FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION AGAINST FAMILY VIOLENCE
2001 REVIEW

7. Accountability

(a) The Framework Requirements for Accountability

The Framework recognized that effective implementation would require significant changes in attitude and practices of justice workers and service providers and that monitoring mechanisms would be necessary to ensure compliance with the policy.⁽¹⁾

The Framework, therefore, required each justice agency to implement a structured audit mechanism to monitor its response to family violence incidents.⁽²⁾

The Framework demanded that the audit mechanism of each justice agency include mandatory reporting of reasons in cases where charges are not laid or are subsequently withdrawn.⁽³⁾

The audit process was also to report on victim satisfaction with criminal justice intervention. As well, a tracking system was to be implemented to permit on-going monitoring of cases through the justice system.⁽⁴⁾

The Family Violence Prevention Initiative (FVPI) was to serve as the repository for family violence outcome measures generated by all departments.⁽⁵⁾

The FVPI was a government-community committee reporting to the Deputy Ministers' Committee on Social Policy, comprised of five deputies representing the Departments of Health, Justice, Community Services, Education and Housing.

(b) The 1999 Evaluation Report

A Committee comprised of representatives of the FVPI, the Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the Transition House Association of Nova Scotia, RCMP and municipal police forces, and Department of Justice was established to develop and oversee the accountability framework for the initiative. As well, in April 1996 a data collection process was implemented to collect information on spousal/partner violence reported to police in the province to track the flow of these cases through the justice system. As noted earlier, police agencies accepted their responsibility by establishing internal audit systems at municipal police departments and local RCMP detachments, while RCMP domestic violence files are also audited centrally by the head office in Halifax, and the Police and Public Safety Services Division of the Department of Justice conducts audits of municipal police agencies. The Victims' Services Division of the Department of Justice also developed a mechanism to monitor its response to victims of intimate partner violence through a file review twice a year. However, the 1999 Review Committee found that no ongoing monitoring process had been fully implemented by the Public Prosecution Service, Courts or Correctional Services.⁽⁶⁾

The May to June 1997 consultation sessions had revealed considerable variation across the province with respect to the interpretation and implementation of the Framework policies by justice workers. Recognizing that "[d]eficiencies in the response of any one component of the justice system jeopardizes the effectiveness of the system as a whole," the 1999 Evaluation Report recommended that "the Minister of Justice require each component of the criminal justice system to formally restate their commitment to the Framework for Action Against Family Violence and articulate the means by which they will monitor adherence to the Framework policies.^"(7)

(c) 2001 Review

Police agencies and Victims' Services continue to take their monitoring responsibilities seriously. Police have found the requirement to state why a charge was not laid to be a helpful accountability mechanism. However, the deficiencies identified in the 1999 Evaluation Report have not been addressed. While recognizing the importance of accountability measures to ensure and to identify necessary changes and improvements, the Public Prosecution Service reports that there has been an audit within the Service of family violence cases, but that "the methodology has been criticized, consultation with Crown Attorneys has not been done, and the process is not complete."⁽⁸⁾

Courts and Correctional Services still have not implemented an ongoing monitoring process.

As well, the data collection process undertaken in April 1996 and completed in August 1998 to track the progress of cases through the justice system has not been repeated, and the FVPI, which was to serve as the repository for family violence outcome measures generated by all departments, has been eliminated as a result of the 2000 Provincial budget.

The lack of monitoring and accountability was identified by Crown representatives in the focus groups as an issue in the Public Prosecution Service. Some Crowns felt that the lack of internal audit mechanisms had contributed to uneven application of the policy and reinforced non-compliance.

(i) Reports/Evaluations and Monitoring Mechanisms in Other Jurisdictions

Other jurisdictions appear to have limited data collection mechanisms in terms of overall domestic violence case tracking, as significant components are absent from collection. The reader is cautioned, however, that jurisdictional representatives interviewed for this report may not have been fully aware of the data collection, auditing, or accountability mechanisms in place throughout their jurisdiction (as this happens at various levels) and that further investigation is required in order to determine precisely what is available. Auditing, monitoring and accountability mechanisms are important in order to assess effectiveness of strategies and to ensure compliance.

Monitoring mechanisms need further investigation but generally appear inadequate in terms of the ability of jurisdictions to track cases to get an overall picture of the justice system's response from the point of the call to police to sentence completion. Jurisdictions have had to rely on special periodic studies to assess justice system performance and, for the most part only, segments of it. Monitoring is compromised by the absence of integrated justice information systems.

Data is available on certain aspects of domestic violence legislation in the applicable jurisdictions and Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, and Alberta have each produced evaluation reports on their legislation. Nova Scotia undertook the most comprehensive tracking study to date and built a prototype information system to collect the data on an ongoing basis which was not implemented due to fiscal restraint. New Brunswick built a system based on aggregate data on family violence cases which continues to be enhanced over time. Manitoba tracked domestic violence cases in three police sites in the early nineties and has produced evaluations of the Winnipeg Family Violence Court and related reports. Saskatchewan is planning to undertake a tracking study of its criminal domestic violence cases. Quebec has annual reports from policing data. RCMP data captures spousal assaults but not the complete range of family violence offences. In addition, the Yukon Territory has produced a report on Spousal Assault and Mandatory Charging.

(d) Conclusions and Recommendations Regarding Accountability

Auditing, monitoring and accountability mechanisms are important in order to assess the effectiveness of the Framework and to ensure compliance. The 1999 Evaluation Report found that while police agencies and the Victims' Services Division of the Department of Justice had accepted their responsibility by establishing internal audit systems, no ongoing monitoring process had been implemented by the Public Prosecution Service, Courts, or Correctional Services. That remains true today. As well, the FVPI, which was to serve as the repository for family violence outcome measures generated by all departments, has been eliminated and the data collection process undertaken in April 1996 and completed in August 1998 to track progress through the justice system has not been repeated. In Nova Scotia and elsewhere, monitoring efforts have been hampered by the absence of integrated justice information systems.

It is recommended that the Minister of Justice require the Public Prosecution Service, Courts and Registries, and Correctional Services to formally restate their commitment to the Framework for Action Against Family Violence and require them, within six months of their restatement, to articulate the means by which they will monitor adherence to the Framework.  It is also recommended that the unimplemented prototype information system built by the Province to collect data on an ongoing basis to track the progress of the justice system with respect to domestic violence cases be reviewed, and if at all possible, that it be implemented.

---

1. ¹Supra note 10 at 7.

2. ²Supra note 10 at 7.

3. ³Supra note 10 at 7.

4. ⁴Supra note 10 at 7.

5. ⁵Supra note 10 at 7.

6. ⁶Supra note 14 at 42.

7. ⁷Supra note 14 at ix.

8. ⁸Supra note 72 at 2.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE || TABLE OF CONTENTS