4. Enhanced awareness/understanding of parental obligations, compliance and the FJS (4b2)
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No
      • 5. Improved efficiency in enforcement supports and services (4b3)
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No
      • 6. Enhanced capacity of parents to reach appropriate custody, access and support agreements (4b4)
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No
      • 7. Enhanced ability of parents to comply with custody/access agreements (4b5)
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No
      • 8. Increased parental compliance with financial support obligations (4b6)
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No

SFF File Review Guide: PLEI and P/Ts Pilot Project

  • I. Baseline
    • 1. Name of Project:
    • 2. Description of purpose and nature of project funding:
    • 3. Type of project
      • PLEI
      • Pilot
    • 4. Jurisdiction:
      • British Columbia
      • Alberta
      • Saskatchewan
      • Manitoba
      • Ontario
      • Quebec
      • New Brunswick
      • Nova Scotia
      • Prince Edward Island
      • Newfoundland and Labrador
      • Yukon
      • Northwest Territories
      • Nunavut
    • 5. Year of Funding:
      • 2009-2010
      • 2010-2011
      • 2011-2012
      • Multi-year
    • 6. Length of project
      • Up to one year
      • Multi-year
    • 7. Funding: Federal contribution to the project: $
  • II. Description of Project
    • 8. What is the primary area addressed by this project?
      • Innovative/integrated Family Justice Services
        • 1. Parent education program and/or enhancements;
        • 2. Mediation or enhanced mediation;
        • 3. Recalculation services;
        • 4. Expansion of family justice and information services to rural and/or Aboriginal populations and/or outreach to language groups;
        • 5. Development/enhancement of computer systems to support integration (e.g., case management systems, software licences, Auto-Orders, enhancements to MEP systems, connectivity to FOAEA, data filling);
        • 6. Development/implementation of alternative models to current system (including administrative models);
        • 7. Activities relating to streamlining court processes;
        • 8. Training of family law professionals in mediation
        • 9. Training of family law professionals in assessment of high conflict
        • 10. Information to assist self-represented litigants
      • Supervised Access
        • 11. Development and implementation of Supervised Access/Supervised Exchanges programs;
        • 12. Development of checklists to improve decisions about supervised versus unsupervised access
        • 13. Training of family law professionals to provide supervised access
      • Support Enforcement and Compliance Activities
        • 14. Improving coordination between and/or within ministries within a P/T to better enforce court support orders
      • P/T Inter-jurisdictional Support Orders (ISOs)
        • 15. Updating and development of ISO forms and guides
      • Research/Evaluation/Feasibility/Monitoring
        • 16. Evaluating and monitoring the results of pilot projects and other services.
      • Public Awareness/Understanding of Family Justice System
        • 17. Communication or law information activities (e.g. toll-free information lines, advertising campaign, websites);
        • 18. Production and distribution of communication or law information materials (e.g., brochures, videos, information packages) that promote the benefit to parents and children of compliance with family obligations and address the needs of communities facing barriers in accessing the family justice system;
        • 19. Training of family law professionals and service providers on aspects of family law related to support, custody and access
        • 20. Provision of information on Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines
        • 21. Development of family law materials specifically for children and youth
        • 22. Development of self-help materials on support, custody and access
        • 23. Development of information materials on tax-related issues in family law
        • 24. PLEI addressing financial issues in separation and divorce
        • 25. Determination of best practices to hear the voice of the child in family law court and other processes
      • Other
        • 26. Other (as described in Q. 2)
    • 9. Was this project intended as an outreach activity specifically related to increasing access to justice?
      • 1. Yes
      • 2. No
      • 3. Not applicable (e.g. project directed towards systems, not individuals)
    • 10. (If Yes to Q. 9) To what types of individuals or groups was this project directed? (more than 1 answer possible)
      • People in rural/remote communities
      • Aboriginal children and youth
      • Aboriginal women
      • Aboriginal men
      • People from the other official language (usually French)
      • People from a minority ethnic/cultural/linguistic group
      • Specify:
    • 11. (If No to Q. 9) To what types of targeted individuals or groups was this program directed? (more than 1 answer possible)
      • General public (adults)
      • General public (children and youth)
      • Mothers who are separated/divorced (general)
      • Fathers who are separated/divorced (general)
      • Mothers from high conflict families
      • Fathers from high conflict families
      • Self-represented litigants
      • Parents who are leaving abusive relationships
      • Family justice program staff (program managers, staff lawyers, staff mediators, support staff, paralegal staff)
      • Court officials
      • MEP enforcement officials
      • Private mediators
      • Judiciary
      • Private lawyers
      • Other:
  • III. Outcomes of Programs
    • 12. Did this project complete all primary objectives or tasks? (From verification report)
      • NO – If not, what tasks were not completed?
      • YES
      • NO DATA
    • 13. (If No to Q. 12 ) Was non completion attributable to:
      • Federal factors
      • Project factors
      • Both
      • Other (Specify):
      • Explain reasons for non-completion:
    • 14. Does the final report provide data on outputs of the initiative (e.g. numbers served or who participated in project; locations reached; # and type of PLEI products?
      • NO
      • YES
      • Describe key findings:
    • 15. Does the final project report provide data on outcomes of the initiative (e.g. settlement rates; changes in awareness of obligations; increased knowledge; satisfaction; diversion from court; changes in compliance with access; changes in exercise of access rights; impacts on clients)
      • NO
      • YES
      • Describe key findings:
    • 16. Did this project deal specifically with:
      • 1. The intersection with the criminal justice system
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No
      • 2. The use of technology
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No
    • 17. Which of the following objectives did this project address?
      • 1. Strengthened federal capacity to respond to or address the needs of families experiencing separation or divorce (4a1)
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No
      • 2. Improved capacity in P/Ts to provide and deliver family justice services (4a2)
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No
      • 3. Expanded accessibility of custody, access and support services (4b1)
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No
      • 4. Enhanced awareness/understanding of parental obligations, compliance and the family justice service (4b2)
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No
      • 5. Improved efficiency in enforcement supports and services (4b3)
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No
      • 6. Enhanced capacity of parents to reach appropriate custody, access and support agreements (4b4)
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No
      • 7. Enhanced ability of parents to comply with custody/access agreements (4b5)
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No
      • 8. Increased parental compliance with financial support obligations (4b6)
        • 1. Yes
        • 2. No
Date modified: