ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Contenu archivé

L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.

This document is archival in nature and is intended for those who wish to consult archival documents made available from the collection of Public Safety Canada. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided by Public Safety Canada, is available upon request.

Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et fait partie des documents d’archives rendus disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique Canada fournira une traduction sur demande.

IIIIII.1

I

IIIIIII

® ^ Solicitor General Solliciteur généralCanada Canada

""'THE FRONTENAC COUNTY DIVERSION PROGRAMME

FRONTENAC RESTITUTION PROJECT^

av9110. F76M41979c.2

ana11°â

CONSULTATION CENTRECENTRE DE CONSULTATION

1

• 11111••••

• LIBRARY SOLICITOR GïkERAL CANADA

FEe 8 1994 FEV

BIBLIOTRbUF SOLLICITEUR GIBP*RAL CANADA

OTTAWA eer4TAR10) K1A OP8

H V 9110

F-7(, 1'1 if lc(17

Undertaken under contract between the Ministry of the Solicitor General and J.McCalla Smith, this report was accepted by thetonsultation Centre in 1979. It is published by the Communication Division under the authority of the Hon. Bob Kaplan, P.C., M.P., Solicitor General of Canada. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect views or policies of the Minister, nor of the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada.

Contents of this publication may be reprinted with credit unless otherwise noted.

Available from the Communication Division, Solicitor General Canada, Ottawa, Ont. K1A0P8.

1

4

i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Project Summary

Introduction

I Historical Analysis A. Court 6 B. Prosecutor 7 C. Police 7 D. Juvenile Court Committee 11 E. Restitution Project 18 F. Committee Training 27 G. Duty Counsel 33 H. Volunteer Probation 35

II The Programme A. Objectives 37 B. Targèt Group 38 C. Techniques 39

III Steps Taken to Develop Programme Within Community A. Community Involvement -39 B. Resulting Problems 42 C. Suggested Plan for Other Communities 42

IV Resource Requirements A. Facilities 45 B. Staff 45 C. Sources of Support & Resources 46

V Internal Project Monitoring A. Implementation and Modification 52 B. Statistical Information 59 C. Alternative Funding 65 D. Impact on the Justice System 65

VI Recommendations A. For Continuation 66 B. To Others 67

APPENDICES: A. Juvenile Court Committee Guidelines 71 B. Restitution Project Guidelines 133 C. Monitoring Tables 163

- 1 -

PROJECT SUMMARY

THE FRONTENAC DIVERSION PROGRAMME

A PROGRAMME, BEGUN IN MAY, 1974, WHIH (1) DIVERTS

PERSONS UNDER 16 YEARS FROM THE JUVENILE JUSTICE

SYSTEM AT THE POST CHARGE, PRE-TRIAL STAGE, AND (2)

FACILITATES RESTITUTION

The Frontenac Diversion Programme's philosophy is based on

diversion and non-intervention. For the purposes of this

programme, diversion refers to removing a young person from the

traditional justice system and not to another system of

treatment, and to community participation in this process. Non-

intervention refers to the alternative of leaving an offender

alone altogether, an argument most often applied to status and

first offenders.

The programme's objectives are: to reduce the number of young

people appearing in juvenile court and the number found

"delinquent"; to provide an informal, non-threatening, and non-

stigmatizing means of dealing with young offenders: to generate

in young offenders a sense of having been dealt with fairly; to

be more effective than the juvenile court in limiting recidivism;

counselling and other treatment assistance if they wish.

The implication of the programme's philosophy is that if there is

any response to an offence, the response should relate to the

offence, not to the whole person. The philosophy and objectives

are implemented through the Juvenile Court Committee and the

Restitution Project.

1

1

- 2 -

JUVENILE COURT COMMITTEE:

This Committee diverts young persons who have been charged with

an offence, prior to an appearance in court. The Committee meets

with a young person and his family to discuss the circumstances

of the offence and what should be done. If an agreement is

reached, the Committee contacts the Crown Prosecutor or his agent

and recommends that the charge be withdrawn, in consideration of

what the person has agreed to do.

Eligibility

A meeting with the Committee is voluntary on the young person's

part, and only occurs if the person is admitting at least partial

responsibility for the offence. The other criteria for meeting

to discuss the offence are that no àerious physical injury is

involved and the young person has not previously been adjudged

delinquent (although there is provision for the police to make

an exception to the latter criterion).

The Meeting

The participants at a meeting include the young person, the parents

of the young person, a lawyer (duty counsel is provided), and

three committee members. The meeting procedure is outlined in a set

of guidelines which the Committee has developed. The focus of the

discussion is on the offence, and on developing a response which

all the participants feel is appropriate. After the offence has

been dealt with, the young person and the parents may discuss other

problems or concerns, or they may leave.

Possible Responses

The responses which the Committee may consider include: no further

- 3 -

III1II1IIIIIIII

action, warning, curfew, no association with accomplices, regular

school attendance, apology, restitution, matching with an adult

volunteer (for supervision purposes), and-other responses directly

related to an offence (e.g. meeting with a police officer involved

in the incident).

RESTITUTION PROJECT:

The Restitution Project is a voluntary programme for people under

the age of 16 who have broken the law and caused damage of some

kind to another person. The project involves getting the juvenile

and the victim together and working out a way for the juvenile to

pay the victim for the damage caused. The Committee accounts for

three-quarters of all referrals to the project.

Eligibility

For a juvenile to be involved in the project:

1. He must be referred to the project by the police, the

Juvenile Court Committee, or the Juvenile Court judge.

2. He must admit responsibility for the offence.

3. He must agree to participate in the project.

4. There must be a victim of the offence.

5. The offence must not involve serious physical injury or death.

How the Project Works

The juvenile is referred by a "referring body" (the police, the

Committee, or the judge) which for a short time suspends any

further action in the case. The project staff has a meeting with

the juvenile and the victim and a restitution agreement is worked

out, and reported to the referring body. The staff does a follow-up

to see if the agreement is being carried out, and when requested,

4

another report is sent to the referring body. The referring

body decides whether it will take any further action. Usually,

no further action will be taken if the juvenile carries out the

agreement.

Form of Restitution

Restitution or "paying back" may be in the form of cash payments,

working for the victim, or doing community service work (for

example, cleaning a park). Payments must come from the juvenile,

not the parents. The amount mainly depends on: (1) how much the

victim lost, (2) how much the juvenile can earn, and (3) the

expenses of the juvenile.

Enforcement

If the juvenile breaks the agreement, then the staff can send the

case back to the referring body: however, this is done only if the

referring body requests it, and only for a maximum of six months

after the agreement was signed. Committee referrals are not sent

back to the Committee after the withdrawal of the charge.

By participating in the Restitution Project, the victim does not

lose the right to bring a civil action, but accepting restitution

may affect the amount of money he could recover. If the juvenile

or the victim havedoubts about entering an agreement, the staff

encourages them to see a lawyer.

INTRODUCTION

The Frontenac Diversion Programme diverts young persons under

the age of 16 years out of the traditional system of juvenile

justice. The programme operates at the post-charge, pre-court

5

stage by offering the young person an opportunity to develop

a plan which the prosecution may accept, in which case the

charge is withdrawn.

The mechanism for developing this plan is a meeting with three

members of the Juvenile Court Committee. The range of plans

which may be considered is strictly limited, and the plan is

related to the specific circumstances of the alleged offence.

The plan cannot, for example, include individual or family

counselling sessions. Many offences involve property loss or

damage, and if the plan involves restitution, then the case is

referred to the Restitution Project, which contacts the victim

and works out the details.

There are thus two distinct elements in the Frontenac Diversion

Programme: the Juvenile Court Committee, and the Restitution

Project. The Juvenile Court Committee is the diversion mechanism,

the focal point for the process of diverting a young person from

the court. The Restitution Project is a diversion resource,

helping to work out the details if Restitution is one of the elements

in the diversion decision.

I. HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

This is a collection of issues, actions and lessons, as experienced

and perceived by the director of the project during the period 1

June 1976 to 30 April 1978. It is an evolution of the Frontenac

Diversion Programme. The specific areas discussed are the Court,

the prosecutor, the police, the Juvenile Court Committee, the

Restitution Project, committee training, lawyers and voluntary

supervision.

6

A. The Court

The Judge of the Provincial Court (Family Division) is probably

the most important factor in any diversion.programme. Without

the support of the Court,it would be difficult to obtain the

co-operation and support necessary from other workers in the

juvenile justice system. In Frontenac County, the Court played a.

central role in the initiation of the diversion programme. Judge

G.M. Thomson was active in discussions which established the

programme's philosophy and which subsequently developed specific

guidelines for the Juvenile Court Committee. He continued to be

active in the on-going development of the programme.

In the spring of 1977, Judge A.P. Nasmith became the judge for

this jurisdiction. His initial position was to obtain as much

information about the programme as possible, and not to become

directly involved in the resolution of programme issues. At

present, Judge Nasmith remains keenly interested in the programme

and supportive of the diversion being done by the Juvenile Court

Committee, and although he does not play a direct role in the

operation of the programme, he participates in discussions of

programme policy and direction.

The major effect of the change in judges has been to make the

programme (i.e. the director and the committee members) more

autonomous, largely as a result of being unable to refer to an

authority for the resolution of contentious issues. It does not

appear to have changed the direction of the programme, but it has

perhaps stimulated more thought and discussion about the Committee's

philosophy and procedures than would otherwise have occurred.

- 7 -

IIIIIDII

B. The Prosecutor

In any diversion programme the co-operation of the Crown

Attorney is an important factor; in a programme which seeks to

have charges,withdrawn, the support of the Crown Attorney is

essential.

The Crown Attorney for Frontenac.County, Mr. John Sampson, was

initially concerned whether a recommendation of the Juvenile

Court Committee might constitute an attempt to obstruct the

course of justice. Later, he raised a number of valuable points

about the Restitution Project, particularly the need to clarify

for the victim of an offence the difference between restitution

and the victim's civil remedy. In August, 1976, a letter was sent

to Mr.Sampson, outlining the ways the then-recent Restitution

Project Guidelines and the procedure of negotiating agreements

responded to the problems he had identified. Since that time his

office has been kept informed of the project's progress, and the

programme enjoys his continuing support.

C. The Police

The police are another key factor in any diversion effort. In

Frontenac County their role is paramount, as the Crown Attorney

had delegated his authority to allow the police to prosecute

charges in Juvenile Court. This means that when the Juvenile

Court Committee recommends that a charge be withdrawn on the

court date, it is the police, acting as agents for the Crown

Attorney, who decide whether to accept the recommendation or to

proceed with the traditional court process.

I

- 8 -

The police function is also important at the charging stage.

One of the primary goals of the Frontenac Diversion Programme

is to reduce the number of young people entering the juvenile

justice system. If the committee were presented to the police

as a means for "helping" young persons, the ratio of charges to

total contacts might increase dramatically as police did less

screening (and hence more charging) in order to "help" young

persons. Throughout the existence of the Frontenac Diversion

Programme, however, discussions with the Youth Bureau have

emphasized the importance of their screening role, and the wish

to involve the Committee in only those cases which they feel are

sufficiently serious to warrant a charge. As well, the require-

ment that a charge be laid prior to. a meeting with the Committee

has probably been a factor in maintaining police screening levels.

Three police forces function in the immediate Kingston area:

Kingston Police Department, Ontario Provincial Police (Kingston

Detachment) and Military Police. In the northern portion of

Frontenac County, juvenile charges are processed by the Sharbot Lake

Detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police. The bulk of all

charges against young persons under 16 years in Frontenac County

are laid by the Youth Bureau of the Kingston Police Department. The

Kingston Police Department is the only police force in this county

with specific officers designated to process all juvenile charges;

in other forces the investigating officer usually follows the

charge through to its conclusion.

From the outset the programme has had a close relationship with the

Youth Bureau. The head of the Youth Bureau, Detective R.R. Joyce,

- 9

is supportive of the programme and has co-operated in the

programme's development. The Youth Bureau has helped the police

and the Committee, both for police input to committee meetings,

and for committee recommendations to the police.

Until recently there has been little contact between the

Frontenac Diversion Programme and the Ontario Provincial Police.

One reason is the small number of charges which came to Juvenile

Court from either the Kingston or the Sharbot Lake Detachments.

Another reason is that the investigating officer follows the charge

to its conclusion, so that it is necessary to inform all officers

about the programme. The approach adopted was to meet with

individual officers as they attended a committee meeting and

inform them of the programme.

This has not been satisfactory: some officers came to meetings

with expectations of solutions which the Committee could not provide.

For example, one officer expected that the Committee would make an

assessment of the young person and his family and then prescribe and

enforce some treatment to solve the family's problems. The resultant

confusion undoubtedly hurt the Committee's credibility.

In order to better inform the Ontario Provincial Police of the

Committee's purpose and operation, a meeting was arranged between

the Detachment Commander and the Project Director. The Detachment

Commander indicated support for the concept of diversion and for

the particular model developed in Frontenac County. He agreed

to arrange a meeting with those of his constables who wished to

learn about the Juvenile Court Committee. The meeting was attended

- 10 -

by Judge Nasmith and two of the committee members. As a result

of the meeting, many constables were exposed to the programme

for the first time, and had the opportunity to discuss how the

committee functions.

Another issue which arose during this time related to the letter

which is sent to the young person confirming the withdrawal of the

charge in court. The letter stated that on the court date the

judge "withdrew the above mentioned charge on the recommendation of

the police". The Detachment Commander pointed out that the

recommendation was more appropriately that of the Crown, as

communicated by the police. The problem was resolved by changing

the phrasing to "... the above mentioned charge was withdrawn".

The experience with the Ontario ProVincial Police illustrated the

need for better communication between the project and other

participants in the process. Regular contact with the programme not

only keeps participants informed, but also acknowledges their role

and helps to create a spirit of co-operation.

Although contact with the Military Police is infrequent, no

difficulties have been experienced and they have indicated their

support for the programme's objectives. All juvenile charges laid

by the Military Police are usually handled by the same person,

simplifying communication.

A recent development in the Frontenac Diversion Programme's

relationship with the police has been the clarification and

formalization of police discretion to direct a juvenile to court

without committee involvement, even though the "jurisdiction"

- 11 -

criteria for the committee are met. The reason is to simplify -

for everyone, and in particular the young person - those cases in

which the police feel strongly that the charge ought to be dealt with

in court and are not willing to accept any recommendation which the

committee might make for withdrawal of the charge. In these

cases, a committee meeting is futile since there is no potential

for diversion. It is expected that this discretion will be

exercised rarely.

D. The Juvenile Court Committee

To put the Juvenile Court Committee in perspective, some

historical information prior to June, 1976, is necessary. The

Juvenile Court Committee initially began to function in Kingston

in May, 1974. It began as a group of five persons who represented

local juvenile justice agencies, plus a lawyer and a secretary.

The five persons represented the Court (the Court Administrator),

the Court Clinic, the Children's Aid Society, Probation and Aftercare,

and the School Board (an Attendance Counsellor from the relevant

Board).

The impetus for the Committee came from the Juvenile Court Judge,

Judge George Thomson, who was seeking an alternative way of

handling many of the juvenile charges which were being heard in

court. Initially, there was no clear philosophy to guide the

Committee, only the mandate to try to resolve the charge without an

appearance in court. The early mechanism for diverting the young

person from court was to request that the Judge adjourn the case

sine die. This indefinite adjournment was made on the Committee's

recommendation without an appearance of the young person in court.

- 12

After about six months, a law school graduate, then teaching

at a local community college, became involved with the

Committee. He was asked to sit in on some of the meetings,

observe what was happening, and make suggestions. His suggestions

were extensive, and subsequently formed the basis for a submission

to the Solicitor General of Canada.

The proposal was for funding of the Frontenac Diversion Programme

as a three-year demonstration project, with a philosophy based

on non-intervention (as discussed by Shur) and diversion. The

proposal also included the development of a Restitution Project

as a resource for the Committee.

Funding was secured for one full-time position, with 50% from

the Solicitor General of Canada (primarily salary) and 50%

from the Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services (primarily

secretarial support, and office space). Funding from the

Solicitor General began on 1 May 1975, for three years; provincial

funding is on a yearly basis.

In March, 1976, a weekend meeting was held to re-examine the

Juvenile Court Committee. From Friday evening until Sunday

afternoon, the committee members, together with Judge Thomson and

the project director, lived at the Donald Gordon Centre in

Kingston. They discussed a revised set of committee guidelines

which specified in detail the procedure for a committee meeting

with a young person . The guidelines which resulted remain in use,

with only minor changes. A copy of the guidelines is attached

as Appendix A.

- 13

All of the committee members until just recently were professionals

who work to help children with problems of one sort or another.

Almost invariably, before an attempt is made to help a young

person, an effort is made to gather inforMation about a number

of aspects of his life, and in particular his family life, in order

to obtain an over-all picture of the young person. Then begins the

creative process of tailoring a helping response to the needs of

this particular young person.

When people who regularly offer assistance to young people by

obtaining general information about the person's life and then

creating a unique response for that person, are constrained to

the procedure outlined in the committee's guidelines; some conflicts

are bound to arise. The guidelines are based on the notion of

responding to the specific behaviour for which the young person

has been charged, and not using the charge as a lever to move

the family to accept some form of treatment which the committee

members feel might benefit the family.

The philosophical conflict was at least partially resolved at a

one-day meeting in April, 1977. One portion of the agenda dealt

with the guidelines and noted four areas for review. Accompanying

notes identified some of the options available in each area, made

some comments on each option and then made a recommendation based

on the programme's philosophy and objectives. The result was a

focus of discussion on the programme's raison d'être. The most

visible change to result from the discussion was a list of

"preliminary procedures", an introductory stage which has been

added to the beginning of each meeting with a young person.

- 14 -

The conflict remains between the professional helping habits

of the members and the non-intervention, offence focussed

thrust of the guidelines. The preliminary procedures seem to

have changed the meeting atmosphere, though, and perhaps serve

to remind all participants why the Committee exists.

In June, 1977, a training programme was initiated to prepare

other persons to participate as committee members. The

training programme for these volunteers will be discussed

separately. As'a result of the training programme, non-professional

volunteers have begun to participate as committee members. These

new members have proven valuable and effective, and make it

clear that professional training is not a pre-requisite. The

skills which appear to be important are empathizing, the sharing

(verbalization) of empathy, listening without judging, and a non-

threatening and non-authoritarian manner.

The involvement of new volunteers has added fresh ideas and new

energy. This may have played some part in a recent administrative

meeting of committee members. At this meeting, members

unanimously supported the exploration of ways to reduce the

committee size, perhaps to one person, to help the young person

feel more comfortable and able to participate. They were also

unanimous in supporting the concept of a workshop, for all members,

on ways of communicating more effectively on a feeling level.

The remainder of this section will describe some of the lessons

which interaction with the Committee has illuminated. One thing

which stands out is that the primary consideration in a diversion

- 15 -

programme is its philosophy. In any decision to develop an

alternative to the existing justice system, it seems crucial to

make explicit the assumptions behind that decision. This means

not only forming a view of the existing sYstem and developing

an alternative; it also means developing a clear picture of how

the alternative will differ from the existing system and relating

those differences to the reasons for developing the alternative.

This preliminary work can then be the cornerstone for building

a coherent and viable programme.

In a nutshell, it is important to say in as much detail a possible

why you are developing an alternative. The descriptions of what

the alternative will look like and how it will function can then

provide guidelines for implementing the alternative, and it will

also be possible for those making implementation decisions to

have reference directly to the philosophy. This is essential

because although the implementation flows from the philosophy

and attempts to make the philosophy more concrete this is done at

the cost of losing some of the information inherent in the philosophy.

Decisions will be called for daily throughout the life of the

programme, in areas of administration, procedure, evaluation,

etc., and without a clear picture of the programme's philosophy

these decisions may be based on an ad hoc philosophy which is

inimical to the original philosophy.

For example, in a large social service bureaucracy, it may be

difficult for those in charge of delivering the service to know

exactly why the service was originally established, since the

- 16 -

detailed purpose of the legislation is rarely made explicit.

Day-to-day decisions about who will receive the service may come

to be made on the basis of what a conscientious employee can

infer about the programme's philosophy, or, more likely, on the

employee's own philosophy, which may be contrary to what the

government thought it was trying to do.'. The term "red tape"

refers to a situation in which the implementation, at best a

somewhat specific interpretation of the philosophy, is allowed

to take precedence even where it conflicts with the philosophy.

Characteristic of the way the Frontenac Diversion Programme has

developed are the Juvenile Court Committee guidelines. These

grew out of the recurring tension between the programme's

philosophy and what individual members felt would be best for a

young person, from a treatment perspective.

Although specific guidelines help to clarify the meeting procedure,

it seems neither*feasible nor desirable to have guidelines which

specify in detail how the Committee will function. Rather, it is

important that the members understand and support the reasons

for the creation of the programme. The guidelines then provide

some basic structure for implementing the programme's philosophy,

but the major reference for evaluating possible alternatives in

a difficult case remains the diversion philosophy.

Because the committee members occupied professional positions

with philosophies divergent from that of the programme, a lot of

energy went into specifying meeting procedures. The disadvantages

is that this energy might otherwise have been used more creatively

1tIItttIIIIIItIIII

- 17 -

to explore new directions and develop new resources. On the

other hand, the continuing discussion of the programme's philosophy

and ways of better implementing has served to keep that philosophy

alive for those implementing it. However: it is done, it seems

important to regularly review what the programme is doing, and

how, in the light of why it was created.

By continually checking the implementation process against the

diversion philosophy, change is not precluded. Change is

restricted only to the extent that if changes are made in the way

diversion occurs, to the extent that they represent a change in

philosophy,they will be made with an awareness that the philosophy

is being altered. Such changes can then be discussed in the broad

terms of the reasons for the diversion programme, rather

than the narrow terms of the cost, ease, discomfôrt, etc. of

implementation.

A final observation is that a programme such as this requires a

high degree of commitment from the volunteers who serve as committee

members. The meetings with young persons take a considerable amount

of time and energy, and require a willingness to co-operate and make

concessions in order to reach a consensus. As well, there are

administrative meetings to review past meetings with young people

and discuss possible changes in procedure. Individual meetings

are sometimes frustrating, and it is difficult to know in a

specific case whether the Young person has benefitted by resolving

an offence with the Committee instead of going to court. An

excellent programme can exist only if the committee members are

- 18 -

are highly committed and involved for a period of time long

enough to develop (and to pass on) a considerable expertise.

This programme has been fortunate indeed to have such able and

committed volunteers.

E. The Restitution Project

The Restitution Project was initiated to meet the needs of the

Juvenile Court Committee. The majority of the young persons

meeting with the Committee have been charged with an offence

involving property loss or damage. In many of these cases,

restitution was part of the plan agreed to at the meeting, and the

Committee had neither the mobility nor the time to contact victims

and to work out the details. In August of 1975, the Restitution

Project began to accept referrals. For a description of the

philosophy and procedure of the Restitution Project, see the

Restitution Project Guidelines, Appendix B. The Restitution

Project also accepts referrals from the court and the police.

The Restitution Project and the Court

Nearly all of the court referrals are for restitution in addition

to probation. Over the first 33 months of the Restitution Project,

to 30 April 1978, there were a total of 42 referrals from the

Court. In the two months, November and December, 1977, there were

12. It seemed that the Restitution Project was becoming primarily a

court resource, with a majority of referrals coming from the Court.

On 29 March 1978, Judge Nasmith, Eric Lawson (the Senior Probation

Officer) and the project director met to discuss restitution.

Judge Nasmith confirmed that when restitution is ordered in addition

- 19 -

to probation, the main purpose is supervision. Agreement was reached

on the following procedure:

1. Court referrals to the Restitution Project will be

for the purpose of restitution only -, rather than in

addition to supervision;

2. When a disposition involving probation and restitution

is also ordered, there will be no referral to the

Restitution Project. Restitution in this circumstance

will be a condition of probation and will be handled

by the probation officer. The Restitution Project will

offer such assistance as is requested.

Examples of assistance which the Restitution Project might give

are suggestions for community volunteer work locations and

consultation about negotiation problems. Formal Restitution

Project involvement in a court disposition is then an alternative

to probation.

Restitution and the Police

Referrals from the police are for the purpose of diverting young

people who would normally (but for this project) be charged.

This requirement is to avoid involving the diversion programme

with people who would otherwise be dealt with informally by the

police.

One potential danger in accepting restitution referrals directly

from the police is, that of two similar cases, one might go

directly to the Restitution Project and the other young person

might be charged, go to meet with the Committee, and then go to the

- 20 -

Restitution Project. The potential for confusion and the issue

of like treatment of like cases suggest the need for some guidelines

to be developed by the police and the Restitution Project. The

result would make this particular exercisë of police discretion

more visible and less open to charges of inconsistency or unfair-

ness. The discussion of guidelines might also be an appropriate

time to reassess the advantages and disadvantages of direct police

referral to the Restitution Project. The advantage seen by the

Restitution Project is that those young persons are diverted from

the Juvenile Court Committee, and the level of involvement in the

justice system which that represents: the charge plus the meeting

with the Committee.

The effectiveness of the requirment "would otherwise be charged"

is difficult to evaluate because it is subjective. It is important

because the Restitution Project could become a means of dealing

with offences for which the evidence is questionable; or, again,

young persons who would not normally be charged are referred in an

effort to teach them a lesson.

The potential for involving persons with the Restitution Project when

they would not! be charged raises the more general issue of the

continuing pull between the diversion programme's goals and other

functions it might perform. There is a temptation to use the

resources of the diversion programme to impose a bit more punishment

than would otherwise be imposed on some young persons, in the hope

of reducing the risk of subsequent illegal behaviour.

IiIIIIIitIIIIIII

The difficulty is that this is contrary to the programme's basic I

II

- 21 -

thrust to decrease the level of intervention in a child's life.

As well, the move to provide some additional punishment may be made

without an examination of either how that might produce the

desired result, or what may have already happened to the young

person as a result of being caught.

Over the 33 months the Restitution Project has been functioning

(August '75 through April '78), a total of 23 referrals have been

received from the police: three in the nine months to 30 April

1976, six in the year ending 30 April 1977, and 14 in the year

ending 30 April 1978. The reason for this pattern may be an

increased confidence in the Restitution Project, and a willing-

ness to divert more young people prior to charge. Also, the two

persons who probably could not have been successfully prosecuted

were both referred in the last year, which indicates that the

increase may be due to cases which would not otherwise result in

a charge.

Restitution Negotiations

A misunderstanding sometimes exists about parents' liabilities

for their children's actions. A number of times victims have

stated their belief that a parent is legally responsible for damage

caused by a child under 16. This belief is a powerful obstruction

to a viable negotiation based on the young person's capacity to

make restitution.

Another issue is the negotiator's notion of what the result

"should" be. Only the two parties can come to some agreement as

to what is fair. It is sometimes difficult for the negotiator

- 22 -

to wait for the young person and the victim to say what they

feel comfortable with (It is difficult to help clarify their

feelings and ideas to each other, without adding my own

judgements of what I want them to think or feel). The negotiator

is in a position of authority, and it is easy to simply step in

and provide a solution, robbing the young person and the victim of

their power to do it themselves.

The negotiator's role is crucial to whether an agreement is

reached which both parties feel is fair, and whether the meeting

moves beyond any initial feelings of animosity. It seems that

an important aspect of these meetings is the opportunity for

both the young person and the victim to share how they feel about

the offence, and about the restitution. If each begins to hear

and empathize with the other, the tone of the meeting becomes more

co-operative.

Form of Restitution Agreements

Two types of restitution agreements are used. When restitution

is in the form of .money paid to a victim, the agreement is between

the young person and the victim. The purpose of the agreement is

to make clear who the parties are, how much is being paid, and why.

The agreement is designed to protect the young person from having

to pay this amount again if the victim should take civil action in

the future. The form of restitution preferred by both young

people and victims is cash. Volunteer work is considered only

if the payment of money is not possible.

When the agreement is for work, either for the victim or for the

- 23 -

community, then the agreement is between the young person and

the Committee (or the Court, or the police). The work agreements

do not include the victim, even when the victim is the recipient

of the volunteer work, to avoid difficulties which could arise

from the establishment of an employment relationship. (Copies of

correspondence with branches of the Ministry of Labour are

available from the Restitution Project.)

Restitution and the Victim

A young person referred to the Restitution Project usually meets

with the victim of the offence. The reactions of victims

vary, but generalk, they are very sumportive of the concept.

The reaction of community groups who have learned about the

Restitution Project has also been very positive. Usually, people

seem pleased to be receiving something or to see that something

is being done by the young person, that the young person is

making an effort to make amends.

Business victims have agreed to have offenders work on their

premises as volunteers, and private individuals have agreed to

restitution in the form of lawn and garden work, help with building

a fence, and general spring clean-up. In one case, a victim was so

impressed by a person's week of volunteer work that the victim

hired the volunteer to continue for the rest of the summer.

Victims have been very understanding of a young person's limitèd

capacity to make restitution. This is particularly true when a

victim can'identify with the young person, usually by recalling

something of what the world looks like from the perspective of a

person under 16, and what that person might be able to do.

- 24 -

Agreements for less than the young person's share of the damage

(where full restitution is not feasible) are the most difficult,

and often require more active participation by the negotiator in

the negotiation process. ..

Both the young person and the victim may say they have no idea

what might, for example, be a fair number of volunteer hours

for the young'person to work. One useful technique has been to

suggest some number, clearly at the extreme, and then ask both

parties their reactions and what they think might be more reasonâble.

Consistent with the diversion programme's goal of reducing the

level of intervention in a young person's life, if neither person

has any suggestions, the practice has been to suggest a nominal

number of hours, try to ascertain each person's genuine reaction,

and then encourage them to move from there.

Restitution and the Recipients of Community Volunteer Work

Co-operation from the City of Kingston has been excellent,

providing placements for volunteer work to benefit the community.

Young persons have worked-to assist in maintenance of ice rinks,

restoration of machinery at the Pump House Steam Museum, grounds-

keeping at day-care centres and cleanup at a harbour site. Other

community volunteer work recipients include Sunnyside Children's

Centre, the Rideau Trail Association, a hospital, a group home,

a crisis centre for women, and a recreation programme for

handicapped children. Information received from recipients of

volunteer work has generally indicated they have been very

pleased with work done by the volunteer. Although in some cases

late arrival for work or a poor work effort has jeopardized a

IIIIII

II1IIIII

- 25 -

placement, these problems can be resolved if there is sufficient

communication with the project staff.

Whenever an agreement for community service work (or work for

a victim) is made, both the recipient and the young person are

encouraged to contact the Restitution Project if any difficulties

arise. In a very small number of cases this has occurred and the

difficulties have usually been overcome by changing the hours of

work or the specific kind of work. In one instance in the past

12 months, the person doing the restitution moved to another

recipient. In that instance, the first placement was particularly

concerned that those persons working there as volunteers felt

comfortable with the work; the person doing the work was not

comfortable and so an alternative placement was arranged.

When a reaction from a potential recipient of community service

work is firmly negative, the reason given has been a fear of

having someone who has committed an offence work with them. In

these cases, the fear can usually be allayed by a discussion of the

philosophy of the diversion programme, the experience of previous

placements, and the importance of having placements in the

community which support such a programme. The fear of the

stereotype of the young offender is an issue of trust, and whether

such a person can be trusted at all. It is often useful to

point out the normality of occasional illegal behaviour by young

people and the absence of a necessary link between an illegal

act and subsequent trustworthiness. The discussion also helps

the potential volunteer work recipient recall his or her own

activities, and to identify somewhat with the young person's

present position.

- 26 -

Other instances where placement of volunteers has ben refused

have been in the form: "We don't presently have any work for

a volunteer, but we will call you if any should develop". The

reasons for the refusal are sometimes more complex. Although

a possible response is to discuss with the potential recipient

some specific ways a volunteer might be useful, this is not always

successful. The stigma attached to someone who has committed

an offence is probably a significant factor in many cases. The

age of the volunteers is sometimes a factor also.

In some instances, union interests have been an issue. Sometimes

the issue is worked out through management, who then liaise

with the union executive. On another occasion, the director

attended a meeting of the union Local involved to explain the

Restitution Project and solicit their support. In all cases,

union members have supported the project. The co-operation of

union members is probably facilitated by the temporary nature of

volunteer work. "Usual time commitment is approximately 15 - 20

hours, and the total number of hours at one location in a year

would not threaten any employee positions.

General questions about labour relations are usually answered

by reference to the form of the volunteer work agreement, which

emphasizes that the agreement is between the young person and the

source of the referral to the Restitution Project. The recipient

of the volunteer work is not a party to the agreement, and no

employment relationship is established.

- 27 -

F. Committee Training

This section describes and discusses a training programme for

new committee members, operated during the summer and fall of

1977. There were a number of reasons for introducing new

volunteers to the Committee. One was to provide continuity as

the original members ceased to be involved, and to draw on the

experience of the original volunteers as a valuable training

resource. By introducing volunteers who were not professionally

involved with children in some sort of difficulty, it was hoped

to provide some balance to the treatment orientation of the

Committee, and to make the Committee more representative of the

general population. As well, the original volunteers were

resistant to meeting in the evenings, and a larger pool of

volunteers would lessen the evening commitment for each person.

The reason for evening meetings was to facilitate attendance

without missing school or work by young persons and their parents

and to encourage the attendance of victims.

Names of potential volunteers were solicited from committee members

and others familiar with the programme. Thirteen people were

contacted, and all were very interested in taking part. All had

a positive response to the programme. Seven were unable to

participate due to competing time commitments.

The six people who attended the training programme were: two

homemakers (one a parent whose child had recently met with the

Committee), a store employee, a student, a waitress, and a

community college teacher. There were a total of seven meetings of

- 28 -

approximately two hours in duration on weekday evenings

during the summer of 1977. The following is an outline of the

content of those meetings:

i. the programme's philosophy, reasons for limiting

and reducing intervention in a young person's life,

overview of diversion procedure, outline of

training programme, goals of training programmes;

ii. why use volunteers, scope of volunteer's role,

volunteer as key person in implementing programme's

philosophy, funding, progress reports, Juvenile

Court CoMmittee Guidelines, two-stage structure

of guidelines and meetings and how this relates

to programme's philosophy;

iii. detailed discussion of guidelines and how they

relate to the programme's philosophy, sample

situations and discussion of possible plans,

staging of meetings (including introductory

comments and other efforts to reduce tension and

increase the young person's participation) ;

iv. role-play of introductory stage of the meeting

(in the volunteer's own words), sharing reactions,

viewing and discussion of video tape of a committee

meeting one year previous;

v. role-play (video taped) of a number of fact

situations with young people playing the role of

the young offender and three of the volunteers

functioning as the Committee;

- 29 -

vi. viewings of the video tape of the role-playandvii. session, with the assistance of the-original committee

members, and sharing and discussing reactions to the

tape.

IttIIIII1I11I

Two of the volunteers did not complete the training programme,

one for health reasons and one for family reasons. The next

step was to integrate the recent volunteers with the original

volunteers. This was done by having the new members attend

and observe two or three committee meetings, and then take part-

with two of the original members. Of the four people who have

done this, two have had active and valuable roles in a number

of meetings, one person has only been able to take part one time

and made valuable contributions., and the fourth person has acted

as a member a number of times and has not yet taken an active

role in meetings.

A number of lessons were learned from this training programme.

At the first viewing of the video tapes of the role-playing,

it was clear that there was a need for a progressive sequence of

steps as reference points during the meeting, to provide a logical

way of arriving at a plan and to avoid confusion between the

offence and the consequences. There were also suggestions about

the way in which the young person and the Committee communicate,

particularly the dangers of using words unfamiliar to a young

person and asking particular types of questions. The following

suggestions resulted:

i. Sequence:

(a) Introduction

(b) Facts

1

- 30 -

(c) Young person's feelings

(d) Family's feelings

(e) Family's response

(f) What young person thinks should happen now

(g) What family thinks should happen now

(h) "How woilld you feel about ...?"

"How much ...?"

(i) Plan

(j) Recommendation

Clear Break: "You can leave if you wish ...

we're not talking about the charge

... etc."

(k) Stage II - can be initiated by something

noticed by committee during meeting.

This isn't a necessary sequence of steps for each meeting. It can

be useful to avoid repetition and to make the meeting less

confusing. Steps (f), (g) and (h) are one way of encouraging the

participation of the young person and his family in formulating

a plan.

ii. Language:

(a) Words and understanding

- It is important to be aware of using large

words whose meaning may not be clear to a

young person.

- Other members can assist by explaining what

is meant when they suspect a young person

may not understand.

and

I II 11

1

- 31 -

- A reflective question can be useful when

doubtful of a young person's understanding

of what was said. For example, "What is going

to happen as a result of this meeting?"

(b) Questions and their potential for:

closing the door on unexpected information,

creating a pattern of question-answer-question.

If you think of what you want to know about, rather than what

answer is expected, a question can be formed in a broad way, so

it will not suggest any particular answer.

For example:

"What happened next?" instead of "Then you broke the window?"

"How did you feel instead of "Are you sorry now?"

about doing it?"

"What do you think instead of "Would you be willing to

you should do now?" pay for the window?"

(c) Promises of good behaviour:

If the young person meeting with the Committee

is asked, "Will you promise not to do this again?",

or "Have you learned your lesson?", there is in most

cases only one answer. The question is in contrast

to the Committee's goals for two reasons: the

questioner is immediately placed in a position of

authority and control by virtue of asking the question;

and the focus of the meeting is directed to potential

future behaviour rather than to the offence for which

the young person was charged.

I.

- 32 These problems do not necessarily occur when a warning

is given A warning is different from a request for a

promise of good behaviour because a warning need not

be threatening or authoritarian. In addition, a warning

makes the point that the criminal justice system,

rather than an assurance given to the Committee, is the

reason not to commit a crime.

One lesson which stands out is the importance of consulting with

all involved before making any changes. In this instance, the

Youth Bureau was not informed of the training programme until

the training meetings were completed and the new members were

about to become active on the Committee. The police were very

concerned about the viability of a committee which did not consist

entirely of professionals, and stated that a committee without any

of the original professional (in the sense of a worker with an

established agency) members would not be acceptable. This concern

was unanticipated. It seems related to an apprehension that the

public might not support police co-operation with a diversion

programme not staffed by social work professionals.

After several meetings with the Youth Bureau, it was decided to

introduce new members so that, whenever possible, the Committee

would consist of two original members and one recent member. It is

anticipated that as recent members gain experience and become

better known to the Youth Bureau, this situation may change.

The police forces other than the Youth Bureau (the Ontario Provincial

Police and the Military Police) do not share this concern. The

reaon is that their members do not, by and large, personally

- 33 -

know the members of the Committee. These police forces have

supported the Committee for its successful functioning, while

the Youth Bureau, intimately involved in the Frontenac Diversion

Programme from its early struggles, seems- to have supported the

programme because it knew and trusted the members of the

Committee. •

Another lesson is that a great deal of the training focussed on

the Committee philosophy and procedure and not enough time was

spent on developing specific skills.

Volunteers were exposed to what the Committee does and why, but

very little of how it does it. The videotaped practices were

useful but insufficient. Much more time could profitably be

spent developing and honing skills in inter-personal communication.

Recently all committee members expressed support for a proposal

(see Appendix VI) for continuing training of this nature for all

members.

As a final comment, an article by David May, "Rhetoric and Reality,

The Consequence of Unacknowledged Ambiguity in the Children's

Penal System" (17 British Journal of Criminology 209, July 1977),

contains a relevant criticism of a programme in which "the community"

is represented by lay persons who have been'specially trained to

remove their "lay-ness".

G. Duty Counsel

From its inception, the Frontenac Diversion Programme has ensured

that legal advice is available to a young person who meets with

the Juvenile Court Committee. If the young person does not

- 34 -

bring a lawyer, a lawyer is present to offer assistance. This

Duty Counsel lawyer is provided by the Ontario Legal Aid Plan.

One of the most important functions of the lawyer is to ascertain

whether the charge is valid in law. This-is to guard against

the possibility of the Committee "diverting" a person who would

not be found delinquent by a court. On occasion a young person

feels badly about having done something, but has not broken the law.

An example is a person who accidentally broke a window and thought

he was therefore guilty of mischief. The Committee members

do not have the training to discover these points, so it is important

that a lawyer be available to advise the young person.

At the beginning of the programme, when there was no precedent for

the lawyer's role during the meeting, the lawyer sometimes took

a very active role. In some cases," by proposing her or his

own suggestions for a plan, or offering an opinion about the

suggestions of others, the lawyer became, in effect, an additional

committee member. In other instances, the lawyer would speak for

the young person, presenting a summary of the circumstances

surrounding the alleged offence and what the young person felt would

be a fair thing to do about it.

In the first case, the lawyer is playing a non-legalistic role

helping the Committee and the young person to develop an alternative

which might be recommended to the police. In this role, the lawyer

adds another adult input to the meeting, in effect increasing

the size of the Committee. There is also the danger of the committee

members looking to the lawyer, more exneriencéd in the ways of

the justice system, for the response which is appropriate for the

U

IIIItIIIIIIIIIIII

- 35 -

young person's behaviour. This discounts both the young person's

participation and the committee members' own roles.

In the second instance, the lawyer is performing the role of

spokesperson for the young person., very much as a lawyer might

do in court. The result at the committee meeting is that the

members hear very little from the young person, except as

interpreted by the lawyer.

As a result of discussion with the committee members and the Duty

Counsel lawyers, the role of the lawyer during the meeting has

become to assist the young person to present her or his own ideas,

if the young person is not able to do so at the meeting, and to

remind the committee members when they are not following the Juvenile

Court Committee guidelines.

H. Volunteer Probation

The involvement of volunteer probation has been a resource for

the Juvenile Court Committee in the formulation of a plan.

Although neither of the persons who have held the position of

co-ordinator of the Volunteer Probation Officer programme has

been directly involved in formulating the Committee's philosophy

and objectives, both have been very supportive of the Committee.

From the beginning of the programme, adult volunteers who have

been trained as Volunteer Probation Officers have been used by

the Committee to provide additional supervision in a young person's

life. Initially, this was referred to as Volunteer Probation in

the Committee's discussions with a young person. Then early in

1977, after discussions with the co-ordinator, this label was

- 36 -

changed to Voluntary Supervision. This was done to better

reflect the purpose of the resource from the Committee's viewpoint

(supervision), and to emphasize that this is voluntary on the

young person's part (and thus different from probation).

The co-ordinator felt that some commitment is necessary to treat

the adult volunteers fairly and to give the relationship a chance

to function. As a result, young persons are told at the committee

meeting that if the plan includes voluntary supervision, they will

be expected to meet with the volunteer, probably once per week,

for six weeks. The written explanation which is given to the

young person is as follows:

WHAT IS VOLUNTARY SUPERVISION?

Voluntary supervision means meeting one or more times

per week with someone who ha volunteered to spend time

with a young person. It is a way of providing some

additional supervision in a young person's life. It

may also provide an older friend to help you with the

kinds of problems lots of people have while they are

growing, but for the Committee the purpose is

supervision.

The programme is voluntary, but anyone who wants to

try it has to agree to give it a try for at least

six weeks. After the first six weeks you can decide

whether you want to continue. Lots of people like

the programme and continue for a year or more.

The person who arranges for you to meet with a

volunteer is John Glassco, and hé will contact you

some time within the next two weeks.

- 37 -

The Voluntary Supervision resource is used only infrequently.

Over the three years of the programme, it was used nineteen

times. In the past year it has been part of a plan only one

time. Whether it is appropriate at all, in light of the

committee's operational philosophy, has been an issue from time

to time.

II. THE PROGRAMME

A. Objectives

The original objectives and strategies of the programme are set

out in the Juvenile Court Committee Guidelines and the

Restitution Project Guidelines. After three years these remain

unchanged. During this time the objectives have been regularly

discussed and re-examined with the 'main focus on the way in which

the meetings proceed. The process of meeting with a young person

to discuss an alternative has been examined in an attempt to

more effectively and clearly implement the programme's goals.

At a recent meeting, for example, committee members considered

a proposal for a workshop in specific skills, skills which could

make the meeting . less threatening and give the young person a

greater sense of participation. The proposal was supported in

principle by all committee members.

The Committee's objectives, as stated in the Juvenile Court

Committee Guidelines, are:

1. to reduce the number of juveniles appearing in

juvenile court;

2. to reduce the number of juveniles having a juvenile

delinquency "record";

- 38 -

3. to provide an informal, non-threatening and non-

stigmatizing means of dealing with juvenile

offenders;

4. to generate in juvenile offenders a sense of

having been dealt with fairly (i.e. a sense of

justice);

5. to assist juvenile offenders and their families in

obtaining the assistance of social service agencies

and other "treatment" resources if they want such

assistance; and

6. to be more effective than the juvenile court in

limiting recidivism among juvenile offenders.

In terms of the primary objective of resolving a charge without

requiring the young persôn to appear in court, the programme

has been very successful. A majority of young people summoned

to appear in Family Court for an alleged delinquency have their

charge (or charges) withdrawn after meeting with the Committee.

The only information retained in court files is that the charge

was withdrawn at the request of the informant.

B. Target Group

The original target group is indicated in the "Jurisdiction"

section, page 4 of the Juvenile Court Committee Guidelines

(see Appendix A). The target group is persons under 16 years

of age who are willing to admit responsibility for a delinquency

for which they have been charged in Frontenac County, and who

have not previously been adjudged delinquent. For statistical

information on the preceding three years experience see part V, below.

11I11

1i1111111111

- 39 -

C. Techniques

The way of implementing the Juvenile Court Committee is

described in the Juvenile Court Committee Guidelines. There

is a listing of the type of information which is relevant

in responding to the behaviour which led to the charge. There

is also a discussion of information which would not be relevant,

such as more general information about the young person's life.

This strategy is essentially unchanged today. Further informa-

tion is contained in the "historical analysis" section of this

report.

III. STEPS TAKEN TO DEVELOP THIS PROGRAMME WITHIN THE COMMUNITY

This section describes the segments of the population that were

involved with the programme, what their involvement was, problems

which arose and suggestions for programme development in other

communities.

A. Community Involvement

The Frontenac Diversion Programme was begun by members of the

juvenile justice community i.e., agencies which interact with

the Juvenile Court, and control of the programme remains almost

entirely within that community. The involvement of the agencies

is discussed in other portions of this report (notably the

historical section); this section will examine the involvement

of people who were not associated with these agencies.

The ways in which people became involved with the diversion

programme were: as volunteers (i.e., committee members), as

victims, as recipients of restitution work and as recipients of

information about the programme. Of these, the committee members

- 40 -

were in the best position to have an influence on the programme,

but the selection and training programme for new members tended

to assimilate them to the existing Committee. One criterion

for selection of volunteers was their support for the existing

programme and their desire to become actively involved in it.

Then the training explored the diversion programme and its

rationale; there was little opportunity to explore alternative

views of diversion. For a discussion of the training programme

and a reference to an article on the assimilation phenomenon in

Scotland, see the historical section, above.

Most victims who cOme into contact with the diversion programme

do so via the Restitution Project. Of the victims who are

informed of Juvenile Court Committee meétings to discuss the

offence, less than 10% choose to attend the meeting. When they

do attend a committee meeting, there is little opportunity or

encouragement to discuss their views of the diversion process.

In any event, their primary concern is the loss or damage, and

what will be done about it. When new volunteers were being sought

for the CoMmittee, a number of victims were contacted, but none

chose to become involved.

Like victims who attended committee meetings, victims who were

involved with the Restitution Project were mainly concerned with

the form and extent of restitution. The concept of restitution

was strongly supported by victims, both as a positive contribution

from the young person and as a way of understanding the impact

of what they did. They were not interested in the process of

working out what would be done. When victims were critical, their

- 41 -

comments were usually about the amount of restitution rather than

the diversion concept.

People who were recipients of volunteer work and who were not

victims had no contact with the Committee: They were contacted

by the Restitution Project as récipients of volunteer community

work, for circumstances in which cash restitution or volunteer

work for a victim were not possible. Their concerns were

potential liability, what offence the young person had committed,

supervision, unions. They were very supportive of the concept of

restitution and willing to give a young person the chance to do some

useful volunteer work. There were no discussions about how the

programme might be changed.

The other way in which people became aware of the diversion

programme is through publicity. In many instances, such as magazine

and newspaper articles, television interviews, the programme was

simply described with no opportunity for public reaction. When

there was an opportunity for questions and comments - for

example during open line radio interviews, credit union meetings

and other community group meetings - the questions usually

indicated a lack of knowledge (or a misunderstanding) of the

traditional juvenile justice system. This lack of knowledge of

the existing situation was common to all persons not previously

involved in the juvenile justice system, so most interaction with

the diversion programme was one-way, in the form of descriptive

information about the existing system and the diversion alternative.

Rarely was there informed criticism or discussion of creative

alternatives.

- 42 -

Important exceptions were a few conferences (a minority of

those attended) which raised important issues and offered new

insights. The people attending these conferences were already

familiar with the juvenile justice system*, and were often

familiar with this and other diversion programmes. Another

particularly useful discussion occurred during a law school

seminar, where students had prepared by reading widely about the

subject of diversion. Their questions addressed many of the key

issues in diversion and subsequent discussion included the

education system and other ways in which young people are specially

oppressed in our sbciety.

B. Resulting Problems

The lack of significant public awareness of and involvement in

the philosophy and practice of the Frontenac Diversion Programme

makes it difficult to separate from the existing juvenile justice

system. The majority of those on the Committee are still agency

workers and there is little to give the general community the

impression that this is a programme which exemplifies the

community's ability to resolve many of its problems. The result

is that there is little sense of community ownership of the

programme, or of community pride in what is being done. This

missing element, significant community participation, is one of the

important goals of diversion.

C. Suggested Plan for Other Communities

"Diversion" is used to characterize an alternative to the existing

juvenile justice system. A characteristic common to all diversion

programmes is its move from the court to an alternative which

h

I1IIII

t

IIII

I

- 43 -

involves people, as citizens of their community, in the resolution

of community problems. This can also be described as moving the

power for resolving some kinds of illegal behaviour from an

outside authority (represented by the Judge) to the local level. To

do this is to change the trend of increasing centralization, and

governments "doing for" communities. Because it is a change,

people may be skeptical whether it is possible.

The idea of a community doing for itself what it has come to

expect a federal or provincial government to take care of is

difficult to consider at first. It is easy to convince oneself,

"they do it for us because it is too difficult for us to do

anything about that problem." This means that a first step in

any juvenile diversion programme will be to help people become

aware of that community's potential for resolving many of its

juvenile offences.

An effective way to increase a Community's_sense of its own power

to resolve juvenile offences is to de-mystify the existing Juvenile

Court. In the Frontenac Diversion Programme, the people who

worked together to develop an alternative to the court process

were people who understood that process. In order to make

participation in diversion possible for those outside the existing

juvenile agencies, it is necessary to educate people in the

community.

Who should be educated? Who should become involved in developing

a diversion programme? As a first step, it is important to identify

people within the community who are interested in learning more

about the existing Juvenile Court and in participating in the

I

- 44 -

development of an alternative. One way of doing this, for

example, might be a public information campaign to increase

the visibility of the present way of responding to young people

who have broken the law. The important part of this step is to

make contact with people who are genuinely interested in improving

the way the community responds to these young people, and who

are willing to put a significant amount of time and energy into

helping it happen. And in order to make it clear that this is not

just a new branch of the existing juvenile justice system, it is

necessary to involve people not normally part of that system.

When there is a group of people who are interested in working

together to develop an alternative, the next step is to gain a

shared understanding of the existing structure and its faults.

There are many ways to do this, suéh as asking members of the group

to share their knowledge, asking the Judge to speak to the group,

perhaps having someone ask young people who have been involved in

the court process, talking with young people in school classes,

asking parents of young people who have been to court, talking with

people in agencies involved in the court process, etc.

The next step is to develop a vision of how things might be done

differently: what an alternative would offer, how it would function

how and why it would differ from the existing process. During

this stage, criticisms of the existing process by those close to

it, together with their personal visions of an ideal system, would

be very valuable.

The last step prior to actually taking action is to work out how

the alternative can come about, how to get to that process from

- 45 -

the present one. It is likely that public support will be

important, so a comprehensive publicity effort Will be necessary,

requiring substantial media support. And support of existing

court and agency people will be essential-for any change to occur.

The credibility of the alternative will be closely tied to how

simply it can be explained and justified, both to the juvenile

justice community and to the larger community, and so a clear

presentation of the steps the group went through to develop the

alternative will be invaluable.

Finally, there will be action leading up to implementation of the

diversion programme. For recommendations related to developing a

specific diversion philosophy, see section VII below.

IV. RESOURCE REQUIREMENT

A. Facilities Required

The physical space occupied by the programme is a room approx-

imately three meters square, in a building leased by Probation

and Aftercare. The physical space is adequate for the programme's

needs, except for administrative meetings of committee members,

committee meetings with young persons, and Restitution Project

meetings with young persons and victims. Administrative meetings

of the committee members are usually held in the library at

Family Court. Committee meetings with young persons are now held

in comfortable rooms at St-Lawrence College (a community college),

and the location of restitution meetings varies according to the

circumstances.

B. Staff Requirements

Programme staff includes the members of the Juvenile Court

1

- 46 -

Committee, administrative support staff, duty counsel lawyers,

and the director. In May of 1975, five persons made up the

Committee, with three of them taking part at any one time. The

- number of members now stands at eight.

Correspondence and calls related to appointments between young

people and the Committee, as well as recording of minutes and

generally looking after loose ends, is done by Judge Nasmith's

secretary. Additional administrative support and office assist-

ance is provided by the secretary for Probation and Aftercare.

Duty counsel lawyers are provided by Ontario Legal Aid, and are

drawn from a Ust of four lawyers who have an intimate knowledge

of the programme.

The director is a full-time person, and the only staff person

who is represented in the programme's budget. In fact, thé

budget consists primarily of the director's salary. The first

director was a law graduate who helped draft the funding proposal

for the programme. The present director is also a law graduate.

For a discussion of the selection and training of committee members,

see the earlier "historical analysis" section.

C. Sources of Support and Resources

The programme received, and continues to receive, strong community

support. The original group of volunteers were persons on the

staff of community agencies, and their time was given during the

work day. Those agencies includéd the two school boards, the

Child and Family Clinic, the Family Court Clinic, Children's Aid,

Probation and Aftercare, the Observation and Detention facility and

the Family Court. Individuals from the two school boards, the

- 47 -

Family Court Clinic and the Observation and Detention Facility

now are members of the Committee.

In the first year of operation, the programme received $900.00

assistance from the Lions Club of Kingston. Other community

support has been received in the form of meeting space provided

at nominal charge, including a church hall and the City's olympic

building. At present, the committee meetings are held at St-

Lawrence College, which provides the space without charge.

There has also been support from community groups for the concept

of diversion, as practised by the Committee. People generally

react favourably to the notion of keeping young people out of

court. The majority of people also appear to support a reduction

of the level of intervention in the lives of those charged for the

first time. Most groups contain a 'spectrum of views on the question

of treatment and this helps bring out the major concerns on both

sides. For most people, this issue is one which they have not

previously examined closely, and their initial reaction may

be based on misconceptions or unfounded fears. -For this reason,

an important function of the Frontenac Diversion Programme is to

tell people what we are doing, and to clearly say why.

- 48 -

D. Budget

i. First _year, 1 May 1975 - 30 April 1976

Received:

From the Consultation Centre ofthe Solicitor General of Canada $ 12,500.00

From Ministry of Corrections 3,168.00From Kingston Lions Club 900.00

Expenses:

Salary $ 14,873.00Administrative Cost oftwo day meeting withcommittee members 399.06

Office supplies 164.13Office equipment 83.91Telephone (long distance only) 76.70Travel 65.35

$ 16,568.00

$ 15,662.15

IIIIIIttItI1I

Balance at 30 April 1976 $ 905.85 I

IIIIII

$ 13,750.00

2,401.20

- 49 -

ii. Second year, 1 May 1976 - 30 April 1977

Balance at 1 May 1976 $ 905.85

Received:

From the Consultation Centre of the Solicitor General of Canada

From Ministry of Corrections

$ 16,151.20

$ 17,057.05

Expenses:

Salary $ 16,402.97 Administrative meetings 212.12 Office àupplies 125.98 Travel 103.80 Rooms for committee meetings with young people 87.00 Conference registration 65.00 Telephone (long distance only) 54.33

$ 17,051.20

Balance at 30 April 1976 $ 5.85

1

NIL

- 50 -

iii. Third year, I May 1977 - 30 April 1978

Balance at 1 May 1977 5.85

Received:

From the Consultation Centre of the Solicitor General of Canada $ 11,325.00

From Ministry of Corrections (and then Ministry of Community & Social Services) 3,334.17

$ 14,659.17

$14,665.02

Expenses:

Salary $ 17,714.52 Administrative meetings 221.13 Telephone (long distance only) 192.55

Attendance of committee member at national Conference 183.54

Travel 60.00 Office supplies 58.28 Rooms for committee meetings with young people 35.00

$18,465.02

Balance at 30 April 1978 (deficit) ($ 3,800.00) II

Not yet received from the Consultation Centre of the Solicitor General of Canada $ 3,800.00 II

Expected Balance upon receipt of remainder of funds per contract with the Consultation Centre of the Solicitor General of Canada

- 51 -

iv. For three years, 1 May 1975 - 30 April 1978

Received:

III

Expenses:

I

IItItIIIII

From the ConsultationCentre of the SolicitorGeneral of Canada $ 37,575.00

From Ministry ofCorrections and Community& Social Services 8,803.37

From Kingston Lions Club 900.00

Salary $ 48,990.59Administrative meetings 832.31Office supplies 348.39Telephone (long distanceonly) 323.58

Conferences 248.54Travel 229.15Rooms for committee meetingswith young people 122.00Office equipment 83.91

Balance at 30 April 1978 (deficit)

$ 47,378.37

$ 51,178.37

($ 3,800.00)

Not yet received from the ConsultationCentre of the Solicitor General of Canada $ 3,800.00

Expected balance upon receipt of remainderof funds per contract with the ConsultationCentre of the Solicitor General of Canada NIL

I

- 52 -

V. INTERNAL PROJECT MONITORING

This section examines the way the diversion process was implemented,

and why and how it was subsequently modified. Also included in

the part is statistical information for the three years 1 May

1975 to 30 April 1978.

A. Implementation and Modification

For simplification, the programme's history will be considered

in three phases: the initial period of implementation (roughly

from May 1974 to May 1975); a subsequent period of modification

(to May 1976); and.a second period of modification (to May 1978).

Each of these phases will be discussed in terms of the problem as

it was then understood, the alternative that was envisioned and the

strategy for implementing the alternative.

Prior to the existence of a formal diversion programme in Frontenac

County there was agreement among the various agencies involved

in Juvenile Court proceedings that some of the young people

appearing in court were there inappropriately. Among the people

involved there were undoubtedly a variety of opinions about which

young people were the inappropriate ones, and why. There was a

consensus however, that if something could be done to have a

young person's charge dealt with without a court hearing, the young

person woulddDenefit by avoiding both the court experience and a

finding of delinquency. In addition, the Court would have more

time to deal with thé cases before it.

The alternative which was envisioned at this early stage was to work

out some response to the offence without going to court. The way

- 53 -

this was to be implemented was not developed in detail. The

Committee was made up of social workers and counsellors and so

the meeting procedure which was adopted was similar to a case

conference about the young person, with the young person and his

or her parents present. If the young person and the parents

agreed to what the committee members thought should happen, the

Committee recommended that the charge be adjourned sine die

(i.e., indefinitely) when it came before the Judge. Since the

initial object was to keep young people out of court, the

programme was aimed at young persons who had been charged but who

had not yet been to court.

The second phase made major changes in the diversion process. This

phase began with a period of observation and analysis by Richard

Barnhorst, culminating in a proposal by Richard Barnhorst, Sherrie

Barnhorst and Judge George Thomson for funding for one full-time

coordinator. Funding was obtained for a three-year period

beginning 1 May 1975, with equal contributions from the provincial

and federal governments.

Problems during the initial period included different responses

to similar illegal behaviour and the absence of a structure for

the diversion process. The way in which the Committee's discretion

was exercised varied according to the case at hand, and often

involved an inquiry (into the young person's life) which went far

beyond the behaviour for which the young person was charged. This

variable procedure reflected the broad powers which the Committee

initially had, a result of not having envisioned a specific

alternative to the court process. The second phase dealt with

- 54 -

these concerns: by May 1976 the Juvenile Court Committee had

developed and adopted a specific and original alternative,

including a philosophy based on the concept of non-intervention

(see Radical Non-Intervention by Schur) and a set of guidelines

which explained in detail the diversion process and the criteria

for major decisions.

Non-intervention theory states that the best reponse in

instances of "juvenile delinquent" behaviour is one which

recognizes the normality of such behaviour. If the behaviour is

common to most young persons at some point in their youth, then

the behaviour should be responded to as a normal (though socially

undesirable) behaviour, rather than as abnormal" behaviour which

warrants intervention.

The behaviour which was envisioned at this point was one which

would respond to minor offences (such as most status offences

and offences with no loss or damage) with a warning; more serious

offences (e.g., significant property damage) would have a response

directly related to the offence (e.g.,restitution). Whatever

the response, the alternative process would focus on the offence

rather than other behaviour, the history of the family or other

social factors.

The strategy for this second phase was to decrease the level of

intervention, to produce a manual which would set out in detail

the manner in which the diversion process would occur, and to

create the Restitution Project. The manual, the "Juvenile Court

Committee Guidelines", outlines the Committee's philosophy,

objectives, decision criteria, the kinds of information relevant

- 55 -

when discussing the offence, and limits on the responses which

may be considered for particular types of offences (see Appendix).

The manual also explains how many of the criteria and limits relate

directly to the stated philosophy and objectives. The Juvenile

Court Committee Guidelines were introduced in an abbreviated

form at the beginning of this phase, and were modified to the

present form in the spring of 1976.

The Restitution Project was created to provide a negotiation and

follow-up service in cases where the response to an offence

included restitution. During this second phase of the programme

(in August 1975), the Restitution Project began to function and

a manual, the "Restitution Project Guidelines", was.written.

The second phase, a period of clarification and enunciation of

the diversion programme's philosophy, objectives and procedures,

began with the involvement of a full-time corrdinator or director.

The third phase coincided with the period of the second coordinator.

The focus of this phase was on the process of the diversion

meeting between the Committee, the young person, the young

person's family (parent or guardian) and the victim (if the

victim chose to attend). The guidelines and limits for the exercise

of the Committee's discretion were developed in the previous

period; in this period the main area of consideration was the

interaction between the persons at the meeting.

Traditional juvenile "justice" has been what a judge, often with the

advice of social and psychological professionals, has decided

is in the best interests of the young person. Diversion programmes

generally leave it to the professionals, sometimes with input

- 56 -

from lay persons, to decide what is in the best interests of

the young person. The Frontenac Diversion Programme is an

alternative that gives consideration to the young person's views

of their own best interests. Attendance at a Juvenile Court

Committee meeting or'a reading of the Juvenile Court Committee

Guidelines reveals that one of the distinguishing features of

this particular diversion process is the amount of, and potential

for, input from the young person. The importance of the young

person's participation is indicated by the important role played

by restitution as well as by the programme's objectives, which

include: "to provide an informal, non-threatening and non-stig-

matizing means of dealing with juvenile offenders", and "to generate

in juvenile offenders a sense of having been dealt with fairly

(i.e., a sense of justice)." An important factor, then, in the

Frontenac Diversion Programme is the role of the young person in

deciding what is in his or her own best interests.

At the end of 1976, the young person's role in most meetings was

limited to a description of the events surrounding the illegal

behaviour and an affirmation of a willingness to go along with

the response suggested by the Committee. The reasons for this

seemed to be related to the setting of the meeting, the procedure

used by the Committee and the way in which committee members

interacted with the young person.

At the beginning of this phase in the programme's development,

meetings were characterized by a sterile setting, a formal style

and little input by the young person, except in response to questions

about the events constituting the illegal behaviour. The setting

iIIIIIII

ItI

ItI1

- 57 -

of the meetings was a rather austere windowless room, with the

three committee members seated behind a table and name tags placed

in front of them.

The procedure was to have the young person and his or her parents

come in and sit down across the table from the committee members.

After a committee member confirmed with the lawyer or duty counsel

that the charge had been discussed with the young person and the

young person was ready to proceed, the young person was asked to

describe the circumstances which resulted in the charge.

The decision about what might happen instead of the young person

going to court (provided the police were in agreement) was

generally made by the Committee and presented to the young person

for approval. This decision about the alternative was sometimes

made while the young person waited outside the room.

The alternative which was envisioned was to have young persons

participate as equal partners in decision-making. Ideally, after

their meeting with the Committee, the young persons would have a

sense that they had played an important role in reaching the

decision, and would feel good about the way the charge was_resolved.

Such a meeting would acknowledge the persons control over their own

lives, and give them the experience of cooperatively resolving

a difficult and important issue.

The strategy for implementing this stage included changes in the

Committee setting, procedure and kind of interaction, to encourage

and support a greater role for the young person. The setting was

changed to a room with warm colours, couches, a coffee table and

- 58 -

windows, in an effort to make the meeting place less formal

and more relaxing. Changes were made in meeting procedures so

that introductions of everyone present, an explanation of the

Committee's objectives, and a statement of the voluntary nature

of the meeting all preceded a discussion of the charge. These

changes were made with the goal of conveying a sense of the

Committee's respect for an acceptance of the young person.

Another aspect of the programme which was revised (several

times) was the correspondence between the Committee and a'young

person. Changes were made to more clearly separate the Committee

from the Court, to'better explain and communicate what the

Committee is and how it functions, and to reduce anxieties such

as the fear.that the Committee might send a person to training

- school.

Changes in the kind of interaction between committee members and

young persons were supported in principle in the spring of 1978,

but were not fully implemented prior to May. The quality of

this interaction is the most important factor in determining the

young person's role in the meeting. The strategy was for the

committee members to listen fully to the young person's ideas and

feelings about what had happened and what should happen next, and

to convey that to the young person. An effective way to encourage

young persons to participate is to let them know that what they

say is being given important consideration; and one way to let

them know that, is by clarifying what the young person has said

before continuing. A training programme has been proposed to

increase the committee.members' skills in conveying to young perons

- 59 -

a sense that what they say is being heard and accepted.

B. Statistical Information

The tables in Appendix C provide data on the Frontenac Diversion

Programme over the period 1 May 1975 to 30 April 1978. Tables

1 to 7 apply to the Juvenile Court Committee. Tables 8 to 15

describe the Restitution Project. "Year 1" refers to the period

1 May 1975 - 30 April 1976; "Year 2" to 1 May 1976 - 30 April

1977; "Year 3" to 1 May 1977 - 30 April 1978.

PLEASE NOTE:

(1) The Restitution Project began to accept referrals

in August, 1975, and those portions of the

Restitution Project tables which refer to "Year 1"

in fact refer to the nine-month period 1 August

1975 - 30 April 1976.

(2) During the period mid-December, 1976, to mid-

December, 1977, the separate research project

strategy created a control group. The purpose

was to obtain data from similar cases in court

and at committee meetings. This was done by not

sending a committee invitation to one person

in every three who would normally be invited

to meet with the Committee. To obtain

approximate figures from what would have been

the result without the research, increase all

committee table entries under "Year 3" by one-

half. For example, without the research

- 60 -

project the total number of persons who met

with the Committee (Table 1) would have been

one-and-one-half times 58, or 87, assuming

that the distribution of those choosing court

would have been the same in the control group

as in those invited to meet with the Committee.

A total of 224 people met with the Committee over the three years

(Table 1). Of those, 70% were 14 years or older. Correcting

for the control group in "Year 3", the number of persons seen

per year is nearly constant at 84.

Of the 369 charges with which the Committee was involved, 83%

were property offences (Table 2). The total number of offences

appears to be decreasing, even correcting for the control group

in "Year 3". Table 3 indicates thé reason: the percentage

of young persons with more than one charge has been steadily

decreasing.

Ninety per cent (90%) of those persons who met with the Committee

subsequently had their charges withdrawn (Table 4). In 52% of

the cases, a decision to recommend withdrawal was made at the

initial committee meeting, and that recommendation was adopted

by the informant. The cases where the Committee did not

recommend withdrawal included instances where there were additional

charges either prior to the meeting or during an adjournment

period, when the Committee did not believe the young person was

sincere in agreeing to some plan as an alternative to court,

when a young person and a victim were unable to agree about the

- 61 -

amount of loss, and when the Committee felt a more severe

sanction was required.

I1tti1t1II1itI

In at least three of the cases where a person chose to go to

court instead of proceeding further with 'the committee process,

the decision was a result of discussing the offence with the

Duty Counsel lawyer and deciding to plead "not guilty" in

court. In five cases the informant rejected a committee

recommendation for withdrawal, based on a plan worked out at

the committee meeting. In two cases the reason was that school

attendance had not improved. In the other cases, the rejections

appear to have beeri based on previous behaviour, (in one

case) an offence subsequent to the committee meeting, and a

wish for more severe sanctions (e.g., probation).

Committee meetings acre usually every second week, and so most

adjournment periods were for 14, 28 or 42 days. In all cases

but three, the reasoii for the adjournment was to allow time

for a restitution agreement to be negotiated and some of the

restitution to be performed. In one case the reason was to

obtain more information. In two cases the reason was to see

whether a plan was being followed - a practice which is perilously

close to probation.

In more than one-third of the cases, the plan worked out at the

committee meeting was no plan at all, only a warning (79 cases -

see Table 6). In four of every five cases in which there was

a specific plan, restitution was an element.

The "unique" plans referred to included viewing a traffic safety

I

- 62 -

film, discussing the offence with the police officer involved,

and writing an essay titled "Why I Won't Steal Again". The

plans under "other" would be more appropriate as suggestions

during the second stage of the meeting, after the charge has

been dealt with. Mostly, they are the continuing involvement

in therapy on-going at the time of the committee meeting.

Table 7 indicates the use of suggestions, not related to a

recommendation for withdrawal. There were none in the third

year. This is at least partly due to stricter adherence to

the Juvenile Court Committee Guidelines, and a desire on the

part of many families to leave the meeting as soon as possible.

Over the three years, the victim attended the meeting in 18%

of the charges for which there was a victim. In the first two

years less than 10% attended, and in the third year 34% attended.

In the third year, 4% of the young people were able to meet

at least one of the victims at the committee meeting.

The Restitution Project

A total of 144 people were referred to the Restitution Project

over the period 1 August 1975 - 30 April 1978, and the number

has been steadily increasing; 83% were 13 years or older (Table

9). The Committee was the source of 55% of the referrals; the

Court, 30%; the police, 15%. The influence of the control group

(strategy of the research project) can be seen in the decrease

in committee referrals and increase in court referrals.

The most common charge referred for restitution was Break &

Enter, constituting one-half of all charges (Table 10), An

- 63 -

additional 20% were Mischief charges. The "Theft under $200.00"

charges include only one charge of shiplifting. In most

instances the shoplifted goods are recovered and restitution

is not appropriate because there is no loss. The Assault cases

involved a young person and a victim who were friends, and

resulted in an agreement to avoid future assaults.

In 92 cases (64% of those referred) the referral was for a single

charge (Table 11). Sixteen per cent (16%) of the referrals were

for more than three charges.

Of the 326 charges which were referred to the Restitution Project,

57% involved a victim who was an individual person. In the

first year, public victims (schools, the City of Kingston, etc.)

made up 27% of all charges; in the third year, less than 2%.

From Table 13 it can be seen that the portion of persons referred

who had some contact with the victim has increased steadily.

Over the three years, 65% had some contact with a victim. In

the third year a majority of young people met with one of their

victims to negotiate a restitution agreement.

Cash is the form of restitution preferred by both the young

people who are referred to the project and victims. Cash payment

alone was the restitution in 47% of the cases. Where there

was more than one victim, or where the young person had very

limited financial resources, other alternatives were used. In

41 (29 plus 12) cases, or 28% of those referred, no victims

received restitution directly. In 12 of those cases, there was no

restitution. In some cases, this was because there was no loss,

or because the victim did not wish to participate.

- 64 -

Table 15 illustrates the dollar and hour amounts of restitution

agreed and performed. In 18 cases, 14% of those in which

restitution was agreed to, the restitution is neither complete

nor expected. Of those 18 cases, only fiye were cases in which

none of the agreed restitution was performed: in eight of the

18 cases, at lease one-half of the restitution was performed.

In two early restitution cases, two young persons agreed to pay

a total of $485.00 as restitution for damage they caused

together. Then after the charges were withdrawn, they refused

to make any restitution. This case involved a lot of animosity

between the families of the two young persons. As a way to

reduce the risk of a total non-performance of the agreement in

the future, the Committee has, since that time, waited until some

of the restitution has been performed (as a gesture of good

faith) before recommending that the charge be withdrawn.

One hundred of the hours not expected to be performed were part

of 124 hours agreed to by one young person. It was agreed by

other agencies involved (Probation and Aftercare and the Children's

Aid Society) and the Restitution Project that in this case it was

useful to cancel the last 100 hours, to reinforce the young

person's behaviour over the previous months.

It is clear from Table 15 that almost all young persons perform

the restitution to which they agreed. There is no need for a

sanction (such as the adjournment of the charge until restitution

is fully completed in Juvenile Court Committee cases) to ensure

compliance with the agreement.

- 65 -

IttI1tIItII1tI

C. Alternative Funding

The Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services has agreed

to provide funding to fill the gap left by the termination of the

three-year Demonstration Project grant frpm the Solicitor General

of Canada. This means an increase in Community & Social Services'

cash contribution to pay for the full salary.

D. Impact on the Justice System

The Frontenac Division Programme had radically changed the system

of juvenile justice in Frontenac County. A majority of those

persons under 16 years of age who are charged with an offence do

not go to court. They meet with two or three people (who volunteer

their time) and talk about what they did that resulted in the

charge. Then everyone talks about what should happen now, and what

is reasonable for the young person.to do to make up for what

she or he did wrong. If everyone can agree, they ask the police

to consider their plan as an alternative to court. If the police

agree, the charge is withdrawn and that is the end.

This happens with the cooperation and support of the Family Court,

the Crown Attorney and the police. It also receives the support

of the majority of the citizens of the community, as far as can

be ascertained. What this means is that there is a growing

realization that this jurisdiction can deal with at least a

majority of the charges against young people under 16, on its own

... without calling on.Family Court. The clear conclusion is that

the intervention of the Family Court is not necessary in a

majority of the charges that would normally be processed through

the Court; that a less formal and more gentle path is not a less

effective path.

I

- 66 -

The most common criticism of this programme's approach is that

it fails to indicate society's displeasure at illegal behaviour,

and so encourages recidivism by giving the message: "what you did

was O.K." (The second more common criticism is that the programme's

focus solely on the offense behaviour fails to "treat the cause"

of that behaviour. See "Recommendations for Others" which follows.)

The programme's operation has caused some who would prefer a more

strict, law and order approach, to reconsider. This seems

particularly true of parents who have found the committee meeting

more casual and less threatening than they had expected, for upon

reflection they are aware of the emotional upheaval which has

already occurred for their child, prior to the committee meeting.

(For example, being caught, arrested, confronting the parents,

waiting for the committee "meeting.).

And the effect is not limited to those within this jurisdiction.

For a.year and a half, researchers have been probing and listening

to get a picture of what is happening. The programme is similar

to the model of diversion proposed by planners in the Solicitor

General's Department; as a consequence, whether it is a marvelous

success or a miserable flop, the result will have an efect 'upon

the direction of criminal justice in this country.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. For Continuation

It is recommended that this programme be continued. In fact, it

would probably continue even if funding were not continued at the

present level. There is a high level of commitment from the

volunteers involved, and strong support from people who are

- 67 -

familiar with the programme, particularly persons in the juvenile

justice system.

B. To Others

The following is a brief discussion of soMe considerations which

seem essential in the planning or re-evaluation of any diversion

programme.

Two important questions in diversion are directly related to the

philosophy and objectives of its supporters. These questions

arise often in discussions with staff from other programmes,

students and community groups. They are:

1. Why? What are the disadvantages of the present

system? What are the expected benefits of

Diversion?

2. Divert to what? What is the alternative to the

traditional justice system?

Some of the reasons advanced in support of diversion are: to

reduce the number of cases before the courts; to reduce the cost

of responding to illegal behaviour; to be more effective than

the traditional system in preventing subsequent offences by the

offender; to restrict society's most powerful sanctioning

mechanism to those behaviours which are most serious. Another

reason comes from the knowledge that most members of society

commit a serious, illegal act at some time (for example, driving

while impaired, theft or committing a fraud). For this reason it

is unjust to respond (at least in the first instance) to those

who get caught as though they were abnormal and particularly

- 68 -

deserving of punishment.* In addition, it is argued that the

intervention of the traditional justice system can have the

effect of stigmatizing an individual, making it difficult for

that person to live a normal life and creating pressure to commit

other crimes.

A diverSion programme can also allow a community to accept

responsibility for, and then resolve, a significant portion of the

socially undersirable behaviour within that community. This is

one step in decreasing a community's reliance on some higher level

of government for the solution of its problems.

The second question is related to the reasons for diverting. Both

the process of diversion (how the decisions are made) and

the result (what happens to the person) are the practical application

of the . reasons for diverting.In tèrms of process and result, two

important parameters in any diversion programme. are treatment and

control. It is important that the initial planning address these

two areas. Otherwise, decisions made as the prbject'is implementèd

can yield results directly opposite to those originally intended.

The level of treatment can vary from no treatment at all, to some

treatment for every case which is diverted. An example of the

former would be a project which focùsses solely on the person's

specific criminal béhaviour and does not attempt to respond to

other behaviours. An example of the latter would be a project

which sees each specific criminal behaviour as symptomatic of .

other problems in the person's life, and attempts to identify

and resolve those other problems through a period of counselling.

Similarly, the amount of control can vary from no follow-up after

* The punishment should respond to the deed, rather than the doer.

- 69 -

tItIttttIIIII

the diversion decision is made to extensive follow-up, with

sanctions for unacceptable behaviour. The latter is essentially

a system of probation, without the court appearance, a prospect

which raises concerns about civil liberties and the proper role

of the Court.

Some of the other concerns about diversion are related to who

will have the power to decide whether to divert an offender, how

this discretion can be structured, and whether this will become

just another bureaucracy without some of the controls of the

present justice system.

For a.programme to have a solid foundation,. these concerns must

be explicitly addressed, and the programme's position stated

in writing. The Juvenile Court Committee Guidelines and the

Restitution Project Guidelines have provided an invaluable sense

of purpose and clarity of direction to this programme.

I

- 70 -

- 71 -

APPENDIX A

THE FRONTENAC DIVERSION PROGRAM

Juvenile Court Committee Guidelines

R.F. Barnhorst S.S. Barnhorst G.M. Thomson

May, 1976. Kingston, Ontario.

- 72 -

CONTENTS

Introduction 73

I. Philosophy of the Committee 74

II. Objectives of the Committee 76

III. Composition of the Committee 77

IV. Jurisdiction of the.Committee 78

V. The Committee Hearing 80

VI. Relevant Information in Stage I 82

VII. Irrelevant Information in Stage I 91

VIII. Relevant Information in Stage II 93

IX. Irrelevant Information in Stage II 96

X. Plans and Suggestions 96

XI. Recommendations to the Police 105

XII. Miscellaneous 107

XIII. Committee Procedure 110

Appendices:

A. The Role of the Lawyer 117

B. Committee Correspondence 120

C. Some Criminal Code Offences

and Punishments 128

D. Summary of Relevant Information 129 in Stage I

I- 73 -

INTRODUCTION

IIIII

t1tIItII

The Frontenac Diversion Programme has two.main components:

(a) the Juvenile Court Committee which is a diversion mechanism

by which many juvenile offenders are handled outside Juvenile

Court; and (b) the Restitution Project, which involves the

informal negotiation of restitution agreements between juvenile

offenders and their victims.

A purpose of these Guidelines is to explain the philosophy,

the composition, and the operation of the Juvenile Court

Committee. Another purpose is to translate the general concepts

of diversion and non-intervention into concrete terms. A third

purpose is to set clear limits on the discretion of the Committee,

especially in regard to the information which can be considered

and the dispostions which can be made.

Finally, it should be acknowledged that these Guidelines reflect

the results of many hours of fruitful discussion with the Committee

members: Rick Brooks, Judi Connor, Bob Gardner, Joe Kane and

Harley Shaw. Many of their suggestions and recommendations have

been incorporated into the following pages.

READERS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE COMMITTEE MAY WISH TO

REFER TO PAGE 110 FOR A GENERAL EXPLANATION OF THE

COMMITTEE'S OPERATION. THIS WILL PROVIDE AN

OVERVIEW WHICH SHOULD BE HELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING

THE GUIDELINES.

1

- 74 -

I. PHILOSOPHY OF THE COMMITTEE

The philosophy of the Committee may be summarized by a brief

explanation of two fundamental concepts:

(1) diversion

(2) non-intervention

In general, diversion refers to a process whereby certain types

of delinquent behaviour are handled by some means other than

the juvenile justice system. The concept is based on the idea

(a) that too many children are unnecessarily referred to juvenile

court, and (b) that in many cases, particularly for the first

offender, the harm done by contact with the juvenile justice.

system may outweigh . any benefits thereby gained. Therefore,

an attempt is made to deal with many cases outside of the court

process through the use of some informal and consensual means.

The complementary concept of non-intervention refers to an

approach which Schur describes as follows:

"... delinquents are seen not as having special

personal characteristics, nor even as being sub-

ject to socio-economic constraints, but rather

as suffering from contingencies. Youthful

'misconduct', it is argued, is extrememly common;

delinquents are those youths who, for a variety

of reasons, drift into disapproved forms of

behaviour and are caught and 'processed'. A great

deal of the labeling of delinquents is socially

unnecessary and counter-productive. Policies should

- 75 -

be adopted, therefore, that accept a greater

diversity in youth behaviour, special delinquency

laws should be exceedingly narrow in scope or

else abolished (completely), along with preventive

efforts that single out specific individuals

and programs that employ 'compulsory treatment'.

For those serious offences that cannot simply be

defined away through a greater tolerance of

diversity, this reaction pattern may paradoxically

increase 'criminalization' -- uniformly applied

punishment not disguised as treatment; ..."

(Schur: 1973; p 23).

There are several principles which flow from, or are at least

consistent with this approach to delinquent behaviour:

1. Certain less serious offences should be left

alone, i.e., not responded to.

2. The assistance available from social service

agencies and other "treatment" resources is

more likely to succeed when it is voluntarily

accepted by the recipient.

3. More serious offences which should not be left

alone should be punished in a manner which

provides logical consequences for the behaviour

(and which is not based on revenge).

4. In those cases in which punishment is appropriate,

the punishment (a) must be in proportion to the

offence, (b) must not involve an attempt to

- 76 -

rehabilitate the person and (c) must be consistent,

i.e., similar offences must be Punished in a

basically similar manner.

5. The main objectives of the punishment should

be individual deterrence and paying back for

harm done.

6. The punishment should be very clear and definite

so that there is no doubt as to what is expected.

7. Whenever possible, the punishment should require

the active involvement of the offender.

When the two concepts of diversion and non-intervention are

combined, it leads to an approach to delinquent behaviour which

attempts (a) to keep all but the most serious offences out of

juvenile court, (b) to take no further action on most minor

offences and (c) to take limited action on other offences, but

action which is non-treatment oriented and which is based on

certainl traditional principles regrading punishment.

II. OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMITTEE

The major objectives of the Committee are:

1. To reduce the number of juveniles appearing

in juvenile court.

2. To reduce the number of juveniles having a

juvenile delinquency "record".

3. To provide an informal, non-threatening and

non-stigmatizing means of dealing with juvenile

offenders.

- 77 -

4. To generate in juvenile offenders a sense of

having been dealt with fairly (i.e., a sense of

justice).

5. To assist juvenile offenders and their families

in obtaining the assistance of social service

agencies and other "treatment" resources, if

they want such assistance.

6. To be more effective than the juvenile court

in limiting recidivism among juvenile offenders.

III. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE

1. There are usually three regular Committee members

present at each hearing:

(1) J. Connor, a social worker from .the

Child and Family Clinic, Kingston

General Hospital.

(2) R.M. Brooks, a probation officer from the

Probation and Aftercare Service (Juvenile),

Ministry of Correctional Services.

(3) Either W.H. Shaw, a school attendance

counsellor from the Frontenac County

Board of Education or J. Kane, a school

attendance counsellor from the Separate

School Board of Education.

2. There is one alternative member who attends the

Committee hearing when a regular member is unable

to attend: R.Gardner, a social worker from

the Children's Aid Society.

- 78 -

3. Only one of the school board representatives

will be present for each case and it will be the

one who represents the school system in which the

offender is a student.

4. In truancy cases, the school board representative

attends as an informant or representative of an

informant and not as a member of the Committee.

5. At least two Committee members must be present to

make a decision on a case.

6. New members may be added to the Committee (e.g., a

teenager.; a non-professional adult) but the total

number of members will not exceed four.

7. The position of Committee chairperson will rotate

every six months.

IV. JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE

1. The Committee has jurisdiction only if all of the

following criteria are met:

(1) The offence must not be rape, attempted

rape, attempted murder or any offence

involving the death of a person.

(2) The juvenile has not previously been

adjudicated delinquent.

Note: If a juvenile has previously

been adjudicated delinquent, then it

will be left to the police to decide

whether he should be given the option

of appearing before the Committee.

- 79 -

1

I1

III

i

I1

IIIII

This will allow for some flexibility

in dealing with unusual situations,

e.g., a juvenile commits a minor

offence three years after being

adjudicated delinquent.

(3) The juvenile intends to plead guilty

in juvenile court or is admitting at

least partial responsibility for the

offence.

(4) The juvenile consents to meet with the

Committee.

2. The Court Administrator applies the first two

criteria and no discretion is involved on his

part. The third and fourth criteria can only

be met after the juvenile has obtained legal

advice (see: XIII Procedure, p.27).

3. If any one of the criteria is not met, then the

juvenile will proceed through the court as he

would have prior to the existence of the Committee.

4. A juvenile who has been placed in the Juvenile

Court Observation and Detention Home and who

otherwise meets the jurisdiction criteria will be

eligible to appear before the Committee if he has

been placed in the Home under the Child Welfare

Act. If the juvenile has been placed in the Home

under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, he will not

usually be given the option of appearing before

the Committee. There are two reasons for this

- 80 -

policy: (1) there is a presumption that more

serious intervention is necessary once a juvenile

has been placed in the Home under the Juvenile

Delinquents Act; and (2) the juvenile has already

appeared in court on the detention matter and a

further court appearance will probably be necessary

to review his detention. Thus, appearance before

the court on the detention matter and before the

Committee on the delinquency charge could generate

unnecessary confusion for the juvenile; however,

in some cases in which it is considered appropriate

by the Home Director, after consultation with the

juvenile and his lawyer, the juvenile may be given

the option of appearing before the Committee.

V. THE COMMITTEE HEARING

1. The Committee hearing is a two-stage process in which

the first stage involves a consideration of the

offence, certain factors directly related to the

offence and possible responses by the Committee.

After the Committee has made a decision on its

recommendation to the police regarding whether the

charge should be withdrawn, the second stage may

be entered. The second stage involves a consider-

ation of matters on which the offender or his

parents, or both, may want assistance, but which

are not directly related to the offence (see Parts

VI-XI for a detailed discussion).

- 81 -

2. The Committee is not concerned with determining

guilt or innocence. However, it is relevant for

the Committee to consider whether the offender is

actually admitting at least partial responsibility

for the offence.

3. Persons Heard. The Committee will encourage the

following persons to express their views:

(1) Stage I: offender; parents/guardian/friend;

offender's lawyer; victim; police; other

interested persons who have appeared before

the Committee.

(2) Stage II: offender; parents/guardian/friend;

offender's lawyer.

Note:

(a) The offender may ask that the parents

or the lawyer, or both, not be present

during Stage II.

(b) When Committee deliberations occur,

only the offender's lawyer will be

allowed to remain in the Committee room,

but the Committee has the discretion

to decide that others may remain.

(c) Parents are not allowed to speak to the

Committee alone because of the rule that

the offender must be present during the

reception of any information. But the

parents will be encouraged to contact

Committee members outside of the hearing

- 82 -

setting regarding other problems which

they might want to discuss in the

absence of the offender, e.g., a parent's

drug addiction.

VI. RELEVANT INFORMATION IN STAGE I

After it has been determined that the offender is properly before

the Committee, only the following factors may be considered in

formulating a plan in Stage I.

1. Legal Nature of the Offence:

Legal category, e.g., theft under $200.00.

b) Legal seriousness, e.g., two years

imprisonment for adult offender. (See

Appendix C for a list of common Criminal

Code offences and punishments.)

Rationale for obtaining this information:

The legal nature of the offence reflects the

community's view of the importance of the

conduct. This, in turn, helps determine the

degree of response or intervention.

2. Factual Nature of the Offence:

Rationale: The factual nature of the offence

allows a recognition of the breadth of legal

categories and a realistic assessment of the

seriousness of the conduct. Also, a review

of the factual nature of the offence may indicate

the degree of involvement and intent which will

vary among individuals and should be taken into

account.

- 83 -

II

IIIIIII1II

Note: It is recognized that a detailed

examination of the circumstances of the

offence may, and probably will, reveal

something about the character of the

offender but it must be kept in mind that

the purpose of learning about the circum-

stances and such character information is to

determine intention, responsibility and like-

lihood of repetition and not to discover the

offender's general character, i.e., no attempt

should be made to develop typologies of

offenders nor to fit a particular offender into

any such typology.

(1) Time of day/night: .

Rationale: This information helps in the

formulation of a plan which may be an attempt

to reduce opportunity for delinquent behaviour.

(2) Where the offence took place:

Rationale: This information may indicate factors

which help determine the degree of responsibility

of the offender and the victim, e.g., impulse

buying in a self-serve store. It also may

disclose the amount of supervision provided by

the parents (or guardian) at the time of the

offence.

(3) Others involved:

a) number of others involved

b) their ages

I

- 84 -

c) their criminal record

d) their relationship to the offender

e) their prior criminal activity with

the offender

f) their contact with the offender

since the offence

Note: The form and reliability of this infor-

mation may vary and it is up to the Committee to

decide how much weight to give to it, and if such

information is part of the basis for the decision,

then it must be disclosed to the offender.

Rationale: This information helps in determining

(1) the responsibility of the offender as part

of, and independent of, a group, (2) the like-

lihood of repetition, (3) the appropriateness and

nature of a plan, e.g., what has been done with

the accomplices in juvenile court or criminal court,

and (4) whether the offender was a leader or a

follower.

(4) Surrounding circumstances:

a) how the opportunity to commit the

offence arose

b) the degree of difficulty in

committing the offence

c) the amount of planning involved

d) was there inducement or pressure to

commit the offence

e) was intoxication involved

- 85 -

Rationale: The circumstances put the offence

in context and help in determining the likelihood

of repetition, the degree of responsibility and

intention. For example, if the, offence was

planned and difficult to commit, then it may be

assumed that the offender is more responsible

for his behaviour than someone who commits an

offence which was unplanned and easy to commit.

(5) Extent of loss, damage or injury:

Rationale: It is a high priority of the program

to take account of the victim and his interests.

Also, this information helps in the formulation

of a plan (e.g., the appropriateness of restitution)

and it may (or may not) indicate the seriousness

of the offence.

3. Offender:

(1) Age:

Rationale: The assumption should be that the

younger the offender is, the less responsible

he is for the act and its consequences. Also,

the age may be relevant in determining the

offender's credibility regarding being a

follower or a leader in the commission of the

offence.

Note: An offender who is about to reach 16

years of age should not receive more or less

extensive intervention simply because it is

- 86 -

probably a last opportunity to help before he

becomes subject to the adult criminal law.

(2) History:

(a) previous court appearances which

resulted in guilty pleas, adjourn-

ments sine die, and findings of

delinquency;

(b) previous involvement with the Juvenile

Court Committee or the Restitution

Project;

(c) other previous occurrences involving

criminal law violations verified by the

offender during the Committee hearing,

i.e., if such other occurrences are

denied by the offender, then the Committee

must disregard them.

Rationale: This information may (1) indicate

whether a pattern is developing which would justify

a more serious plan, (2) reveal that plans already

tried may no longer be useful, and (3) eliminate

or support possible explanations for the present

offence.

(3) Attitudes:

(a) appreciation of seriousness and wrongness

at the time of the offence and now;

(h) behaviour at the time of apprehension

(or at the time he turned himself in);

- 87 -

(c) realization of harm caused and harm

that might have been caused;

(d) feelings towards sanctions imposed

thus far, e.g., parental sanctions,

laying of charge, police contact;

(e) willingness to make amends.

Rationale: It should be assumed that if the

offender appreciates the seriousness of the act

and the harm caused, then he is less likely to

repeat the behaviour. The offender's feelings

towards already imposed sanctions is important

because he may feel that he has been punished

sufficiently. Also, his willingness to make

amends is relevant because the offender's

co-operation is necessary if the plan is to be

feasible.

Note:

(1) It should not be assumed that an

offender who does not demonstrate

respect for authority deserves a

more severe response. He may not

appear to be showing respect for a

variety of reasons, e.g., lack of

social skills or fear and nervousness.

(2) If an offender is willing to carry out

a plan but he clearly dislikes it, then

a review date should be set to see if

the offender demonstrates his

1

I- 88 -

willingness by actually carrying.

out the plan.

(3) The Committee should not over-

estimate the offender's ability to

comprehend abstract notions (e.g.,

"wrongness") but rather such notions

should be discussed in a more concrete

way (e.g., actual harm to a person or

property).

(4) The Committee should not respond to the

.offender's general value system or

personal moral qualities and upbringing.

For example, it is irrelevant that an

offender's parents havé not encouraged

him to respect the law.

(4) Offender's explanation for committing the

offence.

Rationale: This information may help in the

evaluation of the offender's responsibility and

his recognition of responsibility (e.g., does he

recognize that some free will was involved?).

It also helps to assure that the offender's side

of the story comes out before the Committee and

thus, factors may be brought out which otherwise

would not have been revealed.

Note: If an offender indicates that he does not

know why he committed the offence, then it should

not be assumed that.a more serious response is

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

- 89 -

reauired. It may be that he is nervous or that

he simply does not know.

4. Parents (or Guardian):

(1) What parents have done or • ot done as a

result of the incident.

(2) Supervision provided at the time of the

offence, e.g., curfew, friends.

Rationale: The response and attitude of the parents

regarding the present offence may indicate a more

or less serious response by the Committee. Also,

if there appears to be inadequate supervision, the

Committee may need to provide rules in this area.

Note: Generally speaking, the relationship

between the offender and his parents is not relevant.

This includes the parent's attitude toward law-

violating behaviour in general. Also, if the

parent's attitude toward crime is revealed, it

must not be assumed that the offender shares this

attitude.

5. Victims:

(1) Is there a victim?

(2) Loss, if any: financial, time, inconvenience.

(3) Is there a pre-existing relationship between

the offender and the victim?

(4) Victim's involvement in the offence, e.g.,

shared responsibility.

(5) Victim's willingness to meet with the

Committee.

- 90 -

(6) Victim's willingness to be involved in a

plan.

Rationale: (1) Victimless crimes may be less

serious and require different p.lans. (2) Generally,

a plan should involve some compensation for harm

done. (3) A pre-existing relationship may be

relevant in determining the reason for the offence

and the degree of mutual responsibility. (4) The

victim's willingness to be involved may affect

which plans are feasible.

Note: While the victim's presence is important,

the focus must be on the offence and the offender's

relationship to the offence. Also, it should not

be assumed that the seriousness of a plan should

be determined by the amount of the loss or the

victim's attitude toward the offence, or both.

Note: The police are encouraged to provide this

information on victims whenever possible.

6. Plans Suggested:

(a) by the offender

(b) bY his lawyer

(c) by his parents (or guardian)

(d) by the victim

(e) by other interested persons

Rationale: This information adds input to the

decision-making process, particularly by persons

who may know the offender well.

- 91 -

7. Feasibility of Plan:

(a) ability and willingness of the offender

to carry out the plan

(h) practical considerations which may

affect the carrying out of the plan, e.g.,

co-operation of other persons

VII. IRRELEVANT INFORMATION IN STAGE I

1. In general:

The relevant information listed in Part VI relates

to Stage I of the Juvenile Court Committee

proceeding. All other information is irrelevant

in Stage I; however, some of this information may

be considered in Stage II (see Part VIII, p.14).

The common element of the factors listed below is

that they are not directly related to the offence

and, therefore, in accordance with a non-interven-

tionist approach, should be considered irrelevant.

This assertion assumes that we know very little

about the causes àf delincruent behaviour and,

therefore, we should not use this information in

an attempt to explain what caused the offence to

be committed.

2. Specific irrelevant information:

(1) Information related to: the general character

of the offender; the offender as a whole person;

the offender's emotional make-up.

(2) The behaviour at times other than at that of

- 92 -

offence (e.g., school performance).

(3) Information related to family relationships

in general, or the parent/child relationship.

(4) The offender's general value structure and

general attitudes towards law and authority.

(5) Parental controls unrelated to the offence.

(6) Involvement of other (if any) community

agencies.

(7) Anticipated attitudes of child and parents

toward the type of assistance which might

be offered in Stage II of the hearing.

(8) Frequency of offence in community.

Note: This may be relevant if the frequency

seems to have affected the attitude of the

offender. However, the Committee should also

consider the community's attitude and the

adult court's attitude toward the offence, e.g.,

shop-lifting is generally treated lightly.

Note: The Committee's response to the offence

may prove to be a general deterrent but this is

not its main purpose.

(9) Offender's inability to express himself:

Rationale: The offender should not be penalized

for lack of social skills, e.g., inability to

communicate, poor vocabulary. Also, appearing

before the Committee can be intimidating and

may affect the offender's ability to express

himself.

III1ItIIIIIIIII1III

- 93 -

VIII. RELEVANT INFORMATION IN STAGE II

1. General Purpose:

(1) To provide the offender and family the

opportunity to express concerns regarding

other problems which might be resolved

through contact with a.communitv resource.

(2) To determine if the offender and child

desire the assistance of a community

resource.

(3) To inform the offender and family about

community resources which may be of

benefit to them.

(4) To assist the offender and family in

obtaining the desired services of the

resource.

2. Notice of Entering Stage II:

Before entering this phase of the hearing, the

Committee must:

(1) Decide on a plan and a recommendation related

to the offence.*

(2) Communicate the plan and recommendation to

the offender and parents, and, if necessary,

what recommendation will result from accept-

ance or performance of the plan, or both.

(3) Obtain the offender's consent to the plan.

(4) Inform the offender and parents that they

are free to leave.

* See Parts X and XI for a discussion of plans and

recommendations.

- 94 -

Rationale: Assistance on matters not directly

related to the offence should be voluntarily

accepted. To ensure that the offender and his

parents feel that they are free - to reject such

assistance, it is important that they understand

that the decision on the charge has been made and,

therefore, is not dependent upon acceptance of

assistance on matters not directly related to

the offence.

3. Adjournments for Review:

When the Committee decides to adjourn a case for

review at a later date, Stage II may only take

place on the review date. However, if the offender

or his parents, or both, insist that a discussion

of Stage II assistance cannot wait until a review

date, then Stage II may be entered at that time.

Rationale: The decision on the charge will not

be made until the review date and, therefore,

Stage II should not begin until then.

Note: It is recognized that this requirement may

create the problem of inconveniencing persons who

otherwise would not be asked to re-appear before

the Committee. The Committee must weigh the cost

of inconvenience against the value of entering

Stage II.

4. Transition Statement:

In making the transition from Stage I to Stage II,

- 95 -

the following statement or one similar to it

might be helpful:

"Because of the agreement we have reached

with you on a plan, we have decided to

recommend to the police that the charge be

withdrawn (explain process). If they agree

with our recommendation (which they usually

do), then they will ask the judge that the

charge be withdrawn. This means that you

will not have to go to court and there will

be no delinquent record. Do you understand?

Do you have any questions? You are free to

leave, but before you do, we would like to

know if there is anything we can do to help

you in the future to avoid trouble with the

law or any other trouble you may be having at

home, in school, etc."

Note: A fact may have come out in Stage I which

provides a clue for action in Stage II and this

could be brought up for discussion in Stage II,

e.g., tension between offender and parent during

the hearing; problems in the home or at school;

offender's explanation for committing offence

may indicate general feeling of boredom or

loneliness.

Note: A brief information sheet which describes

community resources will be available in the

waiting room. This sheet will also include the

I- 96 -

telephone numbers of Committee members for

interested persons who would like further

information about the resources.

IX. IRRELEVANT INFORMATION IN STAGE II -

Generally, information is irrelevant in Stage II if it

does not clearly assist in achieving the previously

mentioned purposes of Stage II.

There are also some general principles which any decision-

making body should follow, including:

(1) Any questions which create an apprehension

of bias or stereotyping should be excluded.

(2) No information is relevant unless it has

been disclosed and confirmed during the

hearing.

(3) What may appear to be voluntary may, in fact,

be somewhat compulsory when viewed from another

perspective. For example, one must be care-

ful of embarrassing questions which might be

answered only because of a feeling of

obligation.

Note: These principles also apply to Stage I but

are more likelv to become issues in Stage II when

the scope of the inquiry is broad.

X. PLANS AND SUGGESTIONS

1. Definitions:

(1) Plan: a course of action for the offender

which is formulated by the Committee in

I11I1ttIiI1III1I1I

- 97 -

Stage I. The Committee decides whether the

plan will be reviewed at a later date and this

must be communicated to the offender.

(2) Suggestion: any course of action formulated

in Stage II.

(3) Recommendation: the decision of the Committee

on the charge. This decision is communicated

to the police and is usually based upon the

plan. The available recommendations are:

withdrawal of the charge, adjournment for

review, and referral to court.

2. Available Plans:

(1) no further action

(2) warning

(3) restitution (with or without referral to the

Restitution Project)

(4) no association with accomplices

(5) curfew

(6) apology

(7) other plans directly related to the offence,

e.g., meeting with police officer involved

in the incident; meeting with school personnel

regarding an alternative school program.

Note: The purpose of this plan is to allow for

flexibility and imagination.

(8) regular school attendance (in truancy cases

and class in which the offence occurred

during school hours.

- 98 -

(9) Volunteer Probation (for supervision purposes).

Note: Volunteer Probation is an alternative

to regular probation. The program involves

matching a juvenile with a trained adult volunteer

from the community. Normally, the objective of

the program is the development of a friendly,

personal relationship between tli:e juvenile and the

volunteer. However, for the purpose of a plan,

the volunteer's function is to provide supervision.

It is clearly'permissible for a relationship to

develop between the juvenile and the volunteer,

but this is outside the scope of the plan.

3, Available Suggestions:

(1) restitituon

(2) no association with accomplices

(3) curfew

(4) apology

(5) Volunteer Probation:

Note: The purpose of Volunteer Probation as a

suggestion is to provide the juvenile with an

opportunity to develop a personal, friendly

relationship with an interested adult volunteer.

(6) Child and Family Clinic

(7) Children's Aid Society

(8) camp

(9) Big Brothers

- 99 -

(10) Big Sisters

(11) psychiatrist or psychologist

(12) club and youth organization

(13) Frontenac Family Referral Service

(14) any other community resource

Note: It might be thought that some of the suggestions

listed in part 3 should also be included as plans in

part 2 because in a very limited number of cases,

they may be directly related to the offence (e.g.,

individual counselling might help an offender to reject

the influence of a peer group with whom offences have

been committed). However, adherence to the concept

of non-intervention, fear that such forms of treatment

might be over-used, and the over-riding belief that

such assistance is most effective if voluntarily

accepted means that such proposals should be limited

to Stage II.

4. Categories of Plans and Offences:

Although the Committee is not rigidly restricted

to a specific pre-determined plan in each case, the

Committee must work with the assumption that certain

plans should be used with certain offences and these

plans and offences can be categorized in terms of

severity. The Committee maY only depart from this

assumption for very compelling and articulated

reasons which flow from an examination of the

relevant factors listed earlier. In each of these

cases, the Committee must explain why it is deviating

from the categories.

- 100 -

PLANS OFFENCES

Class A

1. no further action

2. warning

3. apology

Class A

- assaults which cause little

or no personal injury or

financial loss;

- status offences, e.g., truancy,

drinking under age, driving

under age;

- victimless offences other

than hard-drug (non-cannabis)

usage, e.g., possession of

marijuana;

- minor* property offences with

little or no loss, e.g, shop-

lifting, trespassing;

- minor property offences which

have produced appreciable

loss but still ought to be

treated as requiring a Class

A plan.

Class B Class B

1. no association with - any offence which has one

accomplices or more of the following

2. curfew special features:

* Whether an offence is minor or serious is determined by a

consideration of the relevant information in Stage I. It

is not determined simply by the amount of damage caused.

Class C

1. restitution

- with or without

referral to the

Class C

- generally any personal

injury or property offence

which involves the loss of

- 101 -

1. group activity with the

risk of further negative

involvement with the

. group;

2. later night commission;

3. commission during school

hours;

4. unique element of offence

or manner of commission

which should be taken into

account in formulating the

plan, e.g, pre-existing

relationship with the

victim; lack of knowledge

about the seriousness or

the implications of the

offence.

Note: While there may be exceptional circumstances, most driving

offences (other than driving under age), hard drug usage and drug

trafficking fall into Class B4.

Note: The numerals preceding Class B plans are intended to

correspond with the numerals preceding Class B offences. For

example, a curfew could only be used if the offence was committed

late at night.

3. regular school attendance

4. most other plans directly

related to the offence

(see 2.g on p. 17)

- 102 -

Class D

l. supervision by a

Volunteer Probation

Officer

money, time, or inconvenience;

- serious property offences

or offences involving a high

risk of personal injury in

which there was little or no

loss (e.g., unlawful use of

a firearm might require some

restitution to the community).

Class D

- any Class B offence (other

than a Class A offence with

special features) or Class C

offence in which additional

supervision is clearly

indicated (e.g., multiple

offences; repeaters; some

driving offences).

5. Additional Guiding Principles:

(1) A combination of two or more plans could be

used but the factors indicating both or all

of them should be present.

(2) The following are some of the factors which

justify departure from the normally prescribed

plan:

(a) previous appearances before the Committee;

(b) upon review, the proposed plan has proved

to be impossible or breached;

I1IIIIIIIIIIIIII

I

- 103 -

(c) an offender who has already been punished

by parents or others requires a less serious

plan;

(d) things indicating reduced intent, e.g.,

follower, very young child;

(e) converse of 4, i.e., extensive involvement

in offence.

6. Matching of specific offences with plans:

The following plans are starting points which may be

departed from for reasons referred to above.

Note: These . matchings may be changed as time

progresses and reviews of decisions are made.

OFFENCE: NORMALLY PRESCRIBED PLAN:

1. Theft under $200 A or C (depending upon whether

minor or serious)

(if special factors)

D (if a Class C with

inadequate supervision)

2. Theft over $200 same as 1

3. Possess. under $200 same as 1

4. Possess. over $200 same as 1

5. Robbery C (requiring restitution to

victim or community)

B (if special factors)

D (if inadequate supervision)

6. Break and Enter same as 1

Break and Enter Dwelling same as 1

- 104 -

7. Mischief

Endangering Life

Public Property

Private Property

8. Trespass

9. Assault

Common

Bodily Harm

10. Liquor Offences

C (restitution to victim or

community)

B (if special factors)

D (if inadequate supervision)

same as 1

same'as 1

A

B (if special factors)

C (if loss, financial or

otherwise)

A

B (if special factors)

C (restitution to victim or

community)

B (if special factors)

D (if inadequate supervision)

A

B (if special factors)

11. Soft Drug Usage A

(Cannabis or Derivatives)

12. Drug Trafficking

& Hard Drug Usage C (if high risk of personal

injury or loss to victim)

D (if inadequate supervision)

14. Firearm

Unlawful Use

Bodily Harm

C (restitution to victim or

community)

D (if inadequate supervision)

C (restitution to victim or

community)

D (if inadequate supervision)

15. False Fire Alarm same as 1

- 105 -

13. Driving Offences .

Under Age

Others

A

B (if special factors)

C (if loss, financial or

otherwise)

C (if loss, financial or

otherwise)

D (if inadeauate supervision)

XI. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE POLICE

There are three possible recommendations which the Committee

can make to the police who act as the representative of the

Crown Attorney:

1. Withdrawal of the charge: This recommendation is

made either when the offender and the Committee

agree on a plan or when the Committee is satisfied

that a plan has taken effect.

2. Adjournment for review: This recommendation is made

when the Committee feels that some time is needed to

- 106 -

work out the details of a plan or to see if a

plan takes effect. Normally there is a 60-day

limit on an adjournment but it may be extended

.in some restitution cases (See p.25).

3. Referral to court: This recommendation is made

when (a) the eligibility criteria have not been

met, e.g., the offender's story before the Committee

indicates that he feels that he is not guilty; (b)

no agreement on a plan is possible; or (c) applying

factors which are relevant in Stage 1, the Committee

feels that a stronger disposition (stronger=compulsory

and/or beyond the Committee's authority) not available

to it is required. In determining this, the Committee

considers:

(i) the presumption that by a third time

involvement in the diversion program

(which includes the Committee and the

Restitution Project), the offender should

go to court;

(ii) that multiple charges, particularly if

serious, create a presumption of court

referral;

(iii) that offences causing serious bodily injury

create a presumption of court referral;

(iv) that if a Class C or D plan has been tried

and upon review has failed, then referral

to court is presumed but the Committee must

first inquire regarding possible modifications

IIIIIIII1tItI11I

- 107 -

in the plan to see if the plan can be made

feasible; and,

(iv) that normally a general exhaustion of available

plans must have occurred before a fresh charge

may be referred to court.

XII. MISCELLANEOUS

1. Additional Principles of Decision-Making:

Certain safeguards, built into the process of

decision-making, can ensure that the criteria set

out above are being consistently followed. These

would include:

(1) giving reasons for decisions,. particularly

if the usual plan which would result from the

offence is not being,suggested;

(2) ensuring that all information which is considered

in formulating a plan is disclosed and confirmed;

(3) allowing the lawyer or duty counsel to remain

while the case is discussed in the absence of

the offender and parents.

Note: Deliberations leading to Committee decisions

should occur in the presence of the offènder and

his parents whenever possible; this is a matter left

to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee

cannot exclude the offender's lawyer or duty counsel

from such deliberations.

(4) reviewing the guidelines before making a decision;

(5) reviewing the most up-to-date compilation of

decisions made on the same offence in the past;

- 108 -

(6) giving the offender a document which states

what the decision is or asking him to explain

what he thinks the decision is.

2. Exception to 60-day Limit on Adj.ournments:

' (1) Normally, there is a 60-day limit on an

adjournment for review, but it may be extended

up to six months in restitution cases if none

of, or only an insignificant portion.of, the

restitution can be made within 60 days, e.g.,

restitution cannot be made until summer

holidays. If none of, or only an insignificant

portion of, the restitution can be made within

six months, then the Committee should not adjourn

the matter and it should decide to recommend

either that the charge be withdrawn or that the

charge be referred to court.

Rationale: In restitution cases, the Committee

needs some evidence that the offender is

carrying out the restitution agreement before

it decides to recommend that the charge be

withdrawn. On the other hand, there needs to be

come reasonable limit on the length of time that

a charge can be left hanging over the offender's

head. In most cases, a six-month limit should

allow for both of these needs to be met. If,

at the end of the time limit, a victim has not

received the full amount of restitution, and

the offender refuses to voluntarily pay the

- 109 -

remainder, then the victim still may bring

a civil action to recover his loss.

(2) When full restitution cannot be made within

the time limit and the victim is present before

the Committee, the Committee must explain the

rationale behind the time limit. This explanation

should not suggest to the offender that he should

not pay any amount still owing at the end of the

time limit.

(3) After the normal 60-day review period, only one

additional review may be initiated by the

Committee, but any number of reviews may be

initiated by the offender, the victim, or the

Restitution Project staff (if involved in the

case).

3. Removal of Committee Member:

A Committee member should not be involved in a case

if:

(1) he cannot be objective in dealing with the

offender because of previous contact with, or

knowledge about the offender; or,

(2) the offender or his lawyer objects to the presence

of a particular Committee member because he feels

that the Committee member cannot be objective in

dealing with the offender due to previous contact

with, or knowledge about the offender.

Note: It must be remembered that at least two

Committee members must be present to decide a case.

- 110 -

Note: The Committee members are not advised -

before the hearing of who will be appearing

before them that day. This removes the possibility

of a Committee member preparing background

information before coming to the hearing.

XIII. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE

1. Once a charge has been initiated and a sworn informa-

tion is brought to the court, the Court Administrator

will determine whether the juvenile charged with the

delinquency is entitled to appear before the Committee.

If the case does meet the Committee's criteria, then

the Committee secretary will send a letter, with

a notice of the hearing, to the juvenile and a carbon

copy to his parent(s) or guardian. The letter

advises the juvenile of his right to appear before

the Committee (see letter #1 in Appendix B). A brief

explanation of the Committee is enclosed with the

letter and with the carbon copy (see Appendix B).

2. Once the parent, guardian or the juvenile advises the

secretary that an appearance before the Committee is

wished, the secretary will pick a date and time which

will not be further away than two Committee hearing

dates. If necessary, an additional hearing date will

be scheduled to limit delay in having the matter heard.

The caller will be so advised and a letter is sent to

the juvenile, with a carbon copy to his parent(s) or

guardian, confirming the date and time and place of

IIIIIIIIIIIIIII1

II

- 111 -

hearing (see letter #2 in Appendix B). The secretary

also advises the caller of the value of having a

lawyer at the Committee hearing, determines which

school board is involved and also asks whether there

is anyone whom the juvenile or the parent(s) or

guardian wishes to have attend at the hearing.

3. If there is a victim of the offence, a letter is sent

by the secretary to him, inviting him to attend at

the hearing (see letter #3 in Appendix B). A brief

explanation of the Committee is enclosed with this

letter. ..

4. The secretary then advises the appropriate police

department of the appearance before the Committee by

sending a copy of letter.#2 to the police. This

ensures that all information required by the police

is available to the Committee when it meets. In the

case of the O.P.P., this is also to enable the

officer to decide whether to attend the hearing. If

a short adjournment of the court case is required for

the Committee to consider the matter, the police are

advised of this as well. In most cases, it is

expected that the Committee will meet prior to the

first scheduled appearance in court.

5. On the hearing date, a duty counsel will be present at

the meeting place 45 minutes before the Committee

meets to assist those juveniles who attend without legal

counsel. The summary of the alleged offence will be

available to the lawyer or duty counsel before the

Committee hears the matter.

- 112 -

6. Before the child appears before the Committee, it

shall be the responsibility of the lawyer or duty

counsel to determine:

(1) that the juvenile, after full discussion of

the charge and his legal position, would be

entering a plea of "guilty" if the case

came before the court, or that he is admitting

at least partial responsibility for the offence;

(2) that the juvenile is aware that there is no

requirement to appear before the Committee,

that, at any time, he may decide to appear in

court, that any plan may be rejected and that

the Committee's recommendation may be that the

case proceed to a court hearing.

7. The juvenile and the parent(s) or guardian will appear

before the Committee. The lawyer or duty counsel

will also be present and will remain throughout the

Committee's deliberations, even after the juvenile and

the parent(s) or guardian have been excused.

8. The juvenile and the parent(s) or guardian will be

advised on the date of the hearing of the recommend-

ation of the Committee (see memos in Appendix B).

They will also be fully advised of the reasons for

the recommendation and the facts upon which the

recommendation is based. They will be told that the

recommendation is subject to review by the Crown's

representative. The juvenile will be asked whether he

- 113 -

is in agreement with the decision of the Committee.

If the recommendation involves adjournment of the

case for further consideration or subsequent

review of the plan, such adjournment normally will

not exceed 60 days from the date of the juvenile's

first appearance before the Committee.

9. Stage II of the hearing, which involves matters

not directly related to the offence, may be entered

only after the Committee has decided whether the

charge should be withdrawn.

10. The relevant police department, as representative

of the Crown, will be advised by the secretary as

soon as possible (preferably within 24 hours) of

the recommendation of the Committee. The police

will be provided, on request, with all of the

information which led to the Committee's recommend-

ation as well as the reasons for decision.

As soon as possible (preferably within two days)

the secretary will be advised as to whether the

recommendation is acceptable. The police may

request that the Committee reconsider its recommend-

ation at its next meeting, along with whatever

further information they should wish to provide.

After such reconsideration, the Committee may

revise its recommendation or leave it unchanged.

At this point, the recommendation becomes final and

the police will decide whether to accept it or to

have the case heard in court. If the police accept

- 114 -

the recommendation to withdraw the charge and

the charge is withdrawn in court, then letters

confirming this are sent by the court to the

juvenile and the parent(s) or guardian. If the

recommendation is not accepted, the juvenile and

the parent(s) or guardian will be advised by

letter of the necessity to appear in court on

the day set for hearing of the delinquency charge.

11. Normally, if two or more juveniles are involved

in the same offence, all of them who choose to meet

with the. Committee will appear on the same Committee

hearing date.

12. If the Committee recommends court referral or

the police reject a recommendation to withdraw the

charge, then the Committee will inform the police

of its feelings regarding disposition by the judge.

Also, a Committee member may attend when the

case is heard in court.

13. Minutes of the hearings will be sent to each member

of the Committee. No other record of the hearings

or decisions made by the Committee will be kept.

All copies of the minutes for the year's hearings

will be returned to the secretary at the end of

the calendar year.

14. The Committee will periodically review with the

judge some of the past recommendations made by

the Committee. Under no circumstances will any

case be reviewed prior to withdrawal of the charge.

IIiIIIIIIIII

- 115 -

15. The judge will not hear evidence relating to the

issue of guilt or innocence with any prior

knowledge that there has been Committee involve-

ment with regard to that particular incident.

The fact of Committee involvemént in a plan in

any case, whether this should involve the case

before the court or an earlier charge, is not to

be communicated to the judge unless he should

reach the disposition stage of the case which is

before him.

16. At the disposition stage of the court hearing,

a Committee member may only provide Stage I

information regarding the offence, any plans

tried, and the effect of any plans tried.

I

- 116 -

Reference

Edwin M. Schur, Radical Non-Intervention (Englewood

Cliffs, N.J. Prentice Hall, Inc., 1973)

- 117 -

APPENDIX TO THE COMMITTEE GUIDELINES

The Role of the Lawyer

The lawyer representing a_juvenile before the Juvenile

Court Committee has certain duties during three separate

time periods:

A. Pre-Hearing Duties:

1. If the lawyer is duty counsel, to identify

himself as a lawyer and to inform the juvenile

and his parents of the possibility of obtain-

ing legal aid and of the possibility of an

adjournment of the hearing for the purpose of

obtaining a legal aid certificate.

2. To ensure that the charge against the juvenile

is valid.

Comment: If the lawyer feels that the charge

is not valid, then he may take the case to

court or try to persuade the police to withdraw

the charge.

3. To ensure that the jurisdiction criteria of

the Committee have been met (see Part IV of

the Guidelines).

Comment: (a) The consent criterion refers to

the consent of the juvenile, not

the consent of the parents.

(b) If doubt exists regarding the

juvenile's admission of respon-

sibility, then the case should go

to court, not to the Committee.

- 118 -

4. To explain generally the Committee procedure

to the juvenile and his parents (see Part XIII

of the Guidelines) and to explain specifically

that (a) there is no requirement to appear

before the Committee, (b) at any time, the

juvenile may decide to appear in court, (c) any

Committee plan may be rejected by the juvenile,

and (d) the Committee i s recommendation may

be that the case proceed to court.

5. To secure the juvenile's answers to questions

which will be relevant in Stage I and Stage II

of the hearing (see Parts V - IX of the

Guidelines).

6. To discuss with the juvenile and his parents

plans which could be suggested to the

Committee (see Part X of the Guidelines).

7. To inform the juvenile that he has the right

to remove any Committee member who he feels

could not be fair and objective in deciding

the case.

B. Hearing Duties:

1. To ensure that the Committee follows the

Guidelines, especially in regard to the

distinction between Stage I and Stage II

information.

Comment: The Committee has an obligation to

ensure that the lawyer follows the Guidelines.

2. To ask questions which will bring out the

relevant information.

- 119 -

3. To help the juvenile and his parents to

communicate the relevant information to the

Committee.

Comment: (a) The lawyer represents the

juvenile, not the parents.

(b) If the juvenile is represented

by his own lawyer, the duty counsel

may represent the parents.

4. To present plans to the Committee and to

evaluate other suggested plans.

5. To ensure that during the Committee deliberations

no additional information is considered unless

it is confirmed by the juvenile.

C. Post-Hearing Duties:

1. To ensure that the juvenile and his parents

understand the decision of the Committee.

- 120 -

I

I

APPENDIX II TO THE COMMITTEE GUIDELINES

COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE

IIIIII11Ir

- 121 -

LETTER #1

Dear

This letter will inform you that there is a Juvenile

Court Committee in Kingston (see attached explanation).

If you intend to plead "guilty" in Court on

or are admitting responsibility for the offence(s), this

Committee woUld be pleased to meet with you and your

parents before the Court date to see if the case can be

handled without having to appear in Court.

There is no obligation to meet with the Committee.

However, if you wish to do so, would you or your parents

please contact me at 548-4535 prior to

in order to find out the time and place of the next

Committee meeting.

Sincerely,

Elaine Turbitt,

for the Juvenile Court Committee.

548-4535

- 122 -

LETTER #2

Dear

This will confirm that an appointment has been made

for you to meet with the Juvenile Court Committee on

Please be there for to meet with Duty Counsel.

Your Court hearing will be postponed until after you

meet with the Committee.

The meeting will be held at the Professional Development

Centre at St. Lawrence College. The waiting area is

Seminar Room #2. Directions to Seminar Room #2 are on

the other side of this page.

If you have a lawyer, and he or she intends to be at

the meeting with you, please advise your lawyer of the

date and time.

Yours very truly,

Elaine Turbitt,

for the Juvenile Court Committee-

548-4535

- 123 -

LETTER #3

Dear

According to police information, you were a victim of the

offence of committed on approximately

A juvenile charged with the offence has admitted respon-

sibility and has asked to meet with the Juvenile Court

Committee (see the enclosed explanation of the Committee).

The Committee members feel that it is important that you,

as the victim, have a chance to express your feelings about

the incident and about what should be done now. You are

invited to attend the Committee meeting which will be held

at the Professional Development Centre at St. Lawrence College .

on . The waiting area

is Seminar Room #2. Directions to Seminar Room #2 are on

the other side of this page.

Please understand that you are not required to attend, but

you are most welcome to do so and the Committee is interested

in hearing from you.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 548-4535.

Sincerely,

Elaine Turbittf

for the Juvenile Court Committee.

at

- 124 -

MEMO #1

NAME:

JUVENILE COURT COMMITTEE

The Court Hearing in your case is on

You will not have to go to Cdurt on that date. The

Juvenile Court Committee will be making a recommendation

to police that the charge be .withdrawn.

If the police agree, they will withdraw the charge at

the Court Hearing and there will be no juvenile record.

If the police do not agree, you will be notified by

telephone within a week.

If you have any questions about what went on today,

please telephone 548-4535 and ask for Elaine Turbitt.

- 125 -

P4EMO #2

1tIII1tIII1II

NAME:

JUVENILE COURT COMMITTEE

The Court Hearing in your case is on

You will not have to go to Court on that date. The

hearing will be adjourned until some time after

,-when the Juvenile

Court Committee will be reviewing your case. It

will/will not be necessary for you to come on that

date.

If you have any questions about what went on today,

please telephone 548-4535 and ask for Elaine Turbitt.

I

- 126 -

N.B. THIS EXPLANATION ACCOMPANIES LETTERS #1 and #3

THE JUVENILE COURT COMMITTEE

The Juvenile Court Committee is a group of three people

who meet with young people under the age of 16 who have been

charged with breaking the law. The Committee discusses the

charge with the young person and tries to help the young

person to work out some plan as an alternative to going to

Court.

THE MEETING IS VOLUNTARY

No one is required to meet with the Committee. The

young person and his parents are free to leave the meeting

at any time or to say "no" to any plan which the Committee

might suggest.

WHO MAY MEET WITH THE COMMITTEE

For a young person and his parents to meet with the

Committee, the young person must admit responsibility for

the offence.

OTHERS AT THE MEETING

On the meeting date, a lawyer will talk with any young

person who does not have his own lawyer. Then the young

person, his parents and the lawyer meet with the Committee

and talk about the offence and what might be done about it.

If there was a victim of the offence, the victim will be

invited to come to the meeting.

- 127 -

RESULT OF THE MEETING

The Committee will be interested in hearing what the

young person and his parents have done about the offence,

and what else they think should be done. If the young

person and the Committee can work out a plan which everyone

thinks is fair, the Committee will tell the police about the

plan and recommend that they withdraw the charge.

SOME POSSIBLE PLANS

There are some kinds of plans which the young person and

the Committee cannot agree to. Things like probation, or

living in a group home, can only be ordered by the Count.

The kind of plan that is fair depends on such things as

the offence; how it happened; the 'amount of damage; what has

been done about it. If everyone agrees that enough has been

done already, then no further plan is required.

In a case of theft or damage to property, the young

person might be able to pay back the victim in some way, or

to do some volunteer work in the community (for example,

helping to clean a rink).

Offence:

1. Theft under $200

2. Theft over $200

3. Possession under $200

4. Possession over $200

5. Robbery

6. Break and Enter

Break and Enter Dwelling

7. Mischief

Endangering Life

Public Property

Private Property

8. Assault

Common

Bodily Harm

- 128 -

APPENDIX III TO THE COMMITTEE GUIDELINES

Common Criminal Code Offences and Punishments

Maximum Punishment:

Imprisonment for 2 years

Imprisonment for 10 years

Imprisonment for 2 years

Imprisonment for 10 years

Imprisonment for life

Imprisonment for 14 years

Imprisonment for life

Imprisonment for life

Imprisonment for 14 years

Imprisonment for 5 years

Imprisonment for 6 months

and $500 fine

Imprisonment for 5 years

- 129 -

APPENDIX Iv TO THE COMMITTEE GUIDELINES

Summary of Relevant Information in Stage I:

1. Legal Nature of the Offence:

a. Legal category, e.g., theft under $200.

b. Legal seriousness, e.g., two years imprisonment

for adult offender.

2. Factual Nature of the Offence:

a. Time of day/night.

b. Where the offence took place.

c. Others involved:

1) number of others involved

2) their ages

3) their criminal record

4) their relationship to the offender

5) their prior criminal activity with the

offender

6) their contact with the offender since the

offence

d. Surrounding circumstances:

1) how the opportunity to commit the offence

arose

2) the degree of difficulty in committing the

offence

3) the amount of planning involved

4) was there inducement or pressure to commit

the offence

5) was intoxication involved

- 130 -

e. Extent of loss, damage or injury.

3. Offender:

a. Age

b. History

1) previous court appearances which resulted

in guilty pleas, adjournments sine die,

and findings of delinquency;

2) previous involvement with the Juvenile

Court Committee or the Restitution Project;

3) other previous occurrences involving

criminal law violations verified by the

offender during the Committee hearing, i.e.,

if such other occurrences are denied by the

offender, then the Committee must desregard them.

c. Attitudes:

1) appreciation of seriousness and wrongness

at the time of the offence and now;

2) behaviour at the time of apprehension (or at

the time he turned himself in);

3) realization of harm caused and harm that

might have been caused;

4) feelings towards sanctions imposed thus far,,

e.g., parental sanctions, laying of charge,

police contact;

5) willingness to make amends.

d. Offender's explanation for committing the offence.

1

IIIIIIIII

III

- 131 -

4. Parents (or Guardian):

a. what parents have done or not done as a result

of the incident;

b. supervision provided at the time of the offence,

e.g., curfew, friends.

5. Victims:

a. is there a victim

b. loss, if any: financial, time, inconvenience

c. is there a pre-existing relationship between

the offender and the victim

d. victim's willingness to meet with the Committee

f. victim's willingness to be involved in a plan

6. Plans suggested:

a. by the offender

b. by the lawyer

c. by his parents (or guardian)

d. by the victim

e. by other interested persons

7. Feasibility of Plan:

a. ability and willingness of the offender to

carry out the plan;

b. practical considerations which may affect

the carrying out of the plan, e.g., co-operation

of other persons.

- 132 -

- 133 -

APPENDIX B

It1IIIII^tII

THE FRONTENAC DIVERSION GROUP

RESTITUTION PROJECT GUIDELINES

R.F. Barnhorst

May, 1976.

Kingston, Ontario.

(with minor amendments

to May 1978)

I

- 134 -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 135

I. PHILOSOPHY 136

II. JURISDICTION 137

III. REFERRAL PROCEDURES 139

A. Police Referrals 139

B. Juvenile Court Committee Referrals 141

C. Juvenile Court Referrals 142

IV. THE NEGOTIATION PROCEEDING 144

A. Preliminary Matters 144 1. Purpose of the Project 145

2. Voluntary Nature of the Project 145

3. Civil Remedy 145

4. Enforcement of the Agreement 146

5. Victim Liability 148

6. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board 148

7. Legal Advice 148

B. Negotiation Principles 148

C. Role of Negotiator 150

V. FOLLOW-UP 150

VI. REPORTS TO REFERRING BODY 151

APPENDICES:

A. Sample Restitution Agreements

For Money

For Volunteer Work

B. Referral Form ' 157

C. Summary of Restitution Project 159

- 135 -

INTRODUCTION

The Frontenac Diversion Program has two main

components: (a) the Juvenile Court Committee which is a

diversion mechanism by which many juvenile offenders are

handled outside Juvenile Court; and (h) the Restitution

Project, which involves the informal negotiation of

restitution agreements between juvenile offenders and their

victims.

The purpose of these Guidelines is to explain the

philosophy and operation of the Restitution Project. (Separate

guidelines have been written for the Juvenile Court Committee,)

READERS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE PROJECT MAY

WISH TO REFER TO APPENDIX C FOR A GENERAL

EXPLANATION OF THE PROJECT. THIS WILL

PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW WHICH SHOULD BE

HELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING THE GUIDELINES.

1

- 136 -

PHILOSOPHY:

The philosophy which underlines the Restitution Project

is basically the same as that of the Juvenile Court

Committee. This philosophy is based on two concepts: (1)

diversion and (2) non-intervention. In general, diversion

refers to a process whereby certain types of delinquent

behaviour are handled outside the juvenile justice system

by some informal and consensual means. The concept of non-

intervention is based on the premise that the least

obtrusive response to delinquent behaviour may often produce

the best results (see Juvenile Court Committee Guidelines

for a fuller discussion).

Restitution, a third concept, applies more specifically

to this project. Restitution refers to the juvenile offender

paying back the victim in some way for the loss or damage

caused by the offence.

Several of the advantages of the use of restitution have

been noted by the designers of the Minnesota Restitution

Centre.

1. Restitution is rationally and logically

related to the damage done. This is not the

case where an offender is sent to a correctional

institution for several months.

2. The restitution sanction is clear and explicit

and enables the offender to know at all times

where he stands in relation to the completion

of his goals.

3. Restitution allows the offender to be actively

- 137 -

involved in undoing his wrong. The offender is

not placed in the position of being the passive

recipient of either the usual "treatment" or

punishment approaches to changing his behaviour.

4. The use of restitution should result in a more

positive response from members of the community

toward the offender. The offender should be

perceived as a person who has committed an illegal

act and is attempting to undo his wrong. In this

way, he should be seen as a person who is actively

contributing to society.

Other advantages recognized by the Canada Law Reform

Commission include the following:

5. The offender is treated as a responsible human

being; his dignity, personality and capacity to

engage in constructive social activity are

recognized and encouraged.

6. Restitution constitutes a meaningful and direct

remedy made available to the victim.

7. Restitution benefits society, as a whole, to the

extent that it discourages criminal or delinquent

behaviour by promoting self-correction and by

ensuring that offenders assist in compensating

victims for their losses.

II. JURISDICTION:

The project has jurisdiction only if all of the following

criteria are met:

1. Referral of a juvenile is made by the police,

- 138 -

the Juvenile Court Committee, or the Juvenile

Court judge.

Comment: The project is a diversion project and

is intended to minimize the--penetration of juveniles

into the juvenile justice system. It is recognized

that the project could become simply another form

of processing which might result in more juveniles

being processed than before. Therefore, the

project is designed to deal only with juveniles who

have actually come into contact with the justice

systëm and direct referrals from victims have been

excluded.

2. The juvenile intends to plead guilty in Juvenile

Court or admits partial or full responsibility for

the alleged offence.

Comment: It is not the function of the negotiator

to settle questions of guilt or innocence. Such

questions should be decided in Juvenile Court.

3. The juvenile consents to participate in the

negotiation of a restitution agreement. (See

Appendix A for sample agreement).

Comment: The juvenile has the right to have the

matter heard in Juvenile Court and the project is

not intended to deprive him of that right but

rather to give him an opportunity to enter an

agreement which may remove the need for any further

involvement in the juvenile justice system.

4. There is a victim of the alleged delinquency.

IIIIrIIIIInIIl

I

I

- 139 -

Comment: The concept of restitution implies the

existence of a victim, i.e., a persons who has suffered

some loss as a result of an illegal act. The concept

of victim could include the community or society but

this should hormally be a primary consideration only

in cases in which the community at large is a direct

victim; e.g., defacement of public property or violation

of a noise by-law. There are some cases, such as truancy,

which do not involve victims and thus should not be

referred to the project.

5. The alleged delinquency does not involve serious physical

injury or death.

Comment: These are matters which call for formal response

by the justice system and the juvenile should not have the

option of avoiding it. Acts which cause serious physical

injury or death indiCate that the juvenile may be

dangerous to the community which has a right to demand

protection.

III. REFERRAL PROCEDURES

A. Police Referrals

1. Police make a preliminary determination that the juvenile

is eligible to participate in the project (see

"Jurisdiction").

Comment: This should reduce the number of, improper

referrals and the attendant inconvenience to participants.

It also encourages the police to use a rational basis for

their referrals and, thus, avoid arbitrary decisions.

2. Police should refer only cases on which charges would

otherwise be laid. Especially appropriate for referral

are relatively minor cases on which, prior to the existence

of the Restitution Project, charges have usually been laid

- 140 - primarily because no alternative disposition has been

made available other than outright release.

Comment: Police at present do a large amount of

effective diversion work on their own. It is

hoped that they Will continue to do so and that

they will refer cases which otherwise would not

be diverted from the juvenile justice system.

The Restitution Project should not serve as a

means by which the police abdicate their

responsibility to exercise discretion.

3. The police inform the juvenile and his parents

that the case is being referred to the project

and that they will be contacted by the project

staff within one week. At this time the police

should also indicate whether the decision to lay

the charge will be suspended until the police

receive a report from the project staff.

Comment: It is important that the police tell

the juvenile that the referral is being made so

that when the project staff contacts the juvenile,

he is expecting the contact and understands the

legitimacy of the project. Also, it is important

that the juvenile knows whether a charge is pend-

ing during his involvement in the project.

4. The actual referral by the police is made by

telephone as soon after the alleged offence as

possible.

5. The police complete a referral form (see Appendix

B) which will be picked up by the project staff.

6. The project staff reads the referral form and

determines whether the juvenile is eligible to

participate in the project.

- 141 -

participate in the project.

7. If the case meets the project's criteria, the

staff will phone the juvenile and his parents and

ask them if they wish to participate in the project.

Only the juvenile's participation is necessary and

his eligibility will not be dependent upon a parent's

consent. Also, if the juvenile prefers to exclude his

parents from participation in the project (e.g., they

may wish to be involved in the negotiation of the

agreement), then they will be excluded. In the

event of such exclusion, and if an agreement has been

reached, the staff will advise (by phone) the parents

of the terms of the agreement before the juvenile signs

it. Also, a copy of the signed agreement will be sent

to the parents.

8. If the juvenile wishes to participate in the project,

the staff will set a time, date and place for a

meeting which, whenever possible, will be within two

weeks of the referral.

9. The staff contacts the victim to determine whether he

is interested in receiving restitution.

10. The staff may decide to have separate meetings with

the victim and the juvenile, or the staff may decide

to have a joint meeting at which both the victim and

the juvenile are present.

11. The staff advises the appropriate police department as

to whether the juvenile intends to participate in the

project.

B. Juvenile Court Committee Referrals

1. The Juvenile Court Committee makes a preliminary deter-

mination that the child is eligible to participate

in the project.

- 142 -

2. The Juvenile Court Committee informs the juvenile

and his parents whether the Committee recommendation

will be delayed until the Committee receives a

report from the project staff. On Juvenile Court

Committee days, the project staff is available within

the same building in which the Juvenile Court

Committee meets. The actual referral is made by a

Committee member who escorts the victim (when present),

the juvenile and the parents to the negotiation room.

The Juvenile Court Committee member makes the necessary

introductions and provides the staff with a summary

of the police report and a referral form.

3. The staff determines whether the juvenile is eligible

to participate and whether the victim is willing to

participate.

4. If the victim is not present, the staff contacts the

victim to determine whether he is interested in

receiving restitution. This contact will normally

take place within two days of the referral by the

Juvenile Court Committee.

.5. The staff may decide to have separate meetings with

the victim and the juvenile, or the staff may decide

to have a joint meeting at which both the victim

and the juvenile are present.

C. Juvenile Court Referrals

1. The Juvenile Court judge make a preliminary

- 143 -

IIIIII

IIIII

determination that the child is eligible to

participate in the project.

2. If the juvenile pleads guilty or the judge makes

a finding of guilt, then the jùdge, without making

a finding of delinquency, will adjourn the case

and refer the juvenile to the project to determine

whether a restitution agreement can be reached.

The court officer will advise the juvenile and

his parents before they leave the court that he

will contact the project staff and that if an

agreement can be reached, they will not have to

appear in court on the adjournment date, the

parental support worker will appear for them,

and the case will be (l)•adjourned sine die or

(2) adjourned for a period not exceeding six months.

from the date of the agreement, to determine whether

the juvenile is fulfilling the terms of the agreement.

In the event of (2), the court officer will then

advise the juvenile and his parents that if the

juvenile fulfills the terms of the agreement, they

will not have to appear in court again; the parental

support worker will appear for them, and the case

will be adjourned sine die.

3. If the judge makes a finding of delinquency, he will

suspend final disposition and refer the case to the

project or he will make a disposition which includes

a condition that a restitution agreement be reached.

The court officer will advise the juvenile and his

I

- 144 -

parents before they leave the court that he will

contact the project staff, that the staff will

report to the judge regarding the juvenile's

involvement in the project, and that the case may

be brought back to court if problems arise.

4. The actual referral is made by completion of a

referral form by the judge and the project staff

is provided with a summary of the police report

and any findings by the judge which he feels would

be relevant to the negotiation.

5. The staff determines whether the child is eligible

to participate in the project.

6. If the case meets the project's criteria, the staff

phones the child and his parents and sets a date and

time which, whenever possible, will be no later than

two weeks from the phone communication.

7. The staff contacts the victim to determine whether he

is interested in receiving restitution.

8. The staff may decide to have separate meetings with

the victim and the juvenile, or the staff may decide

to have a joint meeting at which both the victim and

the juvenile are present.

IV. THE NEGOTIATION PROCEEDING

A. Preliminary Matters

Prior to beginning the actual negotiation, the staff

(i.e., negotiator) must confirm that (1) the juvenile admits

partial or full responsibility for the alleged delinquency,

and (2) the juvenile freely consents to participate in the

- 145 -

negotiation. In addition, there are several matters

which must be explained to both parties. (A brief written

explanation of the project will be given to the parties

Drior to the negotiation - see Appendix C.)

1. Purpose of the Project

The primary purpose of the project is not to

enforce the private right of the victim against

the juvenile but rather to minimize the

penetration of the juvenile into the justice

system and to assist the juvenile in accepting

responsibility for his delinauent act and in

making amends for the damage caused by that act.

The project is also intended to provide a victim

with a meaningful and direct remedy, but this

purpose is clearly secondary.

2. Voluntary Nature of the Project

Either party may withdraw at any point during the

negotiation. If the juvenile prefers that the

matter be decided in Juvenile Court, then it will

be referred to the court. If the victim prefers

that the matter be decided in Juvenile Court,

then it will be up to the police (acting as the

Crown's representative), except in those cases

which have been referred by the Juvenile Court

judge or if the victim chooses to lay a private

information.

3. Civil Remedy

The benefits obtainable under a restitution agree-

ment are not the same as or in substitution for

- 146 -

the victim's civil remedy in court. The victim

does not waive his right to bring a civil action

in court but acceptance of restitution may affect

the amount of recoverable damages in such a civil

action.

4. Enforcement of the Agreement

Normally, the period during which the agreement

may be enforced (i.e., sent back to the referring

body) will not exceed 60 days from the date of the

agreement.

HoweVer, this 60-day limit may be extended up to

six months if none of, or only an insignificant

portion of, the restitution can be made within 60

days, e.g., restitution cannot be made until summer

holidays. If a breach of the agreement occurs, the

project staff will attempt to resolve the problem

(this could include renegotiation of the agreement

if necessary). If the problem cannot be resolved

by the staff and the enforcement period has not

expired, the case will be sent back to the referring

body. If the problem cannot be resolved by the

staff and the enforcement period has expired, the

case will not be sent back to the referring body

and the agreement will be terminated. In short, the

only enforcement power of the project staff is the

power to,send the case back to the referring body;

this power ends with the expiration of the

enforcement period.

- 147 -

IIIIIIIIIi

1II

Whether there actually is an enforcement period

will depend on whether the referring body wants a

report regarding the performance of the agreement,

i.e., in some cases the referring body may be only

interested in knowing whether an agreement has been

reached and, therefore, there would be no need

for further feedback from the project staff.

The enforcement period in no way restricts the

authority of the police, the Crown Attorney, or

the judge, but the juvenile's involvement in the

project during this period will be a factor con-

sidered by them in deciding whether the case

requires further response from the juvenile justice

system. Finally, the Crown Attorney's office cannot

be relied upon to provide sanctions for failure to

make restitution, either by subsequent prosecution

or otherwise.

Comment: In some cases, the enforcement period

may have the effect of the victim not receiving the

restitution provided for in the agreement. This

is a problem but it must be considered in light of

other factors:

a. the victim, by entering the agreement, does

not lose his right to bring a civil action

to recover the remainder of the loss;

b. in most cases, six months allows for meaning-

ful restitution to be made;

c. it is undesirable to have the charge of

I

- 148 -

delinquency hanging over the juvenile'S head

for a lengthy period of time. He is entitled

to know within a reasonable period of time

whether he will be charged and/or convicted.

5. Victim Liability

In those cases in which the juvenile works for

the victim, the victim may b. held liable for

any injury caused to the juvenile by the victim's

negligence. Where applicable, the victim will

be encouraged to include the juvenile in any

. workmen's compensation scheme which covers other

employees.

6. Criminar Injuries Compensation Board (CICB)

In cases in which personal injury is involved,

the victim does not lose his right to appear

before the CICB by entering the agreement.

7. Legal Advice

If either or bath parties have doubts about

entering a restitution agreement(especially if

the doubts concern the legal implications of

the agreement), the staff will encourage them

to consult a lawyer.

B. Negctiation Principles

The following are some general principles which will be

used in the course of the negotiation of the restitution agree-

ment. This is not an exhaustive list and, as the project

proceeds, more principles may be added:

1. Restitution to the victim may be in the form of

- 149 -

cash payments and/or working for the victim.

2. Community service work will be an option in those

cases in which it is not possible to make direct

restitution to the victim the juvenile is

unable to make cash payments or work for the victim)

or the victim prefers that the juvenile do community

service work.

3. Where several options are available, the juvenile

may choose the manner of making restitution.

4. If the juvenile is going to work for the victim or

do community service work, the dollar value of the

work will be no less than the minimum wage.

5. The juvenile should be paid the same amount as a

regular employee doihg the job, if his work is equal

in value.

6. In theft cases in which the goods have been recovered,

the juvenile may be asked to buy the goods and/or to

compensate the victim for the time, expense and

inconvenience which the theft has caused.

7. The juvenile and his parents are treated as separate

and money paid to the victim must come from the

juvenile, not the parents.

8. The amount of restitution is determined by:

a. an estimate of the victim's loss;

b. the earning potential of the juvenile;

c. the expenses of the juvenile, if he is

currently working.

1

- 150 -

9. No agreement should provide that the juvenile

make cash payments which equal the total of his

earnings and savings.

10. The time period of the agreement will not exceed

one year (and as noted above, the period of

enforceability will not exceed six months).

C. Role of Negotiator

1. The negotiator should act as a neutral third party

who assists in reaching an agreement which seems

fair to both the victim and the offender.

2. One'form of assistance by the negotiator should be

the suggestion of alternative ways of making resti-

tution. The negotiator should be aware of job

opportunities in the' community and should assist

juveniles in gaining employment.

3. The negotiator should determine whether a pre-existing

relationship has existed between the victim and the

offender. If such a relationship has existed, the

negotiator should offer his assistance in solving

any long-standing conflicts which may exist and

may have contributed to the complained-about incident.

However, this area of inquiry should be kept separate

from the resolution of the immediate problem and

agreement on these long-standing areas of conflict

should not affect the report of the negotiator to

the referring body.

V. FOLLOW-UP

1. The staff will make periodic checks with the parties

- 151 -

to see that the terms of the agreement are being

followed. One such check will be made within one

week of the expiration of the enforcement period.

This check will enable the staff to provide the

referring body with an up-to-date assessment of the

performance of the agreement.

2. The parties will also be encouraged to contact the

staff when problems arise relating to the performance

of the agreement.

3. Disputes about whether there has been satisfactory

performance will be settled by the staff (subject to

review by the referring body).

4. Substantial compliance with the terms of the agree-

ment will amount to satisfactory performance.

5. If there is a failure to perform by either party, the

staff will determine whether the failure was willful.

VI. REPORTS TO REFERRING BODY

There can be two reports from the staff to the referring

body. The first report will be made at the conclusion of the

negotiation process and will relate whether a restitution

agreement has been reached. The second report will be made

shortly before the expiration of the enforcement period and will

relate whether the terms of the agreement have been followed.

The second report will not be necessary in those cases in

which the referring body is only interested in knowing whether

an agreement has been reached (e.g., the Juvenile Court

Committee may be willing to make a recommendation of withdrawal

of the charge on the basis of the first report). The parties

I- 152 -

and the parents of the juvenile will receive a copy of the

reports.

After the staff has made the necessary report(s), the

next decision in the case will be made by the referring

body:

1. Police

The police will inform the staff as soon as

possible (preferably within two days) whether (a)

the charge will be withdrawn, (b) the charge will

be laid, or (c) the decision of whether to lay the

charge will continue to be suspended. The staff will

then advise the parties of the police decision.

2. Juvenile Court Committee:

The Committee will decide on its recommendation to

the relevant police department (which acts as the

Crown's representative) and it will advise the

parties of its decision. (.See Juvenile Court

Committee Guidelines.)

3. Juvenile Court:

The possible decisions by the Juvenile Court judge

have been discussed earlier (see "Juvenile Court

Referrals").

IIII'IIIIIIIII

- 153 -

APPENDIX A

FRONTENAC DIVERSION PROGRNM_

RESTITUTION PROJECT

RESTITUTION AGREEMENT

As a way for "A" to make part payment for the damage

which he caused to "B's" truck, "A" and "B" agree to the

following terms:

1. "A" agrees to pay "B" $200.00.

2. Payments.of $20.00 will be made for 10 months.

The first payment will be made September 1, 1975

and the rest of the payments will be made on the

1st day of each of the next 9 months.

3. Payments will be made directly to "B".

4. "B" agrees to accept the payments and to give "A"

a receipt for each payment made.

5. "B" agrees that he will not sue in civil court for

that part of his loss which is covered by this agree-

ment. But, if "A" does not pay the full amount called

for in this agreement, "B" does not lose his right

to sue for whatever amount has not been paid.

6. "B" does not lose his right to sue in civil court

for that part of his loss which is not covered by

this agreement.

7. "A" and "B" agree that this agreement (and the receipts)

will not be used in any court proceeding without the

- 154 -

consent of both of them, except for the purpose of

deciding how much money "A" may owe "B".

8. "A" and "B" agree that the negotiator will not be

called to court to testify about the agreement without

the consent of both of them. •

111All 18B11

DATE: NEGOTIATOR:

1

- 155 -

FRONTENAC DIVERSION PROGRAMME

RESTITUTION PROJECT

CONFIRMATION OF A RESTITUTION AGREEMENT

YOUNG PERSON has agr'reed to make partial restitution

to the community for damage caused by him.

Under the terms of an agreement with the Juvenile

Court Committee, YOUNG PERSON has agreed to work for

RECIPIENT as‘an unpaid volunteer, for a total of X hours.

This work will be completed by DAY.

YOUNG PERSON DATE

. PERSON

(PARENT)

NEGOTIATOR

1

- 156 -

- 157 -APPENDIX B

FRONTENAC DIVERSION PROGRAM

RESTITUTION PROJECT

IIIIt

IIttIIIIII

REFERRAL FORM

FROM:

I. JUVENILE:

DATE:

ADDRESS: PHONE:

AGE: D.O.B.:

LAWYER:

II. PARENT(S) OR GUARDIAN(S):

III. VICTIM(S)

SCHOOL:

ADDRESS(ES): PHONE:

IV. CHARGE:

DATE OF ALLEGED DELINQUENCY:

LOSS OF VICTIM(S):

V. REMARKS:

Representative of Referring Body

- 159 -

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY OF RESTITUTION PROJECT

The Restitution Project is a voluntary program for juveniles

(people under the âge of 16) who have broken the law and caused

damage of some kind to another person. The project involves getting

the juvenile and the victim together and working out a way for the

juvenile to pay back the victim for the damage caused.

ELIGIBILITY:

For a juvenile to be involved in the project:

1. He must be referred to the project by the police, the

Juvenile Court Committee, or the Juvenile Court judge.

2. He must admit responsibility for the offence.

3. He must agree to participate in the project.

4. There must be a victim of the offence.

5. The offence must not involve serious physical injury

or death.

HOW THE PROJECT WORKS:

1. The juvenile is referred by a "referring body" (the

police, the Committee, or the judge) which for a short

time suspends any further action in the case.

2. The project staff has a meeting with the juvenile and

the victim and a restitution agreement is worked out.

3. The staff reports to the "referring body" about the

results of the meeting.

4. The staff does a follow-up to see if the agreement is

being carried out.

5. If requested, another report is sent to the "referring body".

- 160 -

6. The "referring body" decides whether it will take any

further action. Usually, no further action will be taken

if the juvenile carries out the agreement.

THE PROJECT IS VOLUNTARY:

Neither the juvenile nor the victim is required to participate

in the project. If the juvenile does not wish to participate, then

the case continues as it would have prior to the project.

FORM OF RESTITUTION:

Restitution or "paying back" may be in the form of cash

payments, working for the victim, or doing community service work

(for example, cleaning a park). Payments must come from the

juvenile, not the parents.

AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION:

The amount mainly depends on:

a. how much the victim lost;

b. how much the juvenile can earn; and,

c. the expenses of the juvenile.

ENFORCEMENT:

If the juvenile breaks the agreement, then the staff can send

the case back to the "referring body", but this power does not last

for more than six months from the date of the agreement. Also,

the staff will send a case back only if the "referring body" has

asked to be told whether the terms of the agreement are being carried

out.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

1. By participating in the project, the victim does not

I

IItItIIIIIIII

- 161 -

lose the right to bring a civil action, but accepting

restitution may affect the amount of money he could

recover.

2. If the juvenile and/or the victim have doubts about

entering an agreement, the staff encourages them to see

a lawyer.'

3. The staff is legally trained and acts as a neutral third

party who helps reach an agreement which seems fair to

both the victim and the juvenile.

THIS IS A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

I

- 162 -

- 163 -

APPENDIX D

MONITORING TABLES FOR

THE FRONTENAC DIVERSION PROGRAMME

1 May 1975 to 30 April 1978

* 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total

1 1 1(1) 3(1) 3(1) 17(2) 24(7) 31(3) 3 84(15

1(1) 2 6(1) 15(2) 16(1) 38(6) 4 82(11

1 2 3 10(3) 14(1) 21(8) 7(3) 58(15

2 1 2(2) ' 7(1) . 12(2) 42(7) 54(9) 90(1714(3) 224(41

Age

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Totals

- 164 -

TABLE 1 (Committee)

Ages of Persons Seen by Committee (Total: 224 persons)

* offences committed before age 16

Note: Numbers in brackets indicate number of persons

in that group who were female

1

6

1 1 1

1 10 2

1 1 1

- . 1 1 1

1 1 1

1

- 165 -

TABLE 2 (Committee)

Types of Charges (Total: 369 Charges)

Charges Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Offences against property:

Break & Enter 74 61 11 146 Shoplift 19 12 17 48 Mischief 10 11 8 29 Theft under $200 (not shoplift) 8 4 13 25

Theft of car or motorcycle 5 5 6 16 Theft over (not vehicle) 7 8 1 16 Possession of stolen goods 3 4 2 9 Forgery (including attempt) 1 - 5 6 Bomb threat - - 5 5 Trespass 1 4 - 5 Robbery 1 - - 1

Offences against persons:

Common Assault 3 Indecent Assault 2 Assault causing bodily harm - Obstruct police officer - Dangerous driving - Discharge firearm within city - Unlawful use of firearm 1 Possess imitation of a weapon for dangerous purpose -

Cause disturbance

Other Offences:

Highway Traffic Act 7 11 4 22 Liquor Control Act 5 3 4 12 Habitual Absence 1 3 - 4 Possess Marijuana 2 1 1 4 Escape Lawful Custody 1 - - 1 Small Vessels Regulations - - 1 1

Total 151 137 81 369

I - 166 -

TABLE 3 (Committee)

Number of Charges per Person (Total: 369 charges)

II.11tt1IIt1tII

- 1

Number of Charges Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

1 58 68 47 1732 7 7 4 183 5 3 3 114 2 1 3 65 3 - 1 46 1 - - 18 - 1 - 19 1 - - 1

17 - 2 - 218 1 - - 1

Total Number of Charges 151 137 81 369

TABLE 4 (Committee)

Results of Meetings (Total: 224 persons)

Result Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Withdrawal of charge 46 31 39 116Adjournment, thenwithdrawal 33 40 13 86

Committee recommendedcourt 5 5 1 11

Person chose court - 4 2 6To court becauserecommendation refusedby informant - 2 3 5

Total 84 82 58 224

I

47

1 2

15 1

12

1

35 44 126

1 - 1

9 10 20

- - 2

12 1 28

2 - 3

11 3 26

5 ._ 5

3 _ 3

2 - 2

2 - 3

None 7

14 21 28 35 42 56 63 70 84

TABLE 5 (Committee)

Length of Adjournment

Duration (days) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

- 168 -

1I

ttItIIIIIItI

TABLE 6 (Committee)

Type

Types of Plans

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Warning only 46 18 15 79Restitution 34 40 18 92Apology 5 15 14 34No association withaccomplices 8 16 4 28

No association withplace of offence - 6 4 10

Voluntary Supervision 9 9 1 19Attend school regularly - 11 2 13Curfew 1 3 1 5Visit school attendancecounsellor - 3 - 3

Unique plan, related tothe offence 5 2 1 8

Other:

Commit no furtheroffences - 3 3

Big Brother 2 - - 2Attend at Child & FamilyClinic at hospital 1 - - 1Continue involvement withpsychiatrist 2 - 1 3

Continue involvement withChildren's Aid worker 1 1 1 3

Continue involvement withFamily Court Clinic - - 1 1

I

- 169 -

TABLE 7 (Committee)

Types of Suggestions (Stage II of meeting)

Type Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Voluntary Supervision 2 3 - 5 Restitution 7 - - 7 Apology 2 - - 2 Child & Family Clinic 1 1 - 2 Psychiatrist 1 - - 1 Big Brother 1 - - 1 Big Sister 1 1 - 2 Children's Aid Society 1 1 - 2 Camp 1 - - 1 Club 1 - - 1 Continue to see .. - psychiatrist - 1 - 1

TABLE 8 (Restitution)

Ages of Persons Referred for Restitution (Total: 144 persons)

Age Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16*

1 - 1

1 2 -

- 1 -

1 1 7

2 4 3

4 7 (1) 11

15 12 (1) 7

13 20 22 (3)

2 2 5

2 3 1 9 9

22 (1) 34 (1) 55 (3) 9

Total 39 49 (2) 56 (3) 144 (5)

* offences committed before age 16

Note: Numbers in brackets indicate number of persons in that group who were female.

39 49 56 144 Total

- 170 -

TABLE 9 (Restitution)

Sources of Persons Referred (Total: 144 persons)

Source Year 1 Year . 2 Year 3 Total

Committee 31 32 16 79 Court 5 11 26 42 Police 3 6 14 23

1 TABLE 10 (Restitution)

Types of Charges (Total: 326 charges)

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Break & Enter 57 61 46 164 Mischief 24 26 17 67 Theft under $200 8 6 26 40 Theft over $200 3 4 9 16 (auto or motorcycle)

Theft over $200 7 8 1 16 (not vehicle)

Possess stolen property 1 - 6 7 (auto)

Possess stolen property - 2 1 3 (not auto)

Fraud - . - 5 5 Forgery (including attempt) 1 - 1 2.

Assault - 3 - 3 Driving offence 1 1 - 2 Robbery 1 - - 1

Total 103 111 112 326

Charge

- 171 -

TABLE 11 (Restitution)

Numbers of Charges per Person (Total: 326 charges)

Charges Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

1 24 33 35 92 2 1 6 10 17 3 4 4 4 12 4 3 1 3 7 5 3 - 1 4 6 - - 2 2 7 2 - - 2 9 1 1 - 2

10 ... 3 - 3 11 - 1 - 1 15 1 - - 1 16 - - 1 1

TABLE 12 (Restitution)

Types of Victims (Total: 326 charges)

Victim

Individual Business Public

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

52 74 61 187 23 32 49 104 28 5 2 35

Total 103 111 112 326

1

tI

- 172 -

TABLE 13 (Restitution)

Involvement with a Victim (Total: 144 young persons referred)

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

A. Meeting with one or more victims 3 21 29 53

B. Other* involvement with one or more victims 16 12 13 41

C. Total number with some involvement with victims (MB) 19 33 42 94

D. Number with no involvement with victims 20 16 14 50

E. Total number of young persons referred (C+D) 39 49 56 144

* includes volunteer work for a victim, cash restitution.

TABLE 14 (Restitution)

Types of Restitution (Total: 144 persons)

Type Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

Cash 19 18 31 68

Volunteer work for victim 1 8 8 17 Volunteer work for community 11 10 8 29

Cash & work for community 3 3 3 9 Cash & work for victim 1 - 1 2 Work for victim and community 1 5 1 7

No restitution 3 5 4 12

39 49 56 144 Total

- 173 -

No. of persons Involved

112

12

18

TABLE 15 (Restitution)

Status of Agreements

Status Dollars Hours

Restitution . $ 4,912.31 1,146

Restitution expected 295.25 151

Restitution not expected 702.75 248.5

Total restitution agreed $ 5,910.31 1,545.5 128*

* In addition, there was no restitution in 15 cases and an apology only in one case, for a total of 144 referrals.

DATE DUE

IIIII1ItcIIIIIII1II