Sparwood Youth Assistance Program
The Sparwood Youth Assistance Program was commenced in January of 1995 as a community initiative by Sergeant Jake Bouwman of the Sparwood Detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Glen Purdy, a Sparwood lawyer in private practice. The purpose of the Sparwood Youth Assistance Program is to allow young persons involved with the law to be dealt with outside of the traditional Court System, through a means of dealing with the young person, the victim, the young person's family, and the community as a whole, in an effort to reduce repeat offenses by young persons, increasing the role of the police in proactive policing, and as well, bring a greater sense of participation to all concerned. The program is based upon the Community Accountability Conferencing Model developed in Waga Waga, New South Wales, Australia, and Shame Reintegration Theory as set forth by John Braithwaite. It is a police diversion model, with a community base of support, founded on the common-law principal of a police officer's discretion to lay a charge or not. The only criteria that must be met by a youth to be eligible for the program is that he or she must be a resident of Sparwood or the surrounding community, the youth must admit responsibility for the offence, there must not be serious concerns with respect to future protection of the public and the offence must not be of such a serious nature that if dealt with outside of the traditional Court System, it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Consequently, the decision as to whether a youth will be offered the program or proceed through the traditional Court System rests with the officer in charge of the Sparwood Detachment. The program is more fully outlined in the linked program documents:
Program Outline
Agreement for Youth to Participate
Restoration Agreement
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM
Since the inception of the program in January of 1995, all youth who have committed offenses residing in the District of Sparwood or surrounding community have been dealt with in the program, rather than the traditional Court System. Although many youth have been dealt with through the informal police caution, a total of 71 (as of March 1, 1997) youth have been dealt with through the formal Resolution Conference process (48 in 1995 21 in 1996, 2 in 1997). The offenses dealt with have included minor property offenses, break and enter, assault, including relatively serious assault causing bodily harm, mischief and minor sexual assault. The program is not limited to first time offenders, but is offered to youth who have previous Youth Court Records and those who may have been dealt with in the program on a prior occasion. To date, the Sparwood model has been adopted, with modifications to suit particular community resources and needs, in 16 other communities in British Columbia, various communities in Alberta, and several aboriginal communities.
BENEFITS OF THE PROGRAM
As the program has only been operating for 28 months, statistical data with reference to youth offence rates in the community and reoffence rates may not have great significance, however, in 1994 in Sparwood, prior to implementation of the program, 64 youth were dealt with in the traditional Court System. No youth resident in Sparwood who committed offenses in Sparwood since the inception of the program in 1995 have been dealt with in the traditional Court System. Compared to 1994, the reduction in offense rates in 1995 was 26% and in 1996, 67%. To date in 1997, as only 2 youth have been dealt with, statistical comparison with 1994 makes little sense, but it appears that the offence rate is continuing to decline. Given the limited time frame of the program, the reduction in youth offending rates may well be attributable to numerous other factors. Of the youth dealt with in the program, six have been dealt with on a second occasion in the program, ( 4 re-offended in 1995; 2 re-offended in 1996) which translates into a reoffence rate in 1995 of 8.3%, and in 1996, 2.9%. The national re-offence rate for young offenders, within one year of a disposition being imposed, dealt within the traditional Court System, as published by Statistics Canada, is approximately 40%. Again, given the limited numbers, such statistics in the Sparwood Youth Assistance Program may have little or no meaning at this date. However, other benefits of the program are as follows:
Cost
The Sparwood Youth Assistance Program operates without any direct funding. Police Officers generally attend the Resolution Conference while on duty, resulting in no additional cost to the RCMP. The facilitator acts without renumeration. In most cases, any compensatory work service is done directly for the victim, however, where such is not wanted by the victim or such is inappropriate, various community groups, including the municipality supervise work service.
Cost Savings
Subsequent to each Resolution Conference, an estimate is made of the costs that would have been incurred if the matter had proceeded through the traditional Court System. Factors included in such calculation are the cost of Legal Aid Defence Counsel, Court Operational costs and Corrections Services costs. Not included in such calculations are police investigative time, nor Crown Counsel costs. While the estimate of cost savings is very approximate, the cost savings to date exceed $100,000.00. A few Judges have commented that such is probably one half of actual costs that would have been incurred. In 1996, 13 fewer Court sitting days occurred in Sparwood over 1994.
Victim Reaction
Subsequent to the completion of each disposition, the victim of the offence is requested to fill out a Victim Evaluation Form, ranking the program on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being high. The average ranking of the program to date is at 9.5.
Community Reaction to the Program
The reaction of the Community to the program has been exceptionally positive. Very few, if any, negative comments are received from the general public.
RCMP Member Reaction to the Program
The members of the Sparwood RCMP Detachment have reacted very favourably to the program. They have found that the actual time spent on any particular matter is reduced, as paper work is reduced and there is no Court appearance time required. As well, the members of the RCMP are finding a greater rapport with not only the youth in the community, but the community as a whole. Cooperation from youth and members of the public in investigation of criminal activity has greatly increased. Some youth have expressed to members of the RCMP that they are less reluctant to talk to the RCMP about the offenses of others, as they feel that the subject youth will be assisted by the program, and dealt with fairly.
Speed
Resolution conferences are attempted to be scheduled within 14 days, if possible, of a suspect of an offence being identified. All dispositions are attempted to be complete within six months of the offence date. The average time frame experienced to date from the time of offence to conclusion of the disposition is 74 days. Given the above identified benefits of the program to date, provided that the program does not appear to increase reoffence rates among youth, it is the intention to continue with the program.
ANECDOTAL EXAMPLES OF CONFERENCES
While each Resolution Conference has its own dynamics, as a result of the varying offenses dealt with and the participants involved, each disposition being unique to the particular case, the following four anecdotal reports provide a better understanding of what can be achieved through the program:
Shoe Store Matter
A local shoe store owner experienced the theft of an expensive designer shirt from his premises. He did not report the offence for approximately four months, until such time as he saw a youth wearing the unique shirt. Upon complaint to the RCMP, the shoe store owner did not wish to proceed with charges, nor proceed with the Resolution Conference process. He simply wished the youth to make restitution to him of the value of the shirt ($100.00). The RCMP persuaded the shoe store owner to participate in the Resolution Conference process. At the Resolution Conference, the shoe store owner, a person one could regard as a shrewd and competent businessman, became extremely emotional. It was apparent that the rationale for him not wanting to have charges laid or participate in the Resolution Conference was because of the significant affect that the simple shoplifting had had upon him. He felt that he had had the trust and respect of the youth of the community, and that by the youth involved committing the theft, the trust was broken. The youth very strongly felt the shoe store owners emotion. It was agreed upon by the participants of the Resolution Conference that the youth would compensate the shoe store owner for the value of the shirt, and as well, perform 75 hours of work service to the shoe store owner at his premises, being 7 1/2 hours on each Saturday for 10 weeks. At the Resolution Conference, the shoe store owner indicated that he was not going to have the youth shovelling snow, sweeping out the stock room, or other such tasks, but that he would teach him how to run the business, including the ordering of supplies, waiting on customers, and all other matters that the shoe store owner performed himself. He wished to have the youth fully understand what it meant to run a small business and the effect that theft had on his business. The youth complied with the disposition. Subsequent to completing the disposition, the youth continued to frequent the store, assisting the owner with various matters of running the business. Eventually, the shoe store owner felt guilty about the youth continuing to work at his store for free and offered the youth part time employment at the store, which the youth continues to hold to date. This case illustrates that first, even what would be deemed by many to be a minor offence can have very significant effects upon a victim. In the traditional Court System, in matters such as this, the victim certainly would not have had the opportunity to express fully the effect that the offence had upon him. More importantly, the case demonstrates that many victims, once they have had the ability to express to the offender the effects that the offence had upon them personally, are frequently quite willing to assist the youth in reintegrating into the community. In this particular case, the youth who is now 16 years old, has significant stature among his peer group as he has part time employment, while few of his peers do.
Subsequent Offence
In the late winter of 1995, shortly after inception of the program, a young offender was dealt with through the Resolution Conference process. At the Resolution Conference, his mother and her then current boyfriend attended with the youth. The mother of the youth was well known herself to the police and frequently caused significant difficulty for the police through spurious formal complaints about alleged wrong doings of various RCMP members. She herself had a significant Court Record. At the Resolution Conference, while the mother participated appropriately in the Conference, her then current boyfriend had little to say. It was apparent that the youth did not take the matter exceptionally seriously given the attitude of his mother and boyfriend. However, the youth did complete the agreed upon disposition satisfactorily. A short while after the youth had completed his disposition, the youth was involved in a further property offence. It was decided to offer the youth the Program on a second occasion. At the second conference, the mother did not attend, although requested to do so, expressing to the investigating officer that she had "given up" on the youth. Instead, the investigating officer was able to locate the youth's natural father (who had had very little to do with the youth since birth, but had been paying maintenance to the mother) an uncle of the youth and the youth's step father who had been a parent to the youth for many years. At the second Resolution Conference, the three men, who did not particularly like one another, determined that they were going to do everything within their power to ensure the youth did not reoffend. The message that these three men cared about the youth was very adequately conveyed to the youth. It was determined that the youth would live with his uncle and that his natural father and step father would have regular contact with the youth. For the first time in the youth's life, his natural father became involved with him. Since the second Resolution Conference, the youth has not come to the attention of the police again. This case demonstrates that the application of the "step up" principal may often be inappropriate. While it cannot be hoped that in all cases that a Resolution Conference will result in no further offending behaviour, if appropriate resources are brought to bare, often a second conference will achieve the desired objective. To date in the program, we have not had any third time offenders.
Multiple Offenders
In September of 1995 it came to the attention of the RCMP a number of grade 7 students from an elementary school were being apprehended for shoplifting. Upon investigation, the police learned that what was transpiring was that a game of shoplifting "one-ups-manship" was occurring. A youth would shoplift an item from a store, and then tell friends about such, and see if they could do "better". A total of 13 youth were involved and two retail grocery stores. It was determined that all the youth would be dealt with at a single Resolution Conference, primarily to ensure that all the youth were dealt with in a level manner, to have the youth deal with matter collectively as a group, and, perhaps more importantly, to reduce the time and trouble of the store owners to deal with the matter. The Resolution Conference was conducted at the elementary school gym, with over 60 people in attendance. The principal of the school did attend, but none of the teachers of the students, as apparently, they believed it was not a school matter. The Resolution Conference commenced at 5:00 pm and continued through without break until 9:00 pm. The disposition agreed upon by the group was that each of the youth would write a report about their experience and then the principal would collate such reports for distribution among the other students of the school in a Shoplifting Awareness Program. This case illustrates that numerous offenders may be dealt with at the same Resolution Conference, and secondly, the results of a conference process can have educational value for others. It has been the experience in the program that Resolution Conferences with numerous parties in attendance appear to have better dynamics than smaller Resolution Conferences. An ideal group appears to be from 8 to 15 people in attendance.
Restitution
Once the disposition phase (now termed the restoration phase) of a Resolution Conference is reached, the first matter addressed is restitution to the victim for any monetary loss sustained. To date in the program, there has been a virtual 100% success rate in victims receiving full monetary compensation. The following case illustrates the extent to which such is possible. A 17 year old youth, under the influence of alcohol, determined one evening to vandalize various District of Sparwood Municipal signs and Chamber of Commerce signs, through the aid of a chain saw. The total monetary damage amounted to approximately $4,000.00. At the disposition phase of the Resolution Conference, the parents of the youth suggested that it would be appropriate that the youth, who did not have a part time job, sell various assets he owned, which would include his prized car if need be, in order to make restitution to the Municipality and the Chamber of Commerce. The youth was given six months to make such monetary restitution. As well, he was to assist in the rebuilding of the District of Sparwood signs and Chamber of Commerce signs. The youth made full monetary compensation within three months of the Resolution Conference, selling his weight set, stereo, and various other assets, but not his car, in order to do so. Frequently, in many Resolution Conference, it is the parents of the young offender who will sometimes propose rather drastic solutions in order to ensure monetary compensation is made. We insist in the program that the parents of the youth do not make such monetary compensation themselves, but such is left to the youth. We do encourage the parents, however, to ensure that the youth does so. It is not unusual for the parents to suggest that the youth sell assets that the youth owns in order to make such compensation. A frequent comment made by a parent at a Resolution Conference is to the effect that the youth has caused loss to others, and he should experience an equivalent loss. At the commencement of a Resolution Conference, parents often do not fully appreciate what the youth has done, or sometimes do not believe the allegations made against the youth, but invariably, by the conclusion of a Resolution Conference, the parents are taking an active role in ensuring accountability for the youth.
LEGAL FOUNDATION
The Sparwood Youth Assistance Program is not an alternative measure authorized by the Attorney General of the Province of British Columbia pursuant to Section 4 of the Young Offenders Act. It is our view that a program such as the Sparwood Youth Assistance Program is authorized at Common Law, based upon a police officer's discretion as to whether to lay a charge or not, and hence, the program falls outside of the ambit of the Young Offenders Act. If such view is incorrect, we take the position that Section 3(1)(d) of the Young Offenders Act does implicity authorize a pre-charge diversion program such as the Sparwood Youth Assistance Program.
We gratefully acknowledge the invaluable assistance, support and encouragement of Judge Heino Lillies of the Yukon Territorial Court and Judge Don Waurynchuk of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.
April, 1997
SGT. JAKE BOUWMAN, Officer in Charge
Sparwood Detachment Sparwood, British Columbia
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Glen Purdy
Majic Purdy, Barristers & Solicitors
119 Centennial Square
P.O. Box 1618
Sparwood, British Columbia
Canada, V0B 2G0
Telephone: (250) 425-7216
Facsimile: (250) 425-0400