Report on Performance
Part I: Justice System
Justice System Key Outcome Indicator
Public safety and an effective justice system are key priorities for government and are necessary for social stability and economic prosperity — the essential foundation for achieving the Five Great Goals. Throughout fiscal year 2005/06, the Ministry continued its efforts to develop a comprehensive performance measurement system and determined that public confidence in the justice system is a key indicator of system effectiveness.
A new key outcome indicator of public confidence was developed for the 2006/07 Service Plan, based on a similar measure used by Statistics Canada in its General Social Survey. The Ministry intends to conduct annual provincial surveys on public confidence in the justice system and compare the results with Statistics Canada data. The following new key outcome indicator will support all four justice system goals and will allow national comparison.
Percentage of British Columbians who have a great deal, or quite a lot, of confidence in the justice system.
Key Strategic Priorities
In 2005/06, the Ministry focused on several key strategic priorities in support of its goals and objectives and government's Five Great Goals. Achievements resulting from these priorities are noted in the Highlights of the Year section of this report.
1. Develop and implement strategies to promote public confidence in the administration of justice, including:
- strategic law reform plans;
- family and civil justice reforms;
- Vancouver Community Court Pilot;
- province-wide Integrated Criminal Justice Strategy; and
- E-government justice processes that expand public access to court services.
2. Strengthen the legal framework that protects vulnerable and incapable adults and that enables effective individual planning for incapacity.
3. Undertake a comprehensive review of provincial legislation, operational policies and the negotiation mandate to define changes that would be required to meet "honour of the Crown" requirements suggested by the courts.
4. Work with federal and provincial counterparts to examine sentencing options and guidance given to the courts by legislators in problem areas such as violent crime, habitual offenders and property crime.
5. Build on strategies to enhance social and economic benefits of cultural diversity and immigration, including:
- strengthening language training and settlement services;
- promoting multiculturalism through 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games and the Asia-Pacific Initiative; and
- promoting anti-racism.
During 2005/06, the Ministry designated specific strategies for each goal. These newer strategies, which also were undertaken in the reporting year, are described later in this report.
Performance Plan Summary
Goals, Objectives, Strategies and Performance Measures
Goal 1: A Ministry that is a leader in law reform and innovative justice processes
The law has a profound practical effect on the legal rights, duties and liabilities of individuals and organizations in our
society. Law and justice processes must keep pace with contemporary society. The Ministry has a lead role in the debate and
development of law that is just, principled, easy to understand and serves the public interest. The Ministry also leads development
of innovative justice processes that are current, fair, simple and cost-effective.
Objective 1.1: Ministry as a centre for promoting law reform
Core Business Areas: All
Law reform is a Ministry priority. By engaging in strategies that promote and support law reform inside the Ministry and among other justice agencies, the Ministry assumes a central role in modernizing laws and justice procedures within the province. For example, the Ministry is a key participant in, and provides resources to support, the B.C. Justice Review Task Force. The Task Force is recommending reforms through the Street Crime Working Group, the Family Justice Reform Working Group, the Civil Justice Reform Working Group and the Mega Trials Working Group.
Objective 1.2: Innovation in civil, criminal and administrative justice procedures
Core Business Areas: Justice Services, Prosecution Services, Court Services, Executive and Support Services
The Ministry is committed to continuous improvement of civil, criminal and administrative justice processes. To achieve this objective, the Ministry continually works with justice participants to develop new and improved procedures inside and outside the courtroom to increase the effectiveness of the justice system.
Objective 1.3: Ministry is innovative in providing legal services
Core Business Area: Legal Services, Executive and Support Services
Innovative legal services to government, including the use of alternatives to litigation for resolving disputes, support the Ministry as a leader in reform. Government and the public benefit from increased efficiencies resulting from technological and administrative innovations in the delivery of legal services.
Significant Changes Since September 2005 Update
Strategies
Since the September 2005 Service Plan Update, the Ministry has designated specific strategies to support Goal 1. The following two-part strategy is now under way.
Evaluate the current justice system and research new knowledge on:
- how to make the justice system more responsive;
- how to provide better access to justice;
- how to improve court processes;
- how to reform current laws and legislation;
- how to apply technology to the justice system; and
- how to make the justice system more efficient;
and use those evaluations, and apply that knowledge to suggest new and improved laws, legal processes and justice services for the public.
Performance Measures
The Ministry is no longer using specific performance measures for Goal 1 as they were largely milestones and output rather than outcome measures. Implementation of the strategies for Goal 1 will result in the improvement, modernization and reform of the law and justice processes, all of which are expected outcomes for Goals 2, 3 and 4. New and stronger performance measures have been developed for Goals 2, 3 and 4 and appear in the 2006/07 Service Plan. These measures are also appropriate outcome indicators for the success of Goal 1.
Output measures previously attached to Goal 1 are listed in Appendix A: Summary of New, Retained and Replaced Performance Measures.
Goal 2: An effective criminal justice system
The criminal justice sector comprises several independent, yet interdependent, organizations. Components include Prosecution
Services, Court Services, Legal Aid, Corrections, Police Services and the Judiciary. The system must be responsive and reliable.
It must operate in a principled manner that serves the public interest. As a key participant, the Ministry strives for process
that ensures the administration of justice is fair, impartial and just.
An effective criminal justice system requires and builds public confidence. The system must safeguard the rights of the accused and, at the same time, deliver justice on behalf of victims, accused and communities. This requires that the system operate with appropriate speed, be secure and efficient, and be understood by the public.
Objective 2.1: Timely criminal prosecutions and appeals
Core Business Areas: Prosecution Services, Court Services, Executive and Support Services
Criminal matters must be processed within a reasonable period of time or charges against the accused may be dismissed. Timeliness enhances public confidence in the justice process, minimizes distress and disruption for victims and the accused and their families, and leads to efficient use of court and Crown resources. For example, in most cases, Crown counsel conduct pre-charge screening and provide full disclosure documents and an initial sentencing position to the accused or counsel prior to the first appearance.
| Performance Measure | Benchmark | 2005/06 Target | 2005/06 Actual | Variance | Target Met? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yearly percentage change in average time to trial for adult criminal cases | Provincial benchmark of 6 months | 0% change from benchmark | 17 % increase | +17 % |  Target not met |
| Selection Rationale: This measure represents the average amount of elapsed time between the dates when a trial is scheduled and when it is heard. The actual length of time to trial can be affected by legislative and policy changes related to the prosecution of certain types of offences and by case complexity. This is a system indicator over which no single justice system participant has direct control. | |||||
Results and Variance Explanation: The number of months of trial delay for adult criminal court increased by one month (from 6 months to 7 months) between March 2005 and March 2006. This means that, on average province-wide, the next available trial date is one month later than it was last year. This increase can be attributed to several factors. Most importantly, the increase reflects the significant and growing complexity of many criminal matters as discussed in the Strategic Context section of this report. The court continually reviews court demands and trial delay measures with the intent of increasing capacity as required in specific court sites in order to maintain timely access to justice. |
|||||
| Data Sources and Issues: Data that support this measure are from the Provincial Court Next Available Date Survey, Office of the Chief Judge. The Ministry is confident that the data used to calculate the results are reliable and accurate. | |||||
| Changes to the Measure: The Ministry has replaced this measure with a stronger outcome measure of time to disposition. In the 2006/07 – 2008/09 Service Plan, this measure reads: Average time to disposition for: traffic cases adult and youth criminal cases. | |||||
Objective 2.2: Appropriate and fair criminal prosecutions and appeals
Core Business Areas: Prosecution Services, Executive and Support Services
This objective reflects the importance of fair process and balanced consideration of the interests of the victim, the accused, the witnesses, the families and the public. In determining whether cases should proceed to court, Crown counsel assess all charges reported to them using two criteria: first, whether there is a substantial likelihood of conviction, and second, if so, whether a prosecution would be in the public interest.
Consistent and rigorous application of these standards contributes to the overall effectiveness of the criminal justice system. Careful charge assessments also remove a substantial percentage (17 per cent) of accused persons from the court process where appropriate. Four (4) per cent out of the 17 per cent are directed to Alternative Measures. This ensures that court and Crown resources are used for the cases that warrant full prosecutions.
| Performance Measure | 2004/05 Actual | 2005/06 Target | 2005/06 Actual | Variance | Target Met? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Completion rate of persons referred to Alternative Measures | Measure under development | Baseline established | 82.3% | None |  Target met |
| Selection Rationale: Referral to Alternative Measures is one result of the Crown charge assessment process. The completion rate indicates appropriateness of referrals as well as the degree of compliance with the terms and conditions of Alternative Measures agreements. Crown counsel make referrals based on the charge and the accused person's record. The success of the referral is largely the product of other factors, such as the character of the accused person and the terms and conditions of the individual agreement. | |||||
| Results and Variance Explanation: A baseline against which future annual completion rates can be compared was established in 2005/06. The results show that 82.3 per cent of persons referred to Alternative Measures complete the terms and conditions of their individual agreements. | |||||
| Data Sources and Issues: Data for this measure are housed on the Ministry's JUSTIN system and undergo rigorous testing for quality. The Ministry is confident in the accuracy and reliability of this data. Note that collection of this data began in July of 2004. The observed actual represents only the second full year of data collection. | |||||
| Changes to the Measure: This measure is not included in the 2006/07 Service Plan, although the Ministry still monitors the completion rate. The measure has been replaced by a stronger outcome measure on public perceptions of the criminal justice system. | |||||
| Performance Measure | Benchmark | 2005/06 Target | 2005/06 Actual | Variance | Target Met? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of successful malicious prosecution lawsuits against the Crown | Benchmark of zero | Zero | Zero | None | Target met |
| Selection Rationale: A successful malicious prosecution lawsuit is one that has been concluded in favour of the person who was prosecuted. It must show that the prosecution was based on malicious intent, rather than on the primary purpose of Crown carrying the law into effect. Any malicious prosecution, if proven, would be considered a serious contravention of basic justice tenets of fairness and impartiality. Maintaining a benchmark of zero is critical to the integrity of the prosecution process and to public confidence and trust in the process. | |||||
| Results and Variance Explanation: In 2005/06, there were no successful malicious prosecution lawsuits against the Crown, indicating that those prosecuted believed the process was fair and impartial. | |||||
| Data Sources and Issues: This measure is calculated by doing a straight count. There are no data integrity issues. | |||||
| Changes to the Measure: This measure is not included in the 2006/07 Service Plan, although the Ministry still monitors it. The measure has been replaced by a stronger outcome measure on public perceptions of the criminal justice system. | |||||
| Performance Measure | Benchmark | 2005/06 Target | 2005/06 Actual | Variance | Target Met? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of successful wrongful conviction lawsuits per year | Benchmark of zero | Zero | Zero | None | Target met |
| Selection Rationale: Wrongful conviction lawsuits do not necessarily represent the current justice system; they can be based on cases that are decades old. Maintaining the benchmark of zero for this measure is critical to the integrity of the prosecution process and to public confidence and trust in the process. | |||||
| Results and Variance Explanation: In 2005/06, there were no successful wrongful conviction lawsuits against the Crown , and the benchmark of zero was maintained. | |||||
| Data Sources and Issues: This measure is calculated by doing a straight count. There are no data integrity issues. | |||||
| Changes to the Measure: This measure is not included in the 2006/07 Service Plan, although the Ministry continues to monitors it. The measure has been replaced by a stronger outcome measure on public perceptions of the criminal justice system. | |||||
Objective 2.3: Secure and affordable criminal programs and services
Core Business Areas: Court Services, Justice Services, Executive and Support Services
The safety of all persons who attend or preside in court and the affordability of proceedings are critical to an effective criminal justice system serving the public interest. The Ministry provides an integrated threat assessment and risk management program that works in cooperation with law enforcement agencies; sets operational security policies for courthouse security screening and use of force; establishes courthouse security design standards; provides training for court security staff; and promotes the use of innovative courtroom technology and modern safety equipment.
| Performance Measure | 2004/05 Actual | 2005/06 Target | 2005/06 Actual | Variance | Target Met? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of video conference appearances as a portion of total in-custody appearances | Baseline estimate: 10% | 3% increase over baseline | 4.1 % increase over baseline | +1.1 % |  Target exceeded |
| Selection Rationale: Court appearances by video conference for accused in custody lower security risks by avoiding prisoner transport, guard services and procedures associated with discharge and readmission to correctional centres. Costs are also avoided and may in the future be reduced when the volume of cases conducted by video conference supports significant scheduling efficiencies. | |||||
| Results and Variance Explanation: Results are slightly better than targeted with a higher percentage of in custody appearances now conducted via video conference. The implications are that fewer prisoners were transported with the collateral benefits of significant administrative efficiencies and fewer security concerns. This, in turn, enhances safety for all court users and the public. The Ministry will continue to promote the optimal use of this technology. | |||||
| Data Sources and Issues: Data are a by-product of criminal case tracking in the JUSTIN system and are considered reliable and accurate. | |||||
| Changes to the Measure: The Ministry continues to track this important operational measure. However, consistent with Ministry efforts to use stronger and fewer outcome measures for its Service Plan, this measure was not included in the 2006/07 Service Plan. | |||||
| Performance Measure | 2004/05 Actual | 2005/06 Target | 2005/06 Actual | Variance | Target Met? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of serious security incidents as a portion of all court days | Baseline unavailable | Baseline developed | Baseline still being reviewed | Baseline review nearing completion at writing of this report. Report expected November 2006 |
 Target largely met |
| Selection Rationale: A serious security breach is any incident that requires the use of force, and may include such events as an attempted or successful escape, a medical emergency, a bomb threat or the seizure of weapons. | |||||
| Results and Variance Explanation: The Ministry has developed a Critical Incident Reporting System and has put in place measures such as training, security protocols, and policy and procedures to address all critical incidents. The actual number of critical incidents relative to all court activity is minimal. The baseline for these events is under review in the context of further definitions for critical incidents. | |||||
| Data Sources and Issues: Data to support this measure are derived from the Critical Incident Reporting System in use since January 2005. Critical Incident Reports identify a range of locations where serious incidents inside, outside, and around the courthouse have occurred. Court days has been selected as the most consistent and dependable denominator available to calculate the results. The Ministry is confident that the data used to calculate the results are reliable and accurate. | |||||
| Changes to the Measure: The Ministry continues to track this important operational measure. However, consistent with Ministry efforts to use stronger and fewer outcome measures for its Service Plan, this measure was not included in the 2006/07 Service Plan. | |||||
Significant Changes Since September 2005 Update
Objectives
To ensure that critical aspects of Goal 2 were adequately addressed, the Ministry refocused and clarified the objectives for this goal after the September 2005 Service Plan Update was published. Objectives in the 2006/07 Service Plan are now stated as follows:
- Fair, impartial and just criminal prosecutions and appeals
- Criminal prosecutions and appeals processed with appropriate speed
- Safe and secure criminal justice programs and services
- Reliable criminal justice services
- Public understanding of the criminal justice system
Strategies
Since the September 2005 Service Plan Update, the Ministry has designated specific strategies to support Goal 2. The following strategies represent ongoing Ministry efforts to achieve Goal 2, and are included in the 2006/07 Service Plan.
- Operate the criminal justice system fairly and efficiently and with appropriate speed.
- Integrate, where appropriate, the work of criminal justice system participants, including sharing information about all parts of the system, in order to improve system operation and decision making.
- Evaluate the performance of the criminal justice system, internally and from the perspective of the public.
- Determine the feasibility of criminal justice reform and innovation suggestions and implement those reforms that are supported.
- Apply technology to streamlined and effective criminal justice processes.
- Inform the public about the criminal justice system.
Measures
Consistent with Ministry efforts to reduce the total number of Service Plan measures and focus on a few, critical outcome measures, the number of measures for this goal in the 2006/07 Service Plan has been reduced from six to the two shown below. Replaced measures for Goal 2 appear in Appendix A.
Percentage of all British Columbians 15 years and older who perceive that the criminal courts do a good job of:
- providing justice quickly
- helping the victim
- determining whether or not the accused is guilty
- ensuring a fair trial for the accused
Average time to disposition (in days) for:
- traffic cases
- adult and youth criminal cases
Goal 3: An effective civil justice system1
The civil and family justice systems help private parties solve problems and resolve disputes. The civil justice system also
includes administrative tribunals that provide alternatives to court to resolve disputes between private parties and between
individuals and government.
Effective civil and family justice systems are accessible, understood by the public and promote public confidence. This requires a range of dispute resolution options where procedures and costs are proportionate to the nature of the issues involved.
The Ministry's role in the civil and family justice systems includes providing effective court services including a safe environment; supporting access to justice; facilitating the development and use of problem-solving and dispute resolution options through processes that are most appropriate to the circumstances; and maximizing the performance of all components of the system.
|
|
|
| 1 | Subsequent to the September 2005 Service Plan Update, Goal 3 was rewritten to reflect the fact that the civil system includes both civil and family justice systems. Goal 3 now reads: Effective civil and family justice systems. |
Objective 3.1: Accessible and efficient civil and family justice services as alternatives to court
Core Business Areas: Justice Services, Executive and Support Services
An effective civil justice system offers a range of alternatives to the traditional court system to support parties in resolving their disputes. Services must be accessible and affordable to parties who require them.
| Performance Measure | 2004/05 Actual | 2005/06 Target | 2005/06 Actual | Variance | Target Met? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean rate of client satisfaction with Small Claims Mediation on a 5-point scale where 5 is very satisfied | 4 | >4 | 4.2 | None | Target exceeded |
| Selection Rationale: User satisfaction promotes increased use of innovative dispute resolution. This measure tracks client satisfaction with Small Claims Mediation. | |||||
| Results and Variance Explanation: An actual of 4.2 indicates that participants in mediation were highly satisfied with the service. Of those who completed client exit surveys, 89 per cent said they would use mediation again. | |||||
| Data Sources and Issues: Data are collected through client exit surveys voluntarily completed after participating in mediation. Court Mediation Program staff collect data from all five provincial court registries where the program is offered. The Ministry is confident that the data used to calculate the results are reliable and accurate. | |||||
| Changes to the Measure: This measure is used in the 2006/07 – 2008/09 Service Plan, and will continue to be used on an interim basis until a public confidence measure has been developed. | |||||
| Performance Measure | 2004/05 Actual | 2005/06 Target | 2005/06 Actual |
Variance | Target Met? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of cases mediated in Court Mediation Program (Small Claims) | 875 | 900 | 880 This is an interim actual. Not all cases referred in 2005 were concluded by March 31, 2006. It is anticipated that the actual, when final, will exceed the target. |
Unknown | Target met |
| Selection Rationale: This measure tracks the number of small claims cases for which mediation was used. | |||||
| Results and Variance Explanation: The actual reported here is the minimum number of small claims cases for which mediation was used. Some of the cases referred to mediation prior to March 31, 2006, had not commenced or were in progress by the data cut-off date. These cases are not included, and the true variance is not known. It is very likely that, when these cases are concluded, the 2005/06 revised actual will exceed the target. During the reporting year, a total of 1,220 cases were referred to the Court Mediation Program. Some cases do not proceed beyond referral because they do not meet eligibility criteria. | |||||
| Data Sources and Issues: Data are collected by the Court Mediation Program. The Ministry is confident that the data used to calculate the results are reliable and accurate. | |||||
| Changes to the Measure: This output measure has been replaced in the 2006/07 Service Plan by a stronger outcome measure that tracks settlement rates for the Court Mediation (Small Claims) Program. | |||||
| Performance Measure | 2004/05 Actual | 2005/06 Target | 2005/06 Actual | Variance | Target Met? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recovery rate for support payments to families enrolled in the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP) | $.80 per $1 due | $.81 per $1 due | $.81 per $1 due | None | Target met |
| Selection Rationale: This measure is based on the recovery of regular maintenance payments due in the current year combined with the recovery of arrears from previous years. The recovery rate has been increasing since 1992/93, when it was $.61 for every dollar due. | |||||
| Results and Variance Explanation: The results show that the program continues to work effectively in collecting maintenance payments that are due to children and parents. | |||||
| Data Sources and Issues: Data are held on a payment processing and disbursement database. The Ministry is confident that the data used to calculate the results are reliable and accurate. | |||||
| Changes to the Measure: Although the Ministry continues to track this measure, it has been replaced in the 2006/07 Service Plan. This is consistent with Ministry efforts to have stronger and more comparative measures for Goals 2 and 3. | |||||
| Performance Measure | 2004/05 Actual | 2005/06 Target | 2005/06 Actual | Variance | Target Met? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cost of collecting family maintenance per dollar recovered | $.09 per $1 recovered | $.09 per $1 recovered | $.09 per $1 recovered | None | Target met |
| Selection Rationale: This measure shows how much the Ministry spends to collect each dollar of family maintenance payments. The measure compares total maintenance recovered through the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program against the total expense to government of administering the program. This cost has been decreasing since 1992/93, when the cost was $.18 per dollar recovered. | |||||
| Results and Variance Explanation: These results show that the program continues to operate efficiently. | |||||
| Data Sources and Issues: Data sources are applications and funding allocation records. The Ministry is confident that the data used to calculate the results are reliable and accurate. | |||||
| Changes to the Measure: Although the Ministry continues to track this measure, it has been replaced in the 2006/07 Service Plan, and is consistent with Ministry efforts to have stronger and more comparative measures for Goals 2 and 3. | |||||
Objective 3.2: Timely, accessible and efficient court processes
Core Business Areas: Court Services, Executive and Support Services
Timely, accessible and efficient civil court processes are necessary for the court to be an effective option for parties in dispute. Public confidence is eroded if the process becomes too costly, cumbersome or bureaucratic.
| Performance Measure | 2004/05 Actual | 2005/06 Target | 2005/06 Actual | Variance | Target Met? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of civil court record searches conducted by clients remotely through Internet | Measure in development | Baseline to be determined | 16,485 paid searches conducted remotely | None | Target met |
| Selection Rationale: Electronic access to civil court records will increase accessibility to such records and make the search process more efficient. Phased implementation began in 2005/06. Increasing usage levels will reflect the acceptance and functionality of this innovative electronic process. | |||||
| Results and Variance Explanation: The number of civil court record searches was in line with Ministry projections. The results are indicative of both acceptance and utilization of this process. | |||||
| Data Sources and Issues: Data collection and analysis procedures were developed during 2005/06. Data are held in Court Services Branch, and the Ministry has confidence in the data integrity. | |||||
| Changes to the Measure: The Ministry continues to track this important operational measure. However, consistent with Ministry efforts to use stronger and fewer outcome measures for its Service Plan, this measure was not included in the 2006/07 Service Plan. | |||||
| Performance Measure | 2004/05 Actual | 2005/06 Target | 2005/06 Actual | Variance | Target Met? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of uncontested divorces processed in five days from filing the order to signing the order, exclusive of the time required for federal authorities to search the federal divorce registry | 90% | 90% | 59% | -31% | Target not met |
| Selection Rationale: This measure indicates timeliness and efficiency in civil registry operations that affect a large volume of cases. The processing time is tracked from the day an uncontested divorce application is filed until the day the application is signed, but does not include the time required for a federal divorce registry search. The federal search is not controlled by the Ministry. | |||||
| Results and Variance Explanation: The Ministry is reviewing this process to determine the barriers to meeting the target, and is evaluating the 5-day baseline for this performance measure. | |||||
| Data Sources and Issues: Data for the Ministry-controlled part of the process reside on the Ministry's Civil Electronic Information System (CEIS) and are considered reliable. | |||||
| Changes to the Measure: The Ministry continues to track this important operational measure. However, consistent with Ministry efforts to use stronger and fewer outcome measures for its Service Plan, this measure was not included in the 2006/07 Service Plan. | |||||
| Performance Measure | Benchmark | 2005/06 Target | 2005/06 Actual | Variance | Target Met? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proportion of provincial population residing within one hour of travel time to the nearest court location | Benchmark of 95% | 95% | 98% | +3% | Target exceeded |
| Selection Rationale: This accessibility measure was derived from 2001 population figures based on the provincial policing jurisdictions. It includes municipal, rural, and First Nations reserve populations. The measure monitors the percentage of the provincial population who are able to reach a court location within one hour's travel time. Since British Columbia has a highly mobile population, and migration within the province is hard to predict, 95 per cent is considered a realistic benchmark. However, in 2004 the actual result was 98 per cent. | |||||
| Results and Variance Explanation: One component of access to justice is the availability of court services. This result shows that 98 per cent of the population resides within one hour's travel time of a court location, indicating that court services are accessible on a provincial basis. | |||||
| Data Sources and Issues: Information sources used to develop this measure include: B.C. Statistics, Police Services Division of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and MapQuest web site services. The data and mapping information are considered reliable and accurate. | |||||
| Changes to the Measure: No changes. This measure has been retained for the 2006/07 – 2008/09 Service Plan. | |||||
Significant Changes Since September 2005 Update
Objectives
In the 2006/07 Service Plan, the Ministry has strengthened the objectives for Goal 3 as follows:
- Accessible and efficient civil and family court processes
- Accessible civil and family justice services as alternatives to court
- Safe and secure environment for resolving civil and family disputes
- Public understanding of the civil and family justice systems
Strategies
Since the September 2005 Service Plan Update, the Ministry has designated specific strategies to support Goal 3. The following strategies represent ongoing Ministry efforts to achieve Goal 3 and are included in the 2006/07 Service Plan.
- Operate the civil and family justice systems fairly and efficiently.
- Improve access to justice by:
- simplifying and streamlining justice processes;
- using and fostering a problem-solving approach to matters that engage the civil and family justice systems; and
- providing to the public effective sources of information about law, legal processes and justice services.
- Evaluate the performance of the civil and family justice systems, internally and from the perspective of the public.
- Determine the feasibility of civil and family justice reform and innovation suggestions and implement those reforms that are supported.
- Apply technology to streamlined and effective civil and family justice processes.
Measures
Consistent with Ministry efforts to focus on a few, critical outcome measures, the number of measures for this goal in the 2006/07 Service Plan has been reduced from seven to five. Three new measures are shown below. Replaced measures for Goal 3 appear in Appendix A.
- Average rate of client satisfaction with child protection mediation on a 5-point scale where 5 is very satisfied
- Small claims settlement rate
- Average time to disposition for:
- small claims settlement conferences from case initiation
- small claims actions
- child protection hearings
- family hearings
Satisfaction measures will be used on an interim basis until a public confidence measure can be developed for the civil and family justice systems.
Goal 4: Effective legal services enabling government to administer public affairs in accordance with the law
This goal supports the Attorney General's unique role in government to see that public affairs are administered in accordance with the law. High-quality legal advice and representation help ensure that government services are delivered effectively.
Objective 4.1: High-quality, cost-effective legal services to government
Core Business Areas: Legal Services, Executive and Support Services
This objective supports the administration of public affairs in accordance with the law and ensures that government is effectively represented before tribunals and the courts. The Ministry's Legal Services Branch has made significant progress in reconciling costs with government requirements for legal advice.
| Performance Measure | 2004/05 Actual | 2005/06 Target | 2005/06 Actual |
Variance | Target Met? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Costs compared to private sector (to indicate competitive rates) | Unavailable | Benchmarks developed | Benchmarks completed. Internal rates = $126 – $130 per hour. External rates = $301 – $341 per hour. |
None | Target met |
| Selection Rationale: Comparisons of the cost of legal services provided internally and externally allows the Ministry to monitor and demonstrate cost-effectiveness. | |||||
| Results and Variance Explanation: In-house legal counsel continues to be the most cost-effective model for providing legal services to government. A benchmark is now in place for making comparisons in future years. | |||||
| Data Sources and Issues: Internal costs are based on annual rate analysis. External costs are based on Vancouver Association of Legal Administrators and the BC Branch of Canadian Bar Association joint survey of 2005. The Ministry is confident that the data used in all calculations are reliable. | |||||
| Changes to the Measure: The Ministry continues to monitor this measure. However, consistent with Ministry efforts to use stronger and fewer outcome measures for its Service Plan, this measure was not included in the 2006/07 Service Plan. | |||||
| Performance Measure | 2004/05 Actual |
2005/06 Target | 2005/06 Actual | Variance | Target Met? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentage of clients satisfied with: • timeliness of services • quality and consistency of services |
Survey results for 2003/04 showed 85% of clients satisfied with timeliness and quality of services | 87% | No data; survey conducted every three years. Next survey in 2006/07. | Not applicable at this time | N/A Target tied to the next survey cycle (2006/07) |
| Selection Rationale: The Legal Services Branch delivers legal services to government on the basis of service level agreements with each Ministry and agency. These agreements set out the services that are to be delivered, and they require that a Ministry or agency provide funding to Legal Services Branch to cover its costs of providing most of these services. The service level agreement process is to be reviewed in 2006/07. Following that review, another client satisfaction survey will be conducted. | |||||
| Results and Variance Explanation: This survey is conducted every three years. The next survey will be conducted in November 2006. The target of 87 per cent was determined after the 2003/04 survey cycle and pertains to the 2006/07 survey cycle. | |||||
| Data Sources and Issues: Not applicable at this time. | |||||
| Changes to the Measure: This measure appears unchanged in the 2006/07 Service Plan. | |||||
Objective 4.2: Legal risks and issues managed proactively and strategically
Core Business Area: Legal Services, Executive and Support Services
This objective reflects the importance of anticipating, reducing and managing legal risk as part of the stewardship and sound management of public resources.
| Performance Measure | 2004/05 Actual | 2005/06 Target | 2005/06 Actual | Variance | Target Met? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal risk management initiatives and processes in use compared with those of other public sector organizations | Unavailable | Appropriate risk management initiatives and processes determined | Information on this actual is pending an internal audit report due July 2006. | Final decisions based on the audit report will be made by December 2006. | N/A |
| Selection Rationale: This measure helps to assess the Ministry's legal risk management strategies in terms of "best practices" of other public sector organizations | |||||
| Results and Variance Explanation: An internal audit report on legal risk management initiatives was in progress and unavailable when this Annual Report was prepared. | |||||
| Data Sources and Issues: N/A | |||||
| Changes to the Measure: The Ministry continues to track this operational measure. However, consistent with Ministry efforts to use stronger and fewer outcome measures for its Service Plan, this measure was not included in the 2006/07 Service Plan. | |||||
| Performance Measure | 2004/05 Actual | 2005/06 Target | 2005/06 Actual |
Variance | Target Met? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| System in place for early identification of significant cases | No system in place | Proposal for identification system completed | Senior legal committee was created to identify and respond to significant legal issues. | None | Target met |
| Selection Rationale: Early identification of significant cases supports proactive management of the legal issues they present. | |||||
| Results and Variance Explanation: Recommendations from the proposal were implemented. Summaries of major cases with legal and policy significance are reviewed by a legal committee, and issues raised are proactively managed. | |||||
| Data Sources and Issues: Documentation for this initiative resides in the Legal Services Branch. | |||||
| Changes to the Measure: This development measure is no longer needed since the one-time target has been achieved. The Ministry will continue to monitor the early identification of significant cases, but will not develop a measure on this topic for the Service Plan. | |||||
Significant Changes Since September 2005 Update
Strategies
Since the September 2005 Service Plan Update, the Ministry has designated specific strategies to support Goal 4. The following strategies represent ongoing Ministry efforts to achieve Goal 4 and are included in the 2006/07 Service Plan.
- Attract, retain and support high-quality lawyers within the public service.
- Evaluate the cost of legal services against the benchmark of comparable private sector lawyers.
- Where appropriate, develop innovative approaches to providing legal services through dispute resolution alternatives, technology and best practices.
- Evaluate and implement appropriate processes to manage government legal issues and risks effectively and in the public interest.
Measures
As part of the Ministry effort to focus on a few critical outcome measures, the Ministry has retained the following satisfaction measure in the 2006/07 Service Plan.
Percentage of clients satisfied with:
- timeliness of services
- quality and consistency of services
