THE JOHN HOWARD R
Transcript of THE JOHN HOWARD R
CRIME PREVENTION AND YOUTH CASE PROCESSING: WHERE AND HOW TO INVEST AND INTERVENE
THE JOHN HOWARD R.J. SOCIETY’S YOUTH COURT LIAISON PROJECT:
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT
BY
DON CLAIRMONT
ATLANTIC INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLOGY DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY
DECEMBER, 2010
1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
“15” The few young offenders accounting for much crime and court processing delays
CJS Criminal Justice System
CSC Correctional Services of Canada
GSS General Social Survey (conducted by Statistics Canada every 5 years)
FASD Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
HRM Halifax Regional Municipality
IWK Izaak Walton Killam Foundation
JHS John Howard Society
MLSN Mi’kmaq Legal Support Network
NSLA Nova Scotia Legal Aid
NGPS New Glasgow Police Service
PPS Public Prosecution Service (Nova Scotia)
PSR Pre-sentence Report
RCAP Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
RJ Restorative Justice
SCC Supreme Court of Canada
YCLW Youth Court Liaison Worker project
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The evaluation assessment has been fully summarized in seventeen points on pages 57 to 59 of this report. Essentially the John Howard Society and its restorative justice agency initially had a broad set of objectives for the project wherein the YCLW would play both a liaison role to the CJS for youth and an outreach role vis-à-vis the accused youths and their families. Government specification centered strongly on the liaison role -getting the youth engaged more quickly in the court process via legal aid, to their own and to the justice system’s benefit. The governmental emphasis reflected clearly that the project was largely a response to the recommendations of the Nunn Inquiry concerning processing youth cases. As it turned out the project’s emphasis was indeed on the contacting the young offenders and encouraging them to make arrangements with Legal Aid if they had not already done so. There was little further contact if the youth was lawyered up or readily indicated an intention to do so or simply did not want any assistance from the YCLW. Lack of adequate contact coordinates and significant transiency among the youth meant that a large proportion of the youth who were referred to the YCLW, or appeared on the court dockets subsequently made available to the YCLW, were never contacted. Few youths were referred by the police agencies which of course largely eliminated the possibility of their being contacted by the YCLW worker prior to first court appearance. There was little emphasis on a more active and continuing outreach role for the YCLW for several basic reasons – narrow interpretation of the role’s formal mandate and a strict adherence to that in practice, such that linking the youth to NSLA, and / or making them aware of the need and value to obtain such counsel, became the almost exclusive objective; lack of effective ‘buy-in” to the project by many CJS officials which limited police collaboration and led few other court role players to utilize the services of the YCLW; turnover among the YCLW workers which limited the build-up of rapport with officials and familiarity with the young accuseds; no compellability for youths to meet with or talk to the YCLW worker. The contact of the YCLW with the young accused usually occurred over the telephone when such information was provided by police officials or by attendance at youth court but for various reasons the contact was quite limited and only in the last months of the project were they beginning to become more than a single short encounter. The YCLW in concert with the RJ agency staff did develop a YCLW manual, job description, information cards, and promoted and explained the initiative to CJS officials in both Truro and New Glasgow, especially in Truro where the worker had an office. There was a modest input into NSLA practices (i.e., suggestions for simplifying the process of certification for youth). Few services were provided other than encouraging the youths to link up with NSLA and only in last month or so, were a few significant contacts established with youth and/or parent/ guardians. There were also significant lessons and insights that could be drawn from this largely unsuccessful project, in large
3
measure because the competent project management and staff did their best to carry out their mandate and thus, analyses of shortcomings has to focus not on them but on the major structural and problem specification issues such as effectively reaching the small number of multiple repeat offenders – a grouping we have labeled “the 15” since in so many jurisdiction in Nova Scotia roughly that number generate much of the youth crime and a much larger proportion of “secondary” crime (i.e., administration of justice crime). The project perhaps inadvertently highlighted the central query for crime prevention, namely where to put the emphasis, where to make more investment. In the section on Future Directions, pages 60 and 61 of the report, the assessment’s concluding argument is advanced as follows: The overall policy relevance of the YCLW project may well have been to sharply underline that the pivotal policy problem issue for crime prevention and for youth court administration is not the average length of time in processing youth cases. Rather, it is the fact that a small number of multiple repeat offenders – “the 15” as we have labeled them – cause a disproportionate amount of court time and account not only for much crime but also for perhaps as much as 75% of all the administration of justice or “secondary” criminalization which does take court time and limit effective court action. They constitute the proverbial “elephant in the room” for crime prevention and case processing. The YCLW project was not focused on this central problem and did not have the mandate or the tools to deal with it. A different model would appear to be required, a youth intervention outreach model, a model that does not exist in Nova Scotia but does have some modest commonality with the NSLA approach in HRM and the MLSN court worker approach in the Aboriginal community. In this evaluator’s viewpoint such a multi-tasked youth intervention approach pinpointing the central youth crime problem highlighted by the YCLW project could be a major step forward for the justice system in Nova Scotia.
4
THE JOHN HOWARD SOCIETY’S YOUTH COURT LIAISON PROJECT: THE FINAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page Introduction 6
The YCLW Approach 8 The Evaluation Framework 10 The Work Completed 13
Carving Out the task 16 The Agency and the Mandate 16 The Two Sites, Truro and New Glasgow 18 Other Court Liaison Programs in Nova Scotia 19
Case Processing Patterns 21 Analyzing Case Processing Times in Nova Scotia 21 Analyzing Youth Court Dockets 26
The Implementation of the YCLW Approach 33 Contacting Clients: Strategies and Contacts 33 The YCLW Client Interaction 36 The Detailed YCLW Client Write-Ups 40
Interviews and Contacts with CJS Officials 43 New Glasgow 43 Truro 47
Conclusion and Future Directions 57 Key Assessment Points 57 Future Directions 60 Works Cited 62 Appendices 64
The Form Requesting Information from Police Services 64 The YCLW In-Take Form 65 The Amended RJ Checklist Form 66
5
THE JOHN HOWARD SOCIETY’S YOUTH COURT LIAISON PROJECT: THE
FINAL REPORT
INTRODUCTION CCJS (Canadian Centre of Justice Statistics) reports and other studies indicate
that youths, aged 12 to 17 inclusively, make up about 8% of the population and account
for 12% to 13% of criminal charges and more than 15% of recorded offenses. While the
trend for crime, including crimes of violence, has been downward from the high levels of
early 1990s, youth crime trends, especially with respect to violent offenses, have bucked
that pattern. These statistical findings have been especially valid for Nova Scotia
(Clairmont, Violence and Public Safety, 2008). The North-Central region of Nova Scotia,
where the communities involved in this youth court liaison project are located, mirrored
in most respects the provincial patterns in youth crimes (Department of Justice,
Provincial Task Force, 2006). Their youth population accounted for 19% of the
provincial youth population but for 22% of the recorded youth crime. Their shares of
provincial youth property crimes and violent crimes were closely proportionate to their
share of the provincial youth population. The one area of criminal offending where the
youths in these areas were over-represented was “other criminal code” (e.g., bail and
administration of justice offences) where their rate of 50 incidents per 1000 youth
compared to 38 incidents per 1000 province-wide; such over-representation is very
meaningful in a project such as this which aimed at reducing obstacles to court
processing of youth cases.
Theoretically, the evolution of citizenship in western democracies has been
identified as the key force behind the rise of various “ rights” movements, not the least of
which has been the evolution in youth justice policy from the Juvenile Delinquency Act
to the YOA in the 1980s and in 2003 the YCJA. Several studies (e.g., Degusti, The
Impact of the YCJA on Youth Case Processing, 2008) have examined the impact of the
6
YCJA and shown that it has led to less incarceration, more extrajudicial responses to
youth offending and greater reliance on informal cautioning among police, all without an
increase in the overall level of youth crimes. Fewer youth cases proportionately are being
processed in court but a higher proportion of those that are court processed involve
violence and repeat if not prolific offenders. Currently, most national funding for crime
prevention among youth has focused on either anti-gang programs or on at-risk youth
especially at junior high age (i.e., 11-13). A neglected grouping would appear to be
youth, without gang involvement, who have come into conflict with the law for serious or
repeat offending. This project, responding to offending by all youth 12 to 17 years of age
who have not been channeled to extrajudicial measures and who live in milieus
reportedly characterized as not having quasi-gangs, balances out the social policy
attention.
The Nunn Inquiry, established by the Province of Nova Scotia in response to
youth violence and the shortcomings in the response of the criminal justice system,
addressed general issues concerning young offenders, especially high-risk youth. In his
report, (Spiralling out of Control, 2006), Nunn advanced 34 recommendations. A number
of the recommendations dealt with educational policies, others with the need for changes
to be made in the YCJA and still others for greater provincial coordination of its services
for troubled youth, and for its development of a child and youth strategy. There were
three recommendations – two of which were the number one and number two
recommendations respectively - which have been the raison d’etre of the Youth Court
Liaison project. The first Nunn recommendation focused on the immediate aftermath of
arrest, called for reducing the delay in a youth passing from arrest to court appearance
and suggested that the youth should appear in court within a week of arrest if not at the
next scheduled Appearance Date. The second Nunn recommendation referred to the need
to reduce overall delay in court processing from arrest through to disposition and for
determining the reasons for the delays and subsequently establishing norms or standards
to reduce them. Recommendation # 26 which called for a coordinative, interdependent
strategy of interventions, and supports to at-risk youth and their families, also appears to
have provided impetus for this project, especially taken in conjunction with
7
recommendations calling for police to appoint youth court liaison officers
(recommendation #9) and for the Public Prosecution Service to have specialized Youth
Court Crowns where the numbers warrant it (recommendation #10). The
recommendations highlighted here (recommendations #1, #2, #26) focus on public safety
but also carry a presumption – certainly a hope – that the greater awareness of and timely
engagement in the CJS processing by the young offenders and their guardians could have
positive implications for effective intervention, reduced recidivism and perhaps for
alternative justice options.
THE YCLW APPROACH The Colchester / Central John Howard Restorative Justice agency was well
positioned to develop and implement a Youth Court Liaison project to address the Nunn
recommendations concerning delays in justice processing, assisting in the coordination of
CJS activities, and linking young offenders and their guardians to supportive community
services. It has valuable experience providing restorative justice programming in the
Central region of Nova Scotia, has collaborated with Correctional Services in special
programming for youth on probation (Marshall, Working Together Project 2004), enjoys
a high level of respect from CJS role players, and has strong relationships with
community service providers, governmental and non-governmental. It is also now
embedded in the John Howard organization, a long established service provider to young
and adult offenders. In preparing its proposal for the Youth Court Worker (YCW) liaison
project, the agency held a consultation with members of its regional restorative justice
committee and others. The consultation fleshed out the problems and issues with respect
to the delays Nunn cited (e.g., arriving in court on plea day unprepared, lack of parental
involvement in the process, causing delays in the PSR assessments) and helped define the
terms of reference of the YCW liaison role as “a neutral friend of the youth court
providing information and navigational services to all youth with matters before the
court”, speeding up the processing, and referring youths and guardians to supportive
8
community services (Comments Regarding The Youth Court Liaison Worker Pilot
Project, 2008).
The Pilot Project proposal that emerged put forth a number of central objectives
for the YCW liaison activity (Project Proposal, 2008). The first objective was deemed to
be researching and advancing a YCW model that would target the causes of delays at the
four nodal points, namely arrest, court appearance, securing legal aid, and cooperating
with the PSR assessments; these causes were presumed to primarily involve
informational and motivational considerations on the part of youths and guardians and it
was considered that the emergent model could have implications for other areas of the
province. Another objective, clearly related, pointed to the development of a strategy /
protocol for enhancement of the youth’s participation in the court process (e.g., a “cheat
sheet” dealing with demeanor and so forth and transcending the issue of delays). A third
major objective advanced the importance of not only informational sessions and
associated materials for youths and parents / guardians but also the value of support
activities and referrals to community services and programs for both parties (e.g.,
parental support groups). The fourth major objective dovetailed with the 26th Nunn
recommendation and emphasized the YCW model contributing to partnerships with and
among other CJS role players.
The project proposal also emphasized the value of having a comparison site and
here the agency was able to draw upon the findings of its recent collaboration with
Probation Services where sharp differences were found between the Truro and New
Glasgow regions in the CJS approach to young offenders (Marshall Working Together,
2004). These two regions were selected as comparison sites, a strategy that was
appropriately deemed likely to enrich the central project objective of researching the
causes of delays in processing youth cases and advancing, at the conclusion of the
project, nuanced recommendations for dealing with them, whether a single YCW model
or variants thereof (for example, not all regions may for example have the caseload to
justify a special full time YCW role).
9
The YCW liaison project was scheduled to be in place until the end of the fiscal
year 2009-2010. Its preparatory work – setting up the project, hiring the staff, creating an
initial training manual, selecting an evaluator, and contacting CJS role players in both
sites – was essentially accomplished as per schedule and the phase of service delivery
began in the late winter/ early spring of 2009. It could be expected that the YCW role and
the project’s goals and strategies would evolve as more was learned about gaps in CJS
processing that are amenable to YCW action and how to respond to the needs of the
youths and parents. The unfolding of the project and the implementation of its services
and networking are described below.
THE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK This evaluation has been truly a formative type evaluation in that the evaluator
was deeply involved with the project since the evaluation was formally approved and, in
addition to providing specified deliverables, participated regularly as a member of the
project’s advisory group. The scheduled time frame for the evaluation was from January
2009 to March 2010. Oral reports were provided on regular basis to the project staff and
to the project’s advisory group and a progress report was submitted in January 2010. A
draft final report was submitted in March 2010. The project received an extension till the
summer of 2010, reasonable in light of turnover in the YCLW role and delays in reaching
formal agreements with the collaborating CJS partners.
The evaluation targeted baseline and subsequent measures / findings and a
comparison between the two sites, Truro and New Glasgow. There were diverse
methodologies employed, including the following,
Examining the relevant academic and social policy literature
Interviews of police, court officials, project staff and others, in-person, by
telephone, and via email
Interviews and emails with front-line persons engaged in other court liaison
projects in Halifax and the mainland Mi’kmaq First Nations
10
It was anticipated that any interviewing of youth and parents / guardians would
have to be thoroughly considered by the project advisory committee. Several
strategies were advanced including an equivalent to an “exit” type questionnaire
and / or obtaining signed agreement to interview the youths and their parents /
guardian on the impact for them of the YCLW service (e.g., the information
received, the service contacts facilitated) and their assessments of case processing
issues. Unfortunately, for reasons noted below, no such interviews were possible.
Secondary data analyses of youth offending patterns through youth court dockets
Secondary data analyses of relevant Department of Justice (JEIN) data to examine
case processing by area
Access to YCLW workers’ files with respect to contacts with youths and their
parents / guardians to examine the number and features of the contacts, the
referrals to other services; the interactions and arrangements with service
providers, and with police and court role players.
Participating in as many of the project advisory group meetings as possible The evaluation matrix advanced below indicates how the evaluator initially
operationalized the evaluation with respect to first three objectives of the YCW project
stated above. The fourth objective – the partnership and networking with the criminal
justice role players – was seen to entail both formal and informal linkages, including the
project’s advisory group structure, collaboration on key tasks such as preparation of a
YCLW training manual and brochures, appreciating the ways in which the YCLW
worker could / should fit in order to realize the other three objectives, and determining
the impact of the YCLW worker activities on the conventional criminal justice system
roles. The references in the matrix to the data collection periods remain as initially
advanced but project delays and implementation issues as well as the project extension
accorded by the funding agency meant they were off by roughly six months.
11
EVALUATION MATRIX
PROCESSES
ACTIVITIES & OUTPUTS
INDICATORS DATA SOURCES
DATA COLLECTION PERIOD
Objective #1: reduce delays and barriers; four nodal points of Youth involvement in CJS (police, NSLA, court, probation.
Total days arrest to court to disposition; # of appearances; identify barriers and facilitating factors.
Department of Justice plus YCW files. Two project sites. Interviews with key CJS players
February/April 2009 Baseline and periodic thereafter, concluding in February/March 2010
Salient Youth Justice Experiences elsewhere
Literature, HRM and Sydney experience
April /May and thereafter
Informational and motivational requisites for youth and guardians’ engagement.
Interviews with CJS officials, observation at Youth court, youth focus group reports, possible interviews with youths and guardians, YCW files. Two sites
May 2009 through march 2010
Objective #2: enhance the engagement and awareness of young offenders in all processing phases
Materials prepared. Preparedness and changes in behaviour and attitudes; knowledge of the possible implications of one’s approach / actions; possibly more RJ referrals, less repeat offending
Court observation, YCW files, interviews with police and CJS officials, Department of Justice / RJ agency stats, possibly interviews with youths /guardians
Baseline over the next three months and periodically thereafter, especially in final phase January- February 2010
Objective #3: information to young offenders and parents/guardians re arrest, court processing etc and community services; YCW support activities and referrals
Identification of needs and gaps. Contacts with and referrals to appropriate community services. Brochure and other material produced. Direct supports activities.
YCW files and outputs. Interviews with “high-end” service providers and CJS role players. Possible interviews with youths and guardians. Two site comparison
Baseline February –May, 2009 and periodically, thereafter, especially in last quarter of the project’s life in fiscal 2009-2010
12
WORK ACCOMPLISHED In keeping with the evaluation design, the emphasis was placed on literature
review, baseline one-on-one interviews with key criminal justice officials in the Truro
and New Glasgow areas (police, crown prosecutors, defence counsel, probation officials
and judges), accessing and analyzing contextual secondary data, and meeting with the
Youth Court Liaison Worker (YCLW) and the project manager as well as attending eight
advisory committee meetings in Truro and two in New Glasgow. Approximately 30 trips
have been made to Truro and three to New Glasgow. There was no direct contact with the
primarily targeted users of the service, whether the youths or their parents / guardians,
simply because little meaningful or substantial relationship had been established with any
of them by the YCLW workers until the very last weeks of the project.
The salient literature accessible on the youth court liaison role has been quite
modest even when supplemented by extensive web searches (i.e., googling “youth court
liaison” and similar phrases). Most of the items discovered have been proposals and
announcements while rare have been detailed descriptions or substantial assessments.
Three themes have been noted in the sparse literature, namely an emphasis on the youth
court liaison role for responding to special racial/ethnic groupings (e.g., Aboriginals in
Canada and Australia / New Zealand, Somalis in Ottawa), the provision of such services,
usually by social workers, for youths who are considered serious offenders or have
special challenges (e.g., mental disorders), and a broad characterization of the youth court
liaison role to include, if not emphasize, a navigator function linking the worker and the
young client with other programs and social services.
The literature reviewed at length particularly concerns the youth court liaison role
among the Mi’kmaq in Nova Scotia, a service provided by Mi’kmaq Legal Support
Network (MLSN), and the youth court liaison service in Halifax Regional Municipality
provided under the auspices of Nova Scotia Legal Aid. The basic literature on the
Mi’kmaq court worker program has been Clairmont and McMillan (2001, 2006) and it
has been supplemented through informal discussions with Mi’kmaq court workers.
Materials from Australia and New Zealand have been helpful in considering the youth
13
court liaison role there for Aboriginal offenders. Background literature dealing with
programs for youth, such as the restorative justice program and an earlier project in
association with Probation Services (Marshall, 2004), carried out by the Truro agency
administering this youth court liaison project have also been closely examined. The latter
evaluation also examined the criminal justice system’s response to young offenders in
breach situations in the two areas being compared in this evaluation, Truro and New
Glasgow (Westville). Another literature source of some value has been that associated
with early case resolution initiatives across Canada which have attempted to speed the
court processing of adult cases. In a major study recently completed by this evaluator
(Clairmont, 2009), the significant challenges facing such efforts were clearly
demonstrated and it was found that four variables in particular thwarted the early
resolution objectives and were associated with longer time spans for case resolution,
namely if the accused person was facing a likely jail term, was a multiple repeat offender,
was charged with a violent offence and was represented by Legal Aid counsel.. It will be
interesting to see if the same factors are dominant in accounting for delays in the
processing of youth cases.
Personal interviews with the CJS officials or role players mentioned above were
conducted in the Truro and New Glasgow areas. All told there have been twenty-one
such interviews of roughly 1.5 hours duration carried out. Sixteen were completed as
baseline interviews and five of these role players were re-interviewed at least once again
in the later stages of the project; additionally there were discussions with a handful of
CJS role players at the meetings of the advisory committees for the YCLW project. The
interviewees were all cooperative and generally had a positive view of the court liaison
project but they also differed in their level of initial and ultimate enthusiasm for it and in
their assessments of its “value-added” to the current processing of young offenders.
There were some significant differences as well in how they anticipated taking advantage
of the youth court liaison project (e.g., drawing upon the YCLW experience to assist in
sentencing considerations) in their own responsibilities but much commonality in
ultimately viewing it as marginal and of limited value as implemented. The analyses of
these interviews are provided below by area and criminal justice system role. The modest
14
turnover among these officials coupled with the significant turnover in the YCLW role
meant that only recently in the last months of the project were networking linkages
stabilized especially in the Truro area. In addition, there have been a handful of
interviews and email exchanges with other officials and CJS role players such as MLSN
staff, the NSLA court liaison worker, and officials in the Nova Scotia Department of
Justice; in all these instances the contacts have been multiple.
Several secondary data sets have been analysed to provide salient contextual
information for evaluating the YCLW project. The “Community Counts” data system
developed by the Nova Scotia Department of Justice has been accessed for information
on socio-demographic and criminal justice factors for both Truro and New Glasgow,
facilitating comparison between them and with the province as a whole. A special data
set, accessed by the evaluator from the court administration data systems for 2004 and
2005, and another from Nova Scotia Corrections have provided for useful analyses of
crime patterns among young offenders in the project areas. A data system created in 2009
by Nova Scotia Justice at the evaluator’s request has provided information on youth court
case processing for Truro, New Glasgow, HRM and Nova Scotia as whole, over the years
2006 through 2009; the data have been analysed by year and jurisdiction along with
variables including gender, type of offences and the number of days from first appearance
to final appearance. The analysis of this data set is provided below. Another data source
utilized has been the court dockets for Truro and New Glasgow; these data, available
since April 2009 for Truro youth court but only sporadically in the case of the New
Glasgow youth court, provide for some insight into the impact of a small number of
repeat offenders not only on the court load but also on court processing time for different
young offenders. This data set is analysed below primarily for the Truro youth court.
There have been some twenty-six meetings (often entailing long interviews) with
the youth court liaison worker and the project administrator. These meetings were
especially necessary since there was significant turnover in the YCLW role, namely three
persons in a nine month period. In addition, the project, like most projects where
successful implementation requires collaboration from other governmental services, has
15
encountered – despite the excellent liaison workers that have been employed - many
challenges in quickly securing referrals and accessing crucial data; accordingly, detours
were necessitated and alternative strategies advanced, all of which affected the timing
and also the specifics of the evaluation strategies. Most significantly, the referral issues
limited the potential impact of the YCLW on the criminal justice system in Truro and
New Glasgow and any proposed contact by the evaluator with the targeted clients of the
project. The referral problems and general low level of collaboration of police (aside
from the Truro Police Service) and other CJS officials continued to challenge the project
to the very end. A three month extension to the project occasioned only minimal
improvement either in the YCLW project’s engagement with either CJS officials or
accused youths and their parent/guardians but did help in reflecting upon and analyzing
the issues facing such an important initiative. In addition to the cited meetings and
interviews with the YCLW staff, the evaluator has had complete access to all YCLW
worker files and to all materials, including the project’s narrative report accompanying
this preliminary evaluation report.
CARVING OUT THE TASK
The Agency and the Mandate
In launching this initiative, as noted above, the Truro John Howard Restorative
Justice agency was well suited in relevant experience with youths in trouble, well-
embedded in the CJS and respected by CJS officials and community groups, and familiar
in partnering with other parts of the criminal justice system in advancing special
innovative projects. The agency leadership in collaboration with the regional restorative
justice committee had delineated a clear set of objectives and a plan of action that was in
keeping with the imperative of the funding body, namely to “develop a front-end youth
court liaison worker program modeled after the Mi’kmaq program designed to get the
youths properly prepared for court and reduce adjournments”. This thrust in turn closely
followed the recommendations of the special justice committee that was advising on
government’s response to the Nunn Inquiry. The project leaders conceived of the project
16
as having three phases, namely a research phase, a preparation for service delivery phase
and a service delivery phase (Henderson and Miller, Narrative Report 2010). The first
two phases, as described in the Narrative Report, were well-implemented despite an
important staff turnover, testimony perhaps to excellent reputation enjoyed by the
agency. These are discussed below in the section on project implementation.
The last phase was much less successful. Service delivery, given the interpreted
mandate of the project, depended considerably on obtaining referrals (especially of
course timely referrals) from the police services such that the YCLW worker could
contact the charged youth prior to first appearance in court. Otherwise, the YCLW
worker had to wait until the youth made a court appearance by which time given the
adherence to the narrow interpretation of mandate there was little to do since the youth
had contacted NSLA or was advised to do by the Court or was uninterested in the YCLW
services. The police referrals generally were not forthcoming despite the considerable
effort expended on trying to persuade these bodies, getting an order-in-council (this did at
least yield some court dockets), and the general approval of the initiative by the same
police services. Only in last scheduled months of the project was a solution achieved that
could have resulted in substantially more referrals but by then the project was seen by
CJS officials as ending soon. Three interlocking problems have created this Achilles heel
effect, namely (a) the concentration on implementing the project’s mandate solely at the
front-end; (b) foregoing any YCLW role once the accused youth was in touch with Legal
Aid; (c) the lack of embeddedness of the YCLW worker in the CJS system which was
seen as a short-term project marginal to restorative justice agency itself. Under these
conditions goodwill did not translate into close collaboration for a variety of reasons
elaborated in sections below. Possible, related referral sources were not pursued because
the mandate was interpreted as front-end exclusively, that is, it was far too restrictively
implemented in retrospect. The project unexpectedly ran into formidable barriers in
achieving its primary service mandate and did not pursue probation referrals which had
been discussed at the beginning of the project nor did it engage parent / guardians to any
extent or develop a strategy to deal with the indifference to the offer of assistance on the
part of repeat young offenders. The turnover among YCLW workers certainly did not
17
help embed the program with the CJS role players either. It appears that at conclusion
some of the blockages had been removed and there was an appreciation of the too
restrictive interpretation of the mandate, and encouragement by CJS officials to elaborate
the YCLW worker role (e.g., a court liaison navigator function as well) in order to better
serve the youths and the CJS system itself.
The Two Sites: Truro and New Glasgow
The two areas that are serviced in the YCLW project are similar in many respects.
According to the provincial “community counts’ website, and based on the categorization
‘Justice Police District”, the two small urban areas have been struggling to hold their own
population-wise. Truro has barely held its population, going from 11,940 in 1996 to
11,765 in 2006, whereas for New Glasgow the decline was modestly more significant, its
population going from 9915 from 9455 over the same period. Both urban areas
experienced a major decline in the population’s 0-4 and 5-9 age categories over that same
ten year period, a fact which indicates future population decline. Neither area has a large
minority population but both do have small numbers of African Nova Scotians and
nearby First Nations. Truro has had a slightly higher level of violence and property crime.
Truro in 2007 had a rate of violence per 10,000 of 224 and for property of 701, while
New Glasgow rates were 198 and 557 respectively. Interestingly, both sets of rates were
slightly higher than those for either Halifax Regional Municipality under the Halifax
Regional Police Service jurisdiction or Cape Breton Regional Municipality under the
Cape Breton Regional Police Service.
It will be reported below in the section on provincial rates of youth case
processing (average number of days to process youth court cases) that, in recent years,
youth case processing times have been significantly less in New Glasgow. It is not clear
what factors account for this difference and the accessible data do not lend themselves to
more sophisticated statistical analyses. The Working Together project (2004) which
involved partnering between restorative justice and probation services in the two areas
also reported significant differences between the small urban areas but advanced no
18
underlying causes. As will be seen in the write-up of interviews with CJS officials, there
are suggestions that the CJS role players in the two urban areas have differed in their
approaches to youth and other justice issues but these assertions are cast in rather
idiosyncratic terms (e.g., judge X has this approach, the crown here has a different policy
etc) and not linked to underlying cultural or socio-economic factors so appear rather
idiosyncratic; perhaps the assertion if valid attest to the significance of individual styles
even in a highly regulated field such as the CJS. The YCLW project for a variety of
reasons, convenience and the possibility of different perspectives among them, arranged
for each area to have its own project advisory committee consisting of CJS officials;
perhaps, the outcomes of the project could shed some light on the presumed differences.
Other Court Liaison Programs in Nova Scotia
The two other court liaison programs in Nova Scotia are the Mi’kmaq, province-
wide (three full-time staff), court worker program managed by MLSN and the youth
court liaison worker employed full-time in HRM by NSLA (there is a similar program for
CBRM). The YCLW worker spent a few days on-site with these two projects. The MLSN
program was advanced as a possible model for the YCLW project but in the most crucial
respects it is not a great fit. The MLSN court workers reportedly are minimally involved
with the client prior to meeting up at the latter’s first appearance. The court workers do
get court dockets but rarely in such advance time that they can schedule meetings with
the accused persons, and they do not receive earlier referral information from the police
services with regard to the contact coordinates of and arraignment date for the young
accused persons. Of course, in smaller Aboriginal communities, where kinship ties are
densely intertwined, there may be significant informal networking that minimizes the
lack of formal notification but that cannot be simply assumed and in fact the court
workers have said that they do not usually meet the accused before first court date.
Secondly, the MLSN court workers are typically more holistic in their engagement with
the youth, following the file through all court phases and not withdrawing once the youth
has a lawyer. Thirdly, they can, for a variety of reasons (cultural, the service’s
recognition in the First Nations and the program’s longevity) reportedly be more
19
“aggressive” in shepherding the client and navigating him or her through the justice paths
and possible involvement in community services and programs. Fourthly, and perhaps the
most important difference, the MLSN court worker has much more embeddedness and is
a court player recognized as significant and readily accepted by the CJS officials of all
stamps for constitutional, policy, and common sense (knowledge of reserve life, capacity
etc) reasons. The MLSN court worker has a fundamentally distinct “consultative role”.
Under the circumstances, the learning model would be limited more to information about
court procedure and related basics unless the MLSN court workers were probed for their
insights as to why some of the accused persons they work with do not show up for
appearances or breach undertaking and so forth (something that happens frequently even
in the Eskasoni court according to court officials there); it does not appear that these
topics were broached by the YCLW worker in their interaction with MLSN staff.
The NSLA court liaison worker is part of the NSLA front-end team. A veteran in
the position, she has become a pivotal person not only for visiting the cells as well as
attending court in order to arrange the legal service for the youths, but also because as a
result of her longevity and effectiveness in the role, she performs other services for Legal
Aid and even for other CJS role players (e.g., tracking the youth through myriad
addresses etc). A busy person (just a year ago there were two court liaison workers in
HRM to deal with a caseload that she held has not declined in recent years, but one
retired and was not replaced) she does not do much referral of youths to local services
and programs though she has done so on occasion. She could see much value-added in
their being a youth court liaison role player who could take on such a task. In her view
there is no especial overall problem of drawn out case processing in the case of youths;
reportedly, the NSLA has a three week standard for dealing with a case from arraignment
to resolution or trial The police write up the disclosure for all cell cases within 24 hours
and adhere to the Nunn-recommended standard of 21 days from arrest to first appearance
and the province-wide, mandated 7 days for serious cases.
Both the NSLA court liaison worker, and the police officer through whom all
youth court cases in HRM are channeled, reported that the drawn out court processing
20
problem for youth (and they could have added, for adult accused persons in criminal
justice system) is essentially post-arraignment. They both contended, in their separate
interviews, that the issue is one of “serious repeat offenders who don’t want to hurry to
jail and / or are caught on other crimes while waiting to get their first case processed or
who have an attitude”. The court liaison worker – and the police officer – acknowledged
also the equity claim for a court liaison type position outside metropolitan Halifax, noting
that small population numbers could block funding for such positions unless the worker
was multi-tasked and both considered that adding, for example, a navigator dimension to
the role would be a valuable enhancement. In their views, for reasons of equity and
effectiveness, they would envisage a more holistic type court liaison mandate outside
metro and one where the priority was on working with the minority serious repeaters who
take up so much court time (“concentrating on the 15% would give bang for the buck”).
The court liaison worker also commented that becoming part of the core criminal justice
system response, even in one organization, such as NSLA, nevermind with other
officials, takes time. She held that it would take months of “being there” in order to begin
to overcome marginality, adding “it is not a matter of hostility but rather the need for
time and experience to sink in”. In her view, it is a matter of equity that there be such a
service in places like Truro and New Glasgow and working effectively with repeat and
serious young offenders might well require such a broadly mandated role.
CASE PROCESSING PATTERNS
THE CONTEXT: A. CASE PROCESSING TIME Youth Case Processing in Nova Scotia, By Area, 2006-07 to 2008-2009
Given the stringent rules developed in recent years for police to lay charges as
soon as possible subsequent to arrest and usually within a week, it is not surprising that
most CJS officials report that delays in case processing occur primarily after arraignment
(i.e., securing a lawyer, deciding on course of action, delaying proceedings).
21
Accordingly, this YCLW project as noted was especially mandated to intervene at the
front-end of the court processing by contacting accused youths and encouraging them to
seek counsel etc even before arraignment if possible. To context the salient issues for the
project, Table A provides data on case processing in youth court in Nova Scotia,
comparing Truro, New Glasgow, HRM and Nova Scotia for each of the past three fiscal
years. The data describe the volume of single and multiple charge cases by average
processing time. Case processing time is the elapsed time, measured in days, to process a
specific case in youth court from the youth’s first court appearance to the date of decision
or sentencing. The definition of a case is identical for each of the three years; it combines
all charges against the same person having common or overlapping dates into a single
case. This definition is considered to better reflect court processing because it groups all
charges against an accused that are being heard simultaneously before the court. Such a
definition would appear to understate recidivism in the conventional sense. The data
made available by the Nova Scotia Department of Justice only provide the marginal
counts for how volume and time are associated, by jurisdiction and year, with single or
multiple charge cases, gender, age at date of offence, age at date of disposition and type
of offence; accordingly, it is not possible to do much analysis.
The table indicates that across all jurisdictions and years, single charge cases were
much less common than multiple charge cases and, not surprisingly, they consistently
have averaged less processing time. Female cases of course have been much fewer than
male cases and usually, but definitely not always, have averaged less court processing
time than male cases across the jurisdictions and years. Considering age at time of
offence, younger (i.e., 12-14 inclusive)youths’ court cases took modestly more days to
process but there was much variation by year and jurisdiction; essentially the same result
held for age at date of disposition though here the modest difference by age was reversed.
Violent offences generally took more court processing time than property and other
offences by jurisdictions and years, the major exception here being New Glasgow where
property offences averaged the most court processing time in all three years.
Interestingly, the ratio of single to multiple charge cases, of male to female cases, and
young to older youth cases remained roughly the same by jurisdiction and year. Violent
22
offences on the other hand generally increased in all jurisdictions over the three year
period. It can be reasonably concluded that cases involving multiple charges, male youth,
and violent offences would be the major contributors to court processing time.
Looking at the table by jurisdiction, the Truro court, despite a modest increase in
volume, has clearly experienced a consistent decline in case processing time for both
single and multiple charge cases, male and female accuseds, and both violent and
property crime. There has been however an increase in elapsed time for processing cases
involving younger youth, an anomaly that might be explained by the increasingly greater
recourse of the Truro court to having assessments of youths completed by the IWK Youth
Forensic Services specialists. In the case of the New Glasgow court, where volume has
remained stable, there is no clear pattern of decline in court processing time over the
three year period with respect to type of case, gender or type of offence but there has
been the same pattern as in Truro of greater processing time for younger youth. It may be
noted too that court processing time for cases of all types has been significantly less in
New Glasgow than in Truro for all three years. As noted below, in interviews with some
CJS officials very knowledgeable about both court milieus, it was mentioned that there
apparently is much more transience among accused youth in the Truro compared to New
Glasgow, a crucial factor apparently in causing court processing delays because of “no
shows”, “can’t locate” and so forth.
The pattern in HRM has been for increasing volume of multiple charge cases,
male cases and violent offences over the three years but no clear pattern of change in the
court processing time associated with these types of cases. In HRM, as in Truro and New
Glasgow, there has been a clear pattern of increased court processing time for cases
involving youths aged 12 to 14. Nova Scotia as a whole essentially followed the patterns
concerning volume and elapsed time by case type as found in the New Glasgow court.
The New Glasgow court, consistently by case type and year, has had the shortest case
processing times. Given the format of the data available for analyses, it is not possible to
examine why case processing time varies between Truro and New Glasgow, whether
explanatory factors be types of offences, proportion of multiple charge cases and / or
23
24
other variables. The common experience in all the court jurisdictions for significantly
increasing elapsed court processing time for the 12 to 14 year old young offenders
strongly points to more focus on getting at the roots of problems whether through seeking
assessments of outside specialists, having case conferencing or other strategies. This in
turn suggests that while reducing court processing time for youths may remain an
important imperative, the courts are at least equally if not more concerned with other
imperatives of the YCJA; as one interviewed judge commented, “there may be good
reasons sometimes to go slow in youth cases and explore the roots of the problems”.
Table A Youth Case Processing in Nova Scotia, 2006 to 2009
LOCATION Truro New Glasgow HRM Nova Scotia
YEARS 06-07 07-08 08-09 06-07 07-08 08-09 06-07 07-08 08-09 06-07 07-08 08-09 VOLUME /
TIME V T V T V T V T V T V T V T V T V T V T V T V T
SINGLE & MULTIPLE CHARGE CASES Single Charge Cases
30 116 34 98 43 93 34 58 36 49 35 74 106 122 86 104 103 144 441 114 487 104 446 118
Multiple Charge Cases
50 204 57 139 74 137 45 87 54 97 56 86 293 142 319 131 352 159 897 147 948 141 901 153
Total Cases 80 171 91 124 117 121 79 75 90 78 91 82 399 137 405 125 455 156 1338 137 1435 128 1347 142 GENDER
Male Youth 61 150 73 127 82 126 53 85 66 74 69 88 322 137 330 130 354 157 1075 133 1138 128 1056 144 Female Youth 19 240 17 120 33 107 26 53 24 88 22 62 67 137 69 107 93 145 249 153 289 128 280 128
Unknown 1 1 2 120 0 0 0 0 10 130 6 82 8 242 14 124 8 65 11 230 AGE AT DATE OF OFFENCE
12-14 11 125 18 147 22 163 16 61 18 71 31 91 92 125 74 139 107 184 302 140 287 132 302 158 15-17 68 175 72 120 94 111 60 81 72 80 59 77 306 140 329 122 346 148 1023 135 1136 127 1035 136 18+ 1 414 1 26 1 106 3 16 0 0 1 87 1 96 1 309 2 60 12 136 10 116 9 177
Unknown 1 1 1 351 2 558 1 357 AGE AT DATE OF DISPOSITION
12-14 7 67 8 92 13 111 11 53 15 66 28 89 62 92 44 119 74 153 188 106 174 109 184 124 15-17 50 123 66 119 80 117 57 75 65 80 56 80 275 130 299 118 305 140 917 129 1010 120 946 132 18+ 23 308 17 157 24 139 11 96 10 84 7 65 62 211 61 169 76 220 232 191 249 172 216 199
Unknown 1 1 1 351 2 558 1 357 VOLUME BY TYPE OF OFFENCE
Violent 17 289 32 179 33 142 15 80 21 69 22 89 160 175 158 153 202 205 384 174 503 164 471 188 Property 40 148 35 113 41 126 40 85 24 73 26 108 90 126 83 117 89 145 525 138 429 126 393 135 Admin.of Justice 4 17 6 106 11 94 2 33 10 90 6 81 47 65 48 101 54 87 105 87 137 98 132 98
Other C.C 9 208 1 7 7 173 7 53 4 79 2 1 29 195 25 171 21 98 118 143 76 127 64 113 C.C. Traffic 3 99 4 92 3 60 0 0 1 48 2 1 10 122 8 125 3 85 29 89 35 97 21 76
Other Federal Statute
7 88 13 46 22 86 15 56 30 85 33 65 63 82 83 82 86 111 177 82 255 83 266 102
Source: Justice Enterprise Information Network (JEIN), Nova Scotia Department of Justice. *Excludes cases that involve bench warrants and/or restorative justice.
25
THE CONTEXT: B: ANALYSES OF DOCKETS
Analyzing the Youth Court Dockets
The dockets were examined to explore what they suggest about the young
offender court population. Youth court dockets were not available before April 29th 2009
because the YCLW project did not receive the letter authorizing their obtaining them, and
prior to arraignment day, via the requested Order in Council until April 14th, 2009. The
first set or package of Truro court dockets available to the evaluator covered the period
April 29th to mid-February 2010. Subsequently, when the project was extended, a second
set of dockets became available, covering the period mi-March to mid-June 2010.
Dockets from the New Glasgow court were apparently only sporadically available to the
YCLW project and in turn to the evaluator. The expectations were that a small number or
proportion of youth would account for the majority of the charges and the prolonged
court cases, and especially generate the majority of administration of justice offences
(e.g., cc145) and breaches (e.g., YCJA 137, failure to comply with a sentence or
disposition, and YCJA 139, breach of an undertaking such as attending school or living at
a specific address). Statistics Canada’s The Daily reported in 2005 that four of every ten
youth cases involved at least one such “secondary” offence.
Examining the First Set of Youth Court Dockets: April 2009 – February 2010
The analysis here has to be taken with caution given the limited time span of the
data and the difficulty of disentangling among arraignment and other phases in the court
process such election and plea, show cause and so forth; also, cases occasionally
vanished completely from the docket record subsequent to arraignment or show cause,
sometimes because of a transfer to another youth court (in the case of Truro, cases
involving Aboriginals from Indian Brook would often be re-assigned to the closer
Shubenacadie court) or perhaps because some dockets were not received (or lost) by the
agency. The data below show that the bulk of the charges and of the court time was
accounted for by roughly fourteen to twenty youths in each of Truro and New Glasgow.
This fits well the so-called “15” model advanced by some knowledgeable CJS experts,
26
namely that roughly that number of young offenders basically account for the lion’s share
of the court business. There are patterns of court activity associated with these youths; a
few cases will illustrate some of the patterns.
Youth A appeared on the first and the last docket in this set. He appeared in the
first available docket – April 29, 2009 – facing a show cause hearing (bail release) on
four charges dealing with assaults and mischief, all apparently related to the same
incident (a presumption based on the consecutive case numbering). On May 4, 2009 he
reappeared for hearings with a total of nine charges, six for election and plea (all the
April 29 charges plus two administration of justice charges). He reappeared on August 5
on thirteen charges, now with four “administration of justice” charges and the other nine
a variety of assaults and other charges; the hearings covered the gamut from show cause
to arraignment to election and plea. On August 11 he appeared for sentencing on six of
the thirteen charges. On August 26 the youth appeared for arraignment on three new
charges (assaults and a cc145). On September 2, the youth returned to court for election
and plea on the August 26 charges but also for sentencing on six charges (mostly
mischief) stretching back to April 29th. On October 21 the youth reappeared for election
and plea on the August 26 charges. On November 4, he reappeared again for election and
plea on the same August 26 charges. On February 8, 2010 the youth appeared for
arraignment on six new charges (consecutive case numbers), all but one a “secondary”
offence, that is an administration of justice charge such as YCJA 137. Over the ten month
period the youth appeared in court on over twenty charges at least half of which were
what we are labeling ‘secondary offences’.
Youth B appeared on the available dockets first on May 25 for an election and
plea hearing on three charges, all YCJA 137. On June 8 she reappeared again for election
and plea on the same set of charges. She reappeared on June 22 and July 6, again for
election and plea on the same three May 25th charges. On September 2, she appeared for
arraignment on two new charges (theft charges) and on October 7 she reappeared for
election and plea on these charges. On November 4 she again appeared for election and
plea on the September 2 charges and, in addition, for arraignment on an administration of
27
justice charge. While the available docket data have many gaps it is apparent that the
young female was a multiple repeat offender chalking up as many “secondary offences”
as criminal code offences.
Youth C first appeared in court in this docket sample on June 8 where he was up
for election and plea on two shoplifting charges (presumably one incident judging by
case numbering). On June 15 he reappeared again for election and plea on the same two
charges. On June 29 the youth appeared for arraignment on two new charges associated
with a break and enter. On August 15 the youth was in court facing a variety of hearings
(status report, election and plea, and arraignment) for the four charges cited above plus
seven administration of justice charges. On September 16 he was back in court for
hearings on five of the above charges plus for arraignment on a new administration of
justice charge. On October 7, the youth returned to court to face a sentencing hearing on
previous charges plus arraignment on a new administration of justice charge. The docket
information available provides no further reference to this youth.
Youth D first appeared in this docket set on May 2 when she was being arraigned
on two charges, namely serious assault (i.e., cc267) and mischief, the case numbering
suggesting that one incident occurred. On May 25, June 8 and July 8, she was on the
docket each time for election and plea on these same two charges. In the July 29 docket,
the youth now faced five charges including three new ones; the earlier charges were set
for election and plea again while the new ones – shoplifting and an administration of
justice offence - for arraignment. On September 30, the young girl was on the docket for
seven charges, facing arraignment on two new administration of justice charges. The last
docket information available on this youth was October 7 when she was on the docket for
an election and plea hearing on all seven charges noted in September.
The twenty youths cited above all were repeat offenders and accumulated a very
high proportion of administration of justice and breach offences. There were three
dominant subtypes. About half had committed a serious offence among their violations, a
serious offence being considered as a major assault (e.g. cc267) or a robbery. The other
28
half could be broken into those who had essentially committed what might be called “life
style” offences such as possession of drugs and LCA offences, and those who continued
– during this limited time period – to commit minor criminal code offenses. Apart from
these twenty youths, there were six youths recorded on the docket as charged with a
single incident of drug possession or an LCA violation, seven youth charged with a single
incident of shoplifting or minor theft, eight youth facing one or two charges solely on
YCJA 137 (breach of disposition), and eight youths docketed on a single criminal code
offence such as common assault, mischief or cc145. There were another eight cases
where the youth was on the docket for what appeared to be a single incident of a possibly
serious offence such as break and enter, weapon offence or an assault with a weapon.
Overall then, an examination of the first set of Truro youth court dockets, limited
as the data were, indicated that about a third of the youths – likely a lower proportion if
the dockets covered a longer time period and were more complete - accounted for the
majority of the charges and certainly for the vast majority of the “secondary” charges
associated with administration of justice and breach offences. The finding is quite
congruent with the estimates of a Truro judge who suggested that 20% of the youth
offenders accounted for 80% of the court time. It should be noted that a significant
minority of the youth were recognized by name by the evaluator as Aboriginal which
meant that the Mi’kmaq court worker took responsibility for working with such youths
and also, that their court appearances could, and did also and often, occur subsequently in
the Shubenacadie court. That would in turn mean that roughly fifteen non-Aboriginal
youths accounted for a very large percentage of all the charges, “secondary” charges and
court time at the Truro youth court. The evidence from scanning the less complete New
Glasgow youth court dockets for the period up to the end of February 2010 essentially
reproduced the above patterns, and the comments of police and court officials there (New
Glasgow) also suggested that a relatively small number of youth, serious and/or repeat
offenders, accounted for most of the court time and skewed the distribution upwards for
court processing time of youth cases. This analysis of the first set of dockets raises the
significant question whether projects such as the YCLW should target first and second
time young offenders or focus on more intensive outreach strategies to work with the
29
much smaller grouping of serious multiple repeat offenders. Effective intervention with
the latter might well produce “a bigger bang for the buck” but as we shall see these same
youth were quite indifferent, if not resistant, to overtures from the YCLW, a pattern
predicted by many justice officials who were interviewed.
Examining the Second Set Youth Court Dockets: mid-March 2009 – mid-June 2010
Table B provide the findings for the analyses of the second set of dockets that
became available to the evaluator when the YCLW project was extended by three
months. It can be seen that in the case of New Glasgow, where the dockets available were
fewer than for Truro, that the total number of youths processed was 64 persons facing
165 charges, of which 70 were administration of justice or “secondary”. A sub-sample of
just 14 youths (22% of the total) accounted for 91 of the 165 charges and 50 of the
“secondary” charges; percentage-wise this small group – the “15” to use the concept
referred to above – accounted for 55% of all the docketed charges and fully 71% of the
administration of justice charges.
Turning to the Truro second set of dockets, the centrality of the “15” concept is
even more evidenced. All four of the youths highlighted in the analysis of the first set of
Truro youth court dockets continue to appear in these second set dockets; indeed over
half the multiple repeat offenders identified earlier reappeared in this second set. As the
Table B shows, for Truro 69 youths faced 443 charges, 173 of which were administration
of justice charges (especially YCJA 137). The “15” grouping consisted of 16 youths who
accounted for 270 or 61% of the charges, and 139 or 80% of all the “secondary” charges.
As an aside, it is interesting that while the numbers of youths processed in court in New
Glasgow and Truro are quite similar, the charges, overall and “secondary” charges, were
considerably greater in Truro. There were more dockets in Truro but the difference in the
number of charges suggests differences in the way the CJS operates in the two milieus as
well as differences perhaps in the characteristics of the young offenders – perhaps there is
greater transience among them, as some CJS officials have contended.
30
Clearly, in both milieus but especially in Truro, a relatively small number of
offenders accounted for the majority of charges as indicated in a simple count of the
dockets, and in particular for a large majority of the administration of justice of
secondary charges, the very focus of the Nunn Inquiry and of the governmental mandate
for the YCLW project. The conclusion stated above for the analyses of the first set of
dockets clearly is underlined in the analyses of the second set of dockets. As we shall see
below, the YCLW project, as conceptualized and implemented, was not able to respond
to the challenge of the “15”.
31
TABLE B
YOUTH COURT DOCKET LISTING, CHARGES, 2010 # Youth # Charges # Adm Charges New Glasgow April and May Total 64 165 70 The “15” Sub-total 14 91 50 % of total 22% 55% 71% Truro Late-March to mid- June Total 69 443 173 The “15” Sub-total 16 270 139 % of total 24% 61% 80% *Youth Court dockets made available through YCLW project, 2010
32
IMPLEMENTATION: CONTACTING THE CLIENTS
YCLW WORKERS’ STRATEGIES AND CONTACTS
There were three major strategies employed by the YCLW workers in attempting
to make contact with young accused persons in the Truro and New Glasgow areas. The
first was to create and distribute information about the YCLW project and the assistance
being offered through brochures, school notices and presentations, the public media and
even facebook. While such initiatives clearly would be required, in projects such as the
YCLW, to ‘show the flag” as it were and create a general awareness about the project
among youth, parents / guardians, local social service providers and officials in the
criminal justice system (CJS), it is difficult to assess their impact. They were not cited by
CJS interviewees and the three YCLW workers reported that they received no calls from
potential clients traceable to the brochures and related initiatives (e.g., school visits).
Perhaps the most important implication of these activities was that they increased the
knowledge / awareness of the YCLW worker herself about the CJS processes and
possible services beneficial for clients. They also engaged the YCLW worker with CJS
personnel; the brochures, for example, were prepared in discussion with CJS officials and
were revised based on the experience of the YCLW worker. The first YCLW spent much
of her time while in the program working on such materials, creating a manual,
researching kindred initiatives, and having introductory meeting with CJS officials and
others.
In the late winter-early spring of 2009, the second YCLW worker, in addition to
contacting schools, police services and other service providers and preparing and
distributing business cards, brochures and posters, carried out one-on-one interviews with
three parents of youths who had recently been in criminal court and six and eight such
youths in the Truro and New Glasgow areas respectively. She sought to better understand
their court experiences, concerns and needs with respect to the court process, thereby
preparing herself for the contacts to follow. In interviewing these respondents she
adhered quite strictly to the limited mandate of the YCLW role. Analyses of the parent
33
interviews indicated that the parents were engaged in the process and always attended
court sessions. They – even in the one case where the youth went without a lawyer -
claimed to have no problems with the court process or the court officials but did express
some confusion over the packaging of the youth’s multiple charges at court appearances
(i.e., what charges were up for what type of hearing).
The six Truro youths, obtained through probation and restorative justice contacts
and paid for the interview, were with one exception, repeat offenders, two of whom had
been sentenced to custody. They reported a pattern of “no shows” and breaches but no
especial problem with understanding the court process. They expressed regret that they
did not get legal aid prior to first or even second appearance and also that they did not
show up for court appearances and breached probation orders. They indicated that they
had been told and were aware of the consequences of their actions. All reported that their
parents were there for them and that they had at some point accessed restorative justice.
Several acknowledged having had drinking and drug problems and attending ‘addiction”
programs. What was unclear is why they had such problems (i.e., the offences, the “no
shows” and breaches) and what they perceived to be the main issues for themselves and
other repeat young offenders; such questions were not raised in the interview since the
focus was narrowly on their court experience.
The eight youth interviews in the New Glasgow area echoed the themes found in
the Truro interviews. About half the youths were repeat offenders with histories of “no
shows” and breach of undertakings and of probation. Several had been either remanded
or sentenced to Waterville. The repeat offenders typically reported that they had had a
previous restorative justice experience; they also reported that they had alcohol or drug
abuse issues. Again they, and the other youths, almost always indicated that their parents
had been there for them (for example, one youth noted “the PSR helped me because it
showed I had supportive parents”). All the youths had Legal Aid (and were “okay with
it”) but not until after their first or second court appearance. Several complained
themselves of the long waits for their cases to be settled, implicitly shifting the blame to
court procedures. They expressed regret in not securing legal aid faster. A thirteen year
34
old repeat offender also rued, “”It’s not worth getting into trouble. Waterville is not fun.
You can only see your mom once a week if she comes”. The several low-end young
offenders in the grouping – two of whom were yet to be sentenced – followed all the
undertakings, did not miss a court appointment and their chief concern was whether their
record would haunt them in the future.
While it is reasonably to contend that the youths interviewed were not
representative, in their attitudes and family background, of the clients that the YCLW
workers were to encounter, the strategy of doing such preliminary interviews, especially
when the project was not yet getting police referrals, was heuristic. The interviews,
examined in retrospect, were interesting and shed some light on youth case processing.
They generated much puzzlement about the “whys” without shedding much light on the
reasons for the court delays, “no show” and breaches. Not surprisingly, no strategic plan
for the future contacts appears to have been developed based on the interviews.
A second strategy in the project was to obtain an order-in-council in order to
access court dockets and the names and addresses of young accused persons from the
police services so that the targeted clients could be telephoned and the priority focus of
the YCLW – contacting youth prior to their first appearance in court or, better, prior their
contact with Legal Aid – could be pursued. The order-in-council authorization was
obtained in April 2009 and subsequently, at least in Truro, the court dockets regularly
flowed into the YCLW office. The court dockets themselves provided useful though
limited information concerning the names, alleged offences and type of hearing session
of all young accused persons scheduled to appear on the primary youth court sessions
(e.g., in the case of New Glasgow, the docket for the final Tuesday in each month that
was set aside for youth arraignment and election and plea).
While the court dockets helped the YCLW workers prepare for their court visits,
they of course did not provide any information on the youths’ addresses or telephone
numbers. That information had to come from the police services if the primary focus of
the project was to be effectively implemented. Unfortunately, the order-in-council did not
35
immediately persuade the police services to provide that information despite visits from
the YCLW worker. A referral form was created by the YCLW worker (see appendix A)
and sent to the police services. It sought the police services’ providing information on
each youth’s name, age, telephone number and address, appearance date and the name
and contact coordinates for parents/guardians. Only municipal police services in the New
Glasgow area – essentially only the New Glasgow Police Service - began using the
referral form in June 2009 and then basically discontinued its modest use of the form
after several months, reporting that it was an “extra” and deemed to take too much police
time; the officers did advance an alternative in October 2009, namely sending to the
YCLW a version of the restorative justice checklist form which already contained that
information (see below). During the tenure of the second YCLW worker (ending late
August 2009), the RCMP services in the Truro (Bible Hill) and New Glasgow (Pictou)
districts never used the referral form nor did the Truro Police Service. In the latter case,
the police service considered several specific requests from the YCLW pursuant to the
order-in-council but rejected use of the form on the grounds that to provide names and
addresses could be considered to be a violation of the YCJA.
In the fall of 2009 few referrals trickled in from the RCMP in the New Glasgow
area (unfortunately several of these few referrals were for youths who already had
obtained Legal Aid and were making a second or third court appearance, thus falling
outside the perceived mandate of the YCLW) and from the New Glasgow municipal
police services. Most importantly, beginning in mid-October, the YCLW project began
receiving referrals from the Truro Police Service which, in recent years, has generally
accounted for 70% of the court cases in the Truro youth court. The number of referrals
remained quite modest up to late January 2010 – just a dozen or so in total from the
police services in the New Glasgow area between September 2009 and late January 2010
(one municipal police officer reported that “the court docket is not that big anymore”)
and slightly more from the Truro area (all from the Truro Police Service). In late January
2010, following up on some officers’ suggestion, the conventional restorative justice
checklist form was adapted to facilitate police referrals to the YCLW project, essentially
adding a line for police services to simply check off and thereby direct the form to the
36
YCLW project (see appendix B). This new user-friendly format and a special February
information session with the RCMP in Bible Hill raised hopes and expectations for the
YCLW program but unfortunately these were not realized in the final scheduled two
months of the project or in its brief extension. While the Truro Police Service contributed
its regular handful of referrals, the New Glasgow police referrals fell off completely and
the RCMP referrals remained non-existent; indeed over the whole two years of the
project only one referral form was received form was received from the RCMP in the
Truro area.
The YCLW and Client Interaction
Securing names and contact coordinates for clients of course is simply the first
necessary step to communicating with the youths and/or their parents. As researchers
working with all branches of the CJS appreciate, the phone numbers for alleged offenders
are often not valid for a variety of reasons (e.g., disconnected service, wrong number) and
the “official” caller does not often get called back when a message is left; moreover,
when one does reach the youth client, the response is often perfunctory at best nor may
the response of the parent /guardian, clearly the secondary ‘client’ in the YCLW protocol,
be more receptive. The YCLW worker usually would attempt to communicate with the
parent / guardian if the youth was unavailable and sometimes the contacted youth would
simply pass over the telephone to the parent rather than have a meaningful conversation
with the YCLW worker. Typically, the YCLW worker would also send out, via the post,
pertinent materials on the project and the court processes to the client’s address but here
too there were frequent returns for invalid addresses.
The above implementation realities certainly had two major consequences,
namely severely limiting the number of meaningful contacts that the YCLW workers
could achieve (see below), and creating much frustration among them regarding the
achievement of their goals. In numerous conversations with the YCLW workers since
January 2009, the evaluator found this frustration by the dedicated workers to be quite
37
palpable. The YCLW workers were committed to their tasks but boxed-in by the
combination of limited mandate and weak embeddedness in the criminal justice system.
The third YCLW strategy for contact was to be at the courthouse on days devoted
to arraignment and election and plea of the alleged young offenders. This too, as
researchers know, can generate much frustration as it is not a milieu conducive to a
meaningful chat with an accused offender by an ‘outsider’ whose role would largely be
unclear to the youth and the parent / guardian. As one YCLW worker commented, “You
have to cajole the youth outside the courtroom”. She observed, too, that youths at the
courthouse, mulling around in the corridor, may not want to appear needy of help before
their friends, and youths who are repeat offenders appeared usually to have little interest
in the service offered and are into the “defer, defer” mode. The parents – reportedly a
significant number of youths did not have a parent / guardian with them in court though
in such cases they would have their Legal Aid counsel - also were difficult to engage at
the courthouse and some seem peeved that they even had to be there. The YCLW
workers did not indicate whether the judges pointed them out in court and referred to
their services available for the young accused but the presumption here is that they did
not. The YCLW workers, all operating out of the Truro Restorative Justice agency’s
office, did attend almost all the Truro youth court sessions but only a handful of the New
Glasgow sessions. The third YCLW worker reported that in the later months of the
project she was beginning to establish a relationship with some of the youths at the Truro
court.
As the court workers in Halifax and in the Mi’kmaq MLSN commented, such a
comfort level for communication, especially at the courthouse, takes time, requires
becoming part of the milieu and / or having a special initial connection with the potential
clients (e.g., being “one of them” in the case of the Mi’kmaq court workers). The Truro
court did allow for the YCLW worker to use an office on-site on a temporary basis but it
was of marginal value with respect to communicating with youths or parents / guardians.
The limited mandate of the YCLW role was generally interpreted by the workers as not
following the client or parent / guardian once Legal Aid became involved with the client;
38
indeed, one YCLW worker commented that “once the youth is with legal aid, there is
little point in being there and indeed it may be unwise since there may be a conflict with
the defence counsel role”. Such a position undoubtedly increased frustration in the sense
that the focus was then virtually entirely on the “arrest to Legal Aid certification” phase
so the referrals from police services and courthouse contacts on youths’ first appearance
would have been pivotal.
Overall, then, clearly the strategies of implementation for establishing contacts
with young clients have been problematic, primarily because, as one YCLW worker
observed “if the YCLW is to work, the worker has to be more a part of the whole CJS
and she isn’t”. Such embeddedness is hard to achieve in a very limited time frame, with a
very limited mandate, and where there is significant turnover in the position. It appears
too, in retrospect, that more development of the themes to be explicitly explored in the
communication with the youth and / or parent (e.g., exploring the restorative justice
option or asking about any interest in specific programs) may have had some value in
drawing out the other party. At the same time, at the scheduled end of the project there
were grounds for thinking that the pieces were on the verge of falling into place. An
effective referral format has been established which was user-friendly. Meetings with the
police services had created some positive sentiments reflecting possibly greater
collaboration. Also, there was greater awareness that the YCLW project had to take on a
more robust mandate and not limit itself to encouraging the young offender to quickly
seek legal aid. As the Truro police officer most actively engaged in the YCLW project
commented, “If it [the YCLW project] were to shut down, based on the situation to date,
the project would have had little impact from a police point of view but it should get an
extension since it is important to give it a good test”. He went on to identify particular
problem-youths with mental health and drug issues as youths that the YCLW might focus
upon. Indeed, in the course of implementation, the project staff identified key social
services (e.g., the Group Homes, Children’s Aid) and personnel (e.g., usually well-
informed school liaison officers, whether RCMP or Municipal) to relate to in a more
robust YCLW initiative. Also, the value of discussing the situation with the youth in
person and outside the courthouse where they are not in front of their friends was
39
suggested by several CJS officials in the advisory group meetings. Unfortunately the
short extension turned out to be more like a death knell and not a revitalization as all
parties saw little reason to increase – or, in some instances to maintain, - their investment
in a project that would soon end.
The Detailed YCLW – Client Write-Ups
The evaluator examined the written-up contact files established by the YCLW
workers. Undoubtedly there were more casual encounters at the courthouse but these files
provide a good glimpse at the issues associated with carrying out the essential tasks of the
YCLW role.
The second YCLW worker, in place between January and August 2009, began to
receive referrals in late June 2009. All but two of her total fifteen referrals came from the
New Glasgow Police Service. There were no referrals from the RCMP in either the New
Glasgow or Truro areas and none from the Truro Police Service. One client was secured
at the courthouse while others contacted there did not take up her offer of assistance. The
YCLW worker was unable to contact by telephone seven (about half) of the referred
youths though there were some courtroom observations made in a few of these instances,
as there was with respect to non-referred youths. Where the youth was reached by
telephone, the interaction was usually very brief, either the youth informing the YCLW
worker that he / she had an appointment with Legal Aid or intended to schedule an
appointment. Typically, the YCLW worker encouraged the person to pursue Legal Aid
certification, cautioned the youth about the importance of showing up for court
appointments, and offered assistance if required. Subsequently, material was posted to the
youth’s address. In several instances the communication was more substantial, involving
several phone calls, virtually always initiated by the YCLW worker, and the latter
explored social services and programs that might benefit the youth even while the case
was proceeding through the court system. For example, in one instance the YCLW
worker met with a young girl and her social worker several times to discuss the pending
40
court case and the possibilities of going to restorative justice, clarifying some aspects of
that program for both parties as well as for the girl’s mother; the girl had some mental
challenges and had misinterpreted the way restorative justice operated. In two other
instances the YCLW worker reached the youths by telephone and discussed the pending
court case with them, subsequently becoming involved with the mothers in identifying
possible local treatment programs and / or ‘navigating” the youth between restorative
justice and the court system. In these instances the parent / guardian “took over” the
interaction (e.g., contacted the YCLW, answered the phone in the youth’s absence) with
the YCLW worker and there was no further direct contact with the youth. The YCLW
worker also observed that in several cases the contacted youth who refused her services –
she invariably did mention the importance of quickly getting legal aid and later sent an
information package to the residence – either was a “no-show” on appearance date or
attended with a parent but no lawyer, and pleaded guilty.
The third YCLW worker assumed the position in September 2009. Between
September 10, 2009 and mid-January 2010, there were twelve referrals received from the
New Glasgow area; the police used the referral form developed by the previous YCLW
worker. The file information dealt only with contacts or attempted contacts with the
youths via the telephone and the content largely entailed the YCLW worker advising the
youths or the parent/guardian concerning getting in touch with Legal Aid as soon as
possible and the reasons why that was in the youth’s best interests. Despite repeated
calls, leaving messages and searching for alternate numbers when the given phone
number was not in service, only three youths were ever directly contacted. The contacted
youths either had linked up with Legal Aid and had no concerns or issues to raise with
the YCLW worker or were encouraged over several repeat calls to make an appointment;
no other issues apparently were raised when the YCLW worker inquired about being of
further assistance. In several instances the youth was under the supervision of Children’s
Aid and, despite the YCLW worker leaving a message, there was no return call from that
agency. In several other instances the YCLW worker reached a parent who reported that
the youth had or was arranging an appointment with Legal Aid and that ended the
conversation. One significant problem among the dozen police referrals was that they
41
sometimes reached the YCLW after the youth had made his or her first appearance in
court. Whether the contact was with youth or parent, the communication focus was
almost exclusively on whether or not the youth had Legal Aid and the implications for
the youth of not having it. Aside from the police referrals, as in the case of previous
YCLW worker, there was apparently very limited contact established with the youths at
the courthouse. Overall, then, five themes stand out, namely (a) the difficulty of
contacting youth – they move around plus do not return calls; (b) the limited mandate of
the YCLW – if the youth had legal aid counsel or an appointment, then that was basically
the end of the communication; (c) sometimes the YCLW received the referrals from
police after the youth had made a first court appearance on the matter; (d) a good
networking linkage had not been established with Children’s Aid or the Bridges service;
(e) there was little significant contact with young, accused persons at the courthouse.
The YCLW worker had better success in the Truro milieu, in part it would appear
since she spent more time there and became more known by others and more comfortable
in approaching youths. Between mid-October 2009 and the end of January 2010 the
YCLW worker received at least eighteen referrals from the Truro Police Service though
the YCLW project continued to receive none from the RCMP service in the area. A
bonus in the Truro police referrals was that the sergeant also wrote in the appearance date
for each of the accused youths on the referral form. Direct contact was established with
roughly half of the youths though only half of these contacted youth expressed more than
minimal interest in the conversation and the encouragement and assistance offered by the
YCLW worker. The latter concluded that repeat offenders were generally indifferent to
her offer and advice which essentially was limited to issues concerning Legal Aid and
representation in court. Somewhat surprisingly, few parents proved accessible by phone
and in two of the three cases where contact was made, the communication was again
minimal. No file information was available on courthouse contacts and it is presumed
that such contacts did not lead to any meaningful communications between accused
youths and the YCLW worker. Almost one quarter of the youths were Aboriginal and in
these instances the court information on the youth was faxed to the MLSN court worker.
42
The same five themes noted above would apply to the Truro area experience of the
YCLW worker, save there was more YCLW presence at the courthouse..
43
THE VIEWS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM OFFICIALS: NEW
GLASGOW
Interviews, one-on-one, with New Glasgow area officials in the criminal justice
field included police (several officers), crown prosecutor, defence counsel, probation
official, court administrator and judge. In addition, there was contact at several advisory
committee meeting with police officers, the MLSN court worker and the restorative
justice director for the New Glasgow John Howard Society. The minutes of all the
advisory group meetings were perused to elaborate on the interview data where possible.
There were five main themes that ran through all the interviews. First, no one
considered that the issue of case processing time was more problematic and significant
among youth than among adults and indeed only one person considered it even to be of
equal concern. Secondly, that being said, the respondents all did highlight the same
problematic area for youth case processing, namely the length of time between arrest and
the youth securing the assistance of Legal Aid. Thirdly, the respondents did acknowledge
that, while the intervention of the YCLW worker during that interval could be valuable in
many respects, such as assisting in the youth’s getting hooked up with Legal Aid, and
informing youths and their parents / guardians about the justice process and the
importance of adhering to it and having representation, there would be challenges for the
YCLW person’s effective performance, such as timely access of the youth’s valid
“contact coordinates”. Fourthly, all the respondents held that the YCLW could make a
significant contribution in a more holistic sense, namely linking up the youth and parent /
guardian to supportive local service programs, becoming a source of information, on the
whereabouts among other things, of the accused youths for the justice officials, and
keeping an open file on the youth throughout his or her progression through the entire
court processing period (i.e., staying with the clients and not terminating involvement
once the youth has been “hooked up” with NSLA). Fifthly, most officials considered that
the best ‘home’ for the YCLW position would be the more neutral restorative justice
agency given the inherent adversarial feature of the criminal justice system.
44
One official, intimately engaged in creating the court docket, suggested the
crucial area for reducing the time in youth case processing would be “making the Legal
Aid appointment and becoming certified for Legal Aid” but cautioned that, based on
personal experience, police referrals to the YCLW (the basis on which the YCLW could
most timely assist with such tasks) would probably be minimal, especially from the
RCMP. Both cautions proved very accurate as the municipal police did not send any
referrals until June 2009 and the RCMP none until October; neither police service has
sent many referrals up to February 2010 and virtually none since. It was suggested by the
official that the biggest benefit of the YCLW role player might be attending court,
offering assistance to the youth’s securing Legal Aid and providing the youths and their
parents/guardians information about relevant local services. Other officials basically
reiterated these positions. A judge indicated that he did not foresee any impact of the
YCLW in reducing the two weeks it may take to go from police arrest to the swearing of
the information nor on the six weeks, on average, that it takes to secure a pre-sentence
report (PSR), but he allowed that there could be an impact for reducing case processing
time if the YCLW person was an agent or helper of Legal Aid (here he commented that
there is no duty counsel in the New Glasgow court and Legal Aid is busy). Even more
than the above respondent, the judge considered that a more holistic role for the YCLW
could be very helpful. Here he referred to getting information to parents / guardians,
identifying beneficial local services and programs for the youth, and participating in
special, post-PSR conferences, encouraged by the YCJA, to get at the deeper issues of
serious and repeat young offenders.
The Legal Aid respondent (a former crown prosecutor in the same area) agreed
that the YCLW role could possibly speed up the youths’ making an appointment with
Legal Aid and preparing the information required for Legal Aid certification. He noted
though that, while on average it may take three weeks to get an appointment with Legal
Aid, the organization responds much faster if the youth is deemed to be “high-risk”;
accordingly, if there was YCLW activity engaged in developing some standard test to
determine risk level and identify the high-risk youths, then that might speed up case
processing in a very meaningful way. The respondent also observed that the youth court
45
sits for arraignment only once a month (the last Tuesday of the month) so that factor
alone contributes to longer case processing. The Legal Aid official also saw some value
in the YCLW person’s contacting and informing parents (Legal Aid sees its client as the
youth and there is a quite limited role for and interaction with parents / guardians) and in
connecting the youth to local services especially at the pre-probation stage.
Two police respondents gave common views on the YCLW initiative. They did
not think that there was much difference between youth and adult court processing times,
holding that a previous judge had developed a strict policy on a three month turn-around
time for cases. There was the view that the YCLW initiative would not impact on the
time between police arresting a person and their swearing the information since “we’re
already quite fast”. However, the main contribution of the YCLW in quickening up the
case processing would be to help first and second time young offenders to get an
appointment and subsequent certification with Legal Aid (e.g., informing them of what
one needs to bring to Legal Aid offices). Targeting the youths who need and are willing
to accept the YCLW’s assistance was considered the priority. Police also saw usefulness
of the YCLW – if the person had know-how and experience – in responding to the
questions of parents / guardians and in helping youth and parent become involved in
accessible local services and programs throughout the court process. Here it was noted
that many youths do not understand the charges and other aspects of their being charged
so an informed YCLW person could help a lot prior to the youth’s first appearance in
court; similarly, the officers noted that while parents / guardians do get invited down to
the police station to be informed about the arrest and the subsequent processes entailed,
they receive very limited information and virtually nothing on accessible, relevant social
services and programs. The officers commented that the order-in-council accorded to the
YCLW project meant that the project could access court dockets from court
administration and that the YCLW could secure names and addresses via the restorative
justice forms sent to their home agency, but when pressed, acknowledged that that
recourse was of limited value since police departments usually do not send such forms to
the restorative justice agency when the youth is headed to court rather than to restorative
justice.
46
A probation official argued that the delays in court processing lay largely in the
going from arrest to having an appointment with Legal Aid and that the strategy for the
YCLW should be “keep close to the police departments, getting the names and addresses
of accused youth from police and contacting the youths and their parents / guardians”, in
that way streamlining the next steps in the court process (i.e., appointments and
certifications with Legal Aid). Unlike the other respondents, he did not highlight any
more elaborate role for the YCLW nor did he indicate any particular value in the YCLW
person contributing to youth conferences under the YCJA or providing in-depth
knowledge of accessible community resources; in general, he did not think that the
YCLW role player would have the kind of sophisticated engagement or knowledge to
carry out such tasks well.
In responding to the question of where such a service as the YCLW should be
embedded were it to be continued, there was consensus that it should not be in court
administration. Some respondents leaned to “close to the police” and others “close to
Legal Aid” but overall, there was a consensus view that there would be a good fit to the
restorative justice agency. The Legal Aid respondent echoed the views of the senior
NSLA official cited above, namely that housing the YCLW with court administration
would be inappropriate since “it is already more identified with the crown than with the
defence”; further, housing the YCLW with Legal Aid could complicate the lawyer-client
relationship if the YCLW informed the court on contact information or aggressively
pursued the young accused person’s collaboration with court processing policies.
In sum, then, there was much , though not complete, consensus among the New
Glasgow CJS officials concerning the possibilities of effective intervention in crime
prevention and case processing that might be achieved through the YCLW program.
Despite the quite modest actual collaboration with respect to sending referrals to the
YCLW and in attending the advisory group meetings for that area, the CJS respondents
did acknowledge that the program could make a difference if well implemented.
Typically the respondents held that a more robust mandate should be pursued. For
example, at one advisory group session near the scheduled conclusion of the project, all
47
those present –police representatives from both the RCMP and the NGPS, the RJ agency
coordinator, the MLSN representative – advanced the view that the YCLW worker
should be active with cases throughout the court process and not “cut out” when NSLA
has been contacted by the youth. As well, all but one of the respondents suggested that
best value for the role could be garnered if it had a more holistic character, combining
liaison with outreach and working with youths (especially what we have been labeling
“the 15”) and parents, navigating them to potentially helpful community services. The
only person who did not support such an approach, did not primarily because he
considered the YCLW project to be too limited in terms of its life-span and worker
expertise.
THE VIEWS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM OFFICIALS: TRURO
Interviews, one-on-one, with Truro area officials in the criminal justice field
included police (several interviews), two crown prosecutor (email plus), three Legal Aid
counsel, probation official, court administrator and two judges. In addition, there was
contact at six advisory committee meetings with police officers, the MLSN court worker
crown prosecutors, NSLA lawyers and the restorative justice director for the John
Howard Society. The minutes of the advisory group meetings were perused to elaborate
on the interview data where possible. An additional round of interviews with CJS
officials also was completed after the project was concluded. The same five themes that
emerged from the New Glasgow interviews are found throughout the analyses detailed
below, namely, the overall manageability of the case processing times for youth, the
importance of zeroing in on the pre-Legal Aid phase for improving case processing time,
the challenges that this emphasis would have for the YCLW program (e.g., getting the
requisite information and making contact with youth), the value of a more holistic thrust
by the YCLW, and the wisdom of housing the program with the Truro restorative justice
agency. Additionally, among the Truro criminal justice system officials, there was much
48
emphasis on the YCLW focusing upon “the 15”, the minority of offenders who are
serious repeat offenders, on the YCLW worker as a “friend of the court” navigator for
the youth’s case throughout the entire case processing, on the engagement with parents
and guardians, and on the need for an in-depth, organizationally-based knowledge by the
YCLW program concerning how the court works and what resources are available for the
youths and their parents at the community level.
The two crown prosecutors did not express the view that there was a serious
problem with the timely processing of young offenders in their area. One, contending that
there was no especial delay in youth court processing, wrote “Quite frankly I have not
seen much difference in the procedure employed and, other than the realities of the young
person obtaining counsel, youth matters have always been dealt with rather
expeditiously”. Both respondents saw value-added in a role for the YCLW worker as a
“friend of the court”, not as an advocate. One prosecutor commented, “an YCLW worker
would be an important resource for the court and all of the stakeholders … framed as one
which is insulated (where possible) from the inherent adversarial relationship of Crown
and Defense”. She went on to note that, presumably as housed in an organization such as
the restorative justice agency, it is consistent with the YCJA view of “downloading
significant responsibility to the community”. The other crown suggested that there should
be an emphasis in the YCLW on the whys of delay, not so much the delay itself. She
wrote that a key function of the YCLW worker would be “getting them (youth) in touch
with the right people (i.e., defence) and communicating with the parents - obviously that
cannot be the role of the Crown. Finally, one crown agreed with the interviewer’s
comment about an equity issue in having such a YCLW service outside the two large
urban centres in Nova Scotia; she commented that “Justice and Corrections should be
alive to issues of systemic inequities when metro and Sydney have access to services that
are simply unavailable to other youth in the province”.
A senior court administration official reported that she did not perceive any
special problem with youth case processing. She explained that police come in and swear
to the information which is immediately imputed into the JEIN data system and then they
49
usually provide a copy to the Crown in the same building. The police also pick the court
date not the court administrator. She has not noticed any large number of people coming
into the office to complain about procedure or process but if they did, they would be
directed to Legal Aid or the Public Prosecution Service. She saw the YCLW initiative as
having minimal implication for her office but welcomed “another referral source that
could explain the criminal court process for both parents and youth”, especially given the
Legal Aid protocol regarding talking with the youth-client not the parents. She, too,
implied that embedding the YCLW in the restorative justice agency was quite
appropriate.
The two judges interviewed both held that, though it could be improved, case
processing time for youth was no great problem especially in comparison with that of
adults. The judges also zeroed in on ‘structural’ limitations associated with the YCLW
role. One judge observed that if the project’s success hinged on referrals from the police
there could be problems since in his experience the police have been notorious in not
submitting restorative justice forms to the Crown’s office as they are supposedly required
to do. The other judge commented that delays in youth case processing are primarily due
to delays in scheduling legal aid appointments and certification which may be beyond the
reach of the YCLW worker. Both judges considered that the YCLW could be quite
beneficial to all parties. One judge saw its value-added as a kind of navigator for the
youth as the case winds between police, prosecutor and restorative justice, and also as
keeping track of - keeping in touch with -the youth as he or she is going through all the
criminal justice phases; here he commented that “there is much transience among some
youth (especially the repeaters) and seemingly chaotic family living arrangements so
even their defence counsel loses track of them”. This particular possible function of the
YCLW program mirrors one of the key benefits CJS officials elsewhere have identified
with the HRM and MLSN court worker programs.
The other judge saw the role’s value more as problem-solving and considered that
the challenge for the YCLW was that, while there is a need for such a role, it requires “a
strong organizational resource” so that knowledge is retained, the nuances of the work are
50
appreciated and there is a keen awareness of the different contexts (here he noted how
different the prosecution service and probation are in the different locales of Truro, New
Glasgow and Amherst). In his view the YCLW should focus on problem-solving at one
or all of the three key nodal points in the criminal process, namely communicating with
police officers in the “arrest to swearing-the-information” phase (i.e., the YCLW worker
getting appropriate information and starting the intervention), the period leading up to
Legal Aid being secured, and, thirdly, facilitating the pre-sentence report; at all three
phases he considered that there could be significant reduction in case processing times.
The key in his view was for the YCLW to focus perhaps on a particular nodal point and
use energies wisely in determining where the role might make its biggest contribution.
This required in his view “the right person, perhaps a retired, experienced person” and he
was skeptical that that was the case here, noting of the YCLW worker that “She is young
and by the time she learns the ropes, probably gone” so the project probably will be a
waste of time.
The judges pointed out the heavy proportion of court time spent dealing with a
small number of young repeat offenders who, as noted above, generate considerable
problems for the court. One judge observed that often these youths come from the same
two or three geographical areas in Truro and while making up roughly 20% of the youths
being court processed, they “account for 80% of my time”. He emphasized the
importance of obtaining adequate funds to get in-depth IWK assessments for these
serious cases and considered that if the YCLW cannot assist in dealing with the serious
repeat offender – and he doubted it could – then the money might be better spent on these
assessments. The judges also saw a valuable role for the YCLW person in working with
parents, connecting them to programs and services such as the IWK outreach program.
The judges alluded, too, to the equity issue, calling attention to the absence of youth court
liaison roles, whether by police services or Legal Aid, in the Truro area compared to
HRM. Both judges were well aware of the Mi’kmaq MLSN program for Aboriginal
young offenders and appreciated that it operated under a different mandate, constitutional
and policy-wise, that ensured its sustainability. The judges also appreciated the
51
appropriateness of the YCLW as “a friend of the court” being embedded in the John
Howard Restorative Justice Society.
The three Legal Aid respondents, commenting through interview and / or the
Truro advisory committee, suggested that the YCLW worker could make a valuable
contribution to the processing of youth cases, as a “neutral” role player facilitating the
youth’s timely collaboration with the court processing, including of course Legal Aid.
One respondent noted that if the YCLW person was too closely connected with the court,
informing officials as to what the youth did or did not do, then he or she could lose the
trust of the youth and become inconsequential. On the other hand, the other respondent
emphasized that the YCLW worker – somewhat like the MLSN court worker in his view
– might play an aggressive role with youths who for one reason or another are not
showing up for court or for their Legal Aid appointments. He appreciated that unlike the
MLSN counterpart, it would be very difficult for the YCLW worker to play the role of
cultural mentor and “shamer”, but an experienced, empathetic YCLW worker, not
perceived by the youth as a court official, might be successful. For Legal Aid “the 15”,
that minority of young accused persons – prolific offenders who ignored the rules and
procedures – should be a priority focus of the YCLW program. Such an YCLW role,
housed in the more “neutral” restorative justice agency, could benefit all court role
players, certainly enabling Legal Aid to maintain its role as an untarnished advocate for
the youth while facilitating the progression of the case through the court system.
One of the interviewed Legal Aid lawyer readily identified the problem of
speedier youth case processing as occurring at the phase between being arrested and
charged and securing Legal Aid assistance. While vague about whether the problem was
generalized or focused around a small number of prolific and / or seemingly indifferent
young offenders, he did not think there were significant delays at the phases of “arrest to
swearing the information,” or at “completing the PSR”, or even subsequent to first
appearance. To that extent then, his sense of where the problem was matched up well
with the way the limited mandate of the YCLW program was implemented by the YCLW
workers. Not surprisingly, he expressed mild surprise that up to the time of the summer
52
interview no police service in the Truro area had sent any referrals to the YCLW such
that it could contact accused youths prior to first appearance. The respondent also noted
that a major trend impacting on caseload and case processing issues in the area will
continue to be the declining population outside metropolitan Halifax and the correlated
declining caseload for the courts and for restorative justice. Such a trend could facilitate a
focus on the prolific or indifferent offender.
The Legal Aid lawyers also believed that the YCLW worker could be of value in
communicating with the parents / guardians of the youth, underlining their own
responsibility to focus on the youth. It was appreciated that were the YCLW worker
steeped in knowledge of local services and programs that the youth and even the parents
could access as the youth’s case was winding its way through court processing, there
could be value-added at case conferencing and pre-sentencing (to some degree that
assumption underlays the perceived value of the MLSN court worker since mainstream
officials may have little confidence in their own knowledge of reserve life). At the same
time, the respondent was quick to comment that the Legal Aid lawyer in mainstream
cases would frequently have a better knowledge of what might be relevant and helpful to
the client. One NSLA respondent continued on this theme by observing that sometimes
he will want a deferral of trial / sentencing so that the client can build up some credibility
and “stars” by enrolling in a program or doing some specific thing that exemplifies
remorse and / or a willingness to change. Finally, the respondents did acknowledge the
value of collaboration with the YCLW worker; for example, one respondent noted that,
since the YCLW project , in order to speed up the youths’ access to legal aid, the office
staff has been instructed to provide the appropriate forms to the youths without waiting
on certain information being filed such as income (he observed that in almost twenty
years of legal aid work, only once did he come across a case where the youth had an
income level beyond the cut-off point for Legal Aid eligibility).
There were several interviews with the key senior Truro police officer who liaised
with the YCLW program. In his view there was no especial overall problem concerning
the timeliness of processing youth cases and, further, he observed that some delay can be
53
constructive - “time can allow for a cooling of emotion and more rational thinking”. He
pointed out that Truro police swear an information within two weeks of arrest and within
a week for serious youth offences. He also held that the Truro court was “not inundated”
with young offenders. Several problems were identified however, namely (a) youths not
following through on their undertakings, a frustrating issue for the police he argued since
the police cannot be aggressive with the youths, and at the same time the Crown and the
Court seem ambivalent about the importance of a violation of an undertaking issued by
the police; (b) the other major processing problem is a youth being charged with another
offence before the initial one is resolved in court (common among more prolific young
offenders). The officer considered that the YCLW worker could be of much benefit to the
police, court and the youth in working with the youths and the parents / guardians to
minimize these problems. The parents for a variety of reasons often are reluctant to phone
the police to report an undertaking being violated but perhaps the YCLW worker could
play a role here.
Additionally, the police respondent believed that a second value-added facet of
the YCLW program could be to inform – and encourage participation in - the youths and
parents about local programs and services that could make a positive difference for them
at every phase of the court processing and beyond. In his view, for a small number of
prolific young offenders, the parents / guardians complain that the youth is “outta
control”. In his view, for the YCLW worker to be successful in this and the above
problem he or she would have to be well-skilled, have experience in relating to the youths
and court role players and be well-informed about supportive services and programs in
the area. Significantly, in the fall of 2009, after the Truro Police Service long refused to
release the names, addresses and phone numbers of young accused persons for whom an
information was laid on the grounds that it was inappropriate under the imperatives of the
YCJA, this service - and this senior officer - has been by far the major source of referrals
for the YCLW program.
The YCLW project was discussed with the area probation officer on several
occasions both in a one-on-one interview and at advisory committee meetings. He
54
identified two major groupings, namely (a) the first or second time offenders who
generate few problems, most especially a lack of knowledge about the criminal court
process, and (b) the serious repeaters who constitute roughly one-third or less of his
youth caseload (typically fifty active files, only a few of whom are female). Most of these
repeaters “have had a crack at restorative justice” too and their experience in court is such
that they know a little about the court process and can postpone and postpone if they
think they are going to be sentenced to Waterville. The young offenders, especially the
repeaters, come disproportionately from the trailer parks and the low rent apartment
complexes and they come alone to their PSR session. The probation officer does his own
PSRs which facilitates his understanding of the youth and his or her milieu and which he
finds helpful in court. There are few minority youth on his caseload, less than a handful
of either African Nova Scotians or of Aboriginals.
The probation official clearly welcomed the YCLW initiative and emphasized the
importance of the YCLW worker being at the courthouse and getting familiar with the
two types of young offenders and embedding herself in the court milieu. He had praise
for the workers’ efforts to date and appreciated that perhaps their being female might
enable them to be more effective as a YCLW worker since “it might not bring out the
repeat offenders’ resistance to authority”; at the same time, noting their apparently
different socio-economic background and unfamiliarity with the youth court scene, he
saw the challenge of their avoiding being like a lamb to the wolves (i.e., “the 15” or the
repeat serious offenders). In effect, he saw value-added in the YCLW worker being like a
“navigator’ being with the youth’s case throughout the entire court process. He did not
identify the delays prior to securing legal aid as more problematic than delays at the PSR
level. The respondent saw a major role for the YCLW worker in connecting with parents
and guardians as well since their understanding of the court process and related issues has
often been very limited. He suggested strategies for the YCLW worker such as
connecting the parents and entire family with the Family Resource Centre and other local
service and programs. From his vantage point as probation officer, the key indicators for
success for the YCLW initiative could include fewer delays and “no shows” in
completing the PSR and youths / parents better informed about the criminal court
55
process. The respondent appreciated the arguments for and against a full-time YCLW
worker in the area (i.e., need and equity versus there being only a small population) and
suggested that having the person do other tasks as well in the restorative justice agency
would make it more feasible for governmental funding. Somewhat surprisingly, despite
the respondent’s support for the YCLW program and presence at several advisory group
meetings, and despite the previous collaboration with the RJ agency managing the
YCLW project on a non-dissimilar project (e.g., Working Together 2004), the probation
office referred no youth on pre-breaches or otherwise to the YCLW during its two year
life-span; the primary reason for this anomaly appears to have been the very narrow
implementation of the YCLW mandate, basically causing the YCLW worker to focus
almost exclusively on the “front-end” issue of encouraging quick engagement of youth
with NSLA.
Interviews with the CJS officials subsequent to the conclusion of the YCLW
project reiterated their viewpoints as described above. They held that indeed the YCLW
project needed to have had a more robust mandate, that the YCLW worker should be
engaged with the youth throughout the court processing, especially the multiple repeat
offenders who run up most of the “secondary” administration of justice charges (i.e.,
violation of undertakings, bails, no-shows and so forth). Clearly, too, they saw the ideal
role as a combination of liaison vis-à-vis the CJS and outreach worker in linking the
youth and parent to local community services. Both PPS and NSLA respondents stressed
the need, indeed the equity imperative for crime prevention and CJS efficiency /
effectiveness outside the metropolitan area, for such a coordinative role embedded in the
RJ agency – and enthused about the concept of a “ youth outreach worker”, combining
CJS liaison and outreach services. One elaborated that ideally the occupant of such a role
should also be an experienced person (analogous perhaps to the “youth intervention
outreach workers” employed by Community and Correctional Services, PEI). The
judicial respondent shared the view that there is a need for more coordination and
working with youth and in fact that need, he believed, will increase imminently because
of pending changes in court system and NSLA policy. He considered that the YCLW
project had no impact partly because of its limited life span (“I and others did not invest
in it since we were thinking it would not last long and it didn’t”) and partly because of its
56
limited mandate. He appreciated the challenge of getting the targeted youth (“the 15”) to
meet with the youth worker but considered that court undertakings can be put forth by the
crown as a condition of bail etc so “that is no big deal” (he added that having police
advance such undertakings would be more complicated legally and subject to more
challenges).
These CJS views dovetailed well with the wrap-up assessments of the YCLW
worker and host RJ agency directors who appreciated the need to effect more of an
outreach approach that focused on the multiple repeat offenders, the CJS and the
community, and discussed at length how to engage such youth (e.g., pay them to attend
conferences a la Pathways?, have the court compel them to attend as part of their
undertakings?).
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Key Assessment Points The main themes that have emerged from this assessment are
1. The YCLW project was based on a well-conceived proposal that laid out a
clear set of objectives and plan of action to meet some of the central problems in processing youth court cases as highlighted by the Nunn Report and further specified by the special review of Nunn Inquiry Recommendations within the Nova Scotia Department of Justice.
2. The operational mandate was however much narrower and handcuffed the
significance of the project, limiting it to encouraging youths to secure legal aid (NSLA).
3. The project was conceptualized in term of three phases, namely research,
preparation for service delivery, and service delivery.
4. The first two phases were successfully implemented but the third phase ran
into unexpected problems.
57
5. The third phase objectives faced formidable barriers in securing the
collaboration of police services to provide the YCLW with the names, addresses and telephone numbers of young accused persons so that the project could meet its primary target, namely contacting young accused persons prior to first appearance and especially prior to their obtaining legal assistance (NSLA).
6. The assistance provided by the YCLW worker was chiefly passing along court
processing information, and encouraging the youth to adhere to the regulations and also to secure Legal Aid. The young clients were also frequently asked if they wanted or needed any other assistance but in a rather perfunctory fashion which yielded few such requests.
7. Absent a satisfactory solution to the problem of police reluctance to pass
along the information required until January 2010, and given the additional problem of either not being able to track a good portion of the few referrals received and having the few contacted either decline their offer and / or say that they had legal aid which generally concluded the telephone contact, the third phase was severely crippled.
8. The mandate of the YCLW in retrospect was much too restrictive and
bypassed the possibilities of implementing the liaison as a “neutral friend of the court”, probing the strategies to respond to the repeat offenders who indicated that they did not need or want the information and generalized assistance that the YCLW worker was offering, and not pursuing referrals that might have come from Probation (e.g., delays in completing the PSR).
9. Essentially the YCLW workers had the dilemma of few referrals and little
apparent need for the services they were offering.
10. These difficulties in providing a meaningful service were compounded by significant turnover in the YCLW position. There were three occupants of the role in the scheduled eighteen months of project life.
11. In addition to working through these problems and setbacks, the YCLW
workers had little time to establish themselves as players in the CJS or even as an essential component of the managing RJ agency which itself had a well-earned reputation. Putting a process in place is one thing, securing meaningful buy-in is another. The project itself was too short term to achieve those goals.
12. There is evidence from the analyses of court dockets and the YCLW workers’
files that the problem of delays in youth court processing may have little to do with not knowing court procedures or the perceived possible negative impacts
58
of not following undertakings etc. The evidence in this report is consistent with the observations of other court liaison and police liaison personnel, namely that a modest percentage of the young accused persons – the so-called “15” - are multiple repeat offenders who may be quite familiar with their court situation and, for purposes of efficient case processing as well as crime prevention, they have to be reached in ways other than, and with more depth than, what the YCLW service was conveying.
13. The court docket data analysed here strongly support the above contention
showing that roughly 75% of the youth appearances over a ten month period were appearances by, maximally, 20% of the youth and these 20% were multiple repeat offenders with at least one serious criminal code offence to go along with a heap of “secondary” administration of justice (i.e., YCJA 137 and 139, cc 145) charges. Themes #11 and #12 would suggest the heuristic value of conceptualizing a different youth court liaison / intervention model.
14. CJS officials, in interviews and other contacts, generally had a favorable view
of the YCLW project but held that the YCLW role was implemented with a too restrictive mandate and carried out with a too restrictive approach. Only one interviewee considered that the impact to-date of the YCLW was significant on either the youth or the CJS system but they all saw value-added for the system if the YCLW were to evolve in various ways.
15. The above officials emphasized a number of common themes namely (a) that
overall there is no crisis in the manageability of case processing times for youth but there are problems for the court processing associated with a minority of repeat, serious young offenders; (b) the “pre-legal aid secured” court processing phase is the important phase to concentrate on; (c) there is value in a more holistic approach to the court liaison role and it certainly should not end when the young accused has obtained a lawyer; (d) the appropriate organization to house the YCLW would unquestionably be the restorative justice societies for many reasons (e.g., neutral, well-informed); (e) it takes time for a new CJS service to become accepted as a meaningful collaborator for a host of reasons (e.g., there are privacy and other rules about sharing information that cannot be lightly dismissed); (f) there was much consensus on the need for and value of the YCLW as a “neutral friend of the court” and as a navigator for youths and parents with respect to both the CJS system and local social services and programs; (g) there could be good value in the YCLW being housed where there was in-depth, organizationally-based knowledge available to the worker concerning how the court system works and what resources are available for the youths and their parents at the community level; the RJ agency was deemed to be such an organizational base.
16. There was recognition by most CJS officials participating in the assessment that, while there is a need for a YCLW-type role and that equity demands it
59
(there are such roles in HRM and in the Aboriginal community), there is a necessity to factor into the priority setting, issues such as population and youth court overall caseload. For many CJS respondents this is a powerful reason for having the YCLW role broadly mandated and multi-tasked outside the metropolitan areas.
17. There was a widespread view, if not complete consensus, among the officials
and other respondents in this evaluation that the central problem in youth court case processing is how to deal effectively with the serious and multiple repeat offenders who tie up the court process and do so for reasons that are not clear, but usually not because they do not understand the appropriate procedures and rules and the implications of violating them. .
Conclusions and Future Directions The YCLW project was successfully implemented in many respects as noted
above, but clearly ran into unexpected problems in providing its essential service to
young accused persons. It was unable to secure the desired level of needed police
referrals and appears to have mis-identified (as may have the Nunn Inquiry) how to
meaningfully connect with the high risk youth who are at the heart of court processing
and crime prevention issues, certainly in the Nunn sense of those issues. It would be
unfair to criticize the project for matters such as few police referrals over which it had no
control or for not being able to formulate an effective approach to engaging the high risk
youths – indeed who has?
There are strong reasons for re-conceptualizing the YCLW approach and
developing a more elaborate model of intervention. The police and probation referral
issues have been appreciated and can be accommodated in a different model. There is
better understanding because of the YCLW project, and among others in the CJS, of the
need for new strategies in working with – highlighting - the high risk youths. There is
more consensus among the CJS respondents that that there is a need and an equity
imperative for having a youth court liaison worker and that the organizational context for
one housed in the restorative justice agency is the best option. There was widespread
agreement within the project, among the CJS officials in its two advisory committees,
and among virtually all other respondents, that the project should evolve in its mandate to
consider activities such as a navigator role, seek referrals from Probation, do more
60
problem-solving and so forth. There could be significant value in exploring some of these
trajectories in the context of developing a strategic action plan for the youth court liaison
role outside the HRM.
Exploring too the implication of such a role as the YCLW worker being absorbed
into the restorative justice agencies outside HRM where the population is declining
might also be considered. Here it may be noted that while long term trends clearly
indicate a decline in regular agency caseload, short term patterns may not be congruent
with that prediction (e.g., reportedly, for several reasons the Truro society has seen an
increase in its caseload over the past eighteen months) and the impact and resources for
any move to have restorative justice programming available for adults would have to be
taken into account. In sum, there are a number of directions that can be fruitfully
considered. It is a truism but sometimes there is more to be learned when things do not
succeed as one had expected.
The overall policy relevance of the YCLW project may well have been to sharply
underline that the pivotal policy problem issue for crime prevention and for youth court
administration is not the average length of time in processing youth cases. Rather, it is the
fact that a small number of multiple repeat offenders – “the 15” as we have labeled them
– cause a disproportionate amount of court time and account not only for much crime but
also for perhaps as much as 75% of all the administration of justice or “secondary”
criminalization which does take court time and limit effective court action. They
constitute the proverbial “elephant in the room” for crime prevention and case
processing. The YCLW project was not focused on this central problem and did not have
the mandate or the tools to deal with it. A different model would appear to be required, a
youth intervention outreach model, a model that does not exist in Nova Scotia but does
have some modest commonality with the NSLA approach in HRM and the MLSN court
worker approach in the Aboriginal community. In this evaluator’s viewpoint such a
multi-tasked youth intervention approach pinpointing the central youth problem
highlighted by the YCLW project could be a major step forward for the justice system in
Nova Scotia.
61
WORKS CITED
Clairmont, Don, and Jane McMillan, “The Native Court worker in Nova Scotia” in their Future Directions in Mi’kmaq Justice, Halifax. Nova Scotia. Tripartite Forum on Native Justice, 2001. (Atlantic Institute of Criminology Website, Dalhousie University) Clairmont, Don, and Jane McMillan, “The Court worker Program” in their Directions in Mi’kmaq Justice: An Assessment of the MLSN and Its Possible Futures, Halifax. Nova Scotia. Tripartite Forum on Native Justice, 2006. (Atlantic Institute of Criminology Website, Dalhousie University) Clairmont, Don, Violence and Public Safety in Halifax Regional Municipality: Main Volume. Halifax: Mayor’s Roundtable, 2008. (Atlantic Institute of Criminology Website, Dalhousie University). Clairmont, Don, The Early Resolution Project: An Assessment of Its Implementation, Impact and Future Directions. Halifax: The Public Prosecution Service, 2009. (Atlantic Institute of Criminology Website, Dalhousie University) Clairmont, Don, Assessment of the John Howard R.J. Society’s Youth Court Liaison Project: A Progress Report. Truro, 2010 Degusti, B, The Impact of the Youth Criminal Justice Act on Case Flow in Alberta and System Response in Calgary. The Canadian Research Institute for Law and Family, Calgary AB, 2008 Department of Justice, Nova Scotia, Fact Sheet: Crime in North Central Nova Scotia in 2005. Government of Nova Scotia: Halifax, 2006 Department of Justice, Nova Scotia, Community Counts: Justice Police Districts. Government of Nova Scotia: Halifax, 2006 Government of Alberta, MLA Review of the Aboriginal Court worker Program. Edmonton: 2006 Henderson, Susan and Abby Miller, The Youth Court Liaison Worker Pilot Project: Narrative Report. John Howard Society, Truro, 2010. Australian Government, Court Liaison Handbook for Youth Court Social Workers. Adelaide SA, 1997
62
John Howard Society, Colchester East Hants, Project Proposal: Youth Court Liaison Worker. 2008 Marshall Consulting and Associates, Evaluation of AWorking Together@: Pre-Breach Conferencing and Community Accountability Pilot Project. Truro: A Youth Restorative Justice Project, 2004 Regional Restorative Justice Committee for Colchester East Hants, Comments Regarding the Youth Court Liaison Worker Pilot Position, June 5, 2008 Report of the Nunn Commission Inquiry, Spiralling Out Of Control: Lessons Learned From A Boy In Trouble. Halifax: Province of Nova Scotia, 2006
63
APPENDICES
A. YCLW REFERRAL FORM FOR POLICE SERVICES The “Time to Fight Crime Together” Strategy – Youth Court Liaison Worker Pilot Project has been appointed by the Order in Council “as a member of a class of persons who shall have access to records kept pursuant to section 114 and may have access to records kept pursuant to sections 115 and 116 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act...” this is also in pursuant to section 119 (1)(r) of the YCJA. Information to be faxed to 902‐843‐3383 for the YCLW to offer the service to Youth and Parent(s)/Guardian(s): Suspect (Youth): Name: _________________________________ D.O.B: __________________________________ Phone Number(s): _________________________ Addresses: _______________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ Appearance Date: _____________________________ Occurrence number: __________________________ Suspects Guardian: Name(s): ____________________________________ Phone Number(s) and address: Same as above ___ Or ________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Thank You. Janna L McCullough
64
B. YCLW INTAKE FORM
John Howard Society of Nova Scotia Youth Court Liaison Worker
Intake: Referred to YCLW by: __________________________________ Name: ____________________________________________ Phone Number: ______________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ School: ______________________________________________ Grade: _______________________________________________ Work: _______________________________________________ Guardian 1: Name: ____________________________________________ Phone Number: ______________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Work: _______________________________________________ Phone Number: _______________________________________ Guardian 2: Name: ____________________________________________ Phone Number: ______________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Work: _______________________________________________ Phone Number: _______________________________________ Appointment Dates: Reason: ________________________________ Date: _________ Time: ________ Reason: ________________________________ Date: _________ Time: ________ Reason: ________________________________ Date: _________ Time: ________ Reason: ________________________________ Date: _________ Time: ________ Reason: ________________________________ Date: _________ Time: ________ Reason: ________________________________ Date: _________ Time: ________
65
66