Aboriginal Courtwork Program, Formative Evaluation

2. Findings – Implementation and Delivery (cont'd)

2.5. Effectiveness of the Tripartite Working Group (TWG)

The Tripartite Working Group (TWG) was established by Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) Deputy Ministers (DMs) Responsible for Justice on October 14, 1999, as a forum to address  program and operational issues. The TWG reports to FPT DMs on an as-needed basis. The role of the TWG is specified in Annex B.

By 2005-06, the TWG had expanded to 31 members: three from the Department, 11 from the provinces/territories, and 15 members from SDA (of whom six members are from Alberta). The TWG is co-chaired by one federal and one P/T official; the federal co-chair is the Director of the Policy Planning Directorate, Programs Branch at DOJ. There is no documented process on the selection and term of the P/T co-chair. The Department provides secretariat support to the TWG, organizing and documenting its meetings.  During the evaluation period, the TWG met face to face four times, and met by conference call another 12 times. The Department does not use the TWG for negotiating funding agreements but rather convenes a separate Federal-Provincial-Territorial working group for this purpose.  This working group met twice to negotiate new agreements.

When asked how effective the TWG had been in meeting each of its specific roles, responses were as follows:

Most P/T officials, SDA and DOJ interviewees felt that the mandate, role and responsibilities of the TWG are clear and do not need to be changed, but that the TWG needs to focus on carrying them out.  DOJ program officials said the role and responsibilities of the TWG need to be better operationalized and that the focus should be on addressing a few priorities well.

Two P/T officials felt the TWG should focus on strategic rather than operational issues. One P/T official mentioned the need for more sustained engagement. Another P/T official would like to see a more strategic policy lens, while another would like the TWG to take on a greater program advocacy role. SDA felt that the TWG should be used as a policy sounding board for the Department and should regularly meet with the Deputy Minister.  In addition, SDA felt that the TWG had focused on data collection and reporting requirements at the expense of other issues of concern.

All P/T officials and DOJ program officials felt that one annual two-day face-to-face meeting was sufficient.  However, most SDA would like the TWG to meet at least twice a year or to hold longer meetings, to help ensure TWG members are informed and to strengthen the connections among SDA. SDA also expressed a desire to have SDA members of the TWG meet before the entire TWG to discuss issues relevant to the frontline or hold post-TWG debriefings and have regular regional meetings.

With respect to TWG conference calls, half of the P/T officials interviewed suggested that the TWG schedule three or four teleconference calls per year, one P/T official suggested monthly calls, and another wanted conference calls only when needed.

Most TWG members expressed dissatisfaction with the TWG meetings. Recommended improvements include having more focused agendas and better facilitation to ensure a more collaborative focus. Several P/T and DOJ officials recommended having an Aboriginal facilitator to help manage the agenda and any conflicts. Views were mixed on whether the Department should provide more direction to the TWG: four P/T officials expressed the desire for more leadership by the Department and three felt the Department should provide less direction.  One P/T official indicated that the Department had made honest efforts to engage the TWG but that these had been derailed by new central agency reporting requirements.  SDA respondents were more likely to feel the Department provided too much direction: several SDA interviewees were of the view that it makes unilateral decisions and does not seek sufficient input in preparing the TWG agenda. Several SDA expressed a sense of being excluded from the dialogue within the TWG, and having insufficient opportunity to share promising practices about program delivery, training and a national database. Several SDA respondents said that TWG meetings should include more flexible forums in which smaller groups can break out for problem solving on specific issues and provide more opportunity for guest speakers to share useful information with the TWG.

DOJ program officials would like TWG members to spend more time setting priorities, to be better prepared for meetings and to be in a position to make decisions. They would like to see P/T officials participate in developing the agenda for TWG meetings, articulate their views more often during the meetings and be able to speak on behalf of their jurisdictions.  DOJ officials believe that P/T viewpoints would benefit the TWG and would help build consensus among TWG members.  They also think that SDA in jurisdictions with more than one SDA should consult each other before the meetings so they can speak with one voice. Departmental officials acknowledged that federal priorities have driven the agenda for the past two years, partly due to a lack of national priority issues emerging from the SDA and the P/T officials.

Overall, TWG members were satisfied with the TWG members' participation.  A few P/T officials noted that some SDA do not see the value in attending the TWG. DOJ program officials noted that when P/T officials miss TWG meetings is much more difficult to get information from the SDA in those jurisdictions.  Finally, a few members noted that fewer members participate in TWG conference calls than in face-to-face meetings.

Generally, SDA were pleased with the timeliness, relevance and accuracy of pre-meeting material and minutes. Approximately one-third of P/T officials interviewed were satisfied with the quality and timeliness of the TWG meeting documentation.  Another third felt the documentation was acceptable but did not arrive on time.  Two P/T officials wanted earlier confirmation of meeting dates.

When asked how the TWG could be improved, P/T officials mentioned that the meeting should have a focused, strategic agenda with fewer priorities, and that there should be more time devoted to substantive discussion and decision making.  They also mentioned that the TWG needs to be able to deal with conflicting views in a more effective manner. Other suggestions from P/T officials for improving the TWG include:

SDA suggestions for improving the TWG included regular monthly or quarterly communications, and more focus on program delivery and the evolution of the program (e.g., training, family court, Aboriginal restorative justice and residential schools).  One SDA recommended adding an SDA as a third co-chair, to give an SDA director decision-making authority for TWG agendas.  Other suggestions were to improve the relationships among TWG members, expand TWG membership to include all directors or service providers and officials that have influence within the Department and to disseminate all information gathered by the TWG to the community (e.g., through online training).

DOJ program officials felt that 1.5 full-time equivalents were adequate to support the TWG, though about half of the P/T officials indicated that the TWG needed more support from the Department. 

Conclusions:  The Tripartite Working Group (TWG) mandate is clear and for the most part remains relevant. However, for a number of reasons, the TWG is not fully meeting its mandate.  While the TWG has established annual priorities, the list is overly ambitious, and as a result, a few of the priorities have not been adequately addressed. In addition, over the past years, the agenda of TWG meetings has focussed to a large extent on Department of Justice's accountability requirements, leaving little time and resources for other issues. Service Delivery Agencies feel they have insufficient opportunity to discuss program delivery issues. However, provinces and territories are of the view that the focus should be on strategic issues. Participation in the annual face-to-face meetings, while generally high, would benefit from more active P/T involvement in agenda setting and issue discussion.

The eligibility criteria, selection process and length of term for the provincial co-chair are not articulated. There are differing views on whether there is adequate Secretariat support for the TWG and whether one annual face-to-face meeting is sufficient. The information-sharing component of the TWG meetings is valued by most members.

2.6. Effectiveness of the Tripartite Working Group (TWG) Steering Committee

The TWG Steering Committee (TWG SC) was created in 2003 to carry out the priorities of the TWG.  TWG SC membership is open to all TWG members.  There is no formal documentation on the roles and responsibilities of the TWG SC, its decision-making authority relative to the TWG, or the process to select the provincial co-chair.  The ten current members reflect a mix of P/Ts and SDA.  The Department provides Secretariat support to the TWG SC and funds members' travel and accommodation to attend meetings. 

As the Department does not have a budget dedicated to fund SC meetings, most of the work of the SC is carried out by conference call.  During the evaluation period, the TWG SC met in person twice.

There were differing views among P/T and SDA respondents on the adequacy of jurisdictional representation in the SC. Most SDA felt the level of representation was adequate, but some P/T officials were dissatisfied with the level of members' participation, noting that staff changes and scheduling conflicts make it difficult for all members to participate fully on the TWG SC.  One P/T official pointed out that the representative for the North could attend meetings only when the legislature was not in session. One P/T official also noted that consistent participation in the conference calls is particularly challenging.  DOJ program officials felt that it was difficult for the TWG SC to make decisions when not all jurisdictions were represented.

Most TWG SC members did not feel that that other members fully participate in furthering the SC's annual priorities, which are established by the TWG.  DOJ interviewees felt that most TWG SC members fully participate in furthering the priorities established by the TWG, but that conflicting views within the committee makes the work more challenging.

Several P/T officials noted that because the TWG SC lacks sufficient support and resources, most work falls on a few overburdened SDA.  Half of the SDA respondents also believed that there are insufficient resources for the TWG SC. In the past the Department managed most TWG SC projects but the SDA and P/T members are starting to manage their own projects, a development welcomed by DOJ program officials.

All DOJ program officials, most TWG SC members and some SDA feel the SC's mandate, roles and responsibilities need to be clarified, clearly documented and distinguished from those of the TWG.

Several suggestions for improvement were made:

Conclusions:  The TWG SC is currently not an effective mechanism for accomplishing the work of the TWG.  Its mandate, role and decision-making authority are not documented, nor are these always clear to the TWG and SC members. The Department does not have a budget dedicated to funding SC meetings.  As a result, the SC has met infrequently and relies on conference calls to conduct its work.

2.7. Clarity of Program Objectives

The objectives of the ACW Program are outlined in the contribution agreements with the provinces and territories.  Specifically, the ACW Program:

seeks to facilitate and enhance access to justice by assisting Aboriginal people involved in the criminal justice system to obtain fair, just, equitable and culturally sensitive treatment.  This overall objective of the Aboriginal Courtwork Program will be achieved by:

  1. Providing Aboriginal persons charged with an offence (“Aboriginal accused”) and their family members with timely and accurate information at the earliest possible stage of the criminal justice process.  This includes referring Aboriginal accused to appropriate legal resources as well as to appropriate social, education, employment, health, Aboriginal community and other resources to ensure that underlying problems which contribute to their charges are addressed; and

  2. Having Aboriginal courtworkers serving as a “bridge” between criminal justice officials and Aboriginal people and communities, by providing liaison and promoting communications and understanding between the two entities.[4]

Most respondents felt that the objectives of the ACW Program were clear.  A small number of P/T officials and SDA respondents felt that the objectives were removed from the day-to-day work of the courtworker.  One P/T official noted that the courts are only one part of the objective, and that the program needs to be viewed in the larger context of community justice. 

Conclusions:  The objectives of the ACW Program are generally clear to the key parties involved.

[4] Department of Justice (2004). Agreement respecting the Aboriginal Courtwork Program.