This week’s blog is written by NSRLP Project Manager Dayna Cornwall. Read Part One, “Listening to Users & Front-Line Workers,” here.
In our previous blog, we described our methodology for a review of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) Tribunal’s materials and services for self-represented litigants, which they contracted NSRLP to conduct over the winter/spring of 2020.
By the end of this process, a group of SRLs and experts (a specially composed “Delphi” panel), along with NSRLP staff, reviewed dozens of IAD documents, and spoke at length with many IAD employees. We came away with many interesting findings – and a number of practical recommendations for the IAD.
Document review findings
Our reviewers were for the most part reasonably happy with the IAD documents overall – some were scored at over 70% for “excellent.” The aggregated data for all questions and all checklists shows a 69% rating for “excellent,” and just a 5% rating for “poor.” But the reviewers did a very thorough and thoughtful job of finding ways to improve the documents, exactly as the IAD was hoping.
Specifically, the reviewers often noted room for improvement in the documents’ ability to answer questions litigants would have, in their overall “welcoming” tone, and in visual appeal. In general, the reviewers noted that the documents could be written in more plain language, could do a better job of defining and explaining legal terms, and could take a more friendly, encouraging, and less bureaucratic tone.
Process review findings
We talked to IAD staff, in both one-on-one and focus group settings, in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, and found them in every conversation to be engaging, empathetic, and thoughtful. They had a lot to offer our evaluation, both on their experiences working with self-reps, and on ways they felt the IAD process could be improved for SRLs.
Many comments across all sites related to the challenge of working with SRLs who had limited understanding of the process they were entering, lacking legal literacy, and in some cases basic literacy in either English or French. Staff described the challenge of trying to ascertain the individual’s level of knowledge and understanding in each case; and of explaining the IAD process and what the litigants’ rights are. One poignantly commented that even assessing understanding can be difficult: “People sometimes say ‘yes, I understand’ but I worry that they don’t actually understand.”
Many of the comments from staff reflected their own concern at the vulnerability of SRLs, as well as the increased difficulty of dealing with individuals who are emotional and distressed. One staff member commented that they are disheartened to sometimes see people who have been through the system as SRLs and have had a poor experience.
One theme in these conversations that we at NSRLP have encountered very frequently in working or speaking with professionals who are not lawyers, but provide legal information to the public, is the concern over “crossing the line” into legal advice. It is also clear that this is a stress point because so many SRLs ask for help that might amount to legal advice, and staff are very conflicted about how to help – they want to assist, but they are unclear about where the “line” is drawn and what they can safely and competently do to assist them.
We asked staff what they see are the biggest challenges for SRLs, and while they provided many specific answers, in general their thoughts could be summed up under two main themes: confusion over how to navigate the IAD, and anxiety over being plunged into an unfamiliar legal process. (Two themes that come up for us over and over at NSRLP in our communications with SRLs from courts and tribunals across the country.)
When asked to reflect on ways the IAD processes could be improved to help SRLs, staff frequently mentioned things such as lawyer referral lists, a duty counsel system, plainer language materials, an improved website, sample documents, instructional videos, tours, increased staff training, policy clarifications, and more.
Recommendations
After compiling and analyzing all the data we collected from document reviews and conversations with staff, we were able to generate a list of recommendations for improving IAD processes. Our recommendations fell under 5 categories.
- Revising and reviewing all documents currently provided to SRLs
We recommended working with a plain language specialist to increase the overall readability of all documents by eliminating or explaining legal jargon and ensuring the reading level is accessible for a wide range of Canadians. We also recommended that documents be re-written in a friendlier, more encouraging tone, and that the IAD work with a graphic designer to increase visual readability.
- Reviewing the interface between IAD staff and SRLs
As the IAD moves toward more and more remote communications, rather than in-person meetings with SRLs (due to very real practical considerations), we recommended that phone and video-conference processes be improved through enhanced staff training, provision of appropriate set-up and technology, and thoughtful use of interpreter services.
- Recommendations for staff training
In these recommendations we reflected the desires expressed by staff for further and better training on various aspects of their work with SRLs, such as: working with SRLs who are distressed and anxious; more effective telephone and virtual communication; legal information vs. legal advice; and the diverse cultural and religious traditions of litigants.
- Developing additional materials, enhanced support, and resources to assist SRLs
We recommended the creation of additional materials such as documents overviewing the IAD process, customized checklists, a document explaining how to use evidence, explanatory videos, sample documents (disclosure, affidavit, etc.), infographics, and lists of immigration lawyers who provide unbundled services or legal coaching. We also recommended that orientation for SRLs could involve observing another hearing, the set-up of a designated SRL “navigator” staff person, and a duty counsel system for SRLs coming to the IAD.
- Continual re-evaluation
Finally, we capped our report by recommending the IAD continue to collect user satisfaction data from SRLs and other IAD users, and that they develop an evaluation plan for ongoing consultations with IAD staff – especially important as new processes, training, and resources are introduced over the coming months.
An example for other tribunals, courts, and governments
Throughout our time working with the IAD to conduct this review we were continually impressed by both their existing attitudes and processes in regard to SRLs, and their desire to improve documents and processes wherever they could. Staff were happy to speak with us, and very open, and often spoke of their empathy for self-represented litigants, and their desire to help as much as possible. The IAD’s original interest in contracting with us, as well as their subsequent openness to hearing the opinions of SRLs, and taking our recommendations to heart, made a lasting impression on all of us. We came away feeling that the openness of the IAD to improvements designed to serve the large numbers of SRLs they see serves as a great example for other tribunals, courts, and governments across Canada. We hope that other tribunal and court systems will be as open to review, and as unthreatened by the honest and constructive input of users.