|
CITY OF VANCOUVER OTHER REPORT |
Report Date: |
January 24, 2005 | |
Author: |
Frank Tester/Nicole Ludwig | |
Phone No.: |
604.871.6399 | |
RTS No.: |
4886 | |
CC File No.: |
3118-1 | |
Meeting Date: |
March 29, 2005 |
TO: |
Standing Committee on Transportation and Traffic |
FROM: |
Family Court/Youth Justice Committee |
SUBJECT: |
Annual Report for the year 2004 |
RECOMMENDATION
THAT this report be received for information.
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The City Manager submits the foregoing for INFORMATION.
PURPOSE
To provide Vancouver City Council with a report on the activities of the Family Court/Youth Justice Committee for the period of February 1, 2004 to February 1, 2005.
BACKGROUND AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Vancouver Family Court/Youth Justice Committee (FC/YJ) is appointed by City Council annually. This role is delegated to Municipalities by the Provincial government. Family Court and Youth Justice Committees’ authority and duties are set out in Provincial Legislation. Section 5 of the Provincial Court Act establishes the Family Court Committee. Youth Justice Committees are appointed pursuant to Section 18 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which came into force in April 2003.
The Committee reports annually to the Attorney General of British Columbia and to Vancouver City Council regarding its work. Reports are also forwarded to Justice Canada.
Duties
The Committee’s duties are to:
· examine and consider resources available in the community for families, children and youth and those working with these and young offenders;
· assist the Court when requested in individual cases referred to the Committee;
· make recommendations to the Court, to the Attorney General, to the City Council or to others, as required;
· act as a Family Court when required;
· provide leadership on youth justice, family, and social issues.
STRUCTURE
The committee divided its responsibilities among three subcommittees, each with its own coordinator and each reporting back to the committee as a whole on its activities and for approval by the committee as a whole of any initiatives to be undertaken by the subcommittee. The three subcommittees were: (1) alternative models, diversion and restorative justice; (2) youth, addictions and the criminal justice system; and (3) child exploitation.
MEMBERSHIP
See attached list of committee members, liaison members, city staff and interested parties.
DISCUSSION
The following people made presentations to the committee as a whole or to one or more of the three subcommittees.
1. Guest Presenters
Names of Presenters |
Subject |
Nancy Largent, Public Involvement Coordinator |
Orientation and community outreach |
Diane Clairmont, Meeting Coordinator |
Administrative details |
Sadie Kuehn, Past Chair |
Report on information session on Youth Criminal Justice Act, held January 29, 2004 |
Amy Powter, Coordinator of Youth Services, John Howard Society |
Funding cuts to the youth court workers programme |
Katie Brook, Keneksis Children and Family Services |
Impact of government cutbacks on youth services |
Jonah Starr, Minister of Children and Family Development, Residential Youth Detox Centre |
Impact of government cutbacks on youth services |
Stephen Morton, Coordinator, John Howard Society |
The restorative conference programme |
Monica Stein and Joanna Czopska, Justice for Girls |
An overview of this organization and implications of the proposed ‘Safe Care Act’ |
Tommy Akulukjuk, Nunavut Inuusutungit |
‘Confronting the future with the past’: Challenges facing Inuit youth, including youth suicide and the legacy of colonialism in the Canadian Arctic |
Sheila Davidson, City of Vancouver |
The position of Child and Youth Advocate, City of Vancouver |
Lisa Pedrini, Safe Schools Coordinator, Vancouver School Board |
The Vancouver School Board’s position and initiatives with respect to restorative justice |
Commissioner Lyndsay Poaps, Vancouver Parks Board and Doug Ragan, Environmental Youth Alliance |
Report on the World Urban Forum, Barcelona Spain and Municipal Child and Youth Councils in France |
Preston Guno, Aboriginal Transformative Justice Society |
Problems confronting urban Aboriginal youth and the policing of Aboriginal youth. |
Cherry Kingsley and Diane Snowden, Children of the Street |
Discussion with the Child Exploitation Subcommittee of the current situation concerning street youth in Vancouver |
Detective Raymond Payette, Vancouver Police Department |
Presentation to the Child Exploitation Subcommittee of the roll of, and challenges facing police in dealing with child prostitution |
Melanie Mark, Urban Native Youth Association |
Presentation to the Child Exploitation Subcommittee on issues facing urban Native youth. |
In addition to these members and liaison members, the FC/YC Committee has had, since October of 2004, the services of a social work practicum student from the University of British Columbia to assist the committee and subcommittees with its work. In January of 2005, a second practicum student joined the committee. The committee hopes to continue this relationship with the university. The work of the practicum students has greatly increased the capacity of the committee. The committee is asking for a modest budget in support of its work (See recommendation 5 in the Conclusion). This, combined with the efforts of practicum students, will do much to enhance the role and effectiveness of this committee by making funds available for photocopying, local travel to consult with relevant parties and to do research on matters related to services available to youth and the youth criminal justice system.
2. Significant Activities:
The following are reports on the activities of the three subcommittees noted above:
Alternative Models, Diversion & Restorative Justice Subcommittee (Roberta Bradbury, coordinator)
The Alternative Models, Diversion and Restorative Justice sub-committee pursued an ambitious, productive and successful agenda for 2004. Meetings were held the second Wednesday of each month during the year attended by the following active participants.
Roberta Bradbury Diane Bryden Charlotte Gottschau
Karin Hartner Eileen LeGallais Cherie Williams
Frank Tester
Goals and Objectives
1. Personal learning with regard to restorative justice models and practices.
2. Liaison and continuing involvement with the ‘Vancouver Restorative Practices Pilot Project’ initiated by the Vancouver School Board.
3. Advocacy with respect to: (i) measures (or lack thereof) for dealing with conflict and resolving differences among public school children; (ii) attention to alternative measures (or the lack thereof) for youth sentencing as mandated by the YCJA as defined through both ‘extra-judicial measures’ and ‘extra-judicial sanctions’; (iii) the John Howard Society, Youth Court Program
Outcomes
1. Personal Learning: The strategy included:
(i) inviting speakers to our FC/YJ committee meetings. During the year, Amy Powter, Co-coordinator of the John Howard Youth Court Program, Stephen Morton, Conferencing Facilitator for the John Howard Society and Lisa Pedrini, Safe Schools Coordinator, Vancouver School Board were invited to speak to the committee as a whole on their respective programs;
(ii) the organization and production of a Restorative Justice Workshop to educate the community. The workshop was entitled: What Is Restorative Justice, How Does It Work, and Why Do We Need It. The workshop, held 27 October, 2004, included participation with members of the Vancouver School Board, Vancouver City Police, John Howard Society of the Lower Mainland, and the Vancouver Aboriginal Transformative Justice Society. The keynote speaker was retired Judge Barry Stuart, a long time practitioner and advocate of Restorative Justice. The location was provided by the Vancouver School Board at their Broadway and Fir office. Funding was provided by the Vancouver Association of Transformative Justice. The agenda included a keynote speech, short stories of involvement with Restorative Justice provided by each of 7 panel members, a conferencing “role play” facilitated by Stephen Morton using volunteer participants and a question and answer period. Over 150 people attended the workshop. The subcommittee had anticipated about 80 participants and changed its plans as the number of registrants increased. Feedback forms completed were very positive.
2. Liaison with the Vancouver School Board on a Vancouver Restorative Practices Pilot
Project
(i) Members of the sub-committee attended meetings during the planning stages of this proposal sharing their findings with the committee as a whole. We became familiar with and offered assistance and feedback on this project as it developed. A response was composed outlining considerations to this project’s draft proposal and presented at one of their meetings.
3. Advocacy
(i) Committee members took on the task of researching programs that deal with conflict and resolving differences among public school children. This included interviewing the coordinator of Collingwood Neighborhood House that runs a program called CRAVE – Collingwood Renfrew Anti-Violence Education. This program was initiated when teachers refused to do after school programs as part of job action. It needs funding to continue and to grow and the committee was of the opinion that this initiative merits support
(ii) Members of this sub-committee joined with members of our other sub-committees to determine the value and need of the John Howard Society’s Youth Court program to our community. This program’s funding has been cut by the Ministry for Children and Family Development, and it will not be continued by the John Howard Society beyond fiscal year 2004 without a new source of funding. The Committee researched the programme by conducting interviews with stakeholders at Youth Court, including judges, Crown attorneys, defence attorneys and police. Interviewees were asked: (a) about their 3 or 4 main concerns with respect to difficulties experienced at Youth Court, both ongoing and since the introduction of the Youth Criminal Justice Act; (b) their opinions on extra-judicial sanctions and extra-judicial measures; (c) the extent of current referrals of youth to restorative justice programs; (d) their familiarity with the John Howard Society ‘Youth Court Program’, the services and their usefulness. A succinct summary of the findings of interviews conducted with police, judges, Crown and defence attorneys is appended (Appendix 1)
Youth, Addictions and the Criminal Justice System ( Aharon Arnstein, Coordinator)
Aharon Arnstein Nicola Hall Amy Yiu
Catherine Adair Deborah Sullivan
The subcommittee met five times during the year. A particular challenge faced by this subcommittee was that none of the members had previously been members of this subcommittee or had previously been appointed to the Family Court/Youth Justice Committee. This created some difficulties and highlights the problem of having an appointment system such that committee members are appointed each year and that there is no guarantee of continuity with respect to members from one year to the next. This situation speaks in favour of a system of ‘staggered’ appointments to the committee.
Goals and Objectives
1. Personal learning with regard to issues of addictions and the criminal justice system.
2. Development of an informed position with regard to addictions and the youth criminal justice system.
Outcomes
1. Personal Learning: The strategy included:
(i) The development of a resource binder for the benefit of the subcommittee: one that includes information about services and programmes available in Vancouver and any other information relevant to the work of the subcommittee. This activity is ongoing.
(ii) Karin Hartner and a colleague spoke with the subcommittee about their experience in the probation system and with the treatment of addicted youth.
1. Development of an informed position: Activities included:
(i) The development of a questionnaire dealing with issues of addictions and treatment to be sent to candidates in the 2004 federal election in order to determine where candidates stand on issues of importance to the subcommittee. The questionnaire was developed but was available to late to garner a response from candidates. However, the questionnaire will be valuable in forthcoming provincial and federal elections.
(ii) The subcommittee deliberated how the problems of addicted youth with criminal charges should be regarded. The committee considered some of the literature on the topic. Drawing upon the experience of subcommittee members, including Nicola Hall who has spent many years dealing with the problems of drug addicted youth, the subcommittee is firmly of the opinion that the problems of drug addicted youth – including where criminal charges are involved - should be regarded primarily and of the first order as issues with both physical and mental health components. The criminal justice system is not, in itself, an effective way to deal with drug-addicted youth.
(ii) The subcommittee has done some research into youth drug courts and continues to do so. The position that is developing, based on this research, is that a youth drug court, modelled after the current pilot project with a drug court in the City of Vancouver, would be worth pursuing BUT only if treatment facilities and programs to which youth can be directed are put in place. Facilities are needed, apart from any relation these might have to the youth justice system. At present, given the extent of this problem in the City of Vancouver, there is a grossly inadequate number of beds for youth in need of detox and a serious lack of treatment programmes and facilities to which they can be directed. The subcommittee is convinced that this is a critical problem that must be addressed if any progress is to be made in dealing with the problem of drug-addicted youth in the city.
Child Exploitation ( Christine Marton, Coordinator)
Christine Marton Margaret Wright Anne Derek
Rosalind Kellett
Goals and Objectives
1. Respond to the proposed provincial ‘Safe Care Act’.
2. Create a resource on issues concerning child prostitution and exploitation.
Outcomes
1. The committee responded to the provincial government’s request for input into the proposed legislation with a detailed and critical examination of the proposed legislation and its provisions, asking that a number of questions related to the proposed act be addressed. The chair of the committee subsequently received a response from the province. The committee will continue to monitor and respond to developments in this area.
2. The committee has complied a resource of 60 documents dealing with the sexual exploitation of children; a resource that will be made available to future members of this subcommittee and that can be used as background for the subcommittee’s ongoing initiatives.
Future Directions
The following are initiatives under consideration by the committee as a whole and relevant to the activities of the three subcommittees.
· The Restorative Justice subcommittee is exploring the idea of making application for a CURA (Community/University Research Alliance) grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The relationship of such an application to the City needs to be clarified. A preliminary meeting of interested parties (academic institutions and community groups) was held in February. The CURA programme will not be announced until the end of March at which time a decision will be made to proceed further with this initiative. The preliminary concept is to establish and test a number of models of restorative justice. CURA funding is up to $1,000,000 for a period of five years.
· Hold a number of follow-up workshops in the City to better educate the public on the workings of restorative justice as an alternative to the current adversarial system in dealing with young offenders and conflicts that arise in the community and school systems.
· Continue to monitor the development of a ‘Safe Care Act’ in the province.
· Respond to the BC Ministry of Health’s strategic framework to deal with problem substance use: “Every Door is the Right Door”, published in 2004.
· Increase the profile of the Family Court/Youth Justice Committee within the community. This is an initiative well underway with the workshop we have held and others that are planned, as well as the possibility of applying for a CURA grant, as noted above.
· Address the complex issue of the policing of Aboriginal youth by encouraging and supporting initiatives already taken to create effective channels of communication between the police department and the urban Aboriginal community.
· Advocate for measures directed at the inclusion of youth as members of the Family Court/Youth Justice Committee. A motion is attached to this report.
· Create two new subcommittees of the committee as a whole: one dealing with the problems of Aboriginal youth and a second subcommittee of youth that will bring to the committee as a whole, issues, problems and the perspectives of youth in the city as these relate to the mandate of the FCYJC.
CONCLUSIONS
As the Family Court/Youth Justice Committee is mandated to make recommendations to the Attorney General and City Council on matters within its jurisdiction, the Committee wishes to make the following recommendations:
(1) The City currently has a considerable need for treatment programmes for drug-affected youth. While the Youth Criminal Justice Act mandates alternative measures for dealing with young offenders, the legislation in the case of the City of Vancouver cannot be properly operationalized unless there are programmes and options available to the court for dealing with the problems that bring youth into the justice system. The result of a lack of programs is a resort to probation. Probation does little if anything to tackle the problems – the most serious of which are addictions – that bring youth in contact with the law. The City and the Province need to take this specific need seriously and work together to address it now.
(2) Evidence from across the country in the form of recent events that have impacted police forces in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, make it clear that policing in relation to Aboriginal populations is currently a matter very much before the general public as a number of incidents have caused great difficulty for urban police forces across western Canada. The FCYJC is not convinced that the City of Vancouver is currently doing enough to ensure that the City has an informed and fully capable force when it comes to dealing with the policing of Aboriginal We note some initiatives in the direction of considering this issue. We wish to encourage the City to move toward the creation of an citizens advisory committee that can work cooperatively with the City Police Department to improve relations between the Department and Aboriginal youth in the City.
(3) We ask that Council find ways and means of increasing the number of youth who are members of the Family Court/Youth Justice Committee. A resolution dealing with this matter is appended to this report.
(4) The volunteer youth court workers programme run by the John Howard Society has provided an invaluable service to youth involved with the justice system and their families. For years, this program has helped to steer youth and their families, unfamiliar with the system, through it, ensuring that court appearances are made when they are supposed to be, explaining how the court system works to those unfamiliar with it, answering questions and dealing with concerns and anxieties on the part of youth and their families. This is a programme that relied on trained volunteers and a paid coordinator. It cost little more than $90,000 a year. Its cancellation has implications for the operation of the court system: for youth not showing up in court when required to do so, not dealing with counsel in a timely and appropriate fashion and generally, adding to the confusion and inefficiencies that are typical of youth court. We call upon the Attorney General to re-examine this decision, taken by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and to restore funding to this programme that has considerable potential to contribute to the smooth and effective operation of youth court in the City of Vancouver.
(5) The Family Court/Youth Justice Committee of the City of Vancouver has considerable unrealised potential to deal effectively with matters affecting youth justice in the City. The Committee operates without resources. While the committee members are prepared to raise funds and work cooperatively with other agencies, there are occasions where seed money and a minimal budget would assist the committee in initiatives intended to improve the workings of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and address matters impinging upon the involvement of youth with the youth criminal justice system in the City of Vancouver. To this end, we are asking that the City give the Family Court Youth Justice Committee a budget of $1000 per year.
____________________________________________________
The Chair of the Family Court Youth Justice Committee would like to thank the members of the 2004 committee for their dedication to the work of the committee – particularly the coordinators of the three subcommittees, Roberta Bradbury, Aharon Arnstein and Christine Marton. The Chair would also like to recognize the support of Councillors Woodsworth and Bass and the assistance offered by Parks Commissioner, Lyndsay Poaps.
A special thanks to Jaya Babu and Tanis Weddell, practicum students from the UBC School of Social Work, for their enthusiastic contributions to the work of the committee.
___________________________________
Appendix 1
Summary of Findings Related to Youth Court Worker Programme
The following is a brief summary of the comments made by those interviewed in exploring the importance of the Youth Court Workers Programme to the system of youth criminal justice in the City of Vancouver. Further details are available from the committee.
Defence Attorneys – Children need “a system” to help young persons grow into responsible adults. Where this is not provided by parents – for many reasons including both parents working long hours in order to maintain a certain standard of living or having to commute long hours due to the organization of work in relation to residency, etc. – it is increasingly important for the community to provide services to youth and to develop programmes essential to the development of youth into responsible adults. The resources and opportunities currently available appear to be inadequate to meeting the needs of youth for experiences that lead to the development of responsible adults. Each defence attorney agreed that diversion programmes are desirable. However, from a strictly legal perspective, a conflict arises with the system in that youth would have to plead guilty in order to be ‘sentenced’ to a diversion programme. A creative solution to this problem needs to be formalized. Their was wide consensus that with cutback and shutdowns of programmes and facilities in recent years, there are not enough treatment programmes available for youth with substance abuse problems and these ‘economies’ are, in fact, being transferred into the court system where dealing with them is very expensive.
Crown Council – There are times when what might be in the best interest of a youth in the justice system is in conflict with the position that is (should be) taken by the Crown in guarding the interests of the public. There are times when advocating for youth conflicts with public interest. There is a real need to address these apparent conflicts, as questions can be raised about the extent to which the public interest and what is in the best interests of youth are in fact in conflict. Community involvement in restorative justice measures – their development and application – is therefore of critical importance.
Police – The new Youth Criminal Justice Act has caused some confusion within the court system. It is not entirely clear how to engage systems of conferencing in dealing with youth and the relationship between probation and “alternative measures”. The message coming from the court system with respect to how youth are to be handled within the youth criminal justice system is confusing. When it comes to substance abuse and problems related to drugs and addictions, there are not enough detox facilities or residential treatment programmes with the result that youth ‘recycle’ in and out of the court system. There is little or no family support for many youth.
Judges – The consensus was that referrals to alternative measures are within the purview of Crown Council and probation services and should be done before the youth appears in court. There are times this doesn’t happen because Crown counsel have not had an opportunity to read each youth file well in advance of a court appearance because of the volume of cases they have to deal with. There is often no time for Crown or duty council to effectively explain to youth consequences, sentencing, and conditions of bail or even where to report. Youth often have no idea of the procedures, which court room to appear in, or where to report to probation. The result is that costs saved in some areas (an inadequate number of Crown attorneys) show up as costs in other areas and in other ways and it is questionable to what extent the public interest is ultimately served.
Our findings indicate that while each person interviewed was sincerely, and in his or her own way, working toward their version of the “best interest of youth”, there is little consensus as to what constitutes the “best interest” and consequently, the actions of those involved were often in conflict. There is no consensus as to what constitutes “best practices” and while it is ultimately impossible to achieve a consensus on such matters, narrowing the range of differences could have very positive implications for the system. There was a general consensus that the resources available to meet the needs of youth in the City of Vancouver are inadequate and that ultimately, this can only lead to more youth getting caught up in the justice system and costing society in other and far less positive ways. It is important to note that the John Howard Society is currently the only “community” group working directly with youth inside Youth Court in the City of Vancouver.
Appendix 2
A Resolution Dealing with Membership of the Family Court/Youth Justice Committee
Motion Regarding General Membership of the
Family Court/Youth Justice Committee for 2005
This motion was adopted by City Council on February 17, 2005.
WHEREAS,
1. the membership of the FC/YJ Committee for the year 2004 was 25.
2. the membership for the current calendar year is 15;
3. the work of the Committee is seriously affected by the reduction in the number of Committee members
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
THAT the Committee recommend that Council review applications submitted from interested individuals to sit on the FC/YJ Committee, with a view to increasing membership to 22 for the 2005 term.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Appendix 3
This motion was put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by the Family Court/Youth Justice Committee at its meeting on February 23, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION
WHEREAS the Family Court/Youth Justice Committee deals with issues of youth justice; and
WHEREAS the current screening process for selecting members to FC/YJ emphasizes professional qualifications to the detriment of potential youth members;
WHEREAS the FC/YJ wishes to have youth membership on the Committee;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Family Court/Youth Justice Committee recommend that City Council direct the Office of the City Clerk to ensure that, in seeking citizen volunteers for the FC/YJ Committee, the City come up with a strategy:
1. for ensuring the call for Committee members is directed at youth 15 to 24 years of age;
2. that City Council, in appointing members to the Committee, where possible appoint a minimum of 4 youth.
Appendix 4
List of Committee Members, Liaisons and Interested Parties
Committee Members
Catherine Adair
Aharon Arnstein
Roberta Bradbury
Jason Burnstick
Diane Bryden
Anne Derek
Lynn Fraser
Charlotte Gottschau
Nichola Hall
Karin Hartner
Rosalind Kellett
Norm Larkins
Eileen LeGallais
Christine Marton
Kent Lui (RESIGNED)
Paul Mulangu
Muneshwar (Munna) Prasad
Shirley Nelson (RESIGNED)
Lee Purkin-Simpson (RESIGNED)
Samarjit
Deborah Sullivan (RESIGNED)
Cherie Williams – VICE CHAIR
Frank Tester - CHAIR
Margaret Wright
Amy Yiu
COMMITTEE LIAISONS |
Councillor Ellen Woodsworth
|
Sergeant Garry Lester
|
Commissioner Lyndsay Poaps
|
(Vancouver School Board Representative)
|
CITY STAFF |
Jeff Brooks
|
Chief Constable Jamie Graham
|
Booth Palmer
|
Coralys Cuthbert
|
Julianna Torjek/Anka Raskin
|
Debbie Anderson
|
Sheila Davison
|
INTERESTED PARTIES |
Jane Morely
|
Michael White
|
Judge Judy Gedye
|
Bill Fraser
|
* * * * *
