1. Major Funding and Support from
The Evolving Legal Services Research Project: Some Preliminary Findings about What Works for Family Problems in Ontario
Les Jacobs, York Research Chair in Human Rights & Access to Justice
Julie Matthews, Director, Community Legal Education Ontario
Joanna Birenbaum, Community Legal Education Ontario/OHLS
June 18, 2018
Major Funding and Support from
October 28, 2009

2. Overview of the Research Project and Its Research Design
A central pillar of meaningful access to justice for families is the idea that when people face legal challenges and problems, it is important that users of the justice system have assistance and support that enables them to navigate that system and address their difficulties.
The provision of more and better legal information and education for persons with common legal challenges and problems is widely viewed as a valuable form of such assistance and support.
Yet we know relatively little about the extent to which this form is effective: for what types of clients, for which kinds of family justice problems, and in which circumstances, can more and better legal information and education assist and support users of family legal services.

3. We focused on three areas:
This research project began four years ago, designed to learn much more about the effectiveness of legal information on the quality of process and the quality of outcome for people facing problems without full legal representation.
We focused on three areas:
Family Problems (Ontario & British Columbia)
Housing Problems (Ontario)
Discrimination/Human Rights Issues (Ontario)
We followed 650 individuals in Ontario and British Columbia for up to three years as they experienced encounters with the legal system on their journeys to address their problems. We recruited people into the study very early on in their journey. All participants encountered some legal information.
Recruitment occurred at a very early point of contact with any effort to access legal information. (This is supported by CFCJ finding that 95% of Canadians with legal problems make a concerted effort to address their problem.)
This study is the largest panel empirical research project undertaken in Canada.
We have in the past few months completed all of the data collection and are now focused on analysis.

4. The Civil Justice Journey Index: Measuring and Comparing Journeys
In order to address our research questions, we developed a mix methodology approach that gathered both qualitative and quantitative data.
We have posited that the legal services an individual accesses on their journey can be understood on a continuum from full legal representation to some legal representation to summary advice to in-person legal information to print/online/telephone information to no assistance at all. This continuum can be scored.
We developed an index that is designed to measure the journeys of each individual with the objective of better understanding how the intensity of legal services affects quality of process and quality of outcome.
The Index is a composite of scores on Intensity of Legal Services, Quality of Process and Quality of Outcome.

5. Assessment Rubric for Intensity of Legal Services Scale
Based on the outtake survey and other documents (if available), score the intensity of the legal services each individual participant experienced
1 = participant received full legal representation during their legal journey
2 = participant received some legal representation by a lawyer/paralegal in responses,
hearings, etc
3 = participant received assistance by a legal representative with the completion and filling of forms, submission of a petition, or the filling of a response
4 = participant accessed some PLEI – in-print, online and by telephone – plus met in-person both (a) with a lawyer such as duty counsel/advice counsel at a FLIC or Community Legal Clinic and (b) with a FLIC information coordinators, or representatives from community organizations (e.g. housing rights groups, human rights organizations, domestic violence community groups, and so on) or received mediation
5 = participant accessed some PLEI – in-print, online and by telephone – plus met in-person both (a) with a lawyer such as duty counsel/advice counsel at a FLIC or Community Legal Clinic
6 = participant accessed some PLEI – in-print, online and by telephone – plus met in-person with a FLIC information coordinators, or representatives from community organizations (e.g. housing rights groups, human rights organizations, domestic violence community groups, and so on)
7 = participants accessed some PLEI – in-print fact sheets, form guides etc -- at a physical site such as a community legal clinic or a FLIC
8 = participant accessed some PLEI – in-print or online or telephone
9 = participant accessed some minimal PLEI – in-print or online
10 = participant relied solely on their own resources with no assistance/support -- did not
access any PLEI or other forms of assistance/support from the justice system

6. Quality of Process and Quality of Outcome is scored by a composite of
(a) the participant’s own perceptions of the quality of the process or outcome, gathered throughout the study
(b) a lawyer with experience in the problem area providing an assessment of the quality of process or outcome, scored on a rubric. The lawyer would have access to all of our data on the individual plus any court documents if available. (In the case of family and housing, these are comprehensive.)

10. Some General Relevant Findings For Family Participants in Ontario
75% White, 15% Black, 1% Indigenous, 9% other racial groups
70% of participants are women
Education: 5% (grad or prof degree; 38% (completed post secondary); 12% (some post secondary); 22% (completed high school); and 14% (some high school (Benchmark: 54% of Canadians have completed university or college)
Income range: >$20,000 (27%); >$40,000 (35%); >$60,000 (22%); <$100,000 (16%)
60% had legal journeys that lasted longer than 12 months
The legal problem was still ongoing for 25%

11. Some General Relevant Findings About PLEI
Access to PLEI: 22% CLEO printed material; 37% provincial government website; 17% MIP; 94% FLIC; 10% community organizations; 1.5% telephone line
The most important reasons for accessing legal information: (a) free: 72% (b) Review with others: 67% ( c) Review on their own time: 67%
65% agreed that legal information was an important part of their legal journey, but only 22% strongly agreed
26% agreed that printed pamphlets and fact sheets helped them, but only 3% strongly agreed.
45% agreed that online materials helped them, and of these 16.5% strongly agreed.
69% agreed that in-person legal information helped them, and significantly 32% strongly agreed
42% felt the process was fair to everyone; 45% felt the outcome was fair to everyone

12. Some General Relevant Findings about PLEI
Only 13% reported that legal information did not help them at all
Only 36% reported that they would have liked to be fully represented by a lawyer; 63% representation on some points (only 27% thought that their outcome would have been better if represented by a lawyer)
77% reported that legal information helped them with the process, e.g. next steps, what to do
50% reported that legal information helped them to understand possible outcomes
In terms of process, these differences in median are reflected in what they learned:
On process: print (29%); online (45% agreed); in-person (70%)

13. Legal Intensity Distribution
Level 1 = 13
Level 2 = 20
Level 3 = 5
Level 4 = 21
Level 5 = 67
Level 6 = 0
Level 7 = 1
Level 8 = 0
Level 9 = 0
Level 10 = 0

14. Difficulty of the Problem (1=easy to resolve; 10=impossible to resolve)
1 = 2
2 = 11
3 = 23
4 = 13
5 = 18
6 = 18
7 = 20
8 = 10
9 = 4
10 = 8

15. Legal Intensity and Problem Difficulty
Legal Intensity Level 1
Legal Intensity Level 2
2 (1)
2 (3)
3 (1)
4 (1)
4 (2)
5 (3)
6 (5)
6 (6)
7 (3)
7 (1)
8 (4)
8 (1)
10 (2)

16. Ontario Family Participants: Process and Outcome Scores on the 5-Point Continuum of Legal Services

17. Ontario Family Participants: Process and Outcome Scores on the 10-Point Continuum of Legal Services

18. Participant Perceptions of Outcomes v Process

19. Professional Assessments
(3)
(2)
(3) 4