home francais contactus login committees resources youth ministry
  committees
John Bilton, Executive Director
Contact:  Julie Friesen, Program Manager
519-836-1501 extension 202
juliefriesen@waterloo.johnhoward.on.ca

 

John Howard Society of Waterloo Wellington (Guelph Office)
85 Westmount Road
Guelph, Ontario
N1H 5J2

Guelph

John Howard Society of Waterloo-Wellington
YOUTH JUSTICE COMMITTEE
Extra-Judicial Sanctions/Measures

"Extra-judicial sanctions/measures" is the terminology under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) for a process of justice practiced in the community for young people who had formerly been taken care of through the Alternative Measures Program and Pre-Charge Diversion under the Young Offender’s Act. It is not necessarily viewed as an alternative to court action but rather an extension of the courts into community.

The program adopted is similar to the volunteer-based program that has successfully operated in Wellington County since 1989 under the auspices of the John Howard Society of Waterloo-Wellington. The program is respected as an effective, cost efficient and viable option for holding young people responsible for offensive activity in their community.

The program offers the community a meaningful opportunity to participate in conflict resolution. Family meetings are scheduled involving the young person, family, victim (if willing) and volunteer community representatives. Meetings are held on agency premises.

The program also compliments the discretion police have under the YJCA to choose the appropriate sanction for young people referred, based on police evaluation of the attitude of the young person, the circumstances of the offence and the root cause of this behaviour. It provides courts a positive and informal option in dealing with youth who have been involved in minor offences or for those who have played only a limited role in more serious occurrences.

The process provides an opportunity for youth to be independently accountable for their offence, receiving guidance from family and volunteers but not requiring the formal intervention of the criminal justice system. It allows the youth to learn to be self- reliant and respectful of others. It teaches them conflict management and problem solving techniques that they can use in all aspects of their lives.

BACKGROUND

In April of 1988, the Alternative Measures Program was launched as a province-wide initiative. The Attorney General decided to offer the program post-charge, making it available to young people charged with their first or second summary offence. (In most other provinces, the program was offered at the pre-charge stage.)

In June of 1989, the John Howard Society of Waterloo Wellington was contracted by MCSS to begin a volunteer-driven, community-based Alternative Measures program.

In February 1995, the government of Ontario expanded the types of eligible offences, thereby increasing the number of youth who could be dealt with through this option. This resulted in increased numbers of youth referred to Alternative Measures and Diversion programs as well as a significant cost savings to the youth court system.

In the fall of 1998, the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General introduced the concept of Youth Justice Committees (YJCs) and chose Kitchener-Waterloo as one of six pilot sites for this method of handling Alternative Measures and Pre-charge Diversion. The design of the Youth Justice Committees is similar to that employed previously in the JHS Alternative Measures model. As a result, the Kitchener program has been viewed as a resource for newly developing sites throughout the province.

In the fall of 2001, the province announced there would be a gradual amalgamation of Phase I (12-15 years) and Phase II youth (16 and 17 years) under the newly named Ministry of Public Safety and Security. Accordingly, JHS was asked to coordinate all youth eligible for Alternative Measures programs under one model for Wellington County.

April 1, 2003, the new Youth Criminal Justice Act was put into place.

THE WATERLOO-WELLINGTON MODEL

Since 1989, the Alternative Measures program in Waterloo-Wellington has used a model that is family and community focused. Volunteer community representatives are trained to work with the victim, young person and his/her parent(s) to create a plan of action that is best suited to all parties with consideration of the victims' wishes. These volunteers discuss the circumstances of the offence and the effects this experience has had on the accused young person and his/her family.

The perceptions of those attending the meeting, as well as the noted requests of the Crown or of the victim regarding reasonable reparation for the offence are explored and considered in the development of an action plan. The inquiry meeting provides a constructive opportunity for youth to learn from their experiences and reinforces the role of the community in sharing responsibility for crime and justice.

The role of the community volunteers in the inquiry meeting is to inform the family of the process, the potential consequences of the courts, the impact of the offence on the victim and community and the choices of appropriate responses to the crime. Families are encouraged to talk about the effects the offence had on them, the consequences the youth has already faced, and what measures are seen as fair and reasonable.

Finally, after hearing from everyone at the meeting, the youth is asked to be an active participant in deciding the plan of action. If the victim wish to participate in the process the parent and offender are encouraged to meet with the victim to personally give the victim a letter of apology along with restitution where appropriate.

Arrangements for this meeting are decided upon by those involved. The process of first hearing from all parties separately compliments that of mediation in preparing both parties for the possible meeting. Depending upon the severity of the offence, a staff person may attend the meeting. In most of these minor cases where parents are very much involved with the development of their children, there is no need for a mediator.

This model satisfies the concerns of all parties including court officials, the young person, their family, the victim, and the general public. Less court time is spent on minor offences. Moral issues are addressed and best practices are reinforced. Society is protected through education and closer supervision, and youth are more accountable to the community. This model allows a process whereby individual problems or family concerns can be reviewed in a confidential, constructive community forum.

The Youth Justice Project design closely parallels this model, and therefore the adoption of the YJC system has been extremely smooth. This process has been further facilitated by the Ministry’s flexibility in allowing the YJC model to be adapted to best suit the needs of the community. Accordingly, modifications have been applied in the Waterloo-Wellington program over the past two years:

  • Expansion of eligible offences. The original Youth Justice Committee model had more limited offence type eligibility than the existing Alternative Measures program permitted. Under the YJC model, eligible offences were primarily Class I charges, such as theft under $5000. Since implementation of the Youth Justice Committees, both Police and Crowns have referred a broader range of offences to the program.

  • Selective victim involvement. The YJC concept involves the victim in all inquiries. In Waterloo-Wellington, 65% of the offences referred to the program are shoplifting occurrences. Retailers have indicated that they do not have the time nor desire to participate in the meetings, and therefore in these cases, the victim does not participate in the process. For other offences however, arrangements are made for the offender and parent to deliver a written apology directly to the victim, if the victim is agreeable.

  • Not all young people with pre-charge offences meet with the committee. The YJC initiative suggests that both pre-charge and post-charge youth meet with the committee to select appropriate consequences.

In the Waterloo-Wellington program, only selected pre-charge youth are required to attend an inquiry meeting determined by the needs of the family and the direction of police.

The decision to limit inquiry meetings to Alternative Measures referrals was based on a number of factors. First, it is felt that limited staff resources should be directed to the most serious and complex cases. Second, in choosing Pre-charge Diversion, the Police have made a decision that this event and youth can better be served with less involvement of the courts through their assessment of the youth’s degree of remorse, the information they have on previous police contact and their consideration of the severity and circumstances surrounding the offence. Finally, statistics indicate that a high percentage of youth referred through Pre-charge Diversion successfully complete the program without the need of the inquiry meeting process, and therefore Committee involvement would appear to be unnecessary in these cases.

PROGRAM MEASURES

When choosing measures, committees attempt to satisfy two objectives:

1) to have the young person take responsibility for the damage caused by the crime, and

2) to have the young person consider the root cause of the criminal activity, whether it be problems with communication, authority figures, choosing friends, lack of maturity, motivation or self-esteem, literacy, or lack of skills in resolving anger and frustration.

When both of these objectives are met, the program can have an important impact on the young person’s future. The tasks decided on can help them to identify and acknowledge their own weaknesses and strengths. The program can enable them to be more insightful and thoughtful and improve their ability to resolve conflicts.
All program tasks are based on the theme of choices regarding friends, activities, positive communication and moral responsibilities to family, community and themselves.

Tasks undertaken by youth can include the following:

  • Community Service is chosen for youth who are generally more task- oriented and who have free time to fill. Community service is sometimes used in lieu of restitution if the young person does not have financial resources. The numbers of hours range from 8 to 40. This measure is seen as an opportunity for youth to witness those who have less, to develop work ethics, and to “pay back” or make amends to the community for their actions.

  • Personal Apology or Service is a means by which the young person can meet with the victim without the use of a mediator. It is an opportunity for the youth and his/her parent to personally arrange a time with the victim to apologize, for the victim to reveal the upset, and hopefully for both to establish a new sense of respect for one another.

  • Understanding Anger, Preventing Property Crime Program, Fire Prevention (run by the municipal Fire Dept.), are all crime specific teaching modules focused on information that is intended to heighten youths’ awareness of the impact of their crime, teaching them alternative choices and the moral standards we live by to help support a safe and trusting family and community. Each module consists of two sessions that are each 2 to 3 hours in length. Preventing Property Crime combines information previously provided through two separate programs, the Anti-Shoplifting and Anti-Vandalism Programs. These programs can be age- adjusted for suitability with Phase II youth as well as for pre-charge referrals under 12 years of age.

  • Donations/Gifts are generally used in addition to some other measure to enhance a written project or to use a specific talent to give back to the victim or community as reparation. A monetary donation is rarely used given the financial situation of most youth.

  • Art Project: A specific art interpretive project has been created for those capable of a visual conceptualization of the route to maturity.

  • Restitution is always considered as an option when a victim has borne the cost of damages. If there is absolutely no means by which the youth can earn the money owed, and if the victim is willing, personal service or community service may become the alternative in lieu of cash.

  • Written Work may include: Hand- delivered letters of apology, 15 Days of specific questions for a reflective Journal, poetry, budgets, interviews with police, school teachers or parents, song writing, film or book reviews in a related theme to the crime or lesson learned. For some older youth from other countries who are capable of research, a comparison of justice systems between their homeland and Canada has proven to be a learning opportunity.

  • The gratitude list is an attempt to have youth reflect on what strengths they possess, rather than what they are lacking. In the list, they name 5 good things they experience in each of 15 consecutive days. At times, the parents are asked to do a parallel project, focusing on the positive qualities of their child. This exercise provides a more balanced view of their child and allows them to provide support rather than criticism, as a vehicle of change.

  • Partners in Reading is a program designed by JHS and Frontier College to address literacy problems with 12 to 15 year old youth who are not eligible for literacy groups in the city. Sir Wilfrid Laurier University students spend 5 sessions with youth who shy away from reading/writing tasks in the inquiry meeting. Parents report that this one-on-one attention from a university student makes a positive difference in the offender's outlook. 

It should be noted that when measures are assigned, a number of factors are taken into consideration, including the severity of the offence, the amount of time and effort required to perform the measure and consequences that the family may already have put into place. As a result, more than one measure is frequently included in a youth’s contract.