| John
Howard Society of Waterloo-Wellington
YOUTH JUSTICE COMMITTEE PROJECT
Extra-Judicial Sanctions/Measures
Extra-Judicial Sanctions/Measures
is the new terminology given by the Youth Criminal
Justice Act (YCJA) for a process of justice practiced
in the community, appropriate 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 successfully
operating in Waterloo Region and 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.
· It 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 in community
centres, churches or agency premises.
· It compliments the encouraged discretion
of Police in the new act
to choose the appropriate sanction for young people
referred by evaluating the attitude of the young person,
the circumstances of the offence and the root cause
of this behaviour.
· It provides the 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.
The new Youth Criminal Justice Act, which began on April
1, 2003, encourages these values and initiatives to
be practiced in all Canadian communities.
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,
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 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 saving
to the youth court system.
In the fall of 1998, the Ontario
Ministry of the Attorney General introduced the concept
of Youth Justice Committees (YJC)
and chose Kitchener-Waterloo as one of six pilot sites
for this method of handling Alternative Measures and
Pre-charge Diversion. Pilot sites have now been expanded
to 22 communities. 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 the cities of Kitchener-Waterloo.
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), 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 all explored and considered in the
development of an action plan. This 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. Should the victim wish participation
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 being 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. It 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.
· 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 are paired up with youth
(who in the inquiry meeting, shy away from reading/writing
tasks) for 5 sessions. Parents report that this one-on-one
attention from a university student makes a positive
difference in the offender's outlook. This choice is
now available to Guelph youth as well.
· Parent Youth Mediation and
Victim Offender Reconciliation are options provided
by Community Justice Initiatives in Kitchener and the
Conflict Resolution Centre in Guelph and Wellington.
These options are chosen for families needing more concentrated
help in communication, or for offences in which issues
of race, aggression or serious damage are indicated.
In these situations, the victim must be willing to participate.
The specialized services provided by these two agencies
are invaluable in assisting youth with more serious
needs, and in bringing about a sense of peace within
the youth’s family and a sense of reparation for
the victim of the offence.
When this kind of intervention is provided soon after
a youth’s first offence, there is a greater chance
of repairing damaged relationships and of preventing
future incidents of destructive behaviour.
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 Alternative Measures contract.
John Howard Society of Waterloo Wellington
310 Charles Street East
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 2P9
John Bilton, Executive Director
Contact: Maureen Murphy
Coordinator for the Alternative Measures Program
Tel: 519 743 6071 ext. 220
Fax: 519 743 9632
Email: mmurphy@sentex.net
Website: The
John Howard Society of Ontario
|
