Performance Reporting

Overview of Ministry Goals

The ministry's overall, long-term directions are based on the vision statement shown below. Five high-level ministry goals were derived from this vision, and each of the core business areas shown in the table supports one or more of the goals. Expected outcomes for each business area are consistent with both the vision statement and the goals.

Vision Statement

An accessible, responsive, accountable justice system that protects the rights of all citizens, offers a range of affordable, timely and fair ways to resolve disputes, and fosters confidence in the integrity, efficiency and effectiveness of the justice system. The knowledge that government operates lawfully and is achieving reconciliation with First Nations through negotiation contributes to the social stability and economic vitality of British Columbia.

Key System Indicators

This report focuses largely on performance measures for core business areas, as opposed to system indicators. Performance measures for core business areas relate to specific activities that are conducted within each separate business areas. Responsibility for this kind of performance measure and control over the results reside within each respective business area.

However, within the provincial justice system, there are other broader measures of performance that do not fall exclusively under the auspices of a single core business area. These other measures are referred to as system indicators, and they differ in several ways from performance measures.

System indicators summarize results of entire justice system processes (as opposed to isolated aspects of a process) and represent the combined outcomes of responsibilities and accountabilities of two or more business areas, as well as of other participants in the process such as the judiciary and the police. Although each separate business area and each participant contributes to system indicators, no single business area or participant has sole responsibility for, or control over, such indicators, or the ability to achieve targets single-handedly.

Shared responsibilities create shared challenges for performance measurement within a ministry that operates through discrete branches. For example, criminal case processing is a significant component of the justice system. Improved case processing efficiency is a desirable outcome that requires the combined activities of Court Services, Prosecution Services, Justice Services, the independent judiciary, defence bar and the police. If cases are not processed efficiently and are therefore delayed, the associated costs can increase. Unacceptable delay in case processing can also be grounds for dismissing charges.

The three indicators shown below are used by the ministry to track and demonstrate case processing efficiency, but they have never been under the exclusive control or direction of a single business area. For that reason, they are included in this report as additional performance information that reflects the cumulative results of actions by thousands of individuals dealing with tens of thousands of cases.

The associated efficiency estimates for 2003/04 were projections as opposed to true targets. While overall increased efficiency is a desirable outcome and may be achieved as new resources are made available or as significant reforms to policies and procedures are implemented, these projections were kept stable. They were based on the expectation that, during 2003/04, the ministry would be able to maintain services at the 2002/03 efficiency level and still be consistent with government's commitment to a balanced budget.

Core Business Area Performance Results

This section contains key performance information for 2003/04 that is specific to each separate core business area of the ministry. It identifies the ministry goal or goals that each area supports and describes how the key objectives, strategies and measures connect to the goals and to each other. It also explains how each key measure helps to define the progress made in 2003/04 toward achievement of ministry goals, business area objectives and strategies.

Performance is discussed in terms of actual results versus estimated targets. Comparing actual results to estimated targets usually involves minor variations. However, when the differences between the two are considerable, explanations for the variances are provided. Where practicable, data considerations such as sources, compilation, accuracy, reliability and limitations are also given.

Supplementary measures that are largely operational (e.g., non-critical outputs and workload), but which complement, and add perspective to, the critical measures in this section, have been placed in an appendix. This appendix also contains proxy (substitute) measures that are serving temporarily until more direct and meaningful measures can be developed and tested.

Court Services

The key objective for this business area — timely and efficient court operations — supports ministry goals 1, 2 and 5. The use of efficient processes assists timely case disposition, which in turn can influence public perception and understanding of the justice system. It can also bolster public confidence that the system is being administered fairly and equitably (Goal 1). Sentences can have a deterrent effect and can also assure the public that social order is being upheld by the rule of law (Goal 2). The effective use of resources such as staff time, facilities, and technology contributes to efficiencies such as reducing unnecessary court appearances and maximizing court capacity (Goal 5).

The strategies help achieve the key objective by defining the activities that can lead to more efficient courtroom operations. Videoconferencing can help avoid delays and costs associated with escorting prisoners to court and requiring witnesses to travel to court. Finding ways to expedite disputed traffic offences and municipal bylaw disputes can help in redeploying court resources to those cases where they are most needed.

The three key performance measures that inform this core business area involve technology advances, program reforms, and certainty of court events.

This measure has tracked the expansion of videoconferencing for courtroom use in British Columbia since early 2000. British Columbia has been, and remains, an acknowledged leader in the use of videoconferencing in courtrooms with links to correctional centres.

Greater use of videoconferencing supports the key objective by allowing savings on costs of witness testimony. It contributes to greater efficiency and safety related to escorting prisoners. It permits greater court event certainty, which means that a higher proportion of court events can occur on time. It also permits judicial and counsel flexibility, enabling matters to be concluded quickly.

In January 2000, there were 14 units in use in the province in courtrooms and correctional facilities. By March 2002, this had increased to 62. With 70 units in operation by March 2004, which surpassed the 2003/04 target, this initiative is largely fulfilled. Equipment has now been installed in all major courthouses and correctional centres. For that reason, in future, this measure will no longer be used. However, new measures may be designed to monitor usage frequency.

Traffic and bylaw disputes are one indicator of the public's use of courts to resolve disputes. By introducing ways to reduce the number of such disputes concluded in Provincial Court, court resources can be redeployed more efficiently in support of the key objective for this business area. The observed decline in the total number of bylaw and traffic disputes concluded in court is consistent with the program reforms (traffic fine discount initiative and a new adjudicative system for bylaw disputes to be heard outside the courts) undertaken to reduce this number.

However, a lower number of traffic and bylaw disputes were received in 2003/04, and delays in traffic court hearings may have artificially reduced the total number of concluded disputes.

This measure currently does not indicate whether the total volume of disputes or the proportion awaiting resolution increased or declined. Consequently the measure is no longer used in Service Plans. More appropriate measures may be developed to monitor the overall effects of these program reforms.

This measure supports ministry goal 1 and the key objective for this business area by monitoring whether adequate staff are in place to support all scheduled court events. Should a court sitting not proceed for lack of staff, there could be a serious disruption to the efficient operation of the courts. Such disruptions could be costly, could inconvenience all parties, and potentially could be cause for dismissal of charges.

Historically, collapse of court sittings due to lack of staff virtually never occurs. There is a longstanding commitment to ensure staffing to support each sitting.

Legal Services

The key objectives and strategies for this business area support ministry goals 3 and 5. Greater certainty around legal services requirements and their costs, as well as the ability to adapt them to constantly changing demands (first key objective), are critical to providing high-quality services (Goal 3). The ministry's Legal Services Branch leads other Canadian jurisdictions in the detailed financial analysis of the costs and operations required to customize advice to government organizations. These innovations support goal 5 and contribute to efficiencies across government.

The second key objective supports ministry goals 3 and 5 through the promotion and use of innovative liability reduction strategies. Use of these strategies has achieved notable success in recent court decisions, which in turn has set precedents that will enable more effective risk and litigation management in the future.

The key measures that inform this business area focus on satisfaction rates, legal cost comparisons, and the use of dispute resolution mechanisms.

This client satisfaction measure takes service quality into account and covers issues such as whether staff have been responsive to the clients, have understood the issues at hand and have provided the required advice. Satisfaction also covers whether the legal advice and representation provided has supported clients in their operations. All of these elements contribute to the high-quality legal services referred to by ministry goal 3.

When the target for 2003/04 was set, this measure was expected to perform as well as, or better than, it had in 2002/03. However, program changes during 2003/04 may have lowered the satisfaction rate from 91 per cent to 85 per cent.

In response to this result, Legal Services Branch is conducting a detailed review of the survey results in order to identify service areas that should be targeted for improvement. The result will also be included in discussions with client ministries regarding future service agreements.

The satisfaction rate of 85 per cent is still one of the highest in Canada among government agencies offering similar services. Only Ontario reports higher rates — between 97 per cent and 98 per cent for 2002. Quebec reports a satisfaction rate of 83 per cent for 2002.

Legal services are provided to government by in-house counsel and through contracts with outside counsel. In providing its services, the ministry is mandated to do so as cost-effectively as possible.

At the present time, the Legal Services Branch is at the forefront of government law departments in Canada in the detailed financial analysis of its costs and operations. The measure above is intended to compare the known costs of providing legal services to government in British Columbia with the costs incurred by other legal service providers in other jurisdictions.

However, while the ministry can measure its own overall service costs, it is more difficult to ensure that data obtained from other jurisdictions has been collected and measured in a way that makes comparison meaningful. Careful, thorough research is required to obtain comparative information that is accurate and useful. In 2002/03 and 2003/04, this work was postponed due to other priorities, most notably the implementation of full-cost recovery for legal services provided by the ministry.

Both the measure and its 2003/04 target remain valid. Legal services that are offered at competitive rates are directly linked to the first objective for this business area as well as to ministry goal 3. Work on a comparative study is expected to resume in 2004/05.

This measure tracks the ministry's success in promoting the use of alternate dispute resolution mechanisms to assist in resolving litigation issues. The use of such mechanisms reduces the overall costs of litigation (second objective), raises the quality of legal services provided (Goal 3), and helps improve ministry efficiency (Goal 5).

Baseline data provide a reference point from which progress and performance can be measured. The 2003/04 baseline will serve as a reference to help set targets in future years.

Prosecution Services

Major revision of the objectives, strategies and performance measures for this business area took place during 2003/04 in response to program changes and data entry upgrades. These revisions were published in the ministry's 2004/05 Service Plan. Consequently, the performance information contained in the 2003/04 Service Plan published in February of 2003 was no longer relevant for reporting purposes.

A special committee, set up within the Criminal Justice Branch, guided this effort. All modifications were intended to improve service planning and performance reporting and enable greater accountability. The work has resulted in new and more relevant objectives, strategies and measures that reflect more accurately the direct responsibilities of this business area.

This section of the document presents the revised material as it appeared in the 2004/05 Service Plan; and, to the extent possible, it reports on the new key performance measures.

Maintaining timeliness throughout the charge assessment process (Objective 1) is directly linked to the new ministry goal of timely, fair, effective prosecutions.

In British Columbia, the prosecution of offences has two distinct phases: Crown charge assessment and conduct of the prosecution. Objective 1 addresses the timeliness of the first phase — charge assessment — under two different circumstances: with, and without, police process.

If charge assessments are conducted early:

• victims can be contacted and given the opportunity to provide information on the impact of the offence on them;
• disclosure of information about the Crown's case and initial sentence position can then be provided to the accused (or defence counsel) giving the accused and counsel more time to decide their course of action before the first court appearance. Consequently, the first appearance can become a meaningful event, thereby avoiding an adjournment;
• if any further police investigation is required, the additional investigation can be conducted in a timely manner, making the first appearance a more meaningful event and avoiding an adjournment;
• if the police have not given the accused a court date, the earlier a charge is approved, the sooner a summons (or warrant) can be issued by the Judicial Justice of the Peace, and the sooner the court process can commence; and
• if the charge assessment is not completed in a timely manner, the provision of information cannot be completed in time for the defence to be prepared to commit to a course of action by the first court date and the appearance will have to be adjourned.

The following two-part measure of elapsed time to conduct charge assessments is thought to indicate a meaningful measure of the timeliness of decisions made by Criminal Justice Branch. Although this two-part measure is not yet available, and therefore has not been tested, it is thought that when it does become available, it will provide a clear indication of the contribution made by this core business area to the timeliness of processing charges to the next stage.

At this time, there are insufficient similarities between British Columbia and other jurisdictions with respect to charge assessment, and it is not feasible to develop benchmarks for comparison purposes.

The second objective — fair and effective charge assessment — is also linked to the new ministry goal. Fairness and effectiveness can be maintained by proceeding to court with only those cases that should go to court, seeking alternate solutions where appropriate and screening out charges that should not be heard by the court.

In this regard, Crown counsel conduct the charge assessment of the Report to Crown Counsel based on two criteria: first, whether there is a substantial likelihood of conviction; second, whether a prosecution is in the public interest. By applying these standards, Crown counsel employ a high degree of objectivity, vigilance and consistency, resulting in a substantial percentage of accused persons and charges being removed from the court process.

The measure for the second objective represents the proportion of the total number of individuals who were the subject of police reports received by Crown counsel for charge assessment (i.e., accused persons) against whom Crown counsel approved one or more charges (i.e., accused approved to court). It is considered a proxy measure of the objective since it implies fairness and effectiveness by monitoring the percentage of accused who are screened out of the court process after undergoing rigorous and thorough charge assessment.

Historically, 17 per cent of all accused persons have charges that are not approved to court by Crown counsel. This provincial figure is very stable and varies from one fiscal period to the next by only ±1 per cent. Thus 17 per cent is not as much a true target as it is a provincial benchmark. There are insufficient similarities between British Columbia and other jurisdictions with respect to the charge assessment and prosecution process, which does not permit an accurate and valid comparison of inter-jurisdictional benchmarks.

The third objective — timely conduct of prosecutions — is closely linked to the new goal for this business area and to former goals 1 and 2 in the following way. Timely conduct of prosecutions involves the Crown's prompt provision of the disclosure documents and the initial sentencing position to the accused person (or to their defence counsel). This enables the accused to prepare their defence and make the court appearances meaningful. When disclosure and the Crown's initial sentencing position are provided promptly, the accused can make early and informed decisions such as whether to:

• retain counsel;
• dispute the charges;
• pursue resolution discussions with the Crown;
• plead guilty; and
• dispute or accept the Crown's position on sentence.

An appropriate measure of timeliness is the elapsed time to provide disclosure and an initial sentencing position. Such a measure will capture multiple functions that Crown counsel perform on a routine basis, all of which contribute to timely prosecutions.¹⁴ These functions are shown in the footnote and illustrate the value and relevancy of this measure.

However, this measure is not currently available in the JUSTIN database. The Criminal Justice Branch will continue to pursue avenues to acquire this measure by requesting changes to the JUSTIN database and aligning standard business practices.

Until this key measure is available, two other measures will be used as proxies (substitutes). The following two proxy measures represent a less direct way to monitor timely conduct of prosecutions. These proxy measures represent the cumulative actions of the many justice participants involved in a shared process and are not exclusively controlled by Prosecution Services.

The fourth objective for this business area — fair and effective conduct of prosecutions — requires a balanced consideration of the interests of the accused, the witnesses, the victims, the families and the public. Measuring fairness, however, is a challenge facing every justice system. Many jurisdictions, including British Columbia, are working to resolve the complexities of measuring this concept. Currently there are no benchmarks available from other jurisdictions.

Information on both fairness and effectiveness is not currently available in the ministry's JUSTIN database. The Criminal Justice Branch will continue to pursue avenues to acquire the measure by requesting changes to the JUSTIN database. When measures of fairness and effectiveness are developed, they will capture many routine functions that Crown counsel perform to ensure fair, effective prosecutions.¹⁵ A special ministry sub-committee on performance measures will address these issues in 2004/05.

Justice Services

The objective — greater use of out-of-court dispute resolution options — supports ministry goal 1 by promoting public acceptance of alternative services and by using acceptance to build public confidence that such alternatives are fair and equitable.

Offering justice system users a range of options for resolving their disputes also creates efficiencies within the system, which further supports goal 1. For example, many civil cases can be resolved outside of court, reserving resource intensive court processes for the cases that need it most. In addition, innovative processes can allow people to participate actively in creating fair, enduring agreements that are tailored to their individual needs and circumstances.

The first two strategies represent ways to expand out-of-court options and ensure that the ministry can continue to offer litigants a choice of alternative ways to resolve disputes. The third strategy also helps to ensure that child custody cases are expedited and that parents and spouses are aware of, and fulfill, their obligations. Enforcement of child and spousal maintenance obligations support the administration of family law statutes and help ensure that laws and justice services are fairly and equitably applied as stated in goal 1.

The key measures used to track progress in this core business area focus on rates of satisfaction, settlement and support payments, as well as on mediator training.

To meet the objective of encouraging greater public use of out-of-court dispute resolution, clients must be satisfied with the dispute resolution processes available to them. High satisfaction levels can lead to increased use. The measure demonstrates the level of client satisfaction with the mediation process provided at registries offering the Court Mediation Program.

The ministry uses satisfaction results to promote mediation across the court system and in government ministries and agencies.

While there are many mediation programs in other jurisdictions, none are comparable to this one, which makes it difficult to draw valid comparisons between programs. Unlike other mediation programs, the Court Mediation Program has a dual focus: training and service delivery. Mediations are conducted by student mediators who are under the supervision of experienced mentors or recent program graduates. Other mediation programs focus on service delivery only.

In order to encourage public use of out-of-court dispute resolution processes, there must be public access to processes where settlement is a real possibility. If cases are not settled through the program, it will not be considered successful in providing an "off ramp" from the court system. Therefore, if settlement rates are too low, the public may lose confidence in out-of-court processes, which, in turn, could weaken efforts to provide affordable and timely out-of-court options.

The ministry uses settlement rates to promote mediation as an alternative to court processes for the public, government ministries and agencies. Settlement rates can also show the impact that successful mediations have on the court system because court resources are not required for cases that settle.

As described for the first key measure, difficulties with using benchmarks also apply to settlement rates.

The Facilitated Planning Meeting settlement rate indicates the extent to which child protection cases are being resolved by dispute resolution options other than litigation. Preliminary studies in the province show that cases referred to mediation result in decisions about children being made more quickly than if cases proceeded to court.

The 2002/03 results were achieved in a pilot project. The 2003/04 results seem to indicate that positive results from the pilot can be replicated within a program context. Consequently, this measure gains significance as an indicator of progress achieved in support of ministry goal 1 and the objective for this business area.

The ministry has used the actual results in key planning and reporting documents. The results also inform dispute resolution design and project development, and, in particular, the Child Protection Mediation Program, where these results confirm and validate program elements.

The ministry is not aware of any benchmarks or comparative data from similar services in other jurisdictions.

The fourth key measure for this business area not only provides the number of qualified mediators offering services, it also indicates the value that mediators place on being members of the B.C. Mediator Roster. An increasing pool of experienced mediators to which judges, lawyers and the public can access with confidence supports the use of mediation as an important out-of-court dispute resolution option within the civil/family justice system. As more mediators become available to perform services, Justice Services is better positioned to develop and implement additional civil mediation initiatives.

The target was originally selected as a realistic projection of growth, based on available information. The results may well influence selection of future targets.

The B.C. Mediator Roster was established in 1998. Since that time, the number of mediators on the roster has steadily grown from an initial number of 64 in 1999, to 108 by 2001, increasing to 204 in 2003/04. Benchmarks from other jurisdictions are not applicable as the B.C. Roster has very different characteristics compared to other rosters.

In support of the objective for this business area, this measure informs program effectiveness. As an outcome measure, it has significant implications for program recipients: it can show the proportion of the child and spousal support payments due them that they actually receive. Such information can be used in evaluating the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program and in identifying the need to make adjustments to enforcement and payment recovery efforts.

This measure has been in use for twelve fiscal years in British Columbia. During that time the payment rate has increased from 61 cents on each dollar due in 1992/93 to a high of 80 cents for 2003/04.

The models used in other provinces for collecting child support payments are not entirely comparable with the model used in British Columbia due to differences in operational design. However, a gross comparison against unconfirmed rates for two other provinces shows that the British Columbia payment rate is on the high side for large jurisdictions. Saskatchewan has a rate of around 85 cents for every dollar due, and Ontario has a rate of around 70 cents.

Executive and Support Services

The objective for this core business area supports ministry goals 1 and 2. Justice reform initiatives are intended to improve the justice system and eventually lead to better services for the citizens of British Columbia. Government and corporate commitments are more likely to be achieved in accordance with expectations if they receive timely and adequate administrative support during development and implementation. Careful administrative management during these initial phases helps to ensure that priorities are carried forward on schedule and that they adhere to specifications.

The five strategies describe how several key government and corporate commitments will be supported. Initiatives can vary widely in terms of the kind of support they require. Consequently, the measures for selected key initiatives tend to be project-specific and short-term, and focus largely on expected milestones that have been reached.

Treaty Negotiations Office

The first key objective and strategy relate directly to the ministry goal of achieving agreements through the treaty process in order to enhance the economic climate. The second objective and strategies, which also necessitate agreements, represent efforts to partner with First Nations on economic opportunities as another approach to achieving the ministry goal.

The key measures used to track progress and measure success for the key objectives focus on numbers and types of agreements reached and how well represented the referendum principles are in all of the completed agreements.

Signed treaty-related agreements indicate significant progress toward final treaties. Every stage reached in the negotiations process is another step closer to certainty over land and resource issues. This first measure tracks the number of approved and signed agreements that advance the negotiation process toward a final treaty.

Of the nine agreements reached, four were Agreements-in-Principle (AIPs) and were the first such agreements to be approved under this government. Only one other completed AIP has been signed since the British Columbia Treaty Commission negotiation process began in 1993.

These results are used by the Treaty Negotiations Office to benchmark their progress and to employ resources strategically.

Supporting government's major economic priorities is the Treaty Negotiations Office's second key objective. Support often consists of funding projects and economic opportunities such as:

• partnerships between aboriginal communities and industry or local government;
• increased First Nations access to resource tenures;
• measures to address specific land and resource issues, including strategic land-use planning; and
• measures to increase First Nations capacity for participating in the economy.

The measure above tracks progress made in all of the types of projects and initiatives that are administered through the Economic Measures Program. The program began in 2002/03 and will end in March 2005.

The third measure above is important in understanding how the Treaty Negotiations Office conducts their core business following the 2002 Referendum on Treaty Principles.¹⁶ The Referendum was held to provide a mandate on principles to guide the province's negotiators. The principles themselves were designed to revive and reinvigorate the treaty process.

Public support for the principles ensures that provincial negotiators have the authority to negotiate and make commitments on topics that are consistent with the referendum principles. However the process recognizes that in any negotiation some compromise is inevitable and outcomes are not guaranteed. Use of the principles assists in clarifying aboriginal rights and title in order to establish greater legal certainty on land and resource issues.

The Treaty Negotiations Office uses this measure to monitor their success in applying the principles.

Deregulation

The Ministry of Attorney General recognizes the significance of continuing the government's commitment to reduce the regulatory burden. The ministry is lean with regard to regulatory requirements in comparison to the number of statutory provisions it administers. The ministry continued to be mindful of government's commitment to deregulation as new legislation and regulations were being developed throughout 2003/04.